See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA
Source:
CNN
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 2, 2008
Author: CNN
Post Date: 2008-05-02 18:28:55 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 8741
Comments: 534
First, he told Blitz that he can't endorse McCain.
Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better which is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-148) not displayed.
.
.
.
#149. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#144)
OK, so we agree, the Mujahideen were trained and funded by the US and are now our deadliest foe in Iraq and elsewhere. They are our creation. We had no business in Afghanistan in the 1980s. None whatsoever.
Uh huh. Move along, nothing to see here ... just a little speed bump.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
And your confusion may subside when you come to the realization that you cannot hold two beliefs, both of which are mutually contradictory, and believe they are both equally credible. That is one of the definitions of insanity. Seriously, there is no reason for personal attacks. I believe that there is some basis to believe that some oppose Obama because he is a half-darkie. I know of such people and not all of them are 'old'. It is also legitimate to be skeptical that Obama may be able to fully implement his stated anti-war agenda. But, I believe, this can be discussed without getting 'personal'. By participating in this interesting discussion, all have proved their concerned and well informed citizens credentials but not everyone (probably no one) is fully informed or 100% right. That's why discussions and debates are useful and can be interesting.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Your pesky attempts at sanity are the best advertisement for rejecting Obama.
The Golem A Jewish Legend "Four elements," he said, "are required for the creation of the golem or homunculus, namely, earth, water, fire and air." "I myself," thought the holy man, "possess the power of the wind; my son-in-law embodies fire, while my favorite pupil is the symbol of water, and between the three of us we are bound to succeed in our work." He urged on his companions the necessity of great secrecy and asked them to spend seven days in preparing for the work. On the twentieth day of the month of Adar, in the year five thousand three hundred and forty after the creation of the world, in the fourth hour after midnight, the three men betook themselves to a river on the outskirts of the city on the banks of which they found a loam pit. Here they kneaded the soft clay and fashioned the figure of a man three ells high. They fashioned the features, hands and feet, and then placed the figure of clay on its back upon the ground. The three learned men then stood at the feet of the image which they had created and the rabbi commanded his son-in-law to walk round the figure seven times, while reciting a cabalistic formula he had himself composed. And as soon as the son-in-law had completed the seven rounds and recited the formula, the figure of clay grew red like a gleaming coal. Thereupon the rabbi commanded his pupil to perform the same action, namely, walk round the lifeless figure seven times while reciting another formula. The effect of the performance was this time an abatement of the heat. The figure grew moist and vapors emanated from it, while nails sprouted on the tips of its fingers and its head was suddenly covered with hair. The face of the figure of clay looked like that of a man of about thirty.
"Better put some ice on that lip" Your support for a Marxist racist Establishment lackey is duly noted...
So is Obama. He would have never gotten as far as he has if he weren't. But keep drinking the establishment Kool Aid. I hear--not that I know personally--that the taste gets almost bearable in time. Not that I want to know either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. We had no business in Afghanistan in the 1980s. None whatsoever. Not exactly. The Mujah... pre-existed the CIA support. They were a natural reaction to the Russian occupation. It was okay for the CIA to support them because they were fighting for their country. It is also okay for Iran to support those who oppose our invasion of Iraq. When people are fighting an enemy that can afford billion-dollar high-tech weapons systems, I have no problem with them being given some simple weapons that make them more effective at countering the aggression.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
the issue is this. we all thought we were united on the two party fraud and that partaking in it by supporting one of the establishment selections was an endorsement and acknowledgment to them that we want more of the same. we've found out that's not the case. that's what's caused the dissention.
I got this far...same whining thousands of years ago...endless. I quit. "In the town of Worms [in Germany] there once lived a pious man of the name of Bezalel to whom a son was born on the first night of Passover. This happened in the year 5273 after the creation of the world [1579 common era], at a time when the Jews all over Europe were suffering from cruel persecutions".
I take it you think JFK was a tool of the establishment. Funny that somebody thought it was necessary to eliminate him.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Of course. All wisdom resides with chat room loons.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Uhhhhhhh....
That is what many here have been saying for years, the Obama people included. That they sharply changed direction, politically, based on 'hope' is incredible.
