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:8915 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.
The insincerity of the Obama protesters is palpable ... the hyper protest arises from one and only one reality ... and it ain't "elitism".
And what pray tell is that reality? Is everyone who doesn't vote for Obama now going to be called a racist? Whooptie-do.
I'm not voting for Obama because I don't vote for central planning collectivists. I have never voted for a central planning collectivist and I never will. On top of that, I believe Obama is a made member of the two party fraud, along with his two partners in crime, Hillary and McCain. Because he is a member of the two party fraud, I do not believe Obama will bring the troops home. I believe it to be an election ploy. If this makes me a racist, then so be it. I will vote for whoever the LP candidate is unless Chuck Baldwin is on the ballot in my state. I've always liked him. I'm through giving a rat's ass about who other people vote for.
But of course. There can be no other reason why people who have been fighting against big government for (in my case) decades would vote against Obama. Racism has to be the answer.
There's probably a very rational answer to why poor and ill educated whites are doing their best to swamp him.
The race this time apparently will be decided by rabid feminists and little old ladies or morons.
I'm confused. Your post appeared to be about the anti-Obama people on f4um. Was I mistaken or are you of the opinion that the people on this site are poor and ill educated? I can asure you that I am neither, and as to the other folk on this site, while I cannot attest to their financial status, most are hard core political junkies and can be called just about anything BUT ill educated in regards to politics.
I'm confused. Your post appeared to be about the anti-Obama people on f4um. Was I mistaken or are you of the opinion that the people on this site are poor and ill educated?
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
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.
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
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.
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.
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.
It amounts to a confession that one does not have arguments to use.
#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.
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.