I know this is the GDP, but isn't the most die hard Obama supporter upset by....

[Logical]

the fact it seems like Obama is 100% OK with the patriot act being 100% in place and he seems to side with the GOP on warrant-less wiretaps and many other intrusions on our rights? Like supporting the use of GPS on citizens vehicles with out a court order.

How can this not be an issue with even die hard Obama supporters?

Here is a list of stuff in case you missed it:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/reasons-to-wear-tinfoil-hats/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal N proud]

2. Let it sink

[Logical]

5. So you have no answer and do not think it is a legitimate question?

[TheWraith]

32. Repealing the PATRIOT Act is not currently plausible, nor was it when Dems held the House.

You might as well ask why he hasn't sponsored a bill to overturn DOMA and require gay marriage in all 50 states: because it would never pass.

[Number23]

Agreed. The laughably stupid "I know this is GD-P and you guys are die hard supporters" bit

certainly explains the number of recs. :rofl:

Ahhhh me. I love it when people who are neither cute nor clever try to be both.

[rug]

64. Let it rise.

It's a faiir question.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Can one be a 'diehard' fan and still be pissed off by decisions like this? Sure!

One can still support the president and not ALL of his positions!

I think there are so many out there who hold this view that it should be all or nothing. They continue to move the bar and set impossibly high standards!

Yes, I disagree with a good number of this president's decisions; however, no amount of ODS will lead me not to support the president.

[Logical]

4. I am not saying all or nothing, I will 100% vote for Obama for the SCOTUS and the....

obvious fact the GOP is 1000 times worse that any Dem.

But I would love to hear how the GDP defenders defend this warrant-less stuff!

[Vincardog]

7. What evidence do we have from HIS ACTIONS that BO will help us with the SCOTUS?

[Logical]

9. I 100% believe any Obama pick will be better than any current GOP candidate pick.

[Vincardog]

10. I 100% believe any Obama pick will be better than any OTHER current GOP candidate pick.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tblue]

11. Obama is good on a couple things and really sucky on the rest.

The good in no way outweighs the bad. The duplicity alone is enough to turn me off. I just have a problem with someone that wrong on issue after issue. Flame me, I don't care. I am not the one letting the GOP have their way.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[griffi94]

13. ya know it's not that they still support him

it's the fact that so many of the things he's done would have the same people screaming bloody murder if it were a puke doing it.
i'm not very good with supposedly rock solid principles that can be flexed however they need to be to rationalize the latest sellout.

my parents are bush republicans and the arguments and behavior of some of obamas more enthusiastic supporters remind me of the way they doubled back on so many position to defend dubya.

[JoePhilly]

16. "would have the same people screaming bloody murder" ... you know that how?

When the Patriot act was being passed, I told my Republican friends that it was a mistake. They said if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I asked them if they realized that once passed, all of these powers would remain in effect regardless of who the next President was. I told them that when such powers are given to the government, they are rarely given back. And even if they are given back, it won't happen fast, it would be a VERY slow process, if it happened at all.

And so I asked them again, "are you comfortable with giving these powers to a President who you don't trust?" ... they said that would never happen ... they said "libs hate America, blah, blah, blah, and so a Dem won't be President".

Of course anyone who payed attention, and voted for Obama in 2008, already knew that he voted to extend the Patriot Act in 2006.

And they also know that, in 2008, he did not run on repealing it.

Maybe those facts should have helped those who are "outraged" in this thread to catch a clue. I supported in Obama in 2008 KNOWING his position on this.

Bottom line ... I never expected ANY Democratic President to attempt to repeal it, and that includes Obama, especially in a first term.

He has talked about the need to revise it, but again, I don't see that happening in a first term either. Not with the economy in the shape its in.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Still struggling with who here on DU is now defending the Patriot Act. You're gonna

have to do much better than this!

[JoePhilly]

22. You seem to assume that those screamed about Bush here on DU

are the same people who aren't screaming about Obama on this topic.

What is your evidence for that?

You seem to be attacking Obama supporters, while also claiming you know how loud they screamed back in 2003.

Oh ... if it makes you feel better, I happily declare that I think the Patriot Act is a bad thing, and I think its wrong.

But again, I knew his position on this going into the 2008 elections. And I still know it going into the 2012 elections.

This is a point on which I disagree with him. Will I stop supporting him? No.

Hope that helps.

[griffi94]

24. i never once

saw anybody on du support the patriot act when it passed. i did see hundreds of threads about the danger of it and read thousands of posts about how dubya was making himself a dictator.

that does in fact help...at least it's honest in that yer not trying to dress the patriot act up as some good thing now.

i don't really think it matters one way or another. i've seen people here call for obama to be primaried...it wouldn't matter even if he were and if some other dem were elected president.
we'd still get about the same thing we've been getting so this isn't about me hating obama as much as being turned off by the hypocrisy of the system....sadly politics is now just another team team sport.

[JoePhilly]

49. I never suggested you said that .... you said you thought that those who

currently support Obama were "probably screaming bloody murder" when it passed.

Let me explain this another way.

I joined DU in May of 2007. So clearly I was not one of those screaming about this on DU. So what was I doing between 2003 and 2007.

Well, in 2003, I was debating right wingers who were CHEERING the Patriot Act, trying to explain to them why it sucked, on sites like USAToday.

You didn't see DU folks support the PA back in 2003, probably because (a) DU folks don't support it, and (b) we all understood the longer term implications of passing it. At least I did.

My point is that you made a logical error to conclude that because there were no posts supporting the PA back in 2003 ...

(a) that current Obama supporters would have been "screaming bloody murder" on DU back in 2003, and
(b) today's Obama supports are now supporters of the PA.

As for the "team sport" statement ... not for me ... I'm very pragmatic, always have been. I chose candidates based on whether I think they can achieve the results I prefer, or prevent further erosion in areas I care about.

Elections are a selection among alternatives. If you don't like it the alternatives, then you need to create more alternatives.

[griffi94]

54. let me be a little more clear

probly nobody has switched psoitions on the PA. what they have done is make excuses and rationalize why it's ok now. when bush suspended habeoas corpus and non combatants could be held in limbo forever...it scared the hell out of me. i dont think anybody here thinks or thought that was ok...but now that obama is reserving the same rule for himself...well they've gotten pretty quiet.

i believe you when you say you have some real issues with some of the things that have happened during this administration. i also believe that you still support him 100%, but there are more than a few posters here who cant bear anything negative to be said no matter how trivial now matter how warranted.

you seem to be a realist and i salute you in that you're at least honest. so obviously you're not who my post was meant for.

if it was wrong under bush it's wrong under obama and rationalizing it doesn't make it anymore right.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. But I still want to know who these defenders are. I haven't seen them, and you're making an unfair,

blanket statement about "Obama Supporters." can't you see how unfair and offensive you are being, just like the OP!

[griffi94]

65. really?

go read any thread where obama is catching heat for anything...you'll see em

[griffi94]

66. not posting any names publicly

since that could be considered a call out.

if yer very active here then you've seen them

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

68. Maybe I'll just do a search. I wasn't asking you to cite names. More like pointing me to

Threads, articles from so-called "Obama Apologists," ectera. Still, unfair for you, the OP, and others to paint with such a broad brush!

[griffi94]

69. sorry that you find it offensive

wasn't my intent at all...and i wasn't painting every supporter with the same brush...just the ones who do the moral gymnastics required to always rationalize every decision so it's in a positive light.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. They were also told that we're leaving Iraq and going to Afghanistan! That goal was routinely

emphatically repeated in all of Obama's campaign speeches.

I still support Obama 100% and I don't care what anyone calls me! Happy to see the unrec's in this thread.

If people really want to have an honest, thoughful discussion about Obama and his mistakes, I'm ready to have it. But the tone of the OP reeks of condescension and I won't participate in it.

[griffi94]

21. do you really want

to start with what he campaigned on versus what he actually did.
cause the main one of those imo was the no mandate without a public option...no extension of the bush taxcuts...no more revolving door between k street and the oval office and a more transparent administration....he did in fact campaign on all of those.

i'm not trying to change yer mind..just pointing those out.
he lost me after the mandate with no public option.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Sure, and my point is that the vast majority of the campaign promises he has kept.

And I still believe that he wants a public option. I do believe that he will end the Bush tax cuts. And the three lobbyists that worked for him in the beginning are no longer there.

The dealbreaker for me will be if he extended the tax cuts for the wealthiest. If he restricts those cuts, targeting to low- and middle classes ONLY, then I'm all for it. I don't want taxes increase on working class, and understood why he had to extend them last year in order to get unemployment benefits, repeal of DADT, and START. Many people have forgotten how the ReThugs held this country hostage.

Obama also ran on closing Guantanamo Bay, but was blocked by Congress. The ReThugs know that Americans will blame him and the Dems, not realizing the obstruction in the Senate courtesy of the ReThugs.

Again, the level of disrespect, blatant and subtle racism, and unprecedented obstructionism are why I have a hard time not supporting this president.

And, I still maintain that instead of us being at each other's throat over ONE MAN, we should take a page out of the ReThug/Teabagger playbook and work to get MORE progressives elected to the state and congressional levels.

It can just be about Obama anymore!!

[griffi94]

29. i think if he wanted a public option he would have fought for it

i don't buy into the notion he's a hard core rw nut. i think he's a weak leader and a status quo guy. i think anybody who can get elected is a status quo guy.
however he didn't run on being a status quo guy, he ran on on being a reformer and was swept into office with a landslide victory and a majority in both chambers.

why not just say he that he wasn't as committed to a po as he said he was...or that nafta and the free trade agreements were not going to be touchable, or that he would in fact consider adjustments to ss.
why keep couching it that he hasn't any choice or that this is somehow a good thing.

i realize the gop has been as uncooperative as possible but he had to know that going in.
my issue isn't with the president...he's just imo another weak mediocre pol. i wonder tho why his supporters feel the need to continually isist that shit is actually apple pie and that his support is wide and deep. it's not. he'll win re-election...the gop is batshit crazy, but he's not the answer to any long term problems.

[JoePhilly]

23. Part of my point above (unstated) is that I'm often surprised that

some thing Obama was supposed to clean up everything, including things that he never said he'd clean up.

He never said he'd repeal this. He voted to extend in 2006. These are known facts.

He never said he'd clean this up. But apparently, we're supposed to be angry at him for not doing something that he didn't say he was going to do.

And if you still support him for not doing something he didn't say he was going to do, you secretly agreed with Bush.

Or something like that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. For me, I'm much more of a pragmatist. I struggled to get to the point of accepting Obama

It's true!! I didn't support him in the primaries. I was a diehard Kucinich fan. When he exited the race, I went to Edwards, buying into the Two Anericas rhetoric. One thing that I knew for sure is that I could not support Hillary due to her policies, though I liked her as a person until she started getting desperate during the primaries. It was at that point that I finally went with Obama after being reluctant for so long. There wasn't much difference between them. I knew this. I knew that Obama was and IS NOT a liberal. Reading his two books and doing research on his voting record led me to that conclusion. However, he seemed slightly to the left of the DLC, so even in my reluctance, I understood that we get two choices. It's sad that two choices are all we have unless the structure and nature of our political system is greatly altered. And because I had gone down that road, voting for Nader in 1996 and 2000, I vowed never to make that mistake again. I chose Obama and still maintain that of all of the choices available to us, he is the best choice. Overall, I am pleased with his performance. I'll give him a B- considering all that he's faced. I believe that he'll do much better in his second term!!!

[rhett o rick]

30. I agree with almost all that you say there. However, I think it is necessary

to be critical of this president as any president when they take actions that you disagree with. Criticism is important in a democracy. The Patriot Act is especially bad. If this president wont overturn it, who will? I just dont know how someone can call themselves a free thinking Democrat and not be able to discuss the bad as well as the good. Instead, seems all I here is how lucky we are, it could have been McCain.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. And you'll get that criticism from me. Let me put it this way...

I was a HUGE Paul Wellstone fan. However, he made some votes that I was not happy about. And in fact, I was quite perturbed. One of those votes was his support for the Patriot Act. I remembered that Russ Feingold attempted in vain to convince Paul to change his vote. Similarly, and ironically, I was pissed off at Russ for supporting John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts has been the most politically driven, pro-Corporate CJ in the history of the SCOTUS. Russ was warned of this but believed that Bush had the right to see his nominees confirmed! (Too bad the Republicans on today's Judiciary Committee don't share this view.)

And finally, I'm a big Teddy Kennedy fan, but he penned No Child Left Behind, which has been an abysmal failure and a destructive force on our education system in this country!

So you see, my point is that one can be critical of the choices that politicians make and still support them as candidates in the larger scheme of things, especially when considering the nature of the governing process.

That's why when taking EVERYTHING into consideration--from the horrible economy that landed at Obama's feet, as well as the unprecedented obstruction and disrespect--I will continue to support the president, even in disappointment with many of his decisions. I believe that he has kept a vast majority of his campaign promises, despite the rhetoric here at DU and in the Corporate Media and right wing circles. And I will continue to maintain that if we really want a more progressive reality in government, we MUST get busy and work to elect more progressives to lower level offices and in Congress!

[rhett o rick]

34. Again, you didnt say anything that I disagree with.

My point in responding to the OP was related to his apparent surprise that some Obama supporters wont acknowledge his disappointments.

I only ask that I be allowed to discuss my dissatisfaction with the president without being assailed as being derisive or divisive.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. I wasn't assailing YOU! I was referring to the tone of the OP.

[JoePhilly]

48. I put myself in that pragmatist camp as well, although for different reasons.

I was comfortable with Hilary, Obama, Edwards and Biden.

There are some things Dennis talks about where I agree ... and then a longer set where I disagree with him, either on the goal, or on the approach to achieving the goal.

Having said that, if Dennis had won the primaries, I'd have happily supported him against the GOP candidate.

I also read Obama's books, and I followed Hilary closely too ... so I agree with you there ... very little day light between them.

Being a pragmatist, my dream ticket was Clinton / Obama. 8 years for Hillary, 8 for Obama ... 16 years would have given the dems, and the left time to gain ground, fortify the space, and then repeat.

The GOP cheers every small gain they get and work to solidify it over time. On the left, we appear to have the patience of a jealous girlfriend on crack.

I'd also put him in the "B" range. Given what he's been up against, he's made more progress than I expected. The GOP has made a huge mess I've always believed that its going to take at least 10 years to clean up the various messes left by 8 years of Bush.

I also think he'll do even more in a second term. He won't be constrained by political pressure for a re-election.

We'll see, you never know ... but I do know that he will be 1000 times better than the alternatives.

[Beacool]

85. Hear, hear!!!

"Being a pragmatist, my dream ticket was Clinton / Obama. 8 years for Hillary, 8 for Obama ... 16 years would have given the dems, and the left time to gain ground, fortify the space, and then repeat.'

That would have been my preference too. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. I'm almost certain that after Obama the next president will be a Republican.

:(

[Vattel]

57. Condescension is all over DU,

and attempts at honest, thoughtful discussion about Obama and his mistakes often sink fast with zero recs. There are many frequent posters who really do seek to defend Obama no matter what. But there are also many who are open to honest, thoughtful discussion. I've had many useful discussions about policy issues with both Obama critics and Obama defenders, and I've learned a lot from posters who disagree with me. Generally, my posts are critical of Obama, and sometimes I get very angry at him. But it is obvious to me that Obama receives a lot of undeserved blame at this site (as well as a lot of undeserved praise). On the other hand, I do find it amazing that some people really do think that Obama's critics are mostly stupid or ill-informed or PUMAs or liberal racists or people who don't realize that Obama is not King. Some of Obama's supporters lap up bullshit theories about why many liberals are disappointed with Obama. (I'm sorry, but if you think Melissa Harris-Perry provided serious evidence of subtle racism lurking behind white liberal disappointment with Obama, or even serious evidence that Obama is held to a higher standard than Clinton, then you are going to lose credibility with me.) I also find it amazing that some people believe that most defenders of Obama are stupid or ill-informed or hero worshipers or DINOs or don't realize that Obama is human. (I'm sorry, but if you think Naomi Wolf provided serious evidence that Obama and Congress authorized the DHS to get violent with OWS protesters, then you are going to lose credibility with me.)

