Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

RitchieRich

(292 posts)

8. I agree...

Reply to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:25 PM

Apr 2012

I agree that he is mostly nutty, and intolerant, which sucks. I just see this as a greater issue. The rumor of his teaming up with Romney was the final nail in the coffin for me. I wish there were another option- anti war, balanced budget, and civil liberties. I don't see this coming from either party.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed [View all] Post removed Apr 2012 OP

He signed it because it was already LEGALLY empowered by the AUMF & the NDAA WAS VETO PROOF. patrice Apr 2012 #1

When has ANY spending for "Defense", as in NDAA, ever been anything but VETO PROOF??? patrice Apr 2012 #2

thanks for the input RitchieRich Apr 2012 #3

So you would have taken the RISK of putting 100% indefinite detention decisions under an APPOINTED patrice Apr 2012 #4

and you would have taken that risk FOR POLITICAL benefits. patrice Apr 2012 #5

please post a link RitchieRich Apr 2012 #7

couldn't find the link RitchieRich Apr 2012 #9

I am not saying that at least some of that is not true. The REAL question is *H*O*W* to deal with patrice Apr 2012 #11

Screw Ron Paul. JoePhilly Apr 2012 #6

I agree... RitchieRich Apr 2012 #8

Balancing a budget that historically been so HEAVILY weighted toward "defense" spending is a non- patrice Apr 2012 #12

K&R n/t The Northerner Apr 2012 #10

Q. WHO has "absolute power"? A. Not Presidents. patrice Apr 2012 #13

1st time posting a story- RitchieRich Apr 2012 #14