On January 26 2012 10:12 Derez wrote: Gingrich is polling incredibly poorly at the moment compared to before the weekend, seems like Romney beat up enough on him again to remind people that he's the poorest candidate in the entire field.
I actually think Santorum is OK. Surely I don't like his religious zeal, but he seems like an honest guy who really believes his core values. I find Gingrich an unreliable person and did a terrible job as the speaker; Romney is a professional politician with no fundamental values. Ron Paul is just plain stupid.
Of course, if I was an US citizen I'd still vote for Obama. He is quite popular in Canada and abroad (maybe except Israel, haha)...
You can't honestly say Santorum is smarter than Ron Paul. If you do, well...
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
Wrong again. First off, Obama has pulled all Troops out of Iraq, is trying to AVOID war with Iran, never put any troops into Libya, and is preparing to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan. Please look this up and get the real information.
Destroy the Bill of Rights? How, seriously? Take away our guns? He has actually signed 1 law about guns in his entire presidency, and that was to expand gun rights by allowing people to conceal them in national parks.
Now, if you want to argue over the legality of the indefinite detention, i will yield that point to you. I will however argue two points on this worth considering. First, the law was intended for American Citizens who voluntarily choose to fight for our country's enemies.
Second, it should be noted that until such precedent exists where an American citizen who is NOT fighting under a different flag is detained, and said law is the cause, no harm has been committed, even if the possibility for it exists.
Third, Just remember that it was Congress that wrote the law. Find out who and yell at them just as much.
Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq longer than was mandated. It was not because of anything he did that we left.
I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
On January 26 2012 10:12 Derez wrote: Gingrich is polling incredibly poorly at the moment compared to before the weekend, seems like Romney beat up enough on him again to remind people that he's the poorest candidate in the entire field.
This is the kind of shit that is going to sink Newt.
In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong. ....
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
There's a decent case that Newt-mentum has been a sort of coming to roost of the paranoid culture of perceived persecution that media elements like Limbaugh and Ailes have been stoking for years. The movement's anger has grown beyond their ability to control:
Fortunately for Romney and the GOP establishment, Newt's got too much baggage and has made too many enemies to actually win. Florida may now be turning back in Romney's favor.
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Paul is a reactionary - many of his beliefs about what the government should do stem from the literal interpretation of the Constitution, and any action, agency or program not specifically delegated by it shouldnt exist. Consider how much social progress such a position could eradicate.
If Obama didnt actually act within political precedent, and/or the powers of the Constitution, scholars, Judges, and State Authorities would be constantly up in arms over what he does.
More importantly, consider what the Bush Administration did when they enacted the Patriot Act. If you want to talk about a potentially huge violation of the Constitution, look there. That STILL has people going crazy.
If Obama follows the constitution can you explain section 1021 of the NDAA for me?
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Paul is a reactionary - many of his beliefs about what the government should do stem from the literal interpretation of the Constitution, and any action, agency or program not specifically delegated by it shouldnt exist. Consider how much social progress such a position could eradicate.
If Obama didnt actually act within political precedent, and/or the powers of the Constitution, scholars, Judges, and State Authorities would be constantly up in arms over what he does.
More importantly, consider what the Bush Administration did when they enacted the Patriot Act. If you want to talk about a potentially huge violation of the Constitution, look there. That STILL has people going crazy.
If Obama follows the constitution can you explain section 1021 of the NDAA for me?
Precedent SCOTUS cases have already dealt with that section.
And people need to stop this nonsense about Obama not following the constitution or what-have-you. It's an ancient, hugely vague document and what is "constitutional" or not depends on the flavor of the month. People who ascribe quasi-religious traits to the document should be pissed the founders were a bunch of racist fucks with a handful of good ideas who failed to codify a great deal of material that would have made it far simpler to interpret.
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Paul is a reactionary - many of his beliefs about what the government should do stem from the literal interpretation of the Constitution, and any action, agency or program not specifically delegated by it shouldnt exist. Consider how much social progress such a position could eradicate.
