Obamahawk

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    Back in 2008, Ron Paul warned us about Barack Obama and the fact that his foreign policy would almost certainly essentially mirror that of the Democrats and Neo-Cons for the past 60 years.

    Since that day, Obama has failed to close Guantanamo, failed to end the war in Iraq, escalated the war in Afghanistan, promoted and maintained the Patriot Act, and today stands as the worlds' most powerful advocate for American military involvement in Libya!

    Yet another war, yet another military action which will inevitably cause 'blow-back', started by a man who sold himself to you as a military dove. When will the people realize that there's essentially no difference between the two parties? One advocates bigger government, but they both vote for it. One advocates for bigger military, but they both vote for it, there's no difference between them... and the end result is a trillion + of dollars in annual deficit, a failing economy, and a debt hole so large we may never be able to dig ourselves out.

    When you voted for 'change' in 2008, you really voted for more of the same. Expansion of the government, expansion of the Military Industrial Complex, and the direct and indirect reduction in personal liberty. There was only one candidate in 2008 and will likely be only one candidate in 2012 who ACTUALLY stood for REAL change... and that is Ron Paul.

    The difference between Ron Paul and Barack Obama
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    Who is this "you" that you speak of? I didn't vote for Obama. :rolleyes:
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    While I might agree with some of things you said, I do have to take exception to this point. How did Obama sell himself as a "military dove"?

    He campaigned on getting out of Iraq, while escalating our campaign in Afghanistan. And promises to close Gitmo had more to do with due process than it did pacifism.

    So please 5P, provide some evidence on how Obama sold himself as a "dove".

    And please, let's dispense with your ridiculous "both parties are the same line". Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see Newt Gingrich?
     
  4. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #4
    While I disagree with your statement that both parties are the same, I will concede that both parties work for interests that are not necessarily the same as those of the people who voted for them...
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Agreed. I'm getting tired of these sensational, histrionic and downright dishonest threads.
     
  6. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #6
    How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.

    How many times did he attempt to portray himself as the polar opposite of George Bush, especially his foreign policy? Lots.

    How many times did he say that he was going to repair the view of America in the eyes of the Muslim world? Lots.

    How many times did he say he would talk to leaders of 'terrorist nations' without preconditions? Lots.

    The point is... he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. On foreign policy, he's more of the same. On everything else, especially domestic spending, he's much much worse.
     
  7. obeygiant, Mar 17, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2011

    obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #7
    This is no more "sensational," or "histrionic," than any other thread I've seen in the PRSI. And you'll have to outline where its "dishonest."

    I think you're just pissed that someone doesn't hold your worldview. In any case you're just building a straw man so you don't have to debate the issues by trying to shoot the messenger.


    @5p who says Ron Paul would be any different once elected into office. Its obvious that once presidents get into office that something changes and they try to govern from the middle.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.

    I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
     
  9. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #9
    If you need links for the items the 5p listed, you weren't paying attention during the campaign.

     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    He was against the war from the beginning, and he campaigned on ending the Iraq war and escalating the Afghanistan war in an attempt to do what we went there for in the first place; and actually plan on an orderly end of the conflict. So, yes, you are correct. He was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and he said so. Bravo, 1-1 so far.

    In what ways has he not been the polar opposite? Do you have examples or cites? He did try to close Guantanamo, and the GOP blocked him. He actually put in place a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. He actually focused our efforts on Afghanistan; the war that started in response to 9/11 (almost 10 years ago btw).

    Hasn't he? A dead fish would have had a better image than GWB in that part of the world.

    Fixed that for ya.
     
  11. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    Obeygiant, you have a way of distilling issues down to their core. The funny thing is, I don't think Lee even realizes he's doing it.



    The short answer is, you can't ever be 100% sure. However, I'll let his record stand for itself:
    • He has never voted to raise taxes.
    • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    • He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    • He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    • He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    • He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    • He voted against the Patriot Act.
    • He voted against regulating the Internet.
    • He voted against the Iraq war.



    Exactly. Citizenzen is just avoiding the obvious truth and he knows it.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12
    Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    As opposed to voting for breaking the system down for the benefit of banks and big corporations? We have seen the actions of neo-liberals like Scott Walker: if he gets his way, the whole state will belong to Cargill and Schneider and Bergstrom and Johnsonville, etc, with no government left to protect citizens and businesses from corporate interests. Paul is cut from the same cloth. Put him in the Whitehouse and there will be millions of people protesting full time in DC, because they will have nothing else to do with their time.

    Paul wants to shut down government. All that would be left is the few peace officers needed to protect business from millions of poor people. That is the neo-liberal utopia, as envisioned by Alisa Rosenbaum. This kind of policy has clearly been shown to be a recipe for potentially violent revolution:
    source

    Except, Americans are not likely to wait 30 years before fighting back.
     
