The Expanded Role of President

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Prevalent rhetoric attached to the campaign of nearly everyone who has made their bid for the presidential race suggests that the role of a president now includes a responsibility that, heretofore, wasn't typically expected of the leader of the free world, (except to end of the Great Depression). You see, I had grown up believing that the president oversees the executive branch of the government, vetos or signs into law legislation, appoints supreme court justices, promotes foreign policy and the like. Now, in recent years, I have learned that the president is in charge of the creation of jobs. Huh?

Why and when did it become the job of president to create millions of jobs for millions of American's? Why do American's demand an expectation of job creation of these several candidates? When did we come to look to the president to do what private industry in this country has generally done. Does anyone else find it bizarre that the public keeps asking the sitting president and the potential presidential candidates what they plan to do about creating jobs?

http://www.sllib.org/images/Misc/donkey_elephant.jpg
This country has been hijacked by a new and special brand of terrorists. They prefer to be called politicians, but in reality they are indeed a pack of terrorist operatives. They brandish blue donkey banners and red elephant banners; and, they all speak the same brand of bull with the ferocity of a bear. They prostitute themselves to special interest groups. They embrace causes that sap the strength of our nation. They levy unjust taxes. They promote legislation that snatches away precious liberty. Today's politicians want to make government bigger and bigger until we are so overwhelmed that we cannot fight back. At the current rate we'll all become wards of the state by the time the baby boomer generation dies out.

So, from my perspective, the question is not how many jobs the president[ial candidates] can create. Rather the question is "what is going to be done to reduce the size of government, thereby allowing Americans and American businesses to create jobs".

One lone individual in congress has been truthful, has sought the best interest of the citizens of this country and has endorsed the protection of the constitution of these United States.

RON PAUL 2012

[Gunny]

Prevalent rhetoric attached to the campaign of nearly everyone who has made their bid for the presidential race suggests that the role of a president now includes a responsibility that, heretofore, wasn't typically expected of the leader of the free world, (except to end of the Great Depression). You see, I had grown up believing that the president oversees the executive branch of the government, vetos or signs into law legislation, appoints supreme court justices, promotes foreign policy and the like. Now, in recent years, I have learned that the president is in charge of the creation of jobs. Huh?

Why and when did it become the job of president to create millions of jobs for millions of American's? Why do American's demand an expectation of job creation of these several candidates? When did we come to look to the president to do what private industry in this country has generally done. Does anyone else find it bizarre that the public keeps asking the sitting president and the potential presidential candidates what they plan to do about creating jobs?

http://www.sllib.org/images/Misc/donkey_elephant.jpg
This country has been hijacked by a new and special brand of terrorists. They prefer to be called politicians, but in reality they are indeed a pack of terrorist operatives. They brandish blue donkey banners and red elephant banners; and, they all speak the same brand of bull with the ferocity of a bear. They prostitute themselves to special interest groups. They embrace causes that sap the strength of our nation. They levy unjust taxes. They promote legislation that snatches away precious liberty. Today's politicians want to make government bigger and bigger until we are so overwhelmed that we cannot fight back. At the current rate we'll all become wards of the state by the time the baby boomer generation dies out.

So, from my perspective, the question is not how many jobs the president[ial candidates] can create. Rather the question is "what is going to be done to reduce the size of government, thereby allowing Americans and American businesses to create jobs".

One lone individual in congress has been truthful, has sought the best interest of the citizens of this country and has endorsed the protection of the constitution of these United States.

RON PAUL 2012

Quite simply, when he's says he's going to. Obama put that on himself making empty promises.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Obama isn't the only one out there making empty promises. There's no shortage of political blah, blah, blah backed by spineless and powerless drones.

If Americans elect Caribou Barbie, Tax-Code Barbie, Plasticized Romney, Slick Perry or Unable Cain, we deserve more of the same. Obama is going down in the upcoming election, but who will stand up for America?

RON PAUL 2012

[Gunny]

Obama isn't the only one out there making empty promises. There's no shortage of political blah, blah, blah backed by spineless and powerless drones.

If Americans elect Caribou Barbie, Tax-Code Barbie, Plasticized Romney, Slick Perry or Unable Cain, we deserve more of the same. Obama is going down in the upcoming election, but who will stand up for America?

