Originally posted by sh76And the Constitution is sometimes his only obstacle from winning.
The President's core principles are that he likes winning and doesn't like losing.
Everything else is pretty much up for grabs.
Ron Paul actually gives a damn about the Constitution. I suppose it's what makes him a loon. 🙄
As Al Davis once said, "Just win baby!!" ðŸ˜
To be honest, I have no idea where all of these blind shills for Obama and the Democrats come from. You simply don't see them on the GOP side of things for the most part.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyIf I am not mistaken, President Obama has used Executive Orders significantly less than many of his predecessors. Do you give Obama some credit for this?
You mean like his endless Executive Orders which Ron Paul swears he will avoid using because they are unconstitutional?
Originally posted by FMFRight now I think Obama stands at 111 Executive Orders. According to Ron, he would have zero.
If I am not mistaken, President Obama has used Executive Orders significantly less than many of his predecessors. Do you give Obama some credit for this?
From what I can assess, the average number of Executive Orders is around 200 to 300 per modern era presidents. Do I give Obama credit for not having as many? Well, his term is not done yet. Also, you must look at what those orders were. For example, if FDR only had one Executive Order, which was to imprison Japanese Americans during WW2, I think it may be far worse than a president with 300 Executive Orders that did not blantantly mock the Constitution as badly like that one sole Executive Order to imprison Japanese Americans.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeySo? Do you give Obama some credit for using EOs less often than many of his predecessors?
Right now I think Obama stands at 111 Executive Orders. According to Ron, he would have zero.
From what I can assess, the average number of Executive Orders is around 200 to 300 per modern era presidents. Do I give Obama credit for not having as many? Well, his term is not done yet. Also, you must look at what those orders were. For example, if FDR ...[text shortened]... ock the Constitution as badly like that one sole Executive Order to imprison Japanese Americans.
Originally posted by sh76I would have to say that this is what makes Obama such a formidable political foe. My guess is he would sell his soul and the soul of his mothers mother to "win", while all the while sit back and pretend like he is some likable nice guy.
The President's core principles are that he likes winning and doesn't like losing.
Everything else is pretty much up for grabs.
Ron Paul has no chance against this type of adversary. It's like a wolf among sheep. In fact, I just read that Chicago politics is one of the most crooked in the nation. He learned from the best of the best.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhat would Ron Paul do about the Strait of Hormuz issue if he were president?
I would have to say that this is what makes Obama such a formidable political foe. My guess is he would sell his soul and the soul of his mothers mother to "win", while all the while sit back and pretend like he is some likable nice guy.
Ron Paul has no chance against this type of adversary. It's like a wolf among sheep. In fact, I just read that Chicago politics is one of the most crooked in the nation. He learned from the best of the best.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyWell you are a prominent advocate of his candidacy and policies here at RHP and you have paid attention to him, so what do you say Ron Paul would do about the Strait of Hormuz issue if he were president?
Of course, we might know if people would actually pay attention instead of the other three stooges who are hell bent on starting a war.
16 Feb 12
If Ron Paul was president instead of Obama there would be no Strait of Hormuz issue. Obama created the instability by leading the push for crippling sanctions. Ron Paul has spoken out against those sanctions in debates.
The concise answer is Ron Paul would have prevented the problem from happening in the first place. Obama could reverse course and have a policy of ending the crippling sanctions (which are considered to many an act of war) and the Strait of Hormuz issue would go away. Sanctions don't work as a deterrent anyway. The real purpose of the sanctions is to weaken Iran as a prep for war. That is what was done to Iraq too. Remember "oil for food'?
16 Feb 12
Any president/candidate will strategically nuke Iran's bomb and its ayatollahs to pieces, for there are more important things for the US then the personal agenda of some president/candidate.
Free access to oil at marketprices is one of them.
Supporting Israel at any cost is another, but for the same oil reasons. Having a friend in the Middle East is crucial.
But, going to war and getting 50+% of the votes for that, says a lot about the US don't you think?
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell said. Sanctions are merely an act of war and never accomplish victory. To gain "victory", we all know what has to be done and what will be done.
If Ron Paul was president instead of Obama there would be no Strait of Hormuz issue. Obama created the instability by leading the push for crippling sanctions. Ron Paul has spoken out against those sanctions in debates.
The concise answer is Ron Paul would have prevented the problem from happening in the first place. Obama could reverse course and hav ...[text shortened]... to weaken Iran as a prep for war. That is what was done to Iraq too. Remember "oil for food'?
All we need now is a President to go in after their "WMD's" once again. Maybe "W" can run again?
17 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyPresident Obama was well within his executive power to lead the US participation in the Libyan conflict, and Congress funded that participation. To imply that the intelligience and small amount of equipment/funds contributed by the US to that conflict required a declaration of war is ridiculous. The framers of the Constitution never intended that the President as Commander-in-Chief would be so restricted. Moreover, the framers would have supported the President ignoring the unconstitutional War Power's resolution. In sum, the President made an excellent call in America's interest.
Obama is just as principled as Ron Paul? You mean the way Obama went to war without declaring war or consulting Congress? You mean like his endless Executive Orders which Ron Paul swears he will avoid using because they are unconstitutional? Is Ron Paul the modern day Jesus Christ everyone wants a peice of but rejects him in his entirety?
Pfft. If anyone deserves a Nobel Peace Prize it ain't the joker in the White House, rather, it's Ron Paul.
Further, the idea that any government action including an executive order is bad is stupid. Indeed, it is beneficial to America to have a strong executive who actually governs including issuing executive orders instead of a do-nothing president. Also, excutive orders are amply supported by the Consitution. After all, the executive "branch" is one of the three branches of government.
Lastly, Ron Paul has a very distorted and unsupported interpretation of the Constitution, and would be very bad for America as president.
Originally posted by sh76I couldn't disagree more. President Obama, like President Clinton, will go down in history as a true American hero, and having the core principle of improving quality of life for American families.
The President's core principles are that he likes winning and doesn't like losing.
Everything else is pretty much up for grabs.
Moreover, the unsupported personal attacks against Clinton, Bush, and Obama have never made sense to me.
