cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: Our Next POTUS

Gee I do not know where to start.  I see all what you have posted in the opposite vein of course so here goes.

 

You constantly complain about our foreign policy while at the same time running down Ron Paul who's views on foreign policy appear to much more in line with yours then Obama's who appears to be a continuation of many of the Bush policies.   Since becoming POTUS Obama has now embraced the Patriot Act, changed his tune on closing GITMO and holding civilian trials for terrorists.   Obama no longer seems concerned about indefinite detention of terrorist subjects and has recently signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American terrorist subjects.  Obama has greatly increased the use of Predator drone air strikes which have a tendency of of killing innocent folks in the wrong place at the wrong time. '      -      Ron Paul is saying these things because he knows that is what the punters want to hear.  I don't understand why you people take these things as gospel when in the next breath you tell me what a liar, etc Obama is.  You can forget about the Gitmo thing as he will follow the same line as the military tell him and so would Paul iof elected.  No one can change those things over night.  How wsould you feel if Paul let them all go and then you had another 9/11.  Sounds like a good idea right.  As far as I am concerned permanent detention, at this stage, is acceptable when you recall what they and their brohers did.

 

While candidate Obama ran on the idea of bringing our troops home he was not afraid to get our military involved in Libya without Congressional approval even though Libya and Kaddafi posed no threat to our country.   He claims he did so for humanitarian reasons and to stop the killing of civilians yet other countries such as Yemen have seen a far greater loss of civilian lives then we saw in Libya and Obama sees no reason to get involved militarily      -       Why shouldn't a president. with the best advice in the world at his fingertips, make a decision like that .  You are like a stuck recond on this humanitarium thing and the sooner you realize how important Oil is to your country, the better.  He went there to make sure Gaddaffi left the way he did and I was happy with the result.  But the real reason was to do with securing the continuity of the oil supply.  The same reason Bush invaded Iraq the difference then, and I and reluctant to remind you guys again, was that he was your man and nothing he did was wrong but most of all, he was delivering freedom.  Freedom my foot.  You didn't utter a word when Hussein got the chop but now you hiss and growl at Obama doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense.   Notwithstanding all that, it is also relevant to say it is the American Foreign policy which brings it into this situation.  Invading other countries for their oil is not valid foreign policy but the US have this attitude they run the world. But now, 15 trillion dollars later, it looks like they might just hand some of the world dominance back to the orignal owners.  We shall see.

 

As a presidential candidate Obama pledged to bring our troops home yet as president he sent two additional brigades to Afghanistan.         -       well comrade, what did you think he was going to do with that lot of towel headed ratbags.  If you are going to dominate the world, two slingshots and an air rifle will not cut the mustard.  The alternative is to pull out and leave that lot to fester into an uncontrollable lot of fundamentalist , idiot  ratbags.  That proposal is not it and to up the ante in Afghanistan, was correct.  Show the turds some resistence and let them feel a bit of cold steel .  From my point he should send another 50 brigades and a million more bombs and blow the mongrels off the face of the earth.  If Bush snr had done that to Hussein in the first place, we might not have been in afghanistan at all.

 

Ron Paul has been straight forward about his belief that the government should not be involved in marriages and that he believes people should be able to marry whom ever they want.  Obama once again after getting elected has altered his message on gay marriage just as he has done on gun control.   This has upset many Dems that voted for Obama as they know this was done solely to help Obama get re-elected.  While I know that Ron Paul if elected would never get many of his ideas implemented I am certain he would not be as big of sell out as Obama has been.       -       This gay marriage thing is a cancer on american society.  You all should wake up to yourselves and let these people experience the "freedom and liberty" you all bellow about.  Who the hell is Obama representing on this matter?  Answer - no one.  You spelt it out when you said some dems voted for him on that issue but they were sucked into the old throw them some lollies trick.  If he was to stop gay marriages or abortions, how many votes do you think he would lose, not to mention all the people who support that rubbish.  The same apply for Bush and co.  They are not stupid as you think.   As for guns, well you know how I feel how stupid it is to be armed to the teeth with the lie spruiked about protecting yourselves.  What rubbish.  It is a relic of the wild west days and the wrong interpretation of the constitution.  The guns thing will remain that way in the US forever because not one president will have the guts to take them away.  Why --- they will lose votes from it.  I repeat the vote thing because it appears you do not understand how important it is in an election.   Obama doesn't care how many fools blow each other away each year.  Why would he?  The sooner the better as far as I am concerned and obviously, so does he and Bush.   The problem with all those guns is it can be used as a tool during a campaign.  Recently, Obama tried to begin a conversation about guns and the FBI, or whoever fields security questions about future gun owners, had 2.6 million enquiries.  The NRA took it as a deliberate attempt to stop the sale of them and spread the word so quickly, some gun shop sold out.  So you must see how people can be minipulated by just a few words in the wrong ear. Furthermore, after everybody thinks they are going to lose their guns, Obama will announce some warm and cuddly thing during the campaign about not touching the guns.  Wait and see.  They all do it.

