CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 well no, he hasn't done anything of note yet. don't ask don't tell was repealed, i suppose. but guantanamo is still open for a start, and his administration are rather fond of killing innocent people with drones. he never stood much chance though, Wall St runs America, big Oil have a greater sway than Obama does. capitalism very much triumphed over democracy in he USA and the current administration are symptomatic of that. Obama is a reformer but he soon found out that reforming a country with a lot of people desperately clinging to the tail end of puritanism is pretty difficult without calling in a few favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 well no, he hasn't done anything of note yet. don't ask don't tell was repealed, i suppose. but guantanamo is still open for a start, and his administration are rather fond of killing innocent people with drones. he never stood much chance though, Wall St runs America, big Oil have a greater sway than Obama does. capitalism very much triumphed over democracy in he USA and the current administration are symptomatic of that. Obama is a reformer but he soon found out that reforming a country with a lot of people desperately clinging to the tail end of puritanism is pretty difficult without calling in a few favours. Blimey, that's a bit of an apologist's tale is it not? Yes, there are reasons for a lack of ability to force through policy but jeez. There are no excuses for the continuation of policies that Obama set his stall on getting rid of - as for the fact that his administration is the one that claims that extra judicial murder of US citizens is fine? He's as much of a nasty piece of work as his predecessors. In my view, he's even worse: he's the US's Tony Blair. He's a disgrace. The only thing that ought to keep him in government is that the other lot are much more mental than he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. Too bad he didn't get much media attention at all and he has little funding. Romney and Santorum are jokes. Both of them will say whatever the **** will get them votes. I live in Pennsylvania currently and go to Penn state which is Santorum's former college and everyone did not like Santorum here when he was Senator. Obama has done a pretty bad job in his term. He also did not live up to practically all of his campaign promises which I expected but that is what got him votes. The nation is fed up with Obama and I worry Romney may actually get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Romney crushed Santorum in Illinois today, meaning he's got it all but wrapped up. You can all breathe easy, lol. Santorum will end up on Fox news as a pundit, write a book, and continue to be a jackass. Romney is actually the most tolerable GOP presidential candidate since Eisenhower, frankly. He's not an extremist. He's a money man. Obama should win handily.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There are no excuses for the continuation of policies that Obama set his stall on getting rid of - as for the fact that his administration is the one that claims that extra judicial murder of US citizens is fine? He's as much of a nasty piece of work as his predecessors. In my view, he's even worse: he's the US's Tony Blair. He's a disgrace. The only thing that ought to keep him in government is that the other lot are much more mental than he is. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2012 Obama is up there with one of the greatest American Presidents of all time. The prejudices that he has fought in order to get to where he is - If takes some one special. An American Republican are you kidding me. Have you heard of George W Bush. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/dumbbushquotes_3.htm Obama has taken more or less every Bush policy (the more disastrous, the better) and turned it up to 11. What has Obama actually done Obama is a lock to beat Mitt Kerry (or is that John Romney, I can never be sure)... at this point I'm pulling for the GOP to take the Senate and hold the House, while Obama is reelected. Divided, do-nothing government is always underrated, IMO. I dream about a Johnson presidency... it would be difficult for him to be the worst President Johnson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Did Michelle spit or swallow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Am I the only one outside of Europe who doesn't despise Bush? Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'.I sense we're getting into conspiracy territory here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'.I sense we're getting into conspiracy territory here... No conspiracy theory mate, the MSM campaign to first ignore and then marginalise RP has been as plain as day since the middle of 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Did Michelle spit or swallow? From the look of that you'd have to say "spit". Add "poor taste in beer" to her reasonably short list of faults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul is a Libertarian and all Libertarians are Grade A cnuts. I really don't get the young, middle class love-in for Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'. I sense we're getting into conspiracy territory here... No conspiracy theory mate, the MSM campaign to first ignore and then marginalise RP has been as plain as day since the middle of 2011. I like how you seem to think there is someone who oversees what the whole of the media will report on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul is a Libertarian and all Libertarians are Grade A cnuts. I really don't get the young, middle class love-in for Ron Paul.So you don't think that people should generally be left the **** alone to do what they want? OoooKay. