Political Discussion

[goodyphilips]

If this operation was strategically timed by Obama, which i do not think could be likely, then this is the greatest master stroke by him, which could pave the way for his re-election.

[jacko]

Ron Paul is a running joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbFajYk3C4&sns=em

[jacko]

Social Security surplus revenues have been used to fund the rest of the federal budget. Its self funded.

And your source for this piece of information is ?

Good luck to us all.

[jacko]

Are you saying the others are not honest and not have integrity?

Although I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes, he is at least one of the few honest politicians with integrity. We would be a better country if we had a few more honest politicians with a little integrity.

[banca rotta]

Social Security surplus revenues have been used to fund the rest of the federal budget. Its self funded.

Yes but it reversed in the past year. Now the general fund is paying back the S.S. fund. The S.S. surplus is no more.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/social-security-cash-flow-suddenly-negative

This is a big reason why we are running 1.5 trillion in annual deficits.

For years we all heard CBO and other stats that these entitlement funds would be exhausted 30-40 years from now, but the 2008 financial crisis, bailouts and the high unemployment (lower tax revenues/higher welfare & unemployment programs) just made this long time problem an immediate problem.

We suddenly went overnight from 300 billion to trillions in annual deficits.

They will mask the problem for now with monetary inflation, but that's a short term solution.

[IBroke]

Now IBroke.. you know better than to say that We (meaning the US military / agencies) have been looking for that rat bastard since before 9/11 - so...cant give the credit to Obama - give credit where credit is due: our military and gov't Agencies that have been non-stop for years, even prior to 9/11 as Bin Laden was responsible for MANY attacks (USS Cole, somalia, US embassies, etc etc..just to name a few). He's been on the FBI's top 10 for decades.

Keep in mind though that according to George W Bush, getting Bin Laden was "not the top priority"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Q0Lf-iLXs

BTW, here's a guy that must feel pretty stupid since yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPJD-cIAOA

[msm859]

Are you saying the others are not honest and not have integrity?

Well I actually said he is "one of the few". Are there other honest politicians AND with integrity sure, Bernie Sanders comes to mind. I don't profess to know all of them. However, when every Republican save 4 vote for Ryan's budget I can only conclude they did so because they lack integrity and are pandering to the radical right or there corporate masters and/or are not honest and know that it will not benefit this country or finally are just completely incompetent -- your choice. Incidentally Ron Paul did not vote for it.

[msm859]

Now IBroke.. you know better than to say that We (meaning the US military / agencies) have been looking for that rat bastard since before 9/11 - so...cant give the credit to Obama - give credit where credit is due: our military and gov't Agencies that have been non-stop for years, even prior to 9/11 as Bin Laden was responsible for MANY attacks (USS Cole, somalia, US embassies, etc etc..just to name a few). He's been on the FBI's top 10 for decades.

Sorry, Pandora the credit (and the blame when it goes bad) ALWAYS goes to the leader. You cannot say this would have had happened without Obama's leadership. Obama made it a number 1 priority - Bush passed it off after he could not find him -- for 7 years -- said it wasn't important. Whether You like it or not Obama IS the commander in chief of the Military. He WAS the person who made the order to go in. If the mission would have failed everyone would be blaming Obama - remember Carter trying to get the hostages. Certainly all of those involved need a lot of credit for their part in the success of this mission. But to say Obama deserves no credit is disingenuous

[Pandora]

Sorry, Pandora the credit (and the blame when it goes bad) ALWAYS goes to the leader. You cannot say this would have had happened without Obama's leadership. Obama made it a number 1 priority - Bush passed it off after he could not find him -- for 7 years -- said it wasn't important. Whether You like it or not Obama IS the commander in chief of the Military. He WAS the person who made the order to go in. If the mission would have failed everyone would be blaming Obama - remember Carter trying to get the hostages. Certainly all of those involved need a lot of credit for their part in the success of this mission. But to say Obama deserves no credit is disingenuous

Okay first.. back up off my backside please but.. yes...it would've happened without Obama, or Big Bird, Elmo, the dog down the street, etc etc etc. Bin Laden has been hunted since the early 90's - well before Bush took office, well before Obama took office. I didnt bring in Bush or Obama and gave credit to neither... I think perhaps people need to read what I wrote again and then digest it once more. I said give credit where credit is due... to our military & gov't agencies; I also said that the search for Bin Laden began way before Obama became president as well as before Jr. became president. While any POTUS will get praise or fall-out for whatever happens while they're in office - they are not the ones that "do the deed" so to speak. They are a figure head and that is all... in the scheme of things in reality. I liken it to those that think "the people elect the president".... uh no... its not by popular vote that any president wins..its by electoral college; so while someone wins the office of POTUS by electoral vote, that doesnt mean they won by popular vote - which is the way it was many moons ago before "parties" came into play, as I'm sure you know. So while POTUS gives an order - it is not that order that directed the initiative initially and the POTUS is, in most instances - told/directed by others that "such and such" is about to happen and oh btw..we need a green light from you to carry out our mission that began (insert timeframe here). What I commented on was that people are saying this wouldn't of happened unless Obama was in office.... that not true....and if we all resorted to that way of thinking and, lets say Bin Laden wasn't killed during Obama's presidency but the next candidates...then they'd get the credit vs. Obama...thats what ya'll are saying, and its the furthest thing from the truth. Its our military, its leaders, and agencies that deserve the credit for missions set forth, not the POTUS.