Anyway, here's to honest, thoughtful discussion. Cheers.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. Thanks for this post. I appreciate that, though I may not agree 100%

At the end of the day we are on the same side, I hope. And I'm confident that the Democrats will once again come together in 2012 for the VICTORY!!!

[Vattel]

84. I hope that you are right!

[Fokker Trip]

83. Seems that way to me as well.

I can see the point that Obama might not be able to do or pass certain things.

But what about signing statements. Bush used those extensively, isn't turnaround fair play? For sure the next Puke pres will use them.

And the fact is that Obama doesn't even use his position to TALK about things that matter but that he can't pass. He doesn't even try to shame the pukes. On many progressive causes he is silent.

[stevenleser]

94. Let me get this straight, you object to one Bush law/tactic and want Obama to get rid of it by using

another hated Bush law/tactic?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. See my post up thread, #24, and cut the bullshit derision!!

[rhett o rick]

28. "cut the bullshit derision". In other words, get in line and STFU.

I dont like the Patriot Act and I dont approve of Pres Obama's support of it. Is that "derision"?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Read #40 post upthread!! Don't STFU! Get angry! Be mad! But don't be naive in the process!

Get to work putting more progressives in office!!!

[rhett o rick]

35. I am working to get more progressives in office. How do you think I am "naive"? nm

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. That comment was a general "YOU," not you specifically. I guess I should make myself clearer.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

42. Wow are you way off. There is nothing in my posts about third party.

I am willing to fight for my party. I happen to believe that those that champion the Patriot Act are not Democrats.

It's The Third Way, the DLC, the "New-Democrats" that are tearing this party apart. They agree with the republicons on the Patriot Act.

[Beacool]

14. Please, do you really expect objective reasoning?

It's emotional for many people. They would support Obama no matter what he does, or in some cases, doesn't do.

:shrug:

[CakeGrrl]

39. Oh, the irony.

:rofl:


No, allow me to correct myself.

The projection is strong with this one.




:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Why do you even bother!?!?

[CakeGrrl]

43. For the viewers at home, let's say.

;-)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Got it!!! ;)

[Beacool]

79. The Kool-Aid is ever so strong with some.............

;)

[Zorra]

15. Some people genuinely like the Patriot Act and warrantless wire taps

and war and other stuff like that.

I'm not one of them, but there are certainly lots of them out there.

[progressoid]

93. Yep - including a lot of Demcrats in Congress. n/t

[grantcart]

25. "I know this is the GDP, but . . ."

What an honor it is for the GDP to have you visit.

[CakeGrrl]

40. Yeah, I unrecced for the snark alone.

The OP comparing a picture of POTUS to Forrest Gump in another thread should give people an idea of their attitude going into a post.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

44. No, the GDP tends to be more pro-Obama than the GD. Not an insult unless you think...

they are not sincere.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. It's ridiculously sad that there is this division! It's pathetic!

[ruggerson]

52. I think the division is a byproduct of internet discussion forums

IRL, I know zero Obama supporters who run around screaming "PUMA" (most wouldn't know what it meant) and calling gay people "Vipers" and deriding "Liberals" in general. In fact they'd find it embarrassing to read the shit that is spewed here.

And I know a lot of very strong Obama supporters.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. Thanks for this. Even very strong Obama supporters that I know all like and respect Hillary

Clinton for the outstanding job that she is doing. The derison seems to emanate primarily on the Internets. It doesn't reflect real life, thank goodness!!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

51. Not an insult but it is dripping with condescension. Not an adviseable polemical

approach to persuade people who might not share your particular point of view.

[ruggerson]

53. I would guess that many people here have given up on that objective

n/t

[Logical]

56. You really think there is no obvious between the forums? Really??

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

92. This from a poster who has called DUers "the herd at DU?"

:freak:

[DCBob]

58. On national secuirty stuff like this I give the President the benefit of the doubt.

I dont like it but there must a good reason for the position he is taking.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCBob]

67. And they were wrong because Bush did not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Get it?

[Logical]

71. No, not really. Because just being OK with someone because they lead your party...

means you are not thinking on your own. I do not give any politician permission to be wrong just because they are a Dem. Maybe you do.