RON PAUL 2012

I didn't say he was. You made a comment that since when was the President responsible for employment and I responded. Obama promised "shovel-ready jobs". Like any other politician (and anyone else for that matter), you open your mouth and make a promise, some will expect you to deliver.

I don't know that Obama is going out in 2012 simply for the fact the right can't get its collective $hit together. I CAN tell you WHOEVER it is, it won't be Ron Paul.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

I vigorously disagree that it won't be Ron Paul. The time has come for Dr. Paul to disassemble the machine and bring us back to a smaller and less obtrusive government. He's the doctor with the right prescription to get this country on the mend.

[red states rule]

I vigorously disagree that it won't be Ron Paul. The time has come for Dr. Paul to disassemble the machine and bring us back to a smaller and less obtrusive government. He's the doctor with the right prescription to get this country on the mend.

Everytime I hear this Doctor speak, he cures my insomina

[Gunny]

I vigorously disagree that it won't be Ron Paul. The time has come for Dr. Paul to disassemble the machine and bring us back to a smaller and less obtrusive government. He's the doctor with the right prescription to get this country on the mend.

He can't get and won't have the votes. Again. Not to mention some of his policies are WAY too extreme for the mainstream. They are why he's stayed out on the fringe.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Actually, his views ARE the views of the mainstream.

The mainstream wants smaller government. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants less taxation. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants us out of costly and burdensome wars on foreign soil. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants freedom and less government intervention into our daily lives. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants a healthy and stable economy. So does Ron Paul.

What is it about Dr. Paul that's so far out of the mainstream?

[red states rule]

He can't get and won't have the votes. Again. Not to mention some of his policies are WAY too extreme for the mainstream. They are why he's stayed out on the fringe.

The only way Paul is in the Oval Office on 1/12/13 is if he visits the new elected Republcian President

[red states rule]

Actually, his views ARE the views of the mainstream.

The mainstream wants smaller government. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants less taxation. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants us out of costly and burdensome wars on foreign soil. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants freedom and less government intervention into our daily lives. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants a healthy and stable economy. So does Ron Paul.

What is it about Dr. Paul that's so far out of the mainstream?

You forgot America, and not the terrorists, are to blame for 9/11

One that one he lost me for GOOD

[Gunny]

Actually, his views ARE the views of the mainstream.

The mainstream wants smaller government. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants less taxation. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants us out of costly and burdensome wars on foreign soil. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants freedom and less government intervention into our daily lives. So does Ron Paul.

The mainstream wants a healthy and stable economy. So does Ron Paul.

What is it about Dr. Paul that's so far out of the mainstream?

Mainstream isn't running last consistently in primaries. He's always the 3rd wheel. Hardly mainstream.

The mainstream may want some or all what you have listed; however, they obviously don't believe he can deliver. His isolationist policy in particular is seen as extremism. I have YET to see or hear how he plans on accomplishing any or all of the above, and I'm from TX where he gets plenty of publicity.

[red states rule]

Mainstream isn't running last consistently in primaries. He's always the 3rd wheel. Hardly mainstream.

The mainstream may want some or all what you have listed; however, they obviously don't believe he can deliver. His isolationist policy in particular is seen as extremism. I have YET to see or hear how he plans on accomplishing any or all of the above, and I'm from TX where he gets plenty of publicity.

and this is something Paul never explained either. Looks like as long as the money is green he does not care where it came from




When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=281649&attrib_id=7448): "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4D7153BF934A35752C1A9679582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print), saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp) in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire (http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ0711.htm) -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121247.html). And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526) just in time for the primary.


Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions (http://www.debatepolicy.com/blog/2007/11/ron_pauls_nazi_supporters.html) about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot." (http://thisnovember5th.com/)


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

[Joyful HoneyBee]

RSR, I take it this comment in the debate is the one to which you refer:

http://<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KuX73Ixqtbg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> (http://%3Ciframe%20width=%22420%22%20height=%22345%22%20s rc=%22http://www.youtube.com/embed/KuX73Ixqtbg%22%20frameborder=%220%22%20allowfullsc reen%3E%3C/iframe%3E)


So, the question becomes, do we expect other people around the world to love us in spite of our actions throughout the world? Would there be "blowback" if your neighbor from 10 blocks down the road came over and tried to impose their will on you with force? If you armed one neighbor to fight with another, would you expect that other neighbor to embrace you with tender loving arms.