Christine, may I re-remind you that Ron Paul was running for the GOP (one of the two parties) nomination? Re-reminder now issued, I shall re-state that I have not decided if I am going to vote for Obama in November or for a 'third party' candidate. However, in the Demo race, I believe that Obama deserves everyone's full support because Hillary has to be eliminated from the race. These being said, I don't think that we should be 'united' on anything. Interesting discussions emerge when people disagree and, sometimes, good insights are revealed. When everyone agrees... it is unlikely that anything new or interesting comes out of that agreement.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Must one "suffer fools gladly" interminably?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Funny that somebody thought it was necessary to eliminate him. And YOU think Obama is somehow equivalent to JFK? LOL! Who do you write comedy for? At any rate, I don't think you will have to worry about the folks who had Kennedy murdered doing the same with your hero 'cause it ain't gonna happen. He is establishment all the way and anyone who believes otherwise hasn't been around long enough or paid much attention (one or the other, maybe both).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. JFK is prima facie evidence that the Establishment rolls on, unimpeded. Why would you use his murder as evidence one man can change the System??
Your argument was that Obama must be a tool of the establishment, because otherwise he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has. My point -- which you have not answered -- is that JFK got even further.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
No, you could bozo everyone who doesn't believe Obama is the annointed one who will give us back our liberties and stop the war(s) and invasions. But then you wouldn't have many folks to talk to. Funny how everyone who doesn't believe what about three of you on here believe are "fools."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yeah, he was doing ok until he authorized the issuance of US Notes which we don't have to pay any interest on. The bankers didn't like that. I doubt your boy would ever do anything like that so he will be safe.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well... that's a personal decision. One's fool is sometimes someone else's wise man. I did 'bozo' a couple of forum members because I found their contributions to be uninteresting but... again... there are no fool-proof formulas. I do believe that calling someone else names because of what they say rather than show that what they said made no sense is not the way arguments are won on merits.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I was using JFK to argue that it isn't necessarily true that someone who gets far in the political process is a tool of the establishment. I take it you agree. Maybe the plutocrats will eventually decide Obama has to be assassinated too. I doubt if they would dare, but maybe they will. That's why it's important that Obama choose a good running mate, like Jim Webb.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It amounts to a confession that one does not have arguments to use.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
This is called military intervention, and it's the rubric America has used to launch a thousand wars. Until we get out of the business of other people's nations, war will never end for us.
"Must one "suffer fools gladly" interminably? One need not sufferr mean little cusses, with no valid arguments either.
Yes. the eevil men behind the curtain gathered .... and one genius suggested that they "select" an obscure black man from from inner city Chicago. All present leaped to their feet in cheers! The deal was done! If this BS palaver prevails, I'm going into bridge selling immediately after the election.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Helping arm the unarmed who are being slaughtered by heartless, mechanized armies because they are opposing the invading force is not military intervention. It's a humanitarian act of compassion. Afghanistan did not have a civil war in the 80's. That was a war of liberation.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Please take the JFK experience to it's conclusion. 11/22/63 Mission accomplished.
So we are the Global Cop?
The mission was accomplished because LBJ was VP. There's a lesson to be drawn from that. And I take it you're conceding that the mere fact that Obama has gotten as far as he has does not prove that he is a tool of the establishment.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Not at all. How many cops that you know help arm the residents so that they can defend themselves?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It was for your enoyment. A Jewish childhood story. A mud person created by jews for the protection of God's chosen people. It all ends very badly, and just sounded to me like Obamanation.
"even Barack Obama has VOTED to support the war and the spending...you have to give McCain some credit...at least he's honest about it....it would be a tough choice because i see them all as about the same.....i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama, but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement because he'd spend the money somewhere else but his voting record isn't all that great, but you asked me the question and i would say he might be slightly better on the foreign policy..." ~Ron Paul i don't interpret that as expressing a preference.
Who makes
this determination? Also, is the arming of one side of a military conflict -
a conflict that poses no threat to America - an act of war?
why do you keep bringing up his race??? i said nothing whatsoever about his race. HE'S A SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. THAT'S THE ISSUE FOR ME. I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FIG ABOUT HIS COLOR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT DEFINES HIS LEFTIST POLITICS.
None.
I salute you for your patience and good humor, vast. Fact is I've been there, done that, and got the tee shirt with respect to "show that what they said made no sense". Still do it in fact. But there comes a point when nothing is returned but empty rhetoric it's time to call 'um as you see 'um. For example, Jethro tossing in "freedoms" after eight years of the Bush administration. Brings the "suffer" in my chosen phrase to grand new heights.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Okay, let's get back to RP's words. 1 - RP stated that he could not support McCain because RP's campaign was, fundamentally, an anti-war effort. Maybe you can find the exact quote. Given -1-, -2- amounts to an endorsement. It makes sense. Of course he has issues with Obama being a tax and spend Democrat, which he probably is but, in RP's judgment, stopping or, in his words, even 'stopping expanding' the wars may be good enough to earn Obama his non-endorsement endorsement. By the way, I suspect RP would take back his words if he could. His naming Obama was probably a slip of the tongue but we (Freudian students) all know that such slips do express one's inner wishes and desires.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Welcome to the debate, iconoclast. Every feast needs a fool.
