Former Tea Partyer/Still a Right Leaning Libertarian: Voting Obama in 2012

Originally posted by Section31
the hatred he brings out in others is good for the country.

Dumbest reason to elect a leader I have ever heard, EVER.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
One, Obama didn't run on a platform of shrinking the government.

Obama ran on the platform: (1) End Bush's policies, (2) less spending, (3) bring the troops home within a year, (4) regulate everything, (5) redistribute the wealth, (6) remove lobbyists, and (7) reduce the national deficit.

Hmmm... I see some hypocrisies.

edit on 10/31/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Making things up doesn't make them true.

You got one out of seven right, at least.

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

...but, you folks just painted Obama as a saint.

How does that work exactly?

I've never painted Obama as a "saint." I simply pointed out that neo's characterization was incorrect.

If that rates as "praising sainthood" in your book, then... Oh well. That's a problem with your sanity, not mine.

I'm pretty close to agreeing with this logic.

As someone who is not a statist, I'd sooner vote for Democrats who are largely honest that they are statist than Republicans who pretend to be small government and then want to build empires.

I'm a Paul fan, but assuming he loses and doesn't run third party (though I hope he does), I may vote for BHO. The way I see it, so many people are invested in the unsustainable status quo that they'll cling to it until it collapses from its own insolvency. The sooner we default, the better.

One other point though. I'd sooner vote for Obama than several of the Republicans including Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum, even if I was voting straight.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Carseller4
Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, as much as Obama is like Carter, there is no Ronald Reagan on the horizon as of yet.

Ronald Reagan, the man who preached about about small government like no other
and did the exact opposite

LOL .. star for you, best representation of Reagan ever.. Reagan is to "Conservative" as Obama is to "Environmentalist"

Originally posted by neo96
Oh yeah sorry his platform was "Hope and Change"

No, that was a campaign slogan. If you can't tell the difference between a slogan and the actual platforms of the campaign, then that probably means you should sit out further discussion of hte subject. Possibly don a bike helmet, too.

Name alot of things like Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and Welfare nearly doubling

Source for this claim, please? As in numbers.

not to mention all that "anti war" crap and go bombing the hell out of other countrys not named Iraq and Afghanistan

For those of us not too busy sniffing toilet paper, remember that obama didn't run on an anti-war platform. He advocated a drawdown in Iraq as dictated by the "needs of the generals" paired with an escalation in Afghanistan to reach "proper levels" in order to support the troops there and achieve the set goals.

and adding Libya,

As obligated under the NATO treaty.

Somailia,

I was just going to laugh and point out that just becausea blithering pack of morons thinks the guy is Kenyan, doesn't mean that Kenya's operation is a US operation. But, oh, I went and googled it.
Turns out we've been engaged for a while, even prior to Obama. Guess that "doesn't count" though until 1/29/09?

Pakistan,Yemen,Uganda to name a few.

Yup, there's those. Feel free to slap him around there all you like

Oh well let's pay no attention to those little things shhh lets not talk about the credit downgrade

The one caused by the Tea Party and the morons they elected, via active;y striving for this very result? When one political party is actively trying to destroy the nation's economy because the president is of hte other party, you can't blame the president when the country gets a credit downgrade.

our increased Goverment backing of student loans

Source for this "increase"?

and bailing more corporations

The corporations you vehemently support, you mean? The ones that have bought your politicians AND your vote, you mean? The ones whose financial excesses you laud and defend? Those corporations? Make up your mind here, man.

and unions

Definitely need a source on THAT.... Pfffft, obama, support unions? Bwahahahahaha.

you know all that some people on here just don't ever want to hear.

Really? Considering most of those same people invented this BS? But hten, I don't sit back and re-read my own fictional short stories, either.

Some icing on the cake here is this website but pay no nevermmind to it either

www.usdebtclock.org...

