The Role of President? on the Peoria.com Forums

Mitt Romney:

The first question that comes to mind, is does he understand the role of President as defined in the Constitution? I don't believe he does by his statement, This insanity wouldn't even be authorized by the War Powers act. If he becomes President, by the criteria he cited, he'd have no authority to go to war.

This is what passes as a Presidential candidate these days? Obama is bad, but I think we might hit the bottom of the barrel with mitt

GW was the bottomed of the barrel. We can only go up from there.

Romney is definitely a step up from George W.

Every election year we hear about republican and democrat ****ery. Every election year we vote for republicans and democrats. ****ing idiots.

Not this time. Anyone who votes for either of these train-wrecks have no business complaining about the problems these two idiots will create. You can't be part of the problem(ignorant voter, that votes merely cause you can) and be part of the solution.

The system IS the problem. We have no real choices. Anyone who thinks Romney is better than Obama, is an fooling themselves. Big Government is costly, rather it is Big Government Domestically, (Democratic agenda) or Big Government abroad (Republican Agenda). It all costs the same.

I had a big laugh, the other day when I read Rand Paul's explanation of "WHY" he endorsed Romney, apparently he is getting some political fall out from the true conservatives and libertarians with the party. I especially liked how Rand said He agreed with Romney on Fiscal matters, but not on Foreign policy matters, surely Rand realizes the two are linked, a large government aboard must collect massive taxes to support it, I reject the notion that you can have a large government and low taxes.

Agreed! Head for the mountains! We're all going to die!!!!

One great thing about living in Illinois, is that you can vote Green Party and not worry about swinging the election.

Vote Local grass roots, vote green.

POCK I'll meet you west of the big oak tree, by the western most mountain. I agree with the vast majority of what u said.

I'm voting for Tom Stevens

Clone Reagan

June 22, 2012

The White House expressed disapproval Friday of photographs showing gay-rights activists, guests of President Obama, making obscene gestures at the portrait of President Reagan during a gay-pride reception at the White House last week.

“Yeah, f– Reagan,” Mr. Hart said. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

Barrack Obama's policies and platforms are closer to Reagan's than Romney's.

* This message has been revised.

A song by Pink.

* This message has been revised.

@120202:

Yes, of course, Reagan himself pulled these guys' britches down, and made them stick their penises up different partners' anuses time and time again. AIDS is all Reagan's fault.

@bn13814:

http://www.thebody.com/content/art32196.html

If only Ronald Reagan had been willing or able to summon up similar passion and bluntness during the early days of AIDS. First reported in the medical and mainstream press in 1981, it was not until October 1987 that Reagan publicly spoke about the AIDS epidemic in a major policy address. By the end of that year, 59,572 AIDS cases had been reported and 27,909 of those women and men had died. He and his administration did almost nothing during the first seven years of the epidemic. AIDS research was chronically underfunded. Community education and prevention programs were routinely denied federal funding.

Reagan, a man affectionately dubbed the Great Communicator by his supporters, was excruciatingly, unjustifiably silent about HIV and AIDS. Defenders of the Reagan legacy like to argue that his domestic policy advisers downplayed AIDS to such a degree that the former president never developed a sense of urgency. To accept this, you would also have to believe that Reagan never watched television or picked up a newspaper. The media -- print and television, including the first 24-hour news network, CNN -- were all over AIDS in the 1980s. Histrionic televangelists like Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell seized any opportunity to articulate and promote the idea that AIDS was God's wrath upon homosexuals.

Even as the highly publicized illness and subsequent 1985 death of Rock Hudson made headlines and sent a shiver down Hollywood's spine, Reagan remained inexplicably quiet. His friend and colleague, beloved actor and White House state dinner guest, was dead from AIDS. No public comment. What was that about? Indifference?

Had he chosen to speak up after Hudson's death, the world would have listened. Ronald Reagan, the man who confidently parlayed Hollywood stardom into a successful political career, could not have had a more compelling opportunity to open his mouth.

Some carefully chosen words might have squelched the homophobic rhetoric of the day. Some genuine leadership might have generated compassion to counter growing hostility and hysteria about AIDS in America. How profoundly different our world might be today if Reagan had pointed to one insufferable preacher and bellowed, "Rev. Falwell, you sanctimonious turd, sit down and shut up!"

Or what if this man, this piece of all-American craftsmanship, had simply offered an affirmation of plainspoken optimism about AIDS? What if he'd just told us he cared about the lives of the people infected or affected by the virus? In eulogizing the former president, the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush, told us Ronald Reagan "believed that the gentleman always does the kindest thing." All the recent glorification of his presidency cannot eclipse the fact that when it came to AIDS, Ronald Reagan did not show the world his humanity.