I know a lot of people polled are expressing extreme frustration with the President (blaming him for not doing enough for the economy, not doing enough for liberal policies, not doing enough in terms of ending the wars in which we are engaged, etc.).

Just recently, Maxine Waters held a town hall meeting that showed that even she wanted permission from her mostly-black constituents to pressure the President for addressing black issues.

So...are there any of you who were completely sold out for Obama in '08 who don't like what he is doing?

I'm assuming you know where I stand on the President. But this isn't about me.

Are some of you afraid to express your frustration?

8/20/2011 9:21:29 AM

I am totally fed up waiting. Nevermind ending the wars, hore snout we just stop starting new ones.

8/20/2011 9:25:17 AM

All of my coworkers are conservative, so maybe I'm just being influenced by that. But recently I'm not impressed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=all

Quote :

"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."

8/20/2011 9:25:34 AM

^^ I used to date a chick who had a hore snout

8/20/2011 9:45:34 AM

It'd be much easier to if there were any viable alternatives.

8/20/2011 10:49:25 AM

^ Well you could vote for the guy who wants to empower the average citizen (Ron Paul) instead of the guy who is hell bent on keeping the poor dependent on the system and keeping the rich in power (Barack Obama)

8/20/2011 11:25:12 AM

He said viable alternatives.

8/20/2011 11:48:30 AM

Ron Paul is the most viable Presidential candidate we've had in our lifetimes.

Though Perot was also very viable.

8/20/2011 1:15:03 PM

I think George H. W. Bush and Barack Obama would disagree with you.

8/20/2011 1:38:43 PM

Terrific, you just named two people who are at the top of the list for being remembered throughout history as the leaders who ushered in the American collapse.


When I think viable candidates I think someone who fits the definition.


1.
capable of living.
2.
Physiology .
a.
physically fitted to live.
b.
(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
3.
Botany . able to live and grow.
4.
vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.
5.
practicable; workable: a viable alternative.

8/20/2011 1:50:45 PM

Quote :

"practicable; workable: a viable alternative."

prac·ti·ca·ble (prkt-k-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible.
2. Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry.

work·a·ble (wûrk-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being worked, dealt with, or handled.
2. Capable of being put into effective operation; practicable or feasible

Are we talking about the same american history?

8/20/2011 2:11:10 PM

Ron Paul is breaking into the mainstream. At first, the media's strategy was to ignore Ron Paul and completely leave him out of reports. If they did mention him, they made sure to qualify it by saying, "but he's unelectable."

For a long time, I thought he was unelectable. Things have changed. He is a top tier candidate, and people are waking up. He offers something markedly different than any other candidate on either side: honesty. Not a nice haircut and a tan, but substantive positions on real issues. This thing is far from over, and I think Ron Paul will be a serious contender and has a shot at the nomination. I also think he's the only one in the GOP that can beat Obama.

8/20/2011 2:12:32 PM

Quote :

"He offers something markedly different than any other candidate on either side: honesty. Not a nice haircut and a tan, but substantive positions on real issues."

You can keep repeating this and I won't disagree. But it doesn't really jive with "Things have changed." Are you saying he wasn't honest in 1988/2008 or are you saying that his opponents... were?

It seems the only thing that has changed is "people are waking up," whatever the hell that means. That sounds like a nice platitude, but we do have any evidence that he has more support than before? Obviously, the media is still taking a shit on him.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

8/20/2011 2:41:26 PM

No, what he's saying is that he's offered honesty and reality for years and now people are beginning to accept reality.

If your mom told you 100 times growing up not to marry a whore. And you go and marry a whore and she fucks your neighbor. Would you marry another whore?

Or would you think, wow mom was right. I'll go with her recommendation next time.

Ron Paul's message hasn't changed. The people are starting to wake up. Bush and Obama were whores.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM. Reason : a]

8/20/2011 3:19:47 PM

The people may or may not be waking up (I haven't seen much to see one way or the other) but the media sure isn't:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/268553/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ron-paul-and-the-top-tier

8/20/2011 5:27:36 PM

No, the media is actively trying to keep Paul out of office because he isn't a conforming corporatist.

Corporations are the revenue source for media. They do what they're told for the most part.

The status quo always protects the status quo. They throw the scraps to the peasants to get them to shut up and play their games.