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'. I sense we're getting into conspiracy territory here... No conspiracy theory mate, the MSM campaign to first ignore and then marginalise RP has been as plain as day since the middle of 2011. I like how you seem to think there is someone who oversees what the whole of the media will report on A small group of people who set the agenda for the main media outlets, certainly. I'm very surprised you seem to disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul is a Libertarian and all Libertarians are Grade A cnuts. I really don't get the young, middle class love-in for Ron Paul.So you don't think that people should generally be left the **** alone to do what they want? OoooKay. :? it depends on the level of intrusion. On stuff like, personal consumption habits, then ok, personal responsibility may be appealing and on control of your own body - especially for women in this respect then woo yay etc, but on a broader level its more complicated than just telling everyone to buzz off. You share a world locally and globally with a shit-tonne of other people. Unless you want to **** off to antarctica, there's a ncessary element of collective responsibility and engagement required for everyone to live side-by-side successfully anyway. I have no idea what particular type of libertarianism you're referring to though mind, so who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul was the ideal candidate for USA. He was smart, actually knew what he was talking about, experienced, and seems to mean what he says. That is precisely why Paul didn't get the attention he deserved, as the lampooning of the Republican contest by Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated. The other Republicans are sock puppets deemed acceptable by the real rulers of the USA, just like Obama. 'Rand Paul 2016'.I sense we're getting into conspiracy territory here... No conspiracy theory mate, the MSM campaign to first ignore and then marginalise RP has been as plain as day since the middle of 2011.I've been following the primaries loosely and Ron Paul's always been quite far behind and he's never had significant support in the polls, hence why he isn't getting much media coverage. There's no conspiracy. Would be a bit like claiming that there's a conspiracy against Villa in the media because we don't get as much coverage as the title chasers. What's MSM anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 libertarianism in america is a good bit more to the right than the social libertarianism we are used to in europe. ron paul was never likely to win because he isn't really a modern day republican i.e an evangelical nutcase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul is a Libertarian and all Libertarians are Grade A cnuts. I really don't get the young, middle class love-in for Ron Paul.So you don't think that people should generally be left the **** alone to do what they want? OoooKay. :? it depends on the level of intrusion. On stuff like, personal consumption habits, then ok, personal responsibility may be appealing and on control of your own body - especially for women in this respect then woo yay etc, but on a broader level its more complicated than just telling everyone to buzz off. You share a world locally and globally with a shit-tonne of other people. Unless you want to **** off to antarctica, there's a ncessary element of collective responsibility and engagement required for everyone to live side-by-side successfully anyway. I have no idea what particular type of libertarianism you're referring to though mind, so who knows! I wasn't referring to any particular type. The general principle of libertarianism is that people should be left alone. To say that libertarians are "grade A c...'s" suggests disagreement with this principle (), i.e. that you DON'T think people should be left alone, which is a strange thing to say, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ron Paul is a Libertarian and all Libertarians are Grade A cnuts. I really don't get the young, middle class love-in for Ron Paul.So you don't think that people should generally be left the **** alone to do what they want? OoooKay. :? it depends on the level of intrusion. On stuff like, personal consumption habits, then ok, personal responsibility may be appealing and on control of your own body - especially for women in this respect then woo yay etc, but on a broader level its more complicated than just telling everyone to buzz off. You share a world locally and globally with a shit-tonne of other people. Unless you want to **** off to antarctica, there's a ncessary element of collective responsibility and engagement required for everyone to live side-by-side successfully anyway. I have no idea what particular type of libertarianism you're referring to though mind, so who knows! I wasn't referring to any particular type. The general principle of libertarianism is that people should be left alone. To say that libertarians are "grade A c...'s" suggests disagreement with this principle (), i.e. that you DON'T think people should be left alone, which is a strange thing to say, imo.No, there are important differences between (for want of a better term) "left" and "right" libertarians. Political spectrum I'd describe myself as "left libertarian" - leave people alone on social/sexual/moral matters, but pro-state intervention in terms of the economy. I'd say the loony republicans are the exact opposite - a free for all in terms of economics, but heavy interfering in things like sexuality, abortion, religion, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts