Obama - What is your opinion so far on his Presidency

[Machjo]

I think this Republican puts Obama in his place in this speech:

YouTube - Ron Paul "Torture & Assassination Are Illegal! In Both US & International Law!

 

[Machjo]

YouTube - Ron Paul : Obama Preparing for Perpetual War!

 

[Kreskin]

I see why Republicans have a hard time with Ron Paul. He stands for very little that the Republican Guard do, like wars, killing, and torture.

 

[Machjo]

I see why Republicans have a hard time with Ron Paul. He stands for very little that the Republican Guard do, like wars, killing, and torture.

Obama is an imperialist compared to Ron Paul on this front.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Even the Obamessiah cheerleaders are changing their minds.




Much more at the link
Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur - US News and World Report

Daily Pundit The Useful Idiots Begin to Blubber

Peggy Noonan (a card carrying Republican) is an Obama cheerleader? Surely you can do better than that. What you have quoted here is more extreme right, Tea Party propaganda, nothing more.

 

[Kreskin]

Obama is an imperialist compared to Ron Paul on this front.

No doubt. I actually support much of what Ron Paul says and I would likely vote for him if I lived in the US.

 

[ironsides]

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

 

[Machjo]

No doubt. I actually support much of what Ron Paul says and I would likely vote for him if I lived in the US.

I feel the same way to an extent. I don't agree with all of what Ron Paul says. But one thing I do appreciate is his emphasis on the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you're right or left, or whether he's right or left, at least you know he'll ply by the rules and either succeed or fail by the rules, but will never break the law to get what he wants. So in fact my attraction to him has less to do with his ideology than it has to do with his respect for the law. He himself has clarified that as per the US Constitution, the Afghanistan War is illegal:

YouTube - This War Is Illegal! Ron Paul Afghanistan War Debate

The Afghan War is legal as per international law and as per Canadian law, but US involvement is illegal as per the current US Constitution since it had not gone through the proper process.

 

[Kreskin]

Lets get serious, Bush is the dumbest ass to ever be elected to anything in the free world, and he totally screwed up the nation with a frivolous war. The price is being paid for that idiot.

 

[Machjo]

Bush could never have gone to war without the support of congress. And congress was elected by a majority of Americans.

Some education in the law is needed I suppose.

I love this speech by the way:

YouTube - Ron Paul : The Just War Theory & Peace Correlation!

 

[Kreskin]

He is certainly one of the few left with braincells.

 

[Machjo]

I hope there is someone similar in my riding come next election.
Again, I don't agree with all he says, but do appreciate his legalistic approach to lawmaking.

 

[ironsides]

I feel the same way to an extent. I don't agree with all of what Ron Paul says. But one thing I do appreciate is his emphasis on the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you're right or left, or whether he's right or left, at least you know he'll ply by the rules and either succeed or fail by the rules, but will never break the law to get what he wants. So in fact my attraction to him has less to do with his ideology than it has to do with his respect for the law. He himself has clarified that as per the US Constitution, the Afghanistan War is illegal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiOGVLfy7w

The Afghan War is legal as per international law and as per Canadian law, but US involvement is illegal as per the current US Constitution since it had not gone through the proper process.

You know, if you follow the law you cannot be to wrong with anything you may want to do. May not agree with it, but it is within the law it is ok.

 

[Machjo]

You know, if you follow the law you cannot be to wrong with anything you may want to do. May not agree with it, but it is within the law it is ok.

Let's put it this way. If the government is violating the law, it's acting immorally. If it abides by the law, it may or may not be acting immorally. But respect for the law is the first step towards moral action. How can you trust a leader who has no respect for the law. I cannot trust a leader who has not first learnt to follow.

After all, we obey the law whether we agree with it or not. We may try to change it, but until it's changed, we respect it. Ron Paul would be that kind of President. He would obey the law even if he disagreed with it. He might try to change it, but he'd still play by the rules. Among either Democrats or Republicans, it would seem few are like Ron Paul.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

By multiple of fools, no doubt you mean the Democrats. Is your solution to get rid of the Democratic party then, and have a one party rule, the rule by Republican Party (the God's party) in perpetuity?

No doubt that is what some Republicans (particularly the teabaggers) would like.

I feel the same way to an extent. I don't agree with all of what Ron Paul says. But one thing I do appreciate is his emphasis on the Constitution and the rule of law. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you're right or left, or whether he's right or left, at least you know he'll ply by the rules and either succeed or fail by the rules, but will never break the law to get what he wants.

The problem here is that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways. He will go by his interpretation of the constitution. But then most politicians will claim that they also abide by the constitution, it is just that their interpretation differs from that of Paul. So we are really no further ahead,

The Afghan War is legal as per international law and as per Canadian law, but US involvement is illegal as per the current US Constitution since it had not gone through the proper process.

But that is true of most wars, most of them were illegal. Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. By that definition, I think even the Vietnam war was illegal, I don't think Congress ever declared war on Vietnam.

So why apply different standards to this particular war?

 

[CDNBear]

By multiple of fools, no doubt you mean the Democrats. Is your solution to get rid of the Democratic party then, and have a one party rule, the rule by Republican Party (the God's party) in perpetuity?

No doubt that is what some Republicans (particularly the teabaggers) would like.

:roll:

The problem here is that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways. He will go by his interpretation of the constitution. But then most politicians will claim that they also abide by the constitution, it is just that their interpretation differs from that of Paul. So we are really no further ahead,

Which is why case law is used to aid in a case by case basis. Thus normalizing interpretation.

But that is true of most wars, most of them were illegal. Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. By that definition, I think even the Vietnam war was illegal, I don't think Congress ever declared war on Vietnam.

Because Vietnam wasn't a war. :roll:

So why apply different standards to this particular war?

Probably for the same reasons you apply things differently when it comes to right v left.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Bush could never have gone to war without the support of congress. And congress was elected by a majority of Americans.

Some education in the law is needed I suppose.

That is what Congress usually does. It never declares a war, but if president goes to war, Congress will fund the war. Not to do so shows disloyalty to the troops, and can't have that.

 

[Tonington]

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

That's your democracy for you. The preceding president wasn't any better.

Your country really does need a Ron Paul to win, just to shake things up. Though Congress would still have it's Corporate shills, and that's where you can begin to see the problem. Corporations have far too much influence on your politics. And they're not making America a better place for Americans, they're making America a better place for the ultra-wealthy.

I mean it's pervasive, more than half of the Federal judges in the Gulf Coast states have ties to energy firms...whose interests are being protected when they have to balance the environmental degradation, loss of income, property values, and the revenue needs of the oil companies?

 

[CDNBear]

It {Congress} never declares a war,

Double speak much?

Only Congress can declare war and it most certainly does and has. The President is limited in both amount of Troops and length of deployment, without Congressional approval.

Just because you ignore reality to justify your partisan crap, doesn't make it any less relevant.

That's your democracy for you. The preceding president wasn't any better.

Your country really does need a Ron Paul to win, just to shake things up. Though Congress would still have it's Corporate shills, and that's where you can begin to see the problem. Corporations have far too much influence on your politics. And they're not making America a better place for Americans, they're making America a better place for the ultra-wealthy.

I mean it's pervasive, more than half of the Federal judges in the Gulf Coast states have ties to energy firms...whose interests are being protected when they have to balance the environmental degradation, loss of income, property values, and the revenue needs of the oil companies?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/u...right-people-alter-abolish-2.html#post1302640

 

[Tonington]

Yes, I was thinking of your thread when I posted this Bear. A different form of tyranny perhaps?