damn, saba with the near-flawless trolling in this thread.
you guys are really that vexed that someone who supported both W and the Iraq war thinks that obama is incompetent? This dude lived through 2008 and is inexplicably still pushing for less financial regulation. c'mon now. obama has disappointed me countless times, but you don't need to be editor of the harvard law review to know that this sabadoo guy's opinion means exactly nothing.
Trust that I still hate Republicans with a passion when I say this, but you should really check how far in the gutter Obama's approval ratings have dipped. And as someone who actually voted for him, he deserves even worse...not just for being incompotent, but for being a complete farce.
So you want Ron Paul now instead.
I'm curious about people with that sort of electoral instability.
Obama has been exactly what I expected based on his campaign. I'm totally surprised by people who thought he'd be some sort of spectacular Chomsky-Zinn genie able to hypnotize filibusters into non-existence and erect a Socialist Crystal Utopia.
That guy doesn't exist. If he did, he wouldn't have been elected.
The people who thought he would end involvement in Afghanistan pronto must have been particularly la-la-la deaf during the campaign.
Good luck with the Ron Paul thing, that should work out for you. And in 2016 maybe you can run an elf or a can of Spaghettios. The kind with the mini-franks might appeal to the heartland.
Harvey never supported Obama to my recollection.
Like you, I supported him and feel he has done pretty much what I expected, or at least has tried to.
I was admittedly naive in thinking he could transcend or at least somewhat avoid the political circus we've become accustom to.
Lots of people saw him as the King of Gum Drop Island and many had secret mind gardens where he would bring some sort of Utopian instant solutions to all of the world's problems.
They are/were just as out of touch and nutty as those likely to vote for a can of Spagettios.
I'm curious about people with that sort of electoral instability.
Obama has been exactly what I expected based on his campaign. I'm totally surprised by people who thought he'd be some sort of spectacular Chomsky-Zinn genie able to hypnotize filibusters into non-existence and erect a Socialist Crystal Utopia.
That guy doesn't exist. If he did, he wouldn't have been elected.
The people who thought he would end involvement in Afghanistan pronto must have been particularly la-la-la deaf during the campaign.
Good luck with the Ron Paul thing, that should work out for you. And in 2016 maybe you can run an elf or a can of Spaghettios. The kind with the mini-franks might appeal to the heartland.
Speaking of trolls.
I am sure that Obama has been exactly what HC expected too.
Did you expect that he would arrest and torture whistle blowers like Bradley Manning? HC did.
Did you expect that he would use Doctors to run fake vaccination drives in Pakistan to help the CIA? HC did.
I prefer HC's this is what I believe and this is who I support stance to your and Saba's what ever my team does I support stance.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not even close. Paul's a physician by trade. He's also a longtime Congressman of note. He is old as dirt but articulate enough to still be cutting young suits to pieces in hearings/debates. It's just the hard truth that he presents and lil soft batches like you just aren't man enough to take it for what it actually is.
Ron Paul is a nut job who wants to control women's reproductive health even while spouting on and on about liberty and self-determination. He's an ideologue like Reagan, like Rove. He never met a war that was worth fighting, never met a regulation that he wouldn't overturn. I can't stand his hopelessly romantic and simultaneously selfish world view.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
while we're posting Peanuts and mocking each other about serious issues, i'll add this classic:
Can you guys see this?
It is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, saying "If you cut taxes for the rich they will invest that money and make jobs for everyone".
Ron Paul is a nut job who wants to control women's reproductive health even while spouting on and on about liberty and self-determination. He's an ideologue like Reagan, like Rove. He never met a war that was worth fighting, never met a regulation that he wouldn't overturn. I can't stand his hopelessly romantic and simultaneously selfish world view.
I'm not really a Ron Paul fan, but this is absurdly inaccurate.
There are plenty of people around the (2) boards (that you always get banned from) with a mild case of Asperger's... mostly they post about collectibles. Try that for therapy
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Really, your views on Paul are so warped and angry and you always froth at the mouth over anyone liking the guy...and there is plenty to like. And you have a couple people seemingly agreeing with your crazed slanted views. What a bunch of robotic, alarmist ninnies.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
So what. He's pro-life. So is half of America. Burn them all at the stake. Y'all are on some McCarthy steez frenzy up in here. Maybe if you delivered babies you too would feel strongly against abortion. People have different experiences and upbringings. It ain't about lock-step.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Ron Paul is a nut job who wants to control women's reproductive health even while spouting on and on about liberty and self-determination. He's an ideologue like Reagan, like Rove. He never met a war that was worth fighting, never met a regulation that he wouldn't overturn. I can't stand his hopelessly romantic and simultaneously selfish world view.
I'm not really a Ron Paul fan, but this is absurdly inaccurate.
You should look into his voting record or some of his recent campaign statements. You might be surprised by what you find.
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
So what. He's pro-life. So is half of America. Burn them all at the stake. Y'all are on some McCarthy steez frenzy up in here. Maybe if you delivered babies you too would feel strongly against abortion. People have different experiences and upbringings. It ain't about lock-step.