CLick on the red and green arrows at the top right and select your year oh and those red numbers don't mean stop either.

edit on 31-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Funny how the things you've claimed have "doubled" have very clearly not done so.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by neo96

 

2007's calling. They want me to inform you that the current occupant of the White house is no longer George Bush.

Hmm, it's funny you should say that; I hadn't really noticed a difference.

Then again, maybe that was the point. And maybe that's why, no matter who gets voted in, we never see a difference: because it induces a sense of powerlessness in the voters--as if loss of freedom was inevitable--and as evidenced by the sense of frustration in the OP.

reply to post by icanhaz


I guess its time to refresh the tree of liberty.

reply to post by icanhaz


Well, Li'l Boots did run on a platform of making government smaller... then oversaw the largest increase in government and government spending since, well, Ronald Reagan.

I'm not trying to argue obama has shrunk government (not that it's a particularly intelligent position anyway) but rather that he never campaigned on doing so.

I believe the problem isn't just the politicians. It's the professional bureaucrats who shuffle in and out of cabinets and federal agencies with the corporate sectors they govern.

Obama and Bush are different in meaningful ways in their core beliefs.

By contrast, Treasury Secretaries Geithner and Paulsen are not, yet they made up the core of the financial policy options presented to the respective leaders, and therefore they determined the range of "viable" options.

Is it any wonder there is no change in policy?

I'd kill for a proper kitchen cabinet these days like Andrew Jackson had.

We've got some "dogma" that has been implanted into the various political labels, to make us forget that it is what it is. I would like to see some real humanitarian and liberal values being emphasized by our government, shut up about what everyone thinks it means.

This is why they call OWS a "grassroots" movement, because it represents a return to viable economic prosperity for all and equality for all men, a core value of the United States, this is the will of the unfortunate. We have changed over the years, but lets not forget what made us what we are, the American dream.

Does it really matter if one is right or left leaning? Is this even important, what exactly does it mean? nothing.

All that matters is human progression and equality for all, the Republican and Democrat parties should be left in the dust by common sense.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

No, that was a campaign slogan. If you can't tell the difference between a slogan and the actual platforms of the campaign, then that probably means you should sit out further discussion of hte subject. Possibly don a bike helmet, too.

Yeah i can sure tell the difference between what the current Potus shovels and what your doing and who says there are no shovel ready projects been doing it for over a year.

Source for this claim, please? As in numbers.

Gave one but never rmind if you haven't been paying attention to current events then no link is going do anything here.

For those of us not too busy sniffing toilet paper, remember that obama didn't run on an anti-war platform. He advocated a drawdown in Iraq as dictated by the "needs of the generals" paired with an escalation in Afghanistan to reach "proper levels" in order to support the troops there and achieve the set goals.

What a lie he dictated rules of engagement in both theatres and took 6 months while those generals were saying give us more troops and the he went on national television and flat out lied about making bin laden his top proirity which took over 3 years and there he was living it up in Pakistan while the us was paying them.

As obligated under the NATO treaty.

Libya is in Africa not Europe who wasn't doing anything what the fearless leader did was aid Al Queda after 8 years of fighting radical Islam he and his supporters started aiding them. The kicker here is scream NATO all you want but they had no clue where he was and they the Potus and his pawn Clinton shouting with glee "We Came We saw He DEAD! now who is that we? isn't NATO.

Yup, there's those. Feel free to slap him around there all you like

Sorry must have me confused for a Liberal.

The one caused by the Tea Party and the morons they elected, via active;y striving for this very result? When one political party is actively trying to destroy the nation's economy because the president is of hte other party, you can't blame the president when the country gets a credit downgrade.

As opposed to the "morons" who elected the current Potus who bought his drivel hook line and sinker and what was the result? Are you better off with 3 years of the GREAT BIG 0 ? Millions aren't. but hey least he has his defender here rebuking what poor little Neo thinks aint that so grand?

Source for this "increase"? and bailing more

Yawn do your own research.

Definitely need a source on THAT.... Pfffft, obama, support unions? Bwahahahahaha.

