Jump to content

For those of you who support Obama...


kingfish
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going to restore my computer to Windows 3.1 and see if I can do anything productive with it.

 

So you are saying the system was screwed from the get go and that he inherited it?

 

Well then how long is it going to take for him to turn it around?

 

Most followers thought he was actually doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Owner

So you are saying the system was screwed from the get go and that he inherited it?

Nope, I'm saying that going back to the way things were in the early 1900's won't accomplish anything.

 

If you guys are pro-Paul, and want everything he does, Somalia needs a few people representing OTR. They don't have a government to intervene in anything, public education means nothing over there, you can have guns for any reason and get them without background checks (do background checks even exist there?), and there's no worry about the EPA or FDA telling their people what to do or what to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Owner
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, thats great. So he didnt want the bill, he just signed it. But im sure he felt really bad about it.

 

:wallbash3:

 

Also im still waiting to hear about his broken promises, his crack down on medical marijuana (when he said he wouldnt), patriot act extension, wiretapping (oh but we need it to stop terrorism!), and signing the NDAA (I dont care if he agrees with it or not, HE SIGNED IT).

Edited by kingfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Owner

Oh, thats great. So he didnt want the bill, he just signed it. But im sure he felt really bad about it.

 

:wallbash3:

 

Also im still waiting to hear about his broken promises, his crack down on medical marijuana (when he said he wouldnt), patriot act extension, wiretapping (oh but we need it to stop terrorism!), and signing the NDAA (I dont care if he agrees with it or not, HE SIGNED IT).

You can rest assured that things would be a little different if bitter Republicans would stop kicking the can, delaying everything in hopes that Obama looks like a piece of shit in office, rather than letting him do his job and look better, eventually being re-elected.

 

Just a bit about the medical weed BS...people are abusing it. Just two weeks ago, my father's boss fired a guy working a lift, high as hell, three machines down from my dad (which isn't very far, not sure how to describe that distance), and he dropped two boxes from 10 feet high OVER the machine he was near. Those boxes were full of heavy parts that would've killed anyone on the other side of that machine. Got sent home, and later fired, because he was high on the job, and now he's trying to sue because it was "medical marijuana" that he was supposed to smoke on his lunch break. The guy has been a pothead for decades, since he was in HS.

 

The NSA wiretapping you're talking about was started by the Bush administration (part of the "President's Surveillance Program" started by Bush after the attacks).

 

He didn't extend everything in the Patriot Act, by the way.

 

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: [2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People dont abuse it like that everywhere. The states should decide on whether or not it should be legal.

 

And once hes re elected he'll pass all these things. Hes already doing it just enough (the NDAA and whatever he extended in the patriot act).

 

Theres only one candidate that uses the constitution for policies (what our CURRENT president should be doing ;) ) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Owner

People dont abuse it like that everywhere.

It doesn't have to be abused like that everywhere. How many people do meth at work? It's not abused everywhere, either...doesn't mean it should be legal.

 

The states should decide on whether or not it should be legal.

Well, to my knowledge, 15 or 16 have already.

 

And once hes re elected he'll pass all these things. Hes already doing it just enough (the NDAA and whatever he extended in the patriot act).

It's not up to Obama, ultimately. Congress rules all, and extending that statement, politics ruin all because of the power held by Congress.

 

Theres only one candidate that uses the constitution for policies (what our CURRENT president should be doing ;) ) .

Yeah, the candidate that basically wants to flush education down the toilet and promote more private schooling or home schooling (means less resources for those who can't afford public school), ask the state to cover Medicare (lol, they can't even cover Medicaid without struggling, many deserving people would get the boot), ditch the FDA and EPA (so everyone in my city can die of cancer, due to our oil foundry and Sherwin Williams polluting the air without regulations), pull the US out of the United Nations (WTF), purposely watch the economy hit rock bottom and let the strongest survive (creative destruction) to eventually build it back up from that total economic collapse (even greater WTF), stop US aid to any and all causes outside of this country, get rid of public healthcare and let the lower class (or anyone who can't afford what needs to be done) rely on churches and free doctors (LMAO, thank God I got my eye surgeries before this crazy ass takes office)...

