there are plenty of obama apologists that post in the RP thread that i'm hoping will soon make an appearance here...

It's 170ish

Just another example of a minority trying to hold down and manipulate white conservative men.

So I'm waiting for the dems to start bawling about boa and bahabickey the way the RP fanboys freak out about fly and MaxRaker.

Why is it that pointing out RP's flaws in the RP thread causes maximum levels of butthurt in a very short # of posts, but attacking Obama in the Obama thread is 100% accepted and standard? Hmmmm.... I guess I just have too ignorant of a closed mind to grasp this.

If I just could open my mind a little maybe I would realize why attacking dr paul is so very very different than attacking mba prof obama.

His supporters insist on calling him dr paul because congressman paul would be offensive, #libertarianmindset

suzzer,

for one (among other things), a number of the attacks against paul are based on hypotheticals and ill-informed assumptions

a number of the attacks against obama are based on the last 3 years of his presidency, his lies during his campaign, and the reality in which we all currently live.

can you distinguish between the two? do you think there might be some differences there?

glad to help!

*edit* here is a hopefully helpful example:

AKSpartan: Sure is crazy that Obama claimed he wouldn't sign the NDAA with that language in it, and yet he did? The ACLU sure has some valid points (as glenn greenwald would agree) about how messed up that is. I will now try to understand and come up for reasons for why our president is doing such 'wild things' that sound like they come from the pages of a conspiracy blog only a mere 6 months ago.

Suzzer: You think that is the stripping of rights?! Under your God Ron-Paul-Down-Syndrome the markets would have crushed your rights that the government gives you! DRO's would be free to indefinitely detain anyone!! SO STFU ABOUT OBAMA WAHHH. You are lucky Paul is so old and unelectable! Also, he is a government insider!

*double edit* 53 posts without a single mention of ron paul or libertarianism until you posted Suzzer. hmmm

Suzzer butthut over people not being butthurt itt

Posts reported. Wahhhhh. Go away! Wahhhhhh!

Snaggle, so the criticisms of Obama in 2008 were unfounded? By that measure shouldn't the incumbent always lose to the pie-in-the-sky guy? Are the attacks on Romney based on ill-informed hypotheticals?

I look forward to Max Raker having the most posts ITT

yeah, that sounds about right, and is in line with what I remember. You know what the only credible link I could come up with when I googled 3000+ innocents killed was? 9/11.

170ish still too many, and I was ready for the Afghanistan War to end immediately after one of the errant strikes killed about 30 innocents a couple of years ago.

But I knew that Obama was going to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan and hunt OBL when he took office b/c he said he would during his campaign.

And Bin Laden is now dead.

And this guy is dead now too: Ilyas Kashmiri.

He's the guy responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 164. He also planned the attack on the Danish newspaper that published the Muhammad cartoon, for which he was indicted on 2 counts. He was killed by a drone strike on the Pakistan/Afghan border last June. He was a possible successor to OBL.

Glad they whacked Al-Awlaki too. **** him. You lose your US citizenship and rights to full due process when you declare war on the USA, hide out abroad, and conspire to blow up planes, both over Detroit and a British Airways aircraft. Al-Awlaki did that and he got done, well done.

And the Iraq War is over. Done. Finished. "Mission Accomplished". Stupid and illegal war imo, but it's now finished.

If the Afghanistan War draws down soon and ends in a couple years, I will be happy.

Yes, I am totally ****ing satisfied that Bin Laden got shot in the face.

Amazing that there are so many Libertarians who are like "yeah, had to fight the North and their war of aggression to take our slaves, but don't want to fight or drone strike any terrorists plotting to blow up planes, buildings and nuke us if they had the capability. Nope."

It's not like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen do not give us permission to strike militants there, and it's not like there is anyone in ACland Somalia to give permission or not as it's, well, ACland, where might makes right, which is the whole problem Libertarianism in the first place.

Honestly, I get the sense that Libertarians realize that the economy is not all that bad considering the hole Bush put us in, so they rant about drone strikes. Every Libertarian's biggest gripe is with the Fed. No mention about about the actual economy, low inflation, positive GDP growth, healthy treasury market with plenty of demand and plenty of supply of US debt, etc.