GM and Chrysler hey thats a 2 fer corporations and unions oh and that beautiful trillion stimulus that went bailout state governments and teachers among others not here to spoon feed people. Oh and have heard of Solyndra andLlightsquared and the hundreds of green corporations that he is throwing billions of tax payer dollars at?

Funny how the things you've claimed have "doubled" have very clearly not done so.

No what's funny is the denial in this thread by Obama defender's and the length they will go to say "show me the facts" when they already know the material.

Yawn really bored here feel free to have the last word tired of this garbage.

Pssst i will share this link tho:

Aig2 The Treasury Department has recovered 70% of the money distributed under the $700-billion bailout fund after American International Group paid back $6.9 billion of the money it owed.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Seems money was paid back unlike all that money the current fearless leader spent.

Sorry I can't condone your actions. Only Russians and the desperate use a scorched earth policy. I know Obama is bad, but I doubt he could make things even worse in 4 years.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, as much as Obama is like Carter, there is no Ronald Reagan on the horizon as of yet.

Ronald Reagan was the beginning of "trickle down economics" and since his presidency, incomes for the middle and lower class have stalled compared to the rocketing income of the upper class.

Source

I would really challenge your assumptions and beliefs about this man.

Given that even that crazy Koran burner and the leader of those crazy fundamentalists who protest at soldiers' funerals say the current GOP/TP candidates are "too extreme"...I can't blame you.

I'm no fan of Obama, but the current GOP/TP candidates are a bit of a joke, and clearly bought sock puppets of Wall Street an Big Business...even more so than Obama (which is quite hard).

Originally posted by brianmg5
Ronald Reagan was the beginning of "trickle down economics" and since his presidency, incomes for the middle and lower class have stalled compared to the rocketing income of the upper class.

I keep seeing this type of mentality being posted. Its interesting and flawed.

What do you think will happen to Obamacare when Obama leaves office? Since there are a lot of healthcare lobbyists attached to the bill, how long do you think it will take them to 'force you to do something'? Or, buy something? Or, ban certain foods? Or, tell you how to behave? If you read through the guts of Obamacare, the mandate imposed upon citizens has no limitations. First, you are mandated to buy healthcare. Second, your behavior is mandated in the name of lowering healthcare costs for everyone. Do you want someone to tell you that you cannot eat certain foods or drinks? How about telling you that you could no longer do something physical, for the risks of such activity will result in physical harm? Obamacare is a mandated law that puts government in physical control of your physical self. Instead of having a government controlling your behavior at arms length, they are now going to control your behavior with full contact.

Obama's national healthcare and clean energy mandates are controlled by special-interest groups. Many of them gave Democrats campaign money for election 2008 and 2012.

Even though Ronald Reagan put certain policies in place, the presidents that followed have manipulated them.

Obamacare is worse than Bush's wire tapping, for the government will now have full control over your well being.

Get where I am going?

I would rather have the government listen to my phone calls.

reply to post by Section31


You make it sound as if the government is harming your health

Seriously, Obamacare is nothing but a slightly modified version of Romneycare. And last I checked it's working pretty well in Massachusetts. Works just fine in Hawaii too, and no one there is complaining about "the government taking over their health" or similar nonsense

Originally posted by neo96
Ronald Reagan had something to say about this listen.

As someone who loves his country and i am tired of it being run into the ground i can not and will not cast a vote for more destruction.

Sorry.

Golly how quickly they forget. Democrats are made. Republicans are purchased. Why do people forget that? You can't just take anyone and call them a Democrat. They have to already had the ear of the people like a Kennedy or a Martin Luther King or even a Micheal Moore. Their ideals are firmly in place. They are not SELLING out their principals and values for political expediency. When they decide to do that, they become Republicans.

When they do decide finally to quit BUCKING THE CURRENT, since corruption is the order of the day in DC, they become REPUBLICANS and trash the working man in a sell out to corporate interests.

