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:8752 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 would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Dr. Paul should have said none of the three, but that he would end the war if he were elected. Seems like the dumbing down process of the population in the us has been very successful.
The headline on this thread is completely false. A line in the movie All The Presidents Men has Carl Berstein and Bob Woodward arguing over a simple qestion that goes like this. If you walk up to a person and ask for directions, are you simply asking for directions or interrogating that person? Apparently vastwould have a problem giving the right answer.
But I just don't understand why people who CLAIMED to be for Ron Paul are now so strongly attached to Obama and the two of them couldn't be much different.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
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
So, you just qualified for my bozo list and I can't think of any reason why I would take you off it at any time in the future. You are the third one so, can't even claim exclusivity or being at the top of the list, which you're not.
You mean I finally made the grade? That calls for a celebration.
Geeze, I' all broken up that you claim to have bozoed me. /sarcasm
But he explicitly stated that he can't support McCain and then he explicitly stated that he found Obama superior to Clinton
boy, talk about twisting Ron Paul's words.
"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
And, before that he stated that he could NOT support McCain because McCain's stands on war were the exact opposite of his and because ending these wars was a central principle of his campaign.
Than, RP says: "i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama"
He's clearly for Obama because he's the one most compatible with his stands on war and war is his main concern at this time.
It's as crystal-clear as it could possible come out of a politician's mouth.
[Sorry, I don't have the transcript and I'm too lazy to try to find it at this time but, if one is available, then I will be happy to quote RP's words directly.]
If Ron Paul explicitly endorsed a Democratic candidate like Obama, I wonder if that would endanger his continued membership in the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.
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 would be a tough choice because i see them all as about the same.....
christine, ask this distortionist the very same question Dr, Paul was asked. Then watch him wiggle and squirm outta answering it. Typical of lifelong bushbot supporters.
#245. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Hayek Fan (#151)
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'.
And was my comment to him worse (in your opinion) than the comment he made to Hayek Fan? If you recall, he told Hayek Fan: "Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously."
For whatever it's worth, I don't give a $#it what color anyone is. If someone came along verbalizing the same beliefs that Ron Paul has--a reverence for the Constitution and who knows that the oath he takes is binding on honorable people--I could vote for him if he came with stripes or polka dots. I fail to see any honor or understanding with any of the media's magic 3 of the principles Ron stands for but I do see people who will obey their masters.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
robin I am,and have been, since JFK ,a believer in the deceptions foisted upon the citizens of USA.
International groups, loosely affiliated, are trying to have a NWO with castes.
Mr. Brzezinski as creator of the trilateral commisson is a deal beaker for me.
Post 9/11
After 9/11 Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda camps. He asserted that blame rightfully ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union, whose invasion he claimed radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
Nor of much less war that I can tell. He will do what those in charge tell him to do just like Bush has, just like Hillary would or McCain. Not a nickel's worth of difference in the three.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
#249. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, christine, ALL (#242)
[Sorry, I don't have the transcript and I'm too lazy to try to find it at this time but, if one is available, then I will be happy to quote RP's words directly.]
oh, the audacity of this bushbot. This flipping flamingo started many a war over on TOS with bullshit accusations and this was always his standard answer when asked to prove his point.
It will soon be time for the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey game. That would be far better entertainment than reading this persons lying first hand bullshit. More important too!
...and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
" I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."
" The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."
" We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines."
" We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability... "
"We can start by spending homeland security dollars on the basis of risk. This means investing more resources to defend mass transit, closing the gaps in our aviation security by screening all cargo on passenger airliners and checking all passengers against a comprehensive watch list, and upgrading port security by ensuring that cargo is screened for radiation."
I do not know who was 'worse'. I believe that many contributors to this discussion are quite passionate about their views and they should defend them vigorously but there's a difference between a battle of ideas and a battle of the egos.
Like I said before, someone's fool could be someone else's wise man. If you respond to the "fool's" statement with a personal attack you will not persuade those who view him as the wise man to abandon him and re-examine his views.
There are also some (very few) who seem to take pleasure it engaging in personal attacks and contribute almost nothing else. Those, in my view, deserve to be ignored.
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Wolf Blitzer asked him of the 3 which would he pick.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
That's how I see it too, but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it, especially with people I agree with so much else on. Did being called a Paultard on LP do much to bring you around to the way of thinking of those doing the namecalling?
