very bad picture of obama there. he looks like urkel.Shocking and disturbing image:
wow. 23 years in congress and he's NEVER done a single thing you disagree with? He hasn't made a mistake in 23 years? Wow. That's really impressive. It's Kim Jong-Il scoring 11 holes in one his first time playing golf impressive. It's the second coming of jesus impressive.You don't have anything bad because he hasn't done anything bad...
I thought I made that clear when I was referring to him as "the piece of shit I'll probably end up voting for" on several occasions in this thread. But if that was too confusing for you.Sooner or later you have to man up and admit Obama, the one you worked for, is a bad president.
Yes he is. If you think that you have no idea what you're talking about.He's not much different than Bush.
Bush gave the banks nearly a trillion dollars with no oversight or conditions. Obama loaned the auto industry money with heavy conditions that they've repaid saving 2 million jobs in the process. GM is back to being the #1 selling auto company in the world. Are we better off without an auto industry?Both love bailouts, both love occupying other nations.
That's the difference between you and me. I never believed in Obama. I agreed with Obama's platform at the time and I'm not a fan of the Clinton's economic policies.No matter how much you believed in them doing the right thing they have never been able to do it for very long and very well.
Excellent. I you really believe he's a human and not a deity, it should be easy for you to name a mistake you think he's made. Ok. Not even a mistake he's made. How about an area where you disagree with him. He's taken tens of thousands of votes as a congressman, surely there has been one of them you didn't agree with right?Here's the thing that you don't get. It's never about Ron Paul, as he is human and humans make mistakes.
Other than arguably FDR, no president has attempted this. Smoke less crack.If he were President what's to stop him from wanting to be King like the past presidents?
Actually not bailout banks led to disaster last time it happened. We ended up with 30% unemployment and senior citizens sleeping under bridges.Not bailing out companies, banks has worked in the past. Don't know where you get unproven rhetoric.
You bottom out, let the failures fail and hopefully learn their lesson, instead of prolonging the agony.
How dumb are you on a scale of 1-10?Is Rawn Pawl even still campaigning? I need something to bate to.
good to know you'll vote for the lessor of two evils even thou its evil. Get a backbone and vote conscience. Its not a popularity contest.I thought I made that clear when I was referring to him as "the piece of shit I'll probably end up voting for" on several occasions in this thread. But if that was too confusing for you.
GM paid back their initial loan using other tarp money from a treasury escrow account paid by guess who? The taxpayers. Yea that's paying it back right? Keep believing the propaganda instead of looking beneath the surface.Yes he is. If you think that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bush gave the banks nearly a trillion dollars with no oversight or conditions. Obama loaned the auto industry money with heavy conditions that they've repaid saving 2 million jobs in the process. GM is back to being the #1 selling auto company in the world. Are we better off without an auto industry?
Like I said you're uninformed. He went back on his word about getting out of Afghanistan "as one of the first things I'll do". He has sent the military into Uganda and Libya. We are expanding in Australia. The president controls troop movement. He can bring them home like he lied about doing in Afghanistan.Obama has not occupied any nations. He inherited two occupations and has ended one.
Their policies of big government intervention do not differ much. Obamas policies were no different thanpast presidents which he said he'd emulate. Those policies failed over the long run too. Surprise, surprise, surprise THAT is what you don't get.That's the difference between you and me. I never believed in Obama. I agreed with Obama's platform at the time and I'm not a fan of the Clinton's economic policies.
Like I said, you're the enemy. Why give you ammo so you can make things up about him?Excellent. I you really believe he's a human and not a deity, it should be easy for you to name a mistake you think he's made. Ok. Not even a mistake he's made. How about an area where you disagree with him. He's taken tens of thousands of votes as a congressman, surely there has been one of them you didn't agree with right?
More proof how uninformed you are. All one has to do is look at the plethora of executive orders the past presidents have written. Instead of partaking in circle jerks and reach arounds read a book. The turtles need a break anyway.Other than arguably FDR, no president has attempted this. Smoke less crack.
The reason FDRs depression lasted until after WW2 is because he didn't let businesses fail. He did not let the free market bottom out, identify the losers, and rebuild itself. IF you are going to bailout businesses at least FDR did the right thing and rebuilt our infrastructure. Over priced and inefficient but at least that failed policy wasn't very bad, just bad.Actually not bailout banks led to disaster last time it happened. We ended up with 30% unemployment and senior citizens sleeping under bridges.
