CEA's Gary Shapiro - CNBC's GOP Debate Commentary

[Liberty4Ever]

Ron Paul was right in 2008, and now we can see that in 2011. He's still right today. That's why he's growing on people, despite a despicable media effort to ignore him, dismiss him and discredit him.

RON PAUL 2012

[yuptydoo]

@Liberty4Ever

Actually, he's only still politically "relevant" because he has enough money to keep appearing at debates that no one wants him to be a part of.

Romney's the Nominee. Obama will crush him. End of story.

[Liberty4Ever]

@yuptydoo And your theory that Ron Paul has money to keep going even though nobody likes him explains Ron Paul being ahead in the major Iowa polls, how, exactly?

It's the lame weasel criminal politicians that people don't like, and that definitely includes The Obama. The bloom is off that Hope & Change rose. His administration is now seen by the thinking part of the Democrats as a third Bush presidency... now with more wars and an even worse economy!

[yuptydoo]

@L

Being "ahead" in the polls means nothing in a race that once included Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich.

What exactly has been so "criminal" about "The Obama"? People were screaming bloody murder when politicians hesitated to bail out the big banks (the REAL criminals), and now Obama gets flak for doing exactly that.

By "thinking Democrats", you probably mean "libertarians", who are not Democrats.

More wars? Obie's ENDING them.

McCain would have shattered the economy. Palin, too.

[Liberty4Ever]

@yuptydoo What exactly has been so "criminal" about "The Obama"? How about declaring the right to place US citizens on CIA kill lists. No trial. Just the president or his agents saying someone is a terrorist. This isn't right wing paranoia. Solid truth. Please google or search YouTube before saying it isn't so.

Obama's first act as president was authorizing Predator drone strikes in Pakistan. He increased the war in Afghanistan. Odd behavior for an anti-war president.

[yuptydoo]

@L

Being Muslim myself, I've more a right to fear that law than anybody else in this country, but I know it was Hawkish Senators who pushed for its ratification. The law is meant to authorize hits against monsters like Anwar Awlaki, a US "citizen" who pushed his rights too far, not permission to gun down civilians at random.

I'm also Pakistani, and I understand how many NATO lives were saved by automated warfare. The Afghan war must escalate before it can subside, like a fever.

[Liberty4Ever]

@yuptydoo You clearly don't understand our constitutional form of government that was intended to prevent ANY government official from arresting and indefinitely detaining or even killing US citizens without a warrant or a trial by a jury of peers. I don't blame you for not understanding. We've departed from our Constitution for so long that people accept tyranny and don't understand liberty. It matters not whether the tyrants are Democrats or Republicans.

[yuptydoo]

@L

One last thing: since Obama is Commander In Chief, there is no "hit" that can be authorized on U.S. soil without his approval, and I firmly believe that a man with two young children and a non-military past is an infinitely safer person to put in charge of our armed forces than a demented Nam vet who offered his Vice Presidency to one of, if not THE stupidest politician to ever call America home.

[yuptydoo]

@yuptydoo

Interesting how a document hastily constructed centuries ago by a group of deists fleeing persecution from a monarchy is more relevant to your political ideology than the current-day machinations of Western society. Just goes to show how nonsensical libertarianism really is.