 

I do give Obama high marks for now wanting to consolidate the federal government.   In a move similar to Bill Clinton's move to the middle Obama can now help neutralize Repubs calls for smaller government.  Smart move on the part of both Dem POTUS's to help them get re-elected.      -          Well, well, well, it would appear the light has finally been switched on.  That is what I have been harping on about for some time.

 

Whatever you lot do in the election run up, don't believe what any of them say.  Look behind the scenes and check who will be his likely advisors, check out their credentials, who did they work for previously, what are their views on gay marriage and guns. The secret to reading a good book is to read between the lines comrade.  

 

I enjoyed this conversation very much and hope you will engage me again soon.  I love it. It is a shame more people on here can't discuss things without bias and venom. Have a nice day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senior Contributor

Re: Our Next POTUS

comments from you like that do your cause no good.  All you can do is quote the bible, etc and think I am really an idiot.  I have forgotten more than you will ever learn, dummy.  Read the post above and tell some one else it is the thoughts of an idiot. Unless you think you can beat me in any debate, stay at home.  

Senior Contributor

Re: Our Next POTUS

If some on here requested respect from me with statements which do not treat me like a foreign fool, they will be treated the same.  Until then, when I receive such stupid comments I will continue to throw sh-t at them.   One of the reasons I do not enter some topics as I consider them too trivial to waste my time.  If you all want to take about politics, in depth, give me a chance to participate.  If you all want to follow the biased, incomprehendable view of a racist repig like some on here,  you might be wise to let Craid lead the pack.  I said before, I have studied politics over a long time, am president of a local party in our area and have wined and dined with prime ministers on this country.  You are dealing with an amateur.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS Revised

Today I am thinking that Obamma may very well beat Romney......the trick will be if the number of apathetic welfare and food stamp recipients will bother to turn out and vote for Obamma again, vs. how many disgruntled Republican/Independent Ron Paul supporters will even vote for a Romney ticket. I would call it a tossup. I probably end up holding my nose and voting for Romney, but a Paul ticket would be something I honestly could vote for and feel good about for a change.

Honored Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS Revised

Hey Red, this is just my observation from my little piece of Iowa.  At the caucus there were alot of Democrats switching to Republican to have a say in whom the will support in November and it wasn`t to create mischief or vote for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul scares a big number of people with talk of cutting $1 Trillion in spending his first yr, the problem is that wouldn`t occur in a vacuum, it would have some temporary negative affects that not many have the stomach for.  Accross the board Dem, Repub and Indy (maybe 1/3) are sacred of Paul`s foreign policy.  There are hardcore Christians that are realyy put off with his "Libertarianism", perhaps they will also with Romney`s Mormonism?.  But with America teetering on insolvency if there ever was a candidate for Bain Capital and Mitt Romney it would be us.  Mitt Romney has turned around basket cases many times before, well his work is cut out this time. 

Veteran Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS Revised

BA, Romney's "corporate raider" turnaround tactics might work ot extract value out of corporations, but are we really going to let him sell Alaska, Hawaii, the east and west coast, the Southwest Baja, etal, just to finance a few more years of "American Exceptionalism"? Seems like that is what he would be best suited to do. Just an empty suit in my opinion.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS Revised

Maybe he could sell Hollywood, Seattle, and San Francisco to China, in trade for cancel long our debt. If he could do that, yet retina mineral rights, he'd have my vote.
Senior Contributor

Re: Our Next POTUS

"As far as I am concerned permanent detention, at this stage, is acceptable when you recall what they and their brohers did."