We talk to our children about the consequences of their action. But, when we suffer the consequences of the actions our government takes, well, that's just someone else's fault, right?

Part of the problem with current politics is that so many people look at everything through a dark prism with Rose colored glasses. Would it really be a bad thing if we admitted our foreign policy has cost us greatly and needs to be reevaluated?

[red states rule]

RSR, I take it this comment in the debate is the one to which you refer:

</IFRAME>" target="_blank">http://<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KuX73Ixqtbg" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME> (http://<iframe width=)


So, the question becomes, do we expect other people around the world to love us in spite of our actions throughout the world? Would there be "blowback" if your neighbor from 10 blocks down the road came over and tried to impose their will on you with force? If you armed one neighbor to fight with another, would you expect that other neighbor to embrace you with tender loving arms.

We talk to our children about the consequences of their action. But, when we suffer the consequences of the actions our government takes, well, that's just someone else's fault, right?

Part of the problem with current politics is that so many people look at everything through a dark prism with Rose colored glasses. Would it really be a bad thing if we admitted our foreign policy has cost us greatly and needs to be reevaluated?


Using Paul's" logic" is was wrong for the US to decleare on Japan after Pearl Harbor and FDR brought the attack on himself with his policies

Again how anyone can support this nut is beyond me

[Gaffer]

Paul is an isolationist. Paul doesn't care if iran has nuclear weapons, or anyone else for that matter. Paul sponsors bills in congress knowing they will pass easily and then votes against them to enhance his voting record. He's just as devious as the rest of them.

A conservative house and senate is the best thing for America. The best we can hope for in the white house is a RINO.

Paul has taken sharptons place in the debates as the comic relief.

[red states rule]

Paul is an isolationist. Paul doesn't care if iran has nuclear weapons, or anyone else for that matter. Paul sponsors bills in congress knowing they will pass easily and then votes against them to enhance his voting record. He's just as devious as the rest of them.

A conservative house and senate is the best thing for America. The best we can hope for in the white house is a RINO.

Paul has taken sharptons place in the debates as the comic relief.

I see him more like Howie Dean Gaffer

[fj1200]

What is it about Dr. Paul that's so far out of the mainstream?

They SAY they want that, but not too much.

[ConHog]

Prevalent rhetoric attached to the campaign of nearly everyone who has made their bid for the presidential race suggests that the role of a president now includes a responsibility that, heretofore, wasn't typically expected of the leader of the free world, (except to end of the Great Depression). You see, I had grown up believing that the president oversees the executive branch of the government, vetos or signs into law legislation, appoints supreme court justices, promotes foreign policy and the like. Now, in recent years, I have learned that the president is in charge of the creation of jobs. Huh?

Why and when did it become the job of president to create millions of jobs for millions of American's? Why do American's demand an expectation of job creation of these several candidates? When did we come to look to the president to do what private industry in this country has generally done. Does anyone else find it bizarre that the public keeps asking the sitting president and the potential presidential candidates what they plan to do about creating jobs?

http://www.sllib.org/images/Misc/donkey_elephant.jpg
This country has been hijacked by a new and special brand of terrorists. They prefer to be called politicians, but in reality they are indeed a pack of terrorist operatives. They brandish blue donkey banners and red elephant banners; and, they all speak the same brand of bull with the ferocity of a bear. They prostitute themselves to special interest groups. They embrace causes that sap the strength of our nation. They levy unjust taxes. They promote legislation that snatches away precious liberty. Today's politicians want to make government bigger and bigger until we are so overwhelmed that we cannot fight back. At the current rate we'll all become wards of the state by the time the baby boomer generation dies out.

So, from my perspective, the question is not how many jobs the president[ial candidates] can create. Rather the question is "what is going to be done to reduce the size of government, thereby allowing Americans and American businesses to create jobs".

One lone individual in congress has been truthful, has sought the best interest of the citizens of this country and has endorsed the protection of the constitution of these United States.

RON PAUL 2012


Personally, I wouldn't have had a problem with him having that power IF he actually would have created millions of jobs for millions of Americans. The problem is that no matter how much some dumb dumbs wish it were so, NO President will EVER have the ability to do so, no matter how much he promises, nor how much treasure he spends.