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:8763 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.
I take it you think JFK was a tool of the establishment.
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. Lord Acton
So is Obama. He would have never gotten as far as he has if he weren't
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. Lord Acton
My point -- which you have not answered -- is that JFK got even further.
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. Lord Acton
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 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.
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.
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 was okay for the CIA to support them because they were fighting for their country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please take the JFK experience to it's conclusion.
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.
The fact is that Ron Paul did express a preference for Obama.
"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.
and one genius suggested that they "select" an obscure black man from from inner city Chicago.
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.
#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.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
..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
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. 2 - RP stated that "i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama"
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.
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.
Bush talks about "freedom" all the time. Issued a proclamation for Law Day just two days ago.
I suspect he secretly laughs at the suckers who have to absorb the nonsense he spouts.
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.
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.
Exactly! Not to mention that he's a product of the Chicago political machine, a gang that could give Tammany Hall a run for their money.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
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.
I doubt that very much, as the he was given choice was only between Obama and Clinton. Or are you merely suggesting he probably wishes he'd declined to answer?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
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.
You're the one bringing up all the nonsense about wearing bedsheets.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Also, is the arming of one side of a military conflict - a conflict that poses no threat to America - an act of war?
We all do, through our elected representatives. [Note that I do not blame 'them' for what we are facing now. Unlike Ron Paul and maybe everyone else, I do happen to believe that 'we' are getting the 'leaders' and the fate that we collectively deserve and we all share some responsibility for the slaughter in Iraq, the horrors of Kosovo, the country's hispanization and its sliding down into a third world status. Just go back to Spengler for the extended interpretation of current events.]
Arming the defenseless is a moral decision, like feeding the hungry. We don't HAVE to do either but, sometimes, we do such things.
It's probably wrong the interfere in civil wars. When we witness aggressions, we need to make a decision and do what is right to the extent that it's possible.
Not to mention that he's a product of the Chicago political machine, a gang that could give Tammany Hall a run for their money.
Just like JFK came out of the Boston political machine. (And was helped to the presidency by that very Chicago political machine -- and what was left of Tammany.)
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.
I doubt that very much, as the he was given choice was only between Obama and Clinton. Or are you merely suggesting he probably wishes he'd declined to answer?
Of course. He had more than one way to answer Blitz. But he explicitly stated that he can't support McCain and then he explicitly stated that he found Obama superior to Clinon. Well... who else is there?
Paul, a Texas congressman, said he will not back McCain if he is the party's nominee unless the Arizona senator "has a lot of change of heart."
"I cannot support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war. That is just so disturbing to me," Paul said in a Monday telephone interview. "I think it's un-American, unconstitutional, immoral and not Republican."
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
HE'S A SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. THAT'S THE ISSUE FOR ME.
A large part of the opposition to Hitler consisted of Socialists, who formed the largest of the democratic groups in the Weimar Republic.
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.
When Queen Hillary I is crowned, it will be a lackey named Obama that will carry her train.
I kind of doubt that, I honestly believe there is bad blood between the two. I didn't used to, a few months ago, but I think Hillary has stooped so low recently that Obama would probably prefer to keep a little bit of his dignity (and voter base).
I could be wrong, of course.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot