hey wait isn't obama two of those three

His. Exact. Words.

That's probably why it's in quotations.

On most issues Obama is a status quo conservative. Especially when it comes to the Military and Financial industry.

After all, he cut taxes, supported the bush wars in Iraq and Afganistan, let the wall street crooks go free and advanced indefinate detention of US citizens.

On top of that, he signed off on a Conservative private health care reform bill.

He makes Bill clinton look like a commie

obama is like george bush: he's conservative where it's not good to be, and liberal where it's dangerous

name one issue where he's a "dangerous" liberal.





"big gubment" doesn't count.

how does that not count

that's like saying "name one time oj killed someone. that thing in 1992 doesn't count."

You are way too locked in the divide and conquer 2-party shell game our current fantasy of a political system is promoting. The Big Banks are in the process of creating an open world government. The last 4 Presidents at least, have been in one way or the other, complicit with the process. The office of the Presidency itself has become a seat of power in which the proper goodwill of the men who occupy it is forever compromised by the forces of political nature.

Any rhetoric to how Obama is more conservative than liberal or vice-versa is merely brainwashed pap in Pavlovian response mode to Fox/MSNBC talking points. The networks themselves are bought and sold PR arms of both parties. It's all rather Hegelian for the most part. please catch up so we can further the discussion.

Barack Obama did not support the war in Iraq

not until he became president

Iowa 2012:


They, the Iowa Republican establishment, likely stole the election from Ron Paul. If you bother to investigate the process in how the votes were counted, its more than plausible that is what happened. GOP folks in the state were worried that if Iowa went to Paul, they would lose their first in line caucus status:


There's the Governor, Terry Branstad, publicy acknowledging his opinion that if Ron Paul wins the caucus, it would de-legitimize Iowa.


Votes tallied at a secret location for "security concerns"


NO VOTER I.D. Needed: The GOP, which makes this issue a hallmark of their national campaign, decides its OK for caucus voters to not have a photo ID to vote. This is what is called a big Red Flag!


You have Romney and Santorum winning in districts where Paul had twice as many votes in the straw polls of those districts. This and the Iowa process of open voting makes it tougher to fix the vote without it getting noticed.


And last but not least, Karl Rove, known fixer of elections (Bush 2000 - Florida) claiming that there's been a 'gentlemen's agreement' between Romney and Santorum about how the process of the voting would be counted and their results, likely alluding to how they would make sure Paul wouldn't win and risk the state losing its status as the first caucus.


.................


No smoking gun, I realize. Short of a whistleblower saying they misrepresented the vote, there's no proof. But there's more than enough here to raise concern and the fact the shills in the media just go along with the charade instead of asking the tough questions is further evidence of how the fix is in.

it doesn't count because it's a non issue. every conservative to occupy the white house since Nixon has expanded the powers of the federal government and increased the size of the debt and deficit.

As has every conservative republican congress.

to say that conservative republicans are anti big government is either utter ignorance or a lie.

are you ignorant? or a liar?

I like to think of you as a bad liar. But most "Austrian school" followers are ignorant. So it's a toss-up.

heehee

I have to agree with you on most of your points. :think: kind of freaks me out.

except for part of your Ron Paul comment. Only 122k people voted in Iowa. 5% of Iowans participating in a closed "caucus" process is not indicative of the popular opinion of Iowa, or of Iowa republicans. Are only 5% of Iowans republican? I believe that all the polling that I've seen up to this tiny little caucus was of "likely Iowan republican caucus goers" and not all republicans in Iowa. It would be interesting to see what all republican in Iowa think of their candidates.

but the truth is that Paul holds wildly unpopular views on many subjects that a great number of republicans treat as "single issue" or litmus test issues. Like drugs, abortion, etc. etc. Paul will NEVER be supported by more than a fraction of republicans in any state, because the republican coalition is heavily staffed by social conservatives who believe in the liberal use of Government (federal, state and local) to restrict personal liberties. There is also the nation building/big military wing of the republican party, which overlaps several other constituencies. Again, opposed to Paul's views.

If Paul is so wildly popular, why is he wasting his time in a rigged republican system? It's because outside of it, he'd end up like Nader. He'd get some attention for maybe one election cycle, and then without any stake in a major party, he'd be ignored by the media, and a lot of his less ardent supporters would drift back to the GOP, where some of their other views (not in alignment with Paul's) are represented.

so you're saying the 30-second (literally) "session" makes a determinative difference

you are so awful

but scotty please just shut up. you're not helping anything.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0105092942.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0105094523.jpg

Politifact – Obamater: Direct military leaders to end War in Iraq on day one

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...romiseKept.jpg

Politifact – Obamater: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq within first 16 months of presidency

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...romiseKept.jpg

Politifact – Obamater: Launch robust diplomatic effort with iraq and its neighbors to help stability

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...Compromise.jpg

Politifact – Obamater: No permanent bases in Iraq

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...romiseKept.jpg

what am I not helping? you mean I'm antagonizing nimrod? I'm not the only one arguing with him.

because you're a moron, that's why you're not helping

he followed bush's war plan, including the withdrawl target. And he continued other related practices started by the bush administration (Gitmo)

go fuck your cat

i have a dog

go 69 your dog

cause fucking a dog is disgusting

How is anyone supposed to take this seriously without a politifact link?

that takes a lot of work. and it's not as fun as looking up placenta recipes

I love how he takes credit for pulling out the troops on the exact day George Bush signed an agreement to do so.

see above what does this even meanalready agreed upon before he took office

But but guys...he gave a speech about it.

Didnt he change his timeline mid campaign to match up with W? The main difference that comes to mind would be leaving no troops at all, but that was more about Iraq rejecting the terms than Obama pulling them out.

Of course Obama probably Jedi mindfucked them into rejecting the terms.

the iraq 'promises' were made in 07, and the finalized withdrawal deadlines were drawn up in late 08 by the bush admin, which were more or less in line with what obama had proposed on the campaign trail

so its a wash. i don't think there's a side of the argument anybody "wins" unless you want to get really petty about it