 

That would be the end of the United States as we know it. If that were to happen, I put my life on it, I would move out of this country...already talked to my girlfriend about it the other day. It would make me ashamed to be an American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would move out of the country if Ron Paul was president, but are going to vote for Obama. :blink:

 

About the fda and epa

* Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.

 

 

taken from his website. And Paul has the most military support, probably because the troops want to come home rather then policing other countries, and staying out of wars.

Edited by kingfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Owner

He wants to get rid of the FDA altogether.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39a7mP1JoUA

 

7. He's against federal safety standards. So that means no federal testing to make sure the products you're sold won't kill you. Or that, say, the airplane you're on won't fall out of the sky. In fact, he's in favour of completely disbanding the Federal Aviation Authority, which does stuff like hire air traffic controllers to make sure planes don't collide in the air. He has argued against the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure pharmaceuticals are safe to take. ("People weren't dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA," he has said, "I mean, it just didn't happen.") And forget Ralph Nader's successful crusade to enforce the wearing of seat belts. Ron Paul is ideologically opposed to the federal government making sure cars even have seat belts. "I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car?"

He is a nutcase.

 

He wants to get rid of the minimum wage (LOL):

 

HARRIS: Thank you. Congressman Paul, another question from a Politico reader. Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage? Would that create more jobs?

 

PAUL: Absolutely. And it would help the poor, the people who need a job. The minimum wage is a mandate. We're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial.

I'm sure getting rid of the minimum wage would create more jobs for the poor...and they would still be poor, despite having a job, because companies would be able to pay them $2-3 an hour for doing labor worth more...which saves those companies a ton of money, and above all that, gives CEO's a chance to profit even more.

 

This guy wants to get rid of income tax...completely.

 

As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.

Sounds fun, but incredibly dumb. This almost tells me that Ron Paul doesn't want limited government, but absolutely NO government...because income tax is that steady stream of money to govern our country with. State income tax, same thing...he expects the state to handle most everything, including Medicare, but without that stream of money, how will these states pay for everything they currently support PLUS what else he'll pile on?

 

Ron Paul is living in the United States...but his mind is in some fantasy land. Criminals will most definitely go out and buy guns without background checks. Terrorists will most definitely have it easier when trying to get on a plane. Countries will not shake our hands for ditching the UN, pulling out all of our military, and refusing aid to anyone else (basically becoming the world's loner). Without the EPA regulations, companies will take advantage of it, and pollution will be at an all-time high. Without the FDA, foods and drugs will be more dangerous and less regulated.

 

Completely dropping the Department of Education?

 

4. He wants to dissolve the public education system. He promises to eliminate the Department of Education entirely and leave the question of whether to offer any public education at all up to local governments. He calls public education "socialist" (which we actually agree with, but he, unlike us, doesn't think that's a good thing) and says, "I preach home schooling and private schooling." According to an interview, "The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that..."

So what happens to those who can't afford to send their kids to a public school? Ah, they have to teach their kids at home, while the rich kids are still able to go to private schools and are given the best supplies, books and teachers.

 

I have a gut feeling Ron Paul is going to get owned. Bad. His ideas would send our country straight into a depression...intentionally, as he stated, which is just downright ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what you just posted is RP being against federal government. This is the rest of that piece from min. wage

“Mandates, that what the whole society is about, what we do all the time. That’s what government is about: mandate, mandate, mandate. We talk so much about the Obama mandate which is so imporant, but what about Medicare? Isn’t that a mandate? Everything we do is mandate. So, this is why you have to look at this, the cause of liberty. We don’t need the government running our lives.”

 

That sounds good to me. Less government, let the states decide on key issues. As for education, it says right there in the article it will be up to local governments. By the way, the department of education is a joke. We dont need federal mandates and a one size fits all approach to education.

 

As for the UN, hes right. We cant start wars cause its okay with the UN, it has to be declared constitutionally. Thats his whole gripe with the U.N.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8bpj6uwkVm0#!

 

He wants to CUT SPENDING, get rid of all these bogus corrupt government agencies, and reverse this debt that is GROWING under President Obama, and no it wasnt just cause of Bush.

 

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/404915_10150505411037971_189885532970_8727598_2049493137_n.jpg

 

Ron Paul is going to destroy this country? IT ALREADY IS BEING DESTROYED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...