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    Ron Paul believes in term limits, but keeps running and running and running...

    Oh, and Rand didn't fall far from the tree. From wiki for anyone who is curious:

    He won't ever be president, and he should have resigned his seat years ago.

    It's one thing to vote against pay raises; it's another to actually do something about them. It's one thing to vote against many things that you know are going to pass, and another to stand up to your party when it counts.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    If the truth is so obvious, prove it.

    If there are "lots" of examples, then show them.

    Otherwise, you're engaging in, at best, lazy debate.

    I expect better from both of you.
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #16
    Me too. It's getting so I can open the thread, look at the first couple of sentences and realize the rest isn't worth spending my time on.
     
  17. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #17
    Lucky! I was, but he took me off.



    Ultra FAIL fear mongering. Libertarian ≠ Anarchist. Small government ≠ no government. Limiting government with constitutional constraints ≠ destruction of government.
    He's a common sense constitutional conservative, enemy of tyranny everywhere, and an unfailing defender of fundamental human liberty.
     
  18. hulugu, Mar 17, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2011

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    This seems to be the unfortunate reality. While, as other have pointed out, Obama has worked towards withdrawing US forces in Iraq and reengaging in Afghanistan—both things that he said he would do—Obama has failed in closing Guantanamo and recent debacles in Pakistan and Afghanistan have hurt our image in the Mid East and Central Asia.

    It's interesting, I don't see hypocrisy on Obama's part, rather I see him trying and failing to deal with shifting realities on the ground and a combative political party.

    I think Obama might be right about Libya, even if it's another military engagement.
    I think Obama's right about Afghanistan, even though we need to reign in the CIA's operations in Pakistan.
    I think Obama's right about Iraq, we needed to leave years ago and now is certainly the time to go.

    I think Obama's wrong about military tribunals at Guantanamo, but I also understand that the situation is complex, difficult, and fraught with fear-mongering from the right.
    I also think he's wrong about the PATRIOT Act.

    Of course, the question of whether Ron Paul would be any different is effectively academic because Paul has yet to survive a GOP primary. If Republicans agree with Paul on these issues, they should make Paul their next presidential candidate.

    Apparently, he's Captain America.
     
  19. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #19
    OK, I confess, "shut down" was a slight exaggeration. But as the paragon of neo-liberalism, Paul would wholly gut every little regulatory agency that provides any kind of buffer that protects people and businesses from the depredations of corporate interests, instead electing to enact policies that would protect corporations from the depredations of people. That would be the net effect of his idealism, and if you take five minutes to read the article I linked to, it will become evident that Paul's lasseiz-faire ideals have been proven to fail miserably (unless you are already loaded). Heck, we have seen parallels in the lingering devastation caused by Reagan's policies.
     
  20. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    Actually, not at all.

    (edit) Just in case anyone thinks I don't give credit where credit is due:

     
  21. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #21
    Boy, are you in for a disappointment. :rolleyes:
     
  22. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #22
    Ron Paul is a Christian nutjob. a squirrels wet dream.
    He wants a small government small enough to fit in the bedroom and between a woman's legs. I love the small govement thing but then there are all these things government should control.


    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul
     
  23. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #23
    Uhhh....didn't america become a fully secular nation a few centuries ago? pretty sure i grew up in a secular nation. america is NOT a christian nation, never was, and definitely never will be. As for the second part about being biased against christianity, that's just too unintelligent and ignorant to respond too, i wouldn't even know where to begin. The day we start taxing churches, but not other religious houses of worship, is the day we become biased against christianity. personally i don't think religious organizations should be tax exempt. We can totally fix the deficit just by taxing the catholic church alone...
     
  24. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    Probably not, but it would help a lot. Especially if we could tax them at unearned income rates. I say we should do it. Religious leaders are the source of a great many of this world's problem, it is time we charge them for the cleanup.
     
  25. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #25
    He did say all those things - but none of those make him a military dove, since in his debates with McCain he did extensively paint Afghanistan as the "right war," or the place were America "should have been." How many times did he promise to "find and kill" Bin Laden? Even before the debates he was openly pushing Afghan and Pakistan escalation.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4

    According to the Tea Party, he's doing everything he can to appease Muslims, too. While they obviously are using that as an attack, his speeches in the middle east and Egypt after his election showed a marked difference in communication and downplayed American exceptionalism. Plus, so far he hasn't had a request from a terrorist leader to talk, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not really a fair comparison.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
    (I can't good youtube links for his Turkey speech - the one with the "not a Christian nation remark)

    Obviously he's failed on a lot of campaign promises - especially on the front of reversing Bush domestic policies like the PATRIOT act - but I'd argue that people who saw Obama as the anti-war candidate were the ones who didn't pay attention. The last part about spending doesn't really connect to this issue.
     

Share This Page