Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/08/02/the-trouble-with-unconstitutional-wars/

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
by Rep. Ron Paul, August 03, 2010

Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.

Many are saying that the WikiLeaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, and immoral, and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it, and come home. War should be efficient, decisive, and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
 
The Tea Party did not exist when Bush was president. It is an outgrowth of more recent activities centered around Ron Paul, who has been anti-war forever as a Libertarian and paleo-Republican. But now the Tea Party is metastasizing into who knows what? The Paul forces long ago lost their grasp on this wild tiger.
 
The Tea Party did not exist when Bush was president. It is an outgrowth of more recent activities centered around Ron Paul, who has been anti-war forever as a Libertarian and paleo-Republican. But now the Tea Party is metastasizing into who knows what? The Paul forces long ago lost their grasp on this wild tiger.
I wouldn't word it as the Ron Paul camp lost their grasp - in fact they expected that to eventually happen - but more like everyone who never intended to live on such a philosophy saw how popular it became and weaseled their way into it. Weasels, I say.
 
I wouldn't word it as the Ron Paul camp lost their grasp - in fact they expected that to eventually happen - but more like everyone who never intended to live on such a philosophy saw how popular it became and weaseled their way into it. Weasels, I say.

Weasels and parasites!!
 
What I'm saying is this. I believe the theory of the shadow government that really control the policy making decisions for the US and other countries(you know The Rothschild and Rockefeller conspiracy theories). So if the job of being President is really a puppet position, why are so many people mad at Obama when he has to do as he is told just like all the Presidents in the past since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. He has no REAL power to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country unless he is PERMITTED to do so. He controls nothing!His power is an ILLUSION!
 
What I'm saying is this. I believe the theory of the shadow government that really control the policy making decisions for the US and other countries(you know The Rothschild and Rockefeller conspiracy theories). So if the job of being President is really a puppet position, why are so many people mad at Obama when he has to do as he is told just like all the Presidents in the past since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. He has no REAL power to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country unless he is PERMITTED to do so. He controls nothing!His power is an ILLUSION!

Cool_story_bro.jpeg
 
I wouldn't word it as the Ron Paul camp lost their grasp - in fact they expected that to eventually happen - but more like everyone who never intended to live on such a philosophy saw how popular it became and weaseled their way into it. Weasels, I say.

You mean the astro-turfing? Yeah. It was bound to happen. The good news is that it will destroy the GOP. Bad news is that it will be seen as a legitimate alternative to the Democrats. Booo.
 
Republican 2.0. All the same crappy features of the first one, but with a completely new loading screen!
 
I just have one question. Where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush jr. was tearing this country to shreds?
The Tea Party did not exist when Bush was president.
Odd, I thought Bush was president in 2007.




Don't tell Tea Party organizers today but the first Tea Party rally was a Ron Paul presidential rally held on December 16th, 2007. That would be the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party for those who don't know their history.

What I'm saying is this. I believe the theory of the shadow government that really control the policy making decisions for the US and other countries(you know The Rothschild and Rockefeller conspiracy theories). So if the job of being President is really a puppet position, why are so many people mad at Obama when he has to do as he is told just like all the Presidents in the past since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. He has no REAL power to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country unless he is PERMITTED to do so. He controls nothing!His power is an ILLUSION!
You answered your own question. It is a conspiracy theory, which most people don't believe. Assuming it has any credence, it is a shadow government working in secret. People blame Obama because the majority of the population see him as the real leader of the country, who actually has power.

Republican 2.0. All the same crappy features of the first one, but with a completely new loading screen!
As much as I hate to post anything from Keith Olbermann (anyone remember when he and Craig Kilborn were the original funny guys on Sportscenter?).

 
I just have one question. Where the hell was the Tea Party when Bush jr. was tearing this country to shreds?
Odd, I thought Bush was president in 2007.
Yeah, but the Tea Party only really shot to prominence when Obama became President.

I suggest this article on the NY Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/opinion/29friedman.html?scp=1&sq=Tea Kettle Party&st=cse

I agree with the author on the point that the Tea Party is all about venting your spleen at those in power. In the many debates I've had in the comment section of YouTube videos, I've never seen one supporter of the Tea Party we hear about in the media saying how they would fix the economy, how they would cut expenditure, and how they would cut taxes. Most of the times they just get so worked up and start calling me insults, and they aren't above using racial slurs, even though I'm a white Irish 16-year-old.
 
It only shot to prominence because Fox News started to cover the tea party once Obama won the white house. Before that it was a media blackout. Murdoch wanted his neocons to get all the exposure, and they did. Once McCain went down in a ball of fire, Fox News all of a sudden became so "libertarian". It's just the result of the GOP co-opting whatever wasn't razed to the ground at that point. Once it went on Fox News, all the angry republibiggovernmenticans that glue their eyes to BillO and Hannity got in the mix and basically put sand in the potato salad. Then Glenn Beck was hired to throw said potato salad at the masses.