If Obama didnt actually act within political precedent, and/or the powers of the Constitution, scholars, Judges, and State Authorities would be constantly up in arms over what he does.
More importantly, consider what the Bush Administration did when they enacted the Patriot Act. If you want to talk about a potentially huge violation of the Constitution, look there. That STILL has people going crazy.
If Obama follows the constitution can you explain section 1021 of the NDAA for me?
Precedent SCOTUS cases have already dealt with that section.
So after months of a campaign where he emhasizes that cuts need to be made he just decides to get votes from less inteligent voters by promising a MOON BASE? Is this his way of saving USA economy?
What the fuck?
I'm right winged and really dislike Obama, but I'm really not sure if I want him to be replaced with anyone from the Romney/Gingrich/Santorum
I think its a shame that Romney gets criticized for not having his own values, he just has to hide them when being around the conservatives. I think he'd make a way greater president than any of the other.
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
Wrong again. First off, Obama has pulled all Troops out of Iraq, is trying to AVOID war with Iran, never put any troops into Libya, and is preparing to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan. Please look this up and get the real information.
Destroy the Bill of Rights? How, seriously? Take away our guns? He has actually signed 1 law about guns in his entire presidency, and that was to expand gun rights by allowing people to conceal them in national parks.
Now, if you want to argue over the legality of the indefinite detention, i will yield that point to you. I will however argue two points on this worth considering. First, the law was intended for American Citizens who voluntarily choose to fight for our country's enemies.
Second, it should be noted that until such precedent exists where an American citizen who is NOT fighting under a different flag is detained, and said law is the cause, no harm has been committed, even if the possibility for it exists.
Third, Just remember that it was Congress that wrote the law. Find out who and yell at them just as much.
False
And you support Obama even though.......he lied about the Iraq war:
and the only reason why we left was because their government wanted us out of there already(Also, bush's policy was still in place to get out at the end of 2011). Don't forget that we built the biggest embassy there with 10-15,000 contractors to work there. Costing us about 3.5 billion to run a year (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq) and with the cost at about 700 million dollars to build . Obama's foreign policy has been the continuation of Bush's policies...
>Well Since Obama took office he's:
• Authorized drone strikes in Pakistan murdering thousands of men, women and children in a sovereign country (an act of war)
• Expanded the war in Afghanistan murdering thousands more (an act of war)
• Started an incredibly massive bombing campaign against the civilians in Libya (an act of war)
• Continued the war on Yemen
• Started a covert war on parts of Northern Somalia (an act of war)
• Started building Drone bases in Ethiopia for air strikes.(an act of war)
• Sending troops to Sudan.
Obama somehow won the Nobel Peace Prize and somehow maintains the support of a large majority of the left even despite this horrendously atrocious record. Compare his actions with his own statement as candidate Obama:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
I ask you people please to not make false, specious excuses for the man's actions, please keep Bush's actions out of this and just explain why a the most staunch Anti-War candidate (Ron Paul) garners next to zero support among the anti-war left.
Not to mention indefinite detainment of People without a trial(NDAA).
**Citations**
- [Drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 and ongoing.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan)
- [War in Afghanistan.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29)
- [2011 military intervention in Libya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)
- [War on Yemen.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/us-intensifying-covert-war-yemen_n_873620.html)
On January 26 2012 02:18 Yongwang wrote: If Obama somehow wins then America is doomed. America is also doomed if Mittens (Obama #2) wins. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy's, at least he follows the Constitution (unlike Obama).
This is such a common misconception. Obama follows the Constitution just fine. Just because he doesnt Interpret it to the letter like Ron Paul wants to doesnt mean he doesnt act within the confines of the law. Its almost like different Christians having different interpretations of the bible. For example, Paul criticizes the use of armed forces without a congressional declaration of war as delegated by the Constitution, yet the powers delegated to the executive hold that he can send troops wherever under the necessity of defense or moral justification. (See Vietnam, 2nd Gulf War, Korea, Bosnia)
Even if you support Obama's foreign wars, you have to admit the fact that he wants to destroy the Bill of Rights, take away our guns and indefinitely detain any American citizen without trial are all clear violations of the Constitution. So are his extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
Wrong again. First off, Obama has pulled all Troops out of Iraq, is trying to AVOID war with Iran, never put any troops into Libya, and is preparing to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan. Please look this up and get the real information.