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
Sure. Mr. Paul may be asked this question again or he may volunteer to further expand on his CNN remarks. Until then... his statement is somewhat open to interpretation as of to the degree to which he prefers Obama to McCain or Hillary.
[Sorry, I don't have the transcript and I'm too lazy to try to find it at this time but, if one is available, then I will be happy to quote RP's words directly.]
Wolf Blitzer: Don't you want to see a Republican in the White House?
Ron Paul: Well, that's secondary to wanting the constitution defended, and wanting the country to go in the right direction, bringing peace around the world, having sound money and balanced budgets: all the things the Republicans have, you know, traditionally have stood for. All of that is more important than just having a Republican. We have to know what we believe in.
...
Wolf Blitzer: If you had to pick one of those three (remaining presidential candidates) right now, who would it be?
Ron Paul: Well, that's tough because I see them as all about the same. I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably, probably Obama. But that doesn't mean that's an endorsement, because he'd spend the money somewhere else and his voting record isn't all that great. But you asked me the question, and I would say that he would be slightly better on foreign policy.
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.
You folks pushing this bs that Ron has somehow "endorsed" the idiot you support other than the other two seem to have a bit of a problem with understanding or accepting words you wish weren't there. Can you not see that Ron, being diplomatic and measured (as he always has been for as long as I have known him), damned Obama with faint praise? Do you not know the difference between that and an endorsement? If not then maybe you should take up another hobby.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
I don't remember saying I would "likely be a Democrat", but I don't doubt I said that the Democratic platform's position on abortion was one I found untenable. Abortion is one big reason I am not a Democrat, and have never voted Democrat, but not the only reason.
Too bad McCain finds bombing babies and pregnant women so easy, what's the difference?
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Like I said before, someone's fool could be someone else's wise man. If you respond to the "fool's" statement with a personal attack you will not persuade those who view him as the wise man to abandon him and re-examine his views.
I never called anyone a fool. You can read every post I have ever made on this board or any other board I have ever posted on (if you knew the screen names I used that is) and you would never find one instance of me calling anyone a fool, at least not that I can recall. I did say that anyone who can hold two ideas, both of which are mutually contradictory, and consider them both valid, was insane and that is quite true. That is not the same as name calling, rather a statement of what is a fairly well-accepted fact.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
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 wished I had the quote where he explained why he couldn't support McCain - BECAUSE McCain stands on war was totally at odds with his, explicitly stating or at least implying that ending the ME involvement was the main reason or one of the main reasons he decided to run for U.S. prez.
That's a stupid title, it's a lie, and actually, who gives a sh!t who 'ron paul supports' anyway, like it makes a difference?? lol
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
The Daily Kos thread has a link to a video/audio clip that probably has that language in it.
I can't run audio or video on this computer.
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.
Ron Paul: Well, that's tough because I see them as all about the same. I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably, probably Obama. But that doesn't mean that's an endorsement,
Thanks Ari. Doesn't sound like an endorsement in any way,shape ,or form to me. Just a simple statement from a real statesman who gave his assessment of the three candidates. I wonder if vast would go face to face with Ron Paul asking him why he endorsed obama? He might be dumb enough to do that.
I suspect it's about as close to an endorsement of a member of the opposition party as a member of the House of Representatives who wants to stay in his party's caucus can come.
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.
"picks (when asked)" instead of "support" would have been more accurate, I agree - but understand vast made the thread before the transcript or audio were available. He had been listening on television. And later says we should wait for the transcript. Then in post #18 I posted the video.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I suspect it's about as close to an endorsement of a member of the opposition party as a member of the House of Representatives who wants to stay in his party's caucus can come.
There have been lots of calls on the Web for expelling Lieberman from the caucus. And the Democrats have always been much less of a lockstep party than the Republicans.
Do you know why Bob Barr had to leave the House? He was gerrymandered out of his seat by Republicans when Georgia redistricted.
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 point is when asked, Ron Paul did pick one and stated why (foreign policy)!
Remember, no one was forcing Dr. Paul to make a choice, but he managed to make a choice anyway. He could have said it's impossible to make a choice.
You're beginning to sound just like vast. There was no choice made, no endorsement made. Ron Paul simply made a statement that he thinks maybe obama would be different than the other two twits in relation to the war.
Have you been mentally tested lately? Maybe you need to be. Some people on here couldn't win a buck on the show Smarter Than A Fifth Grader. I know vast couldn't!