Republicans show signs of Split.

[Wikkiwallana]

Let them split. Then let them split again when many of the Paulbots realize that Paul ISN'T a libertarian.

The evidence is already there, plain as day. If they haven't seen it yet, they never will.

[Onza]

I just dislike conservative idea's altogether. I don't have a problem with the "I respect your beliefs" type, but whenever they condemn you for being liberal, that's the type I dislike.

So, I suppose you dislike humans?

Every creed, ideology, nationality, race, gender, orientation, etc. has people like that.

If I disliked humans, I wouldn't support Gay rights or abortion. If I disliked humans, I wouldn't call myself a humanitarian. If I disliked humans, I would become a Christian.

[Dempublicents1]

I hope they do splot...I will be voting for Romney but he represents a kind of pervision in the Republicans - Ron Paul is more small government conservative.

Anyone who would describe Ron Paul as a "small government" anything makes me laugh. If Paul had his way, the government would have near unlimited power over the citizens. The fact that the power would be held at the state level rather than the federal doesn't really make that fact any more palatable.

Seriously: It was bound to happen. You can't be the "small government/pro-freedom party" while at the same time being also the epitome of Christian fundamentalism. At some point they had to choose between Jesus and Ayn Rand.

Do they? Because most of what we tend to see from so-called "libertarians" in the Republican Party (including Paul) is a bunch of Christian fundamentalism with a push to get the government to let corporations do whatever they want. So, freedom for corporations and oppression for individuals.

Libertarians should tell the GOP to go fuck itself and finally move to the Libertarian Party.

Why? From what I can tell, the Libertarian Party tends to run candidates who are basically Republicans with slightly more focus on Laissez Faire economics. Why switch parties when there's so little difference?

[Dyakovo]

How many times does the falseness of this have to be pointed out before it sinks in around here?

Still better than NDAA-bama

So you don't think that the military should be funded?

[North California]

Then the other option is to have people in the Libertarian Party infiltrate the GOP and drive the neoconservatives out.

That's a little far fetched

Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening.

Honestly, I'd be happy to see a Green Party nut over a Republican or Democrat. I'm fucking tired of the Reps and Dems.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Still better than NDAA-bama

So you don't think that the military should be funded?

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

[Maurepas]

Idk, I think it certainly hurts Romney, and yeah, it probably hurts the party overall. But I've often felt with regards to the Democratic party, what's the good of your party winning if it fails to support the things you support?

If I was a Maine Republican, I'd probably be in support of what the delegates are doing, and I'd like more Dems to do the same when the Democrats fail to be Progressive.

[Maurepas]

So you don't think that the military should be funded?

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

Sometimes I don't think Obama supporters recognize irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not a Republican by any means, but saying that being against the powers granted by the NDAA means you don't "support the troops", sounds very Republican.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

Sometimes I don't think Obama supporters recognize irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not a Republican by any means, but saying that being against the powers granted by the NDAA means you don't "support the troops", sounds very Republican.

The crap about indefinite detention was tacked on to a bill whose sole purpose otherwise is to allow the government to fund the military. Say what you will about the ugly parts, it is still fact that if the NDAA had failed, the military would have no money for this year.

Oh wait, that's just right-wing propaganda and everyone knows that "he's not funding the troops!!11" is totally not a message that would murder Obama's electoral chances faster than North Korea murders dissidents

[Maurepas]

Sometimes I don't think Obama supporters recognize irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not a Republican by any means, but saying that being against the powers granted by the NDAA means you don't "support the troops", sounds very Republican.

The crap about indefinite detention was tacked on to a bill whose sole purpose otherwise is to allow the government to fund the military. Say what you will about the ugly parts, it is still fact that if the NDAA had failed, the military would have no money for this year.

Oh wait, that's just right-wing propaganda and everyone knows that "he's not funding the troops!!11" is totally not a message that would murder Obama's electoral chances faster than North Korea murders dissidents

I don't doubt it would, but a guy who puts his election chances ahead of justice and civil rights is someone who loses respect from me.

Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

The crap about indefinite detention was tacked on to a bill whose sole purpose otherwise is to allow the government to fund the military. Say what you will about the ugly parts, it is still fact that if the NDAA had failed, the military would have no money for this year.

Oh wait, that's just right-wing propaganda and everyone knows that "he's not funding the troops!!11" is totally not a message that would murder Obama's electoral chances faster than North Korea murders dissidents

I don't doubt it would, but a guy who puts his election chances ahead of justice and civil rights is someone who loses respect from me.

You're implying that a Santorum/Romney/Bachmann/Cain/Trump administration wouldn't have passed it?