Destroy the Bill of Rights? How, seriously? Take away our guns? He has actually signed 1 law about guns in his entire presidency, and that was to expand gun rights by allowing people to conceal them in national parks.
Now, if you want to argue over the legality of the indefinite detention, i will yield that point to you. I will however argue two points on this worth considering. First, the law was intended for American Citizens who voluntarily choose to fight for our country's enemies.
Second, it should be noted that until such precedent exists where an American citizen who is NOT fighting under a different flag is detained, and said law is the cause, no harm has been committed, even if the possibility for it exists.
Third, Just remember that it was Congress that wrote the law. Find out who and yell at them just as much.
False
And you support Obama even though.......he lied about the Iraq war:
and the only reason why we left was because their government wanted us out of there already(Also, bush's policy was still in place to get out at the end of 2011). Don't forget that we built the biggest embassy there with 10-15,000 contractors to work there. Costing us about 3.5 billion to run a year (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq) and with the cost at about 700 million dollars to build . Obama's foreign policy has been the continuation of Bush's policies...
>Well Since Obama took office he's:
• Authorized drone strikes in Pakistan murdering thousands of men, women and children in a sovereign country (an act of war)
• Expanded the war in Afghanistan murdering thousands more (an act of war)
• Started an incredibly massive bombing campaign against the civilians in Libya (an act of war)
• Continued the war on Yemen
• Started a covert war on parts of Northern Somalia (an act of war)
• Started building Drone bases in Ethiopia for air strikes.(an act of war)
• Sending troops to Sudan.
Obama somehow won the Nobel Peace Prize and somehow maintains the support of a large majority of the left even despite this horrendously atrocious record. Compare his actions with his own statement as candidate Obama:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
I ask you people please to not make false, specious excuses for the man's actions, please keep Bush's actions out of this and just explain why a the most staunch Anti-War candidate (Ron Paul) garners next to zero support among the anti-war left.
Not to mention indefinite detainment of People without a trial(NDAA).
**Citations**
- [Drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 and ongoing.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan)
- [War in Afghanistan.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29)
- [2011 military intervention in Libya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)
- [War on Yemen.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/us-intensifying-covert-war-yemen_n_873620.html)
So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Just to make you rage and post really long messages about why we shouldn't.
To the topic, there's a LOT of Republicans up in arms about Gingrich getting more traction. I'm curious if we'll see the party splinter in the coming months if this doesn't change.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
28:27 addresses your concern.
Another point to note is that inflation is currently very low, and well below the Fed's 2% target, partly offsetting the effect of lower interest rates.
The current economic situation is not a long term problem. It is a short term problem. There is a lack of demand right now. The deficit being high is a long term problem. It is responsible that the Fed is doing everything it can in the short term to stimulate the economy given the political paralysis preventing any fiscal policy response.
On January 26 2012 10:12 Derez wrote: Gingrich is polling incredibly poorly at the moment compared to before the weekend, seems like Romney beat up enough on him again to remind people that he's the poorest candidate in the entire field.
Way worse. As someone who wants Obama to win, I'm hoping for a win by:
Santorum Paul Gingrich Romney
Although it's always tough to balance candidates on the other side you don't ardently dislike versus those you think are guaranteed losers.
I don't know. I am not sure that Santorum would have less chances than Gingrich or Paul.
I would say that Paul is the one that probably lose the most surely against Obama, because except for the his tax reduction thing, he has opposite ideas than most conservatives. I don't see moderate voters or hardcore republicans a la Tea Party voting for him at all.
I have heard little of Santorum. Is he just another far right fundamentalist nutcase?
I have little doubt that Romney will be the republican candidate, to be honest. Hopefully not, I think he really has a chance against Obama.
EPT