[DCBob]

76. its not just because he leads our party, its because I trust his judgment.

That one of the reasons I supported him from day one and still do.

[elana i am]

70. not a die-hard supporter

but not upset at obama about this either.

there are a lot of my fellow progressives that have abdicated all reason and common sense the past few years. maybe it was falling for "change you can believe in" without fully understanding the meaning and intent. maybe it was assuming that obama was a liberal or once shrub was gone the boat would right itself naturally. i don't know really.

what i do know is that progressives can't get elected. i also know obama can't force blue dogs and repugs to vote the way he wants them to. he can either meet them in the middle (so to speak) to get at least SOMETHING done, or he can refuse to work with them and get NOTHING done. expecting him to fight more for us is a flight of fancy. and while the occupy movement makes us feel like we're being proactive participants in our democracy, it's also a flight of fancy. he has no leverage. huge, vast wealth inequality, millions of people slipping into poverty and all the repugs can do is tell us dirty hippies to get a shower and a job and block every attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy and chip away at our social safety net. if they ever have or ever even COULD have given a shit about any of this we wouldn't be in this dire shape now. so appealing to their better nature in the hopes that they might change? PUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLEEAAAAZZZZE! no leverage. NONE.

change is going to be from the bottom up. that's what obama said, and about that point at least, he was right. we HAVE TO relect him and WE HAVE TO give him a filibuster proof congress. WE HAVE TO. we have to because that's the only way change is going to come.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

74. Are you actually implying that DU posters CHEER drone strikes?

Seriously?


Put up a link.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

75. I don't expect to agree with Obama all of the time

It's those who expect that who are "disappointed."

I also know the limits of the office of the presidency. It is not "powerless" (which is what some people take it to mean when one suggests it is "limited.")

I also don't quite trust such characterizations from DU at this point. If I had the time to read up on it I might understand. Too often such claims have been debunked.

[KoKo]

78. No...No. The Patriot Act is to Protect Us and if Obama says it need Expansion...

then we should believe him on this. This man has brought Dictators to the End of their Power and he's Killed Osama and brought down Ghadaffi (with Nato's Help) and Mubarik (with Freedom Fighters Help) and he's about to bring down Syrian Dictator and probably the rest of the African Dictators and he's gotten rid of their lackey's like Alwalaki and his son and the children of some of the Dictators so they can't spread their "evil seed."

This President makes George the II look like a WEENIE! He Rules and he's spreading DEMOCRACY all ACROSS THE ISLAMIC WORLD...and we Americans will PRAISE HIM for keeping us SAFE BY DAY AND NIGHT...and OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN...and ALL OF OUR INHERITANCE GOING FORWARD.

He's just AMAZING!

:kick:

[Cali_Democrat]

80. We gotta protect 'Murka from those evil terrorists that hate us for our freedom

Viva la Patriot Act!

Go git 'em :patriot:

[great white snark]

81. Like posts above state, it's about trusting his judgement.

Your attempt to use Republican reasoning is quite the fail. Circumstances, and more importantly leadership, is not the same.

[Beacool]

86. I hope that this was sarcasm.

:eyes:

[CakeGrrl]

87. Maybe it isn't.

:evilgrin:

[Beacool]

89. It should be............

;(

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ter]

88. I won't be voting for anyone who supports the PA

Never again.

[opihimoimoi]

90. Whad is this shit...promote GOPer Post? Fucking GOPers and their Lie Cheat Steal M.O.

[woo me with science]

91. Yes, and now they want the military to be able come get you in your yard.

And we are also working on a China- and Iran-style internet censorship capability for our government.

And we have coordinated assaults by jackbooted thugs on peaceful Americans exercising their right to protest.

And our President is backing settlement deals that protect criminal bankers who drove millions of Americans into poverty.

Yes, damn straight people should be alarmed. They ARE alarmed, and that is why they are massing in the streets. The ACLU certainly is alarmed, as well.

Thank you for a much-needed dose of reality on this board. Support OWS.