Better talk about the drone attacks. We might get somewhere there.

Obama deserves less than zero credit for this as the timeline was set by Bush. What he should get credit for is privatizing the war in time for the election... what a genius!

Vote Obama because he will legalize online poker and won't crack down on states that have legalized medical marijuana.

I suspect its cos virtually all the attacks against Obama itt have been "he is black", which is true, and most of the attacks against Ron Paul in his thread were "he is a crackpot", which is also true but much harder to accept if you are a supporter of his.

FWIW - I talked to someone who manages one of the dispensaries in LA. She said the cities are just using the justice department to get rid of them in the places the cities don't want them - like San Diego. She felt pretty secure in LA.

Still sucks. Just adding that info.

Also while Obama probably didn't help the cause any wrt to online poker, you can blame the republicans for the UIGEA and the SDNY attorney.

This, obviously. If he was white we'd all be madly, deeply in love. Alas...

Lol, this is pretty silly.

Following through on the plan of someone else is clearly doing things. In fact its the hardest part of doing anything, any idiot can decide on a timeline, its pretty skillful to stick to that timeline.

I guess, if im being kind, we could say Obama deserves half the credit and Bush the other half?

The only way we should give Obama any credit is if we accept that he had a choice: Ie. we reject all notions of Iraq sovereignty, and that the withdrawal time frame was in fact not an actual agreement between the US and Iraq.

To be clear I'm not taking any parties side in this. The Repubs are ignoring that it was Bushs timeline and are attacking him for withdrawing poorly. The Dems are ignoring that it was Bushs timeline and are congratulating him for ending a war started on lies.

It's no wonder so many people are quick to give him credit for the withdrawal... I was just pointing out that no credit is actually due despite the propaganda from both sides.

In 2012 people will vote against Obama because they now know that he is incompetent, end of story.

It does not matter why people voted for him in 2008. He was just an image, an unknown quantity. Whether he got votes for being black, or being a change agent, or for being handsome, or for speaking well, who cares, it was all just from the marketing of an image.

He is not just an image now. Today he is a very real solid failed politician, and it will be hard for anyone to ignore that.

The timeline could have easily spiralled out of control. I get why you like the idea of not giving credit to politicians when things go as planned because you are a Paul fan but if there is no credit for Obama carrying it through then why should any politicians get blame when things go wrong? Nothing magically just happens.

Fwiw ive not heard Republicans attacking him for the Iraq withdrawal, but ive not gone looking either. They have attacked him for the Afghanistan timeline though.

Imo, if someone follows through on a contract they don't deserve praise. That's just normal and to be expected. If someone breaks a contract that is bad, and deserves blame.

Also "timeline spiraling out of control" just sounds like the usual sophistry. We have troops there. March em home the same way they marched in. Don't really see why there'd be a ton of excuses unless some particular battle was waging and we just had to stick around to "finish it".

And anyway the troops aren't coming home, they've been outsourced to government contractors or are being redeployed in the region, or are now being called personnel of the mega huge base we built there (17000 people to staff it iirc... not such a small operation)

So youre saying that Obama is good at following Bush's plans.

I agree.

Those people who keep saying Obama is "leading by following from behind" are right then.

This is why i can never find any middle ground with some of you guys. No offence. Once Iraq was started there was no "lets just immediately withdraw" option. When Ron Paul talks about immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan leaving it open for the Taliban and Pakistan to just instantly stroll back in i facepalm at how he literally doesnt care about innocent people. He literally doesnt care about the reputation of America and its allies in the world. He literally doesnt understand that actions have consequences and the idea that leaving a power vacuum is preferable to the staggered organised withdrawal is idiotic.

So the fact that obama suppoters are not having hissy fits about attacks that are not being made is evidence that...

But can you see how staggered, methodical withdrawals intent on not leaving a power vacuum leads to never ending occupations and nation building?

It's not like there is any foreseeable moment when we can all smile proudly and say "We totally made Afghanistan awesome! We can go home now with PRIDE!"

The whole concept of there being a "right way to withdraw" inevitably seems to become an excuse to never withdraw.