Here is Reagan before he SOLD HIS SOUL. You can hear the genuine passion and sincerity in his voice. Listen to later speeches of his, other than a few notable exceptions - they're acting jobs. He is reading a speech written for him by someone else. He didn't even practice it much beforehand as you can see in the first video he is stumbling on a few words in almost every sentence. He doesn't even know what he's reading. The genial smile is plastered on like a syrupy over coating.

Conversely not so in the second video here as a DEMOCRAT. He is clear and true. We are getting the genuine man and his true feelings. This is the last time the man was honest with himself and the country. Listen to him...And nothing he says here has changed. He is the only thing that changed.

RONALD REAGAN SPEAKING AS A DEMOCRAT

reply to post by Section31

What do you think will happen to Obamacare when Obama leaves office? Since there are a lot of healthcare lobbyists attached to the bill, how long do you think it will take them to 'force you to do something'? Or, buy something? Or, ban certain foods? Or, tell you how to behave? If you read through the guts of Obamacare, the mandate imposed upon citizens has no limitations. First, you are mandated to buy healthcare. Second, your behavior is mandated in the name of lowering healthcare costs for everyone. Do you want someone to tell you that you cannot eat certain foods or drinks?

Such alarmist BS. People with preexisting conditions get health care and other previously neglected groups and some of the basic preventative tests are now covered. What is going to happen when Obama leaves office is someone will try to take those away and the people won't have it, they won't stand for it. Nobody is forcing you to take a nationalized healthcare program or even to change from the coverage you already have.

You are aware that as a Nation we do not escape the health care costs of those who cannot pay?
They are treated and costs are absorbed into the system. This will never change.

But did you ever hear the adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" God forbid someone should think ahead. I would only amend it to say less than an ounce of prevention is worth a truckload of cure.

When you trash the "ounce of prevention" method of handling illness and disease in the US you are buying the pound of cure as sure as you are standing there. And you are effectively killing people as well as supporting global conglomerates making tidy profits selling everyone the POUNDS AND POUNDS OF CURE. That's all you are doing and it is far more criminal in my eyes than what you accuse this administration of. Why not just mail the Rockefeller a check if you are OK with supporting them and making sure they stay at the top of their game?

You are favoring global conglomerates over individuals. I think what we see under Obama is a refreshing change of direction. Putting people first and not corporate welfare.

I don't see us spiraling into hell as you apparently do.

Now, during the Bush years did I ever have "spiraling into hell" in the back of my mind as a very real concern? You bet your hedge fund I did.

Originally posted by Section31
Former Tea Partyer/Still a Right Leaning Libertarian: Voting Obama in 2012
After suffering at the hands of Democrats for six years, I have decided to vote for Barack Hussein Obama in 2012. Even though I despise everything the man stands for, I am voting him into office in the next election. Obama may have done long-term damage to our nation, but the hatred he brings out in others is good for the country. As a right-leaning libertarian voter, I have never had my passions driven to the brink. I voted for Clinton, Bush, Bush, and McCain. Now, I am voting for Barack Hussein Obama. Out of all the candidates running in 2012, I would rather stick with the devil I know. Once Obama destroys what is left of our nation, the structure of our society will be ready for a new era. My thoughts have moved beyond 2012 and 2016. In order to win the future back, sometimes you have to destroy everything you love. After Obama's two terms of societal hell, I see something very different and new on the horizon. Even though many people are fearing the future, I see something unimaginable waiting for us.

Be ready my fellow Americans, for the new Renascence will arrive soon.

edit on 10/30/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Funny...the fact that Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer did not ring any bells?
Raise any red flags?

And what a coincidence we are now fighting a military industrial complex that wants to profit off taking both sides in every war. Sell tanks and planes to who ever is asking for them and has the money. War profiteers are angry with Obama and they want to see him go. We need someone with the appropriate military might. In other words, someone who will make sure these arms dealers stay in business.