 

Permanent detentions without trials is not the image we want to portray to other countries.  We are suppose to be a country of freedom and rights and should hold ourselves toa higher standard.   Some articles I have read said some of the claims and evidence against some of the detainees is sketchy at best.   Many nonterrorists were fingered by others as a way to eliminate them.   I'm wondering where you got all your evidence from that proves all those detainees are guilty of terrorists acts against us?

Funny I don't recall seeing you defending Bush when Dems were criticizing him for indefinitely holding detainees without a trial.

 

"He (Obama) went there to make sure Gaddaffi left the way he did and I was happy with the result.  But the real reason was to do with securing the continuity of the oil supply.  The same reason Bush invaded Iraq."

 

You confused me again.  On one hand you complain about Bush and the American policy of intervening in others countries simply for the oil.   Yet you turn right around and defend Obama for doing the same thing?

 

"Well comrade, what did you think he was going to do with that lot of towel headed ratbags.  If you are going to dominate the world, two slingshots and an air rifle will not cut the mustard.  The alternative is to pull out and leave that lot to fester into an uncontrollable lot of fundamentalist , idiot  ratbags.  That proposal is not it and to up the ante in Afghanistan, was correct.  Show the turds some resistance and let them feel a bit of cold steel .  From my point he should send another 50 brigades and a million more bombs and blow the mongrels off the face of the earth.  If Bush snr had done that to Hussein in the first place, we might not have been in afghanistan at all."

 

Hard to comment on this as your own hand writing seems to do a pretty good job of getting your true feelings, beliefs and hatred across.   My only comment is that I believe Obama should have pulled out of Afghanistan a long time ago.  I look at this war as being another Vietnam or unwinnable war.  I'll bet you that no matter how long we are there fighting, no matter how many American lives are lost there, or no matter how many billions of dollars we spend there, there will still be Tailban around when we leave.   Is it really that hard to understand that occupying the country and routinely killing innocent people and Afghan and Pakistan soldiers by mistake and rosting innocent families from their beds at night helps lead to more recruits for the Taliban.

 

Do you really think we can win the war in Afghanistan and if so I'm curious to what you would describe as a victory?

 

"You spelt it out when you said some dems voted for him on that issue but they were sucked into the old throw them some lollies trick."

 

So you support political candidates when they hollow promises to their base during campaigns?   When you win an election you also win what is sometimes called political capitol.  If you are a strong leader then use this capitol to promote your beliefs and the ideals you ran on.   Simple minded G. W. Bush was even able to do it even though I question some of his ideas.

 

"Whatever you lot do in the election run up, don't believe what any of them say.  Look behind the scenes and check who will be his likely advisors, check out their credentials, who did they work for previously."

 

Good advice Gough and very apropo when one looks back at Obama's campaign and who his "change" advisors turned out to be - recycled Clintonites and more Wall Street bankers.

 

It seems odd that often times you say things that show you do not agree with what Obama has done yet you always defend him and find it impossible to ever say a bad word about any Dems.   It is amazing how many people are very critical of Bush or Repub POTUS's but now with Obama they simply say that it is not his fault because he has no control fighting against the powers that be.   I have no problem seeing bad people and things going on in both parties.

 

 

 

 

Honored Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS Revised

I don`t know the nuts and bolts of how Romney turned around companies like Staples, but it would seem to me that looking at reducing overhead while keeping the company viable is the objective and of course in their case hopefully make a buck or two to compensate for their risks. Now the US government doesn`t own states, the few things that the federal government has in assets would be forbiden to sell.  So, it would come down to making decisions like repeal Obamacare, means test social security, cut defense, eleminate or overhaul gov agencies and here`s a big one understand the "Laffer curve" in which higher tax rates doesn`t equate into higher revenues.  Mitt will not be a perfect president, but he got rewarded in the private sector for his successful work in making the insolvent..solvent.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Our Next POTUS


@dagwud wrote:

 I have no problem seeing bad people and things going on in both parties.

 

 

 

 


Kudos, Kudos, Kudos.  For some reason the Kudos button wasn't showing up, so I thought I'd post you some, anyway.