8/20/2011 5:41:33 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/15/91744/nytimes-tea-party-poll/

Quote :

"In terms of where the Tea Party turns for news, the poll found that 63 percent watch Fox News “most for information about politics and current events.”"

All these people who are "waking up"... what do you think they're waking up to? They won't even know Ron Paul is running.

8/20/2011 6:09:47 PM

Ron Paul is running third in polls behind Perry and Romney and ahead of Bachmann.

He just raised another $1 million today from real Americans not corporate interests.

He is receiving 14% of the vote in the Republican Primary and he polls within 3-6% points of Obama head to head.

That is quite a jump from a guy who was a fringe candidate 4 years ago and didn't even get invited to all the debates.

The thing is once someone takes the time to understand how dire America's economic and fiscal outlook is... and then looks at the political landscape... they quickly become a Ron Paul supporter. Because they realize there isn't a single other candidate in the running who can help resolve the situation.

I know most Americans are lazy and just don't care. But it appears to me that the more people lose jobs, savings, investment income, etc the more they start to question why they are voting for the people who are causing their hardship.


Once people shake this flawed notion that he is "unelectable" then he will gain more and more votes. There are enough reasonable people in the Republican Party that if they all vote for Ron Paul while the other three stooges divide votes, Ron Paul can come out on top.

Remember, Lincoln had very little support when he won the Presidency.

[Edited on August 20, 2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason : a]

8/20/2011 10:21:00 PM

Obama is our only hope to reinstating common sense.


Congress is what's broken.

8/20/2011 10:35:02 PM

We need to eliminate political parties also. We need to judge someone on the issues they stand, not the party they belong to.

I'm 1000% positive that republican and democrat candidates don't believe every issue within their own party, yet they are forced to agree by each respective committee in order to even be considered to run for the party.

8/20/2011 10:37:12 PM

If Ron Paul was elected he'd be intimidated into caving just like Obama.

8/20/2011 10:43:47 PM

^^^you fucking idiotic cunt.

8/20/2011 10:48:04 PM

So...not many of you guys so far?

8/20/2011 11:19:29 PM

and you guys wonder why i'm not even registered to vote

bunch of fucking clowns run every year (term)

8/21/2011 12:27:44 AM

I supported Obama in '08, and I support him more now.

8/21/2011 1:12:33 AM

Help me, Barack Obama.

You're my only hope.

8/21/2011 6:52:04 AM

The misuse of "whom" in the subject really irks me

8/21/2011 7:59:29 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul is running third in polls behind Perry and Romney and ahead of Bachmann. He just raised another $1 million today from real Americans not corporate interests."

That is commendable, but without the backing of Fox News that goes out of their way to ignore him when he's up and bash him when he's down, there is no way he's getting through the GOP primary.

8/21/2011 6:42:39 PM

^^ Dammit, that's what I was about to post.

8/21/2011 8:48:11 PM

Look if you support Obama we get it. You hate your family and yourself. You couldn't careless if everyone starves. We get it. Just shut up about it because it's driving everyone crazy that cares about the country.

8/21/2011 11:57:31 PM

ron paul 2016

8/22/2011 12:23:51 AM

why even bother. By 2016 we'll already be defaulting its too late then.

No country has ever saved itself once it hit 90% debt to GDP. We hit 100% by the end of the year and that's not even counting our unfunded liabilities

8/22/2011 12:55:39 AM

I'm only supporting Obama because of the upcoming SCOTUS nominations between now and 2017.

ELIZABETH WARREN IN 2016!!!

8/22/2011 1:26:33 AM

Quote :

"The misuse of "whom" in the subject really irks me"

Liking the double applicability of "subject" in this sentence.

8/22/2011 12:51:16 PM

Quote :

"That is commendable, but without the backing of Fox News that goes out of their way to ignore him when he's up and bash him when he's down, there is no way he's getting through the GOP primary."

Crazy how you say that it is one news channel that supports the Republican candidate, when every other news channel supports Barack Obama.

But actually, I came in here to post that I was surprised theDuke866 posted in a thread I created and didn't just throw it in the trash.

I commend you.

8/22/2011 7:29:21 PM

^I'm a little confused by your response... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me that Fox goes out of its way to not treat Paul as well as they do with other republican candidates?

8/23/2011 12:06:14 AM

Obama has been pretty disappointing overall.