I like mine sand free, and that's the ron paul wing of the movement. Ron paul's wing IS the movement, actually. It's like, he and his followers are the sea turtle, and Sarah Palin and hers are the barnacles. But when you see a sea turtle with barnacles all over it, what's the first thing you say? "Holy ****, look at all those barnacles!"
 
Yeah, but the Tea Party only really shot to prominence when Obama became President.
So, the media was ignoring them. What does that prove other than certain media outlets decided to make them into something they weren't?

The better question should be, why wasn't Fox News praising the Tea Party when Bush was in office? Better questions would be: Why did Fox News dismiss Ron Paul as a kook while Bush was in office? Why did Glenn Beck support bailouts and call Ron Paul supporters radicals while Bush was in office?

In the many debates I've had in the comment section of YouTube videos, I've never seen one supporter of the Tea Party we hear about in the media saying how they would fix the economy, how they would cut expenditure, and how they would cut taxes. Most of the times they just get so worked up and start calling me insults, and they aren't above using racial slurs, even though I'm a white Irish 16-year-old.
I quit reading after you said debates in the comment section of You Tube. I don't know anyone that has debates on You Tube comments that has the ability to hold an intelligent debate on anything.
 
It only shot to prominence because Fox News started to cover the tea party once Obama won the white house. Before that it was a media blackout. Murdoch wanted his neocons to get all the exposure, and they did. Once McCain went down in a ball of fire, Fox News all of a sudden became so "libertarian". It's just the result of the GOP co-opting whatever wasn't razed to the ground at that point. Once it went on Fox News, all the angry republibiggovernmenticans that glue their eyes to BillO and Hannity got in the mix and basically put sand in the potato salad. Then Glenn Beck was hired to throw said potato salad at the masses.

I like mine sand free, and that's the ron paul wing of the movement. Ron paul's wing IS the movement, actually. It's like, he and his followers are the sea turtle, and Sarah Palin and hers are the barnacles. But when you see a sea turtle with barnacles all over it, what's the first thing you say? "Holy ****, look at all those barnacles!"

This is all too true. But barnacles won't stick to a gold plated hull. And Ron Paul is solid gold, in my view. Incidentally, he is of course for the gold standard. Exactly since the day we went off the gold standard, inflation has soared and wages have stagnated. Coincidence, or just what?

Respectfully,
Dotini
 
It only shot to prominence because Fox News started to cover the tea party once Obama won the white house. Before that it was a media blackout. Murdoch wanted his neocons to get all the exposure, and they did. Once McCain went down in a ball of fire, Fox News all of a sudden became so "libertarian". It's just the result of the GOP co-opting whatever wasn't razed to the ground at that point. Once it went on Fox News, all the angry republibiggovernmenticans that glue their eyes to BillO and Hannity got in the mix and basically put sand in the potato salad. Then Glenn Beck was hired to throw said potato salad at the masses.

Very nicely put!

Of course, I believe that Ron Paul is mistaken in many of his views, but more importantly, I think the "barnacles" will sink the Libertarian ship in any case. The contradictions & just plain idiocy of the mass movement that has people like Glenn Beck as a spokesman, will swamp the principles & ideas espoused by Ron Paul.

Beyond that, I believe the macro-economic changes taking place in the world render the whole discussion somewhat moot. The United States & the rest of the "Western world" are entering an era in which their relative prosperity & dominance is going to erode regardless of what directions their politics lean. Having said that, I think the consequences if the Palinite idiots took the reins of power in the US, could significantly worsen the outcome. :nervous:
 
Very nicely put!
I believe the macro-economic changes taking place in the world render the whole discussion somewhat moot. The United States & the rest of the "Western world" are entering an era in which their relative prosperity & dominance is going to erode regardless of what directions their politics lean. Having said that, I think the consequences if the Palinite idiots took the reins of power in the US, could significantly worsen the outcome. :nervous:

Interesting opinion. But what macro-economic changes? Couldn't geo-political, social/cultural, technological and demographic changes also be invoked and weighed in the same context? If the situation is so dire, why would more of the same be any better than wild shotgunning?

Respectfully,
Dotini
 
It's good to be realistic and say that, yes, the ship might get sunk. But if you've got buckets laying around and you start using them you might just as well make it to port.
 
If the situation is so dire, why would more of the same be any better than wild shotgunning?

Just as a general comment, part of the problem is that no one is having a reasonable discussion about what to do in the future.
 
I quit reading after you said debates in the comment section of You Tube. I don't know anyone that has debates on You Tube comments that has the ability to hold an intelligent debate on anything.
Well, consider me the first in the middle of the Venn diagram of "People FoolKiller knows can hold an intelligent debate" and "People FoolKiller knows that hold debates on YouTube".

Having said that, I think the consequences if the Palinite idiots took the reins of power in the US, could significantly worsen the outcome. :nervous:
That's one of many things that worries me at the moment.
 
Well, consider me the first in the middle of the Venn diagram of "People FoolKiller knows can hold an intelligent debate" and "People FoolKiller knows that hold debates on YouTube".
The jury is still out due to not enough evidence.

But I despise You Tube comments so much that I set them to "by approval only" on all my videos (with the exception of one).
 
Back