Who's "lock-stepping"? It seems to me that your getting bit bent due to Ron Paul's contradictory statements regarding personal liberty and banning abortions. Personal liberty is great for Ronnie, but the lowly 17 year girl who finds herself victim of rape or incest, fuck her. The 24 year old that is preggo with a severely mental defective? Sorry, no liberty for you. She can't make the choice for herself and her fetus. State goverments have to.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
You're crying about "lock-stepping", but then bugging when other's are on a different wavelength than you. There's a word for that.
Dig on Ron Paul all you want. But don't get your Under Armour in knot when others don't feel the same. He does make some good points on some issues, IMO. However, he's too far out for me on too many others.
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
oh hey you fucking morons
Have you read the 9th Amendment? If you have, you should read it again. If Paul is using the 9th to say that the reproductive rights are not protecetd by the 9th, he's got some 'splaining to do.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This plainly says that rights that are expresssly granted in the Constitution are NOT the only rights people have. It's a clear rejection by the founders of strict construction. Just because it doesn't say YES to reproductive rights, doens't mean peope don't have them.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
What's the contradiction? Abortion is such a non-issue. Plus, even if Paul was elected as president in a landslide, he still wouldn't have the power to make abortion illegal. Talk about missing the forrest for the tree.
What Paul represents is admitting to ourselves that the donkey/elephant establishment has been ripping us off blind and killing innocents needlessly all over the world along the way to the point that we need to REMOVE YA!
It's basically a war against a criminal government that has transformed itself from a representative republic to a banking dictatorship. Who of us was asked if we wanted them to give trillions to their crooked buddies? Obama doesn't even consult Congress anymore to strike up a new war.
This shit needs to be turned over on its ear. And you fellas are quite simply sitting on the wrong side of the fence...in that you lapdogs to Satan's nutsack eventually, if not already as evidenced by your pathetic and petty attitudes, are going to lose.
Maybe it won't be Paul to do it. But the tides are a-shifting.
Comments
Screw that fair and balanced shit...what fun is that.
Harvey never supported Obama to my recollection.
Like you, I supported him and feel he has done pretty much what I expected, or at least has tried to.
I was admittedly naive in thinking he could transcend or at least somewhat avoid the political circus we've become accustom to.
Lots of people saw him as the King of Gum Drop Island and many had secret mind gardens where he would bring some sort of Utopian instant solutions to all of the world's problems.
They are/were just as out of touch and nutty as those likely to vote for a can of Spagettios.
Speaking of trolls.
I am sure that Obama has been exactly what HC expected too.
Did you expect that he would arrest and torture whistle blowers like Bradley Manning? HC did.
Did you expect that he would use Doctors to run fake vaccination drives in Pakistan to help the CIA? HC did.
I prefer HC's this is what I believe and this is who I support stance to your and Saba's what ever my team does I support stance.
b/w
GEAUX AWAY!
Damn even LaserWolf is burning you. Time to regeg. It's like the ReRon, but without term limits.
Can you guys see this?
It is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, saying "If you cut taxes for the rich they will invest that money and make jobs for everyone".
I'm not really a Ron Paul fan, but this is absurdly inaccurate.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"
Maybe this is the hard truth that soft batches can't handle?
Hard truth for soft batches.
You should look into his voting record or some of his recent campaign statements. You might be surprised by what you find.
Who's "lock-stepping"? It seems to me that your getting bit bent due to Ron Paul's contradictory statements regarding personal liberty and banning abortions. Personal liberty is great for Ronnie, but the lowly 17 year girl who finds herself victim of rape or incest, fuck her. The 24 year old that is preggo with a severely mental defective? Sorry, no liberty for you. She can't make the choice for herself and her fetus. State goverments have to.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
You're crying about "lock-stepping", but then bugging when other's are on a different wavelength than you. There's a word for that.
Dig on Ron Paul all you want. But don't get your Under Armour in knot when others don't feel the same. He does make some good points on some issues, IMO. However, he's too far out for me on too many others.
Have you read the 9th Amendment? If you have, you should read it again. If Paul is using the 9th to say that the reproductive rights are not protecetd by the 9th, he's got some 'splaining to do.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This plainly says that rights that are expresssly granted in the Constitution are NOT the only rights people have. It's a clear rejection by the founders of strict construction. Just because it doesn't say YES to reproductive rights, doens't mean peope don't have them.
What Paul represents is admitting to ourselves that the donkey/elephant establishment has been ripping us off blind and killing innocents needlessly all over the world along the way to the point that we need to REMOVE YA!
It's basically a war against a criminal government that has transformed itself from a representative republic to a banking dictatorship. Who of us was asked if we wanted them to give trillions to their crooked buddies? Obama doesn't even consult Congress anymore to strike up a new war.
This shit needs to be turned over on its ear. And you fellas are quite simply sitting on the wrong side of the fence...in that you lapdogs to Satan's nutsack eventually, if not already as evidenced by your pathetic and petty attitudes, are going to lose.
Maybe it won't be Paul to do it. But the tides are a-shifting.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/24/ron_paul_presidency