And if pragmatism is enough to make you lose respect for politicians, then be prepared to hate pretty much all politicians.

[Dyakovo]

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

Sometimes I don't think Obama supporters recognize irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not a Republican by any means, but saying that being against the powers granted by the NDAA means you don't "support the troops", sounds very Republican.

There were no powers granted by the NDAA.

[Maurepas]

Sometimes I don't think Obama supporters recognize irony or hypocrisy.

I'm not a Republican by any means, but saying that being against the powers granted by the NDAA means you don't "support the troops", sounds very Republican.

There were no powers granted by the NDAA.

There were too, now they were powers already being used yes, but that doesn't mean the NDAA didn't officially put them into law.

It was controversial when the PATRIOT Act was signed, now it's renewed routinely, there's not even a fight. I believe that was a failing on the Democratic Party's part.

[Dyakovo]

There were no powers granted by the NDAA.

There were too, now they were powers already being used yes, but that doesn't mean the NDAA didn't officially put them into law.

It was controversial when the PATRIOT Act was signed, now it's renewed routinely, there's not even a fight. I believe that was a failing on the Democratic Party's part.

The powers "granted" by the NDAA were already in effect from previous legislation.

[Maurepas]

There were too, now they were powers already being used yes, but that doesn't mean the NDAA didn't officially put them into law.

It was controversial when the PATRIOT Act was signed, now it's renewed routinely, there's not even a fight. I believe that was a failing on the Democratic Party's part.

The powers "granted" by the NDAA were already in effect from previous legislation.

And yet, when it came time to put those powers up for a vote, there was no fight, there was none of the promised refusal of them.

You can sugar coat it all you want, you can even say it was done before the NDAA, but these powers are still around, and Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to get rid of them. Not a damn thing. That's a betrayal, and nothing else.

The same point brought up previously, that if it was a Republican then there would be outrage at even the thought of being against the NDAA goes both ways. Because under a Democrat, there's no outcry against them either, the way there would be under a Republican.

Per the OP, it's for this reason I completely understand where these delegates are coming from. It does you no good for your party to win when your party no longer acts like your party.

[Dyakovo]

The powers "granted" by the NDAA were already in effect from previous legislation.

And yet, when it came time to put those powers up for a vote, there was no fight, there was none of the promised refusal of them.

You can sugar coat it all you want, you can even say it was done before the NDAA, but these powers are still around, and Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to get rid of them. Not a damn thing. That's a betrayal, and nothing else.

The same point brought up previously, that if it was a Republican then there would be outrage at even the thought of being against the NDAA goes both ways. Because under a Democrat, there's no outcry against them either, the way there would be under a Republican.

Per the OP, it's for this reason I completely understand where these delegates are coming from. It does you no good for your party to win when your party no longer acts like your party.

The original legislation wasn't up for repeal, so even if the NDAA hadn't passed the powers would still have been there... So, no, I don't see any reason to have opposed the NDAA. You're living in a dream world if you think not passing the NDAA would have done anything other than leave the military unfunded.

[Maurepas]

I don't doubt it would, but a guy who puts his election chances ahead of justice and civil rights is someone who loses respect from me.

You're implying that a Santorum/Romney/Bachmann/Cain/Trump administration wouldn't have passed it?

And if pragmatism is enough to make you lose respect for politicians, then be prepared to hate pretty much all politicians.

Oh they would've passed it. I'm saying that the Obama crowd would've been rabidly hating them for it at every possible opportunity. They'd probably drop buckets of fake blood on their supporters.

That I don't see that same attitude directed towards Obama when he does the same thing that Santorum/Romney/Bachmann/Cain/Trump/Bush etc., would or have done, is what makes me doubt their integrity.

I do hate pretty much all politicians, there's a very few that I like, like, say Anthony Weiner, who the Dems were more than happy to throw under the bus. Or Bernie Sanders, who doesn't actually caucus with the Democratic Party.

I even respect Ron Paul for the most part, even though I disagree with the man a lot of time, if for no other reason than his insistence on sticking to his principles.

[Maurepas]

And yet, when it came time to put those powers up for a vote, there was no fight, there was none of the promised refusal of them.

You can sugar coat it all you want, you can even say it was done before the NDAA, but these powers are still around, and Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to get rid of them. Not a damn thing. That's a betrayal, and nothing else.

The same point brought up previously, that if it was a Republican then there would be outrage at even the thought of being against the NDAA goes both ways. Because under a Democrat, there's no outcry against them either, the way there would be under a Republican.

Per the OP, it's for this reason I completely understand where these delegates are coming from. It does you no good for your party to win when your party no longer acts like your party.

The original legislation wasn't up for repeal, so even if the NDAA hadn't passed the powers would still have been there... So, no, I don't see any reason to have opposed the NDAA. You're living in a dream world if you think not passing the NDAA would have done anything other than leave the military unfunded.

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

[Dyakovo]

The original legislation wasn't up for repeal, so even if the NDAA hadn't passed the powers would still have been there... So, no, I don't see any reason to have opposed the NDAA. You're living in a dream world if you think not passing the NDAA would have done anything other than leave the military unfunded.

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

I don't recall him ever saying he would...

[Brewdomia]

The original legislation wasn't up for repeal, so even if the NDAA hadn't passed the powers would still have been there... So, no, I don't see any reason to have opposed the NDAA. You're living in a dream world if you think not passing the NDAA would have done anything other than leave the military unfunded.

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

Well it would have been a worthless fight, the Republicans and moderate democrats would have filibustered, and suddenly the Republicans get a fresh talking point and healthcare, financial reform, stimulus, and other legislation would have been dead in the water.

[Saiwania]

The Conservative movement is alive and well in America, I don't believe the GOP will be splitting or disbanding anytime soon. It survived decades of Democratic domination of the US during and after the Great Depression and New Deal. It will survive and go on to win elections again whenever enough people are dissatisfied with Liberal policies.

[Gauntleted Fist]

So you don't think that the military should be funded?

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

We need to work on some sort of code phrase that let's us skip all this strange politics bullshit to get down to the nitty-gritty stuff so we can more easily get back to enjoying life. Something that says "I am a tremendous asshole who hates my fellow human and am irredeemable, please don't bother talking about politics with me."

Maybe it should be something like "Do you have stairs in your house?" or something horrible like that.

[Maurepas]

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

I don't recall him ever saying he would...

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... linger-on/

Barack Obama official campaign position paper, 2008:

Revise the PATRIOT Act. Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.

President Barack Obama, October 2009: writes and sends amendments to Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that successfully remove civil liberties protections from a bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

President Barack Obama, February 27 2010: signs a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act into law without revision.

No, this isn’t news breaking today. But it isn’t ancient history either. Barack Obama broke his core campaign promise on the Patriot Act this year, a broken promise that has lingering effects. There have been no negative consequences for his broken promise, and that is a sadly continuing story.

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/201 ... to-oppose/

Obama is a first-class flip-flopper for in 2005, as a Senator, Obama opposed the core principles of the Patriot Act. In a 2005 speech on the Senate floor Obama himself said:

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law…When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That’s all."

…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books they’ve read and phone calls they’ve made – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law.

No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.

It's reaching back a little far, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize him on opposing the PATRIOT Act while out of the Presidency, but renewing and approving them every time he has the opportunity while in the Presidency.

Further, I don't think it's unfair to criticize the Democratic Party and Democratic supporters for effectively engaging in the same activity.

[Maurepas]

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

Well it would have been a worthless fight, the Republicans and moderate democrats would have filibustered, and suddenly the Republicans get a fresh talking point and healthcare, financial reform, stimulus, and other legislation would have been dead in the water.

Possibly, but since the Healthcare bill was passed, the Administration has effectively been in that same situation anyway.

He would've done far more to get my vote by at least taking a symbolic stance against it than he has in anything he's done thus far. Because I still don't have Universal Healthcare(just this morning my fiancee had a massive ear infection, we called my mother, a nurse, and she had to swipe from the samples cabinet. But what if my mother wasn't a nurse? We'd've been fucked, because we can't afford insurance and we can't afford the ER. Forcing us to buy it anyway doesn't help that), the Bush Tax Cuts are still there(despite his ability in 2009 to simply let them expire, requiring no fight at all), and we're still fighting wars we have no business fighting, and we're still arresting people who have no business being arrested.

So far, the only thing I see Obama having on his side is that Mitt Romney is possibly the worst candidate ever in any election,

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Oh, you and I know very well that he'd be cheerleading for the NDAA 100% and denouncing anyone who opposed it with comments like, "Oh, so you WANT the terrorists to win, rape our women, and kill our children, eh, pinko commie socialist? " if Obama had been a Republican.

We need to work on some sort of code phrase that let's us skip all this strange politics bullshit to get down to the nitty-gritty stuff so we can more easily get back to enjoying life. Something that says "I am a tremendous asshole who hates my fellow human and am irredeemable, please don't bother talking about politics with me."

Maybe it should be something like "Do you have stairs in your house?" or something horrible like that.

Who are you talking to, exactly?...