With that being said, lets not make this a "republican vs. democrat" "Bush vs. Obama" "purple vs. blue" issue as that never came out of my keyboard

[msm859]

Okay first.. back up off my backside please but.. yes...it would've happened without Obama, or Big Bird, Elmo, the dog down the street, etc etc etc. Bin Laden has been hunted since the early 90's - well before Bush took office, well before Obama took office. I didnt bring in Bush or Obama and gave credit to neither... I think perhaps people need to read what I wrote again and then digest it once more. I said give credit where credit is due... to our military & gov't agencies; I also said that the search for Bin Laden began way before Obama became president as well as before Jr. became president. While any POTUS will get praise or fall-out for whatever happens while they're in office - they are not the ones that "do the deed" so to speak. They are a figure head and that is all... in the scheme of things in reality. I liken it to those that think "the people elect the president".... uh no... its not by popular vote that any president wins..its by electoral college; so while someone wins the office of POTUS by electoral vote, that doesnt mean they won by popular vote - which is the way it was many moons ago before "parties" came into play, as I'm sure you know. So while POTUS gives an order - it is not that order that directed the initiative initially and the POTUS is, in most instances - told/directed by others that "such and such" is about to happen and oh btw..we need a green light from you to carry out our mission that began (insert timeframe here). What I commented on was that people are saying this wouldn't of happened unless Obama was in office.... that not true....and if we all resorted to that way of thinking and, lets say Bin Laden wasn't killed during Obama's presidency but the next candidates...then they'd get the credit vs. Obama...thats what ya'll are saying, and its the furthest thing from the truth. Its our military, its leaders, and agencies that deserve the credit for missions set forth, not the POTUS.

With that being said, lets not make this a "republican vs. democrat" "Bush vs. Obama" "purple vs. blue" issue as that never came out of my keyboard

I agree this should not be a partisan discussion. All Americans should be proud/relieved about this event. Unfortunately, there is a small and loud minority whose sole mission is to diss the president whatever he does. And again sorry, but you cannot say with any certainty that it would have happened without Obama in office. He is the one who decided to invade Pakistan without telling them. All of those people who today do not want to give Obama any credit would be singing a different tune if instead Obama would have gone in there and NOT found OBL and instead had our helicopters shot down by Pakistan jets. The rabid right would be having a field day talking about Obama's incompetence -- NOT the militaries. Instead today they are left with denying Obama credit or again trying to justify torture as the reason we succeeded.

In 1958 the Giants moved to San Francisco there mission from day one was to search for a world series championship -- it took them over 50 years to find that elusive title. Despite all of the hard work from the past it was the "team" that got it done that gets the credit. The team that got this done had Obama as their leader. This undeniable truth from throughout history is ONLY being challenged today because some do not want to give Obama his due.

Not sure about your discussion re the electoral college Obama did win the popular vote. Unless you are Still upset about Bush winning in 2000 when he did NOT get the popular vote -- then I might agree with you

[Pandora]

msn

we could go back and forth all day long on who to give credit to and/or whether or not BL would've been taken out with or without Obama at POTUS - and in the end, you will disagree with everything I state in rebuttal. If, as you say, "I agree this shouldnt be a partisan discussion..." then leave it at that and be done with it, acknowledging that I did not and specifically stated twice that it wasnt about what side of the line one stood on. However, you continue to go there by stating:

"And again sorry, but you cannot say with any certainty that it would have happened without Obama in office." and "Not sure about your discussion re the electoral college Obama did win the popular vote. Unless you are Still upset about Bush winning in 2000 when he did NOT get the popular vote"

To which I will reply to point 1. and you cannot say without certainty that it wouldnt. and 2. the electoral college statement was to give an example of how some people think this system works, when in reality, it doesnt work that way at all; same thing with your belief that w/out Obama in office this wouldnt of happened. The POTUS, much if not the majority of the time, enters into office with things that were already in place years prior, but then receives "kudos" or fall-out when it finally gets done / doesnt get done. Has nothing to do with WHO is currently in office... I believe I stated that... ????

Again - we will have to agree to disagree, respectfully on all counts. But I must say that you certainly like to jibe at people for their partisanship, jumping to conclusions that one is of one party or the other in a diefast manner. Perhaps before you go poking any more ribs - you should consider that maybe, just maybe there are some that vote for the best candidate vs. what party that candidate is from I am not a devotee to either party and I suppose it would shock you to know that while I've voted Rep much of the time... I did vote for Clinton's first go-round so...

neener neener

(and yes..I know the ribbing is mostly in good fun... just as mine is with you)

[IHateToBeEmo]

I'm a sucker for 3rd party candidates. From John Anderson in 1980 to Ron Paul and Ross Perot in later years, I've "wasted" my votes many times on presidential candidates who had "no chance".

Here I go again! As of today, Ron Paul is officially running in 2012.

Can't see him winning the Republican nomination, so he'll probably run as an independent.

[sguerra923]

Here I go again! As of today, Ron Paul is officially running in 2012.

Can't see him winning the Republican nomination, so he'll probably run as an independent.

Yes, it's great news. If he runs as a republican or independent I don't think it matters because so many people are awaking from all the lies that the mass media spreads and are doing their own research about Ron Paul and see that he's been pushing his policies for the last 30 years and everyone thinks he was crazy but Paul was on point all along and warned us about what is currently happening in today's society but we didn't listen. But did he give up on his principles? No! So we shouldn't give up on him and keep passing the word!

[sguerra923]

Ron Paul's buzz is growing fast!!! Add him on your facebook and you'll see his numbers!

[banca rotta]

If he happens to make it as the top repub I will vote for him. I doubt he will make it.

There just aren't enough people willing to accept any candidate that promises to totally eliminate entitlements, end the wars and bring back sound money.

Even CNBC goes to commercial whenever Ron Paul grills Ben Bernanke. That's because Bernanke gave loans to GE, so they are returning the favor.

Only in crisis will we get the needed change and a crisis will be coming soon.