Like I said in a the previous post. You are uninformed.But the bailouts and stimulus were not the same thing. And Obama didn't pass the bailouts of the banks, Bush did.
Fail....
Thats hogwash. You have no proof he said he wrote them because he didn't write them or say he did..ya see, that's the problem. you are not able to accept certain facts, such as ronald's historical bungling of the newsletter controversy.
i am willing to say he never wrote them, despite the fact that he claimed he did during the 1996 congressional campaign. you, however, can not accept that he said he wrote them despite that it is well-documented historical fact that he claimed as much.
more baloney. its always about policy and his polices work. Unlike the other big government candidates and the past presidents policies which stink.if you were willing to discuss the issue honestly, you would know that my main objection is not that he lied at one point or the other, it is that he surrounds himself with incompetent handlers and how that reflects on what his cabinet would look like.
I can't vote for a candidate that doesn't exist. There is no candidate in the election that represents my views. And I don't know why you consider it brave to vote for someone that has no chance of winning.good to know you'll vote for the lessor of two evils even thou its evil. Get a backbone and vote conscience. Its not a popularity contest.
Here's the thing. I don't give a shit. I'm glad America still has an auto industry and that 2.5 million jobs were saved. I really don't care that tax money funded it. In fact I'm glad tax money funded it. I'm not a libertarian. I don't think the single most important thing is to make sure the government never helps anyone ever. From my point of view, that's retarded. And no, I don't care if you think that is socialism in case you were wondering.GM paid back their initial loan using other tarp money from a treasury escrow account paid by guess who? The taxpayers. Yea that's paying it back right? Keep believing the propaganda instead of looking beneath the surface.
Nor do I. I do not worship the free market. I think the free market is a terrible idea. And every industrialized country in the history of the world agrees with me on that since no industrialized nation has ever had a free market system.Neither believed in the free market of letting losers fail.
Likely they would have filed bankruptcy, downsized, then had their assets bought up by Toyota and Honda. And when they declared bankruptcy, millions of Americans would have lost their jobs, and probably people would have gotten screwed out of their pensions. And for what? So we can worship free market ideals? What does that get us in reality? -2.5 million jobs and an even worse economy? No thank you, keep your free market, I want no part in that.Instead we the people paid the price for their mistakes. The auto industry wouldn't fail. A few might, although more than likely file bankruptcy and restructure, then that slack is picked up by the successful ones.
Obama distributed the bailouts that passed under the Bush administration.And by the way, banks got bailed out under Obama too. That's another thing you don't know.
They offered 2.5 million Americans working in the automotive industry the chance not to be unemployed. I'm sure your counter offer of free market economics, unemployment lines, and having their homes foreclosed on would have been real tempting though.Their policies of big government intervention do not differ much.
Actually those policies worked just fine for nearly half a century until the Reagan years when we decided to deregulate big business which we kept doing for nearly 30 years until it finally blew up the economy.Obamas policies were no different thanpast presidents which he said he'd emulate. Those policies failed over the long run too.
Oh no, I get it. You have this ignorant revisionist version of history in your head that never actually happened.Surprise, surprise, surprise THAT is what you don't get.
You've given me all the ammunition I need. I've challenged several of you to name something about Ron Paul you dislike or do not agree with him on. Your failure to come up with anything proves that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and it proves my charge of you guys being cult members correct. No reasonable person agrees with anyone 100% of the time. Cult members do that. Thanks for proving my case.Like I said, you're the enemy. Why give you ammo so you can make things up about him?
i have posted the proof many times.Thats hogwash. You have no proof he said he wrote them because he didn't write them or say he did.
pretty weak proof, hearsay, one houston chronicle article and its not even a direct quote. Likely more Yellow Journalism put out by war profiteers because there is no credible sources at all. Every smear against Dr Paul points back to war lobbyist, big pharma, goldman sachs, etc.. and/or has no credible sources whatsoever.i have posted the proof many times.
the proof has been in the news.
this is more proof that paul worshippers are unable to deal with reality.
six different newspapers reported on interviews done by paul himself AND his staffers.pretty weak proof, hearsay, one houston chronicle article and its not even a direct quote.
You have yet to prove anything and it is mighty lame of you to make an absurd comment that Obama never insinuated that he was going to reform MMJ laws, then lock the thread. You seem to use your mod powers to suppress others you don't agree with.six different newspapers reported on interviews done by paul himself AND his staffers.
jesus fucking christ, he said he wrote them. he even explained later on why he told that lie.