He's basically a more articulate Dubya.

That said, all of the top republican candidates seem to be a cross section of the wingnut portions of the GOP.

Mitt Romney is the most electable in my opinion, but seems to be slipping in polls.

Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas which are negated by his batshit insane ones (such as a return to the gold standard).

8/23/2011 1:01:10 AM

Obama is disappointing because he has basically done the same things as Bush? hahaha. Same fiscal policy. Same tax policy. Same war policy. Same homeland security policies.


He got the weak healthcare thing passed, though. That may be the only differentiator.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM. Reason : ,]

8/23/2011 8:56:33 AM

Quote :

"Well you could vote for the guy who wants to empower the average citizen (Ron Paul)"

unless those citizens are women who want to keep the power to make decisions about their own bodies.

8/23/2011 8:59:10 AM

Quote :

"No country has ever saved itself once it hit 90% debt to GDP."

LOL

Man, I can only think of one right now...

8/23/2011 9:49:00 AM

Quote :

"unless those citizens are women who want to keep the power to make decisions about their own bodies"

Women aren't people, silly. They're sacred baby containers.

8/23/2011 9:52:46 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/obama-regulations_n_933878.html

Quote :

"he White House is revealing plans to save businesses $10 billion by scrapping hundreds of government regulations found to be outdated, unfair or unnecessary."

Shame they made 43 new regulations, but at least they're trying to help.

8/23/2011 10:43:54 AM

Would love to see the gold standard haters articulate why they hate. My guess is you can't.

8/23/2011 10:48:23 AM

Quote :

"unless those citizens are women who want to keep the power to make decisions about their own bodies."

Neither Ron Paul nor anyone else gives a shit what women do with their bodes.

8/23/2011 11:18:15 AM

While he does care and has said so several times, he has also been VERY clear that the president and the federal government should not have the rights to decide whether abortion is illegal or not and that its should instead be up to the states.

In other words, his stance on abortion should not be a mark against him for presidency even for people that disagree with his personal stance.

Heck, it's a plus imo. Someone who still respects the power balance between the fed and the states and doesn't seem to want to superimpose all of his personal beliefs at the federal level when they don't belong there.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : ]

8/23/2011 11:23:47 AM

A gamble that many socially liberal people are willing to take is to have a powerful federal government and we'll just hope that they use that powerful wisely. If that's how it actually played out in the real world, that'd be great - the federal government could "legalize" abortion, same sex marriage, drugs, whatever.

Problem is, when you concede that the federal government is authorized to legislate on those matters (according to the 10th amendment, it isn't), you accept that bad legislation made be coming down the pipe when the "other side" gets elected.

The United States is a large country. We have very progressive, liberal areas. We have very culturally backwards areas. Would it be nice if every single area in this country and the world had perfect liberty? Yes. There are areas that simply wouldn't have it, though. Federalism might not seem ideal, but it's better than the alternative.

8/23/2011 11:38:52 AM

For the OP:

Why would I "give up" on Obama? He's done pretty much what I expected him to before he came into office: pass healthcare reform, repeal DADT, improve the US's foreign policy. He's done all of that.

8/23/2011 5:53:27 PM

Quote :

"While he does care and has said so several times, he has also been VERY clear that the president and the federal government should not have the rights to decide whether abortion is illegal or not and that its should instead be up to the states. In other words, his stance on abortion should not be a mark against him for presidency even for people that disagree with his personal stance. "

Quote :

"Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[211] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[144] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[212]"

seems like the sanctity of life act was effectively dictating at the federal level on abortion to me.

also to the OP: it should be "which of you" (. . . i think)

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 6:47:54 PM

Here's the actual Bill he introduced not just some spin.

Quote :

"To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'. SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION. (a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception. (b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State. SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION. (a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof-- `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates-- `(A) the performance of abortions; or `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'. (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'. SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION. (a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'. (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'. SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment. SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination. "

8/23/2011 6:54:09 PM

Quote :

"The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception."

that's a philosophical and semantic question, not a scientific one. shouldn't paul be against congress making proclamations based on what some scientific evidence (and dubious uncited evidence at that) claims is true? shouldn't this be a state matter according to him?

also, how legit is it for the congress to say what laws can and cannot be reviewed by the supreme court?

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 6:56:05 PM