Ron Paul's words confirm what he has stated before, that he considers the war issue the paramount issue in this election. On the issue that has divided Obamaphiles and Obamaphobes on this forum, Ron Paul has indicated once again that he agrees with the Obamaphiles.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Comments (190 - 534) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#150. To: Jethro Tull (#134)
The neo philosophy wasn't at the root of our internationalism.
#151. To: James Deffenbach (#145)
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
#152. To: iconoclast (#148)
I'm becoming convinced you'll ultimately convert most of this forum into Obamaphiles.
#153. To: Cynicom (#138)
(Edited)
"Obummer was created from nothing, from dust if you will, created for a purpose"
#154. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#151)
"Just lie back and enjoy it"
#155. To: iconoclast (#113)
Hillary and McCain are tired old establishment personified.
Lord Acton
#156. To: Jethro Tull (#149)
OK, so we agree, the Mujahideen were trained and funded by the US and are now our deadliest foe in Iraq and elsewhere. They are our creation.
#157. To: Pinguinite, iconoclast (#49)
The hysteria here, and on other forums, over the possibility of Obama's election is stunning. (iconoclast) I must agree. I never would have dreamed that this election season would brought this kind of divisiveness to 4um. Can't say I've avoided partaking it it either, albeit somewhat indirectly. (Neil)
#158. To: castletrash (#153)
#159. To: James Deffenbach (#155)
So is Obama. He would have never gotten as far as he has if he weren't
#160. To: castletrash (#143)
His very mention of Obama was a stupid move.
#161. To: christine (#157)
the issue is this. we all thought
#162. To: castletrash (#143)
the three left now will all be running our country off the same script.
#163. To: christine (#157)
(Edited)
the issue is this. we all thought we were united on the two party fraud and that partaking in it by supporting one of the establishment selections was an endorsement and acknowledgment to them that we want more of the same.
#164. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#151)
Seriously, there is no reason for personal attacks.
#165. To: aristeides (#159)
I take it you think JFK was a tool of the establishment.
Lord Acton
#166. To: aristeides (#159)
Funny that somebody thought it was necessary to eliminate him.
#167. To: James Deffenbach (#165)
So is Obama. He would have never gotten as far as he has if he weren't
#168. To: iconoclast (#164)
Must one "suffer fools gladly" interminably?
Lord Acton
#169. To: aristeides (#167)
My point -- which you have not answered -- is that JFK got even further.
Lord Acton
#170. To: iconoclast (#164)
Must one "suffer fools gladly" interminably?
#171. To: Jethro Tull (#166)
#172. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#170)
I do believe that calling someone else names because of what they say rather than show that what they said made no sense is not the way arguments are won on merits.
#173. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#156)
It was okay for the CIA to support them because they were fighting for their country.
#174. To: iconoclast (#164)
" All wisdom resides with chat room loons."
#175. To: christine (#157)
we all thought we were united on the two party fraud and that partaking in it by supporting one of the establishment selections was an endorsement and acknowledgment to them that we want more of the same.
#176. To: Jethro Tull (#173)
#177. To: aristeides (#171)
I was using JFK to argue that it isn't necessarily true that someone who gets far in the political process is a tool of the establishment. I take it you agree.
#178. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#176)
It's a humanitarian act of compassion.
#179. To: Jethro Tull (#177)
#180. To: Jethro Tull (#178)
So we are the Global Cop?
#181. To: Cynicom (#158)
endless. I quit.
#182. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#135)
The fact is that Ron Paul did express a preference for Obama.
#183. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#180)
humanitarian act of compassion.
#184. To: iconoclast (#175)
(Edited)
and one genius suggested that they "select" an obscure black man from from inner city Chicago.
#185. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#180)
How many cops that you know help arm the residents so that they can defend themselves?
#186. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull (#170)
I do believe that calling someone else names because of what they say rather than show that what they said made no sense is not the way arguments are won on merits.
#187. To: christine (#182)
(Edited)
..i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama, but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement
2 - RP stated that "i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama"
#188. To: iconoclast (#186)
#189. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#187)
.
.
.