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:8914 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 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!
Lieberman has endorsed McCain, and now constantly accompanies him on campaign.
I suspect he has hopes of becoming VP, or of otherwise participating in a McCain administration.
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 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?
And it's too bad that the man you support sees nothing wrong with partial birth abortion, one of the most horrendous and inhumane practices ever devised to kill the innocent.
Wrong, he managed to select one of the 3 because he was "slightly bettter" on foreign policy. The video and transcript are there. Yes, he qualified his choice but he made it when asked. Again, no one claims he made an endorsement, we have stated all over this thread that this is NOT an endorsement.
Again, Dr. Paul was not required to make any choice when asked by Wolf Blitzer.
More importantly his choice was entirely about the war in Iraq, "foreign policy".
"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
As I was just explaining to Old Friend on another thread...
Obama is not for killing babies in the womb, like Red China, where abortions are forced on women who do not want them.
Rather, Obama believes such decisions are best left up to to the pregnant women. This is supported by many who have bumper stickers like "Keep your hands off my body".
I would like to see laws against abortion, but after voting for pro-life candidates my entire voting life I have not seen any yet.
McCain chooses to bomb babies and pregnant women, perhaps for the next 100 years. This "collateral damage" would be fine with him.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
He moved from dismissing Obama to naming him as his preferred candidate.
:: the flip side of that coin, you are the only republican calling for a withdraw from iraq. if you're not going to become president and be in a position to affect that, would they be better off voting for the democratic candidate?
:: i don't think so i don't think they're very sincere. if you look at obama's voting record, he's voted not to end the war. he's voted to finance the war. his rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way but he is every bit as much of an -- he wants to send more troops into afghanistan. he wants to broaden the military. i think it's a fraud what he's talking about when he wants to really get out of iraq. i think that's politics.
I want every American citizen to have the same health benefit package illegal aliens now enjoy.
Yes, we'll make slaves of every last healthcare provider. It will work, I know it will work. I'll finally be able to explain the intricacies of music by The Melvins to that pretty nurse at the dentist's office.
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
And it's too bad that the man you support sees nothing wrong with partial birth abortion, one of the most horrendous and inhumane practices ever devised to kill the innocent.
You stated the ultimate right answer on abortion. I can't wait to hear the screams coming from the women who aborted their babies as God metes out their punishment. Those screams would be sweet music to my ears. I hope the good lord peels every square inch of skin without any mercy off all those who had abortions and any politican, judge, and doctor who supported abortion or who were in a position to stop it, but didn't.
Funny how long the pubbies have hoodwinked the voters into believing they are pro-life and then never, not once, introduce any legislation to end this atrocity. Under the little chimp, who claimed he is pro-life, and with a house and senate of his own party, never asked for or demanded legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.
I can't wait to hear the screams coming from the women who aborted their babies as God metes out their punishment. Those screams would be sweet music to my ears. I hope the good lord peels every square inch of skin without any mercy off all those who had abortions and any politican, judge, and doctor who supported abortion or who were in a position to stop it, but didn't.
Thats the insane kind of statements that create gun grabbers, think about what that statement says about you.
Not to be pushy but didn't God give free will and it's not for us to judge?
As I was just explaining to Old Friend on another thread...
Obama is not for killing babies in the womb,
Obama thinks it is ok to kill them AFTER THEY ARE BORN FOR GOODNESS SAKES! Here is a comment from someone on that article I linked to which I imagine you must have been too busy to read--guess making up all those Obama signs and whatnot takes up too much of the day to actually read anything about the guy you are touting for president.
"Obama is pro-choice which means that he's in favor of abortions being legal. His views on partial birth abortions are NOT a pro-life/choice issue. In 2002 President Bush was able to sign BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) into law due to the fact that the federal senators passed it was a unanimous vote. Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton all agreed that a mother's right to choose stops at the birth of her baby. Obama disagreed. His reason was that he didn't think it was right to burden a mother with a child she intended to abort. From a pro-choice standpoint, there is something fundamentally scary about a person who can't differentiate between killing a fetus while in the womb and killing a newborn baby that's breathing outside of the womb. His pro-choice stand on abortion makes him seem very left but he's not. Barack Obama is pro-genocide and not even pro-choice people can argue this fact."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
Again, Dr. Paul was not required to make any choice when asked by Wolf Blitzer.
Oh,! Now I get it. Dr. Paul made a choice to answer the loaded question and made a statement so that bugwits and blockheads through distortion could argue that he made a choice and endorsed obama.
I have already read his position on abortion (and post-birth abortion) and I find it appalling. This is one reason I am not a Democrat. Sadly, I no longer have a reason to vote GOP either, since the warmonger McCain has been selected. When I say I find Obama the lesser of 3 evils that's just what I mean.
I do not have nor ever have had any Obama signs, nor have I ever made any.
I guess you cannot support your argument on this thread, so you have resorted to these tactics.
Let me remind you again that it is the choice of women and their doctors to perform this procedure. No one is forcing them to kill innocent babies like they do in Red China.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Do you deny that Ron Paul could have simply said, "I cannot make any choice, they are all exactly the same" or "I cannot pick one, they are all horrible choices" ?
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I didn't judge anyone. That's God's job and you can be sure he will do it. I'm only hoping he treats them as horrible as they treated their unborn babies. Make it so horrible they would wish they were never born. I just want to see and hear their just punishment.
I guess you cannot support your argument on this thread, so you have resorted to these tactics.
Let me remind you again that it is the choice of women and their doctors to perform this procedure. No one is forcing them to kill innocent babies like they do in Red China.
Oh, I don't think I have had any problem supporting my arguments. I actually bothered to look up your heroe's stand on partial birth abortion and give you a link to it but it appeared I wasted my time.
And let me remind you, yet again, that Obama cares less about a human infant than most of us do a puppy. He is worthless scum.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
There you go again. Ron Paul could have simply ignored the question. The question you just asked is as assinine as vast's thread title. You have simply tried to ask me a loded question and I refused to answer it. My choic! I refuse to justify your play on semantics.
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 think that's a valid position to take. But I don't see anything wrong with preferring one of the three over the other two. The question and answer are innocent enough since we will get one of those three!.
And answering that question certainly does not justify labels of "commie" and "gun-grabber" as have been hurled at me. It's certainly ironic that there's more passion in my adversaries than in me, since my adversaries claim all three are the same.
#302. To: robin, a vast rightwing conspirator (#295)
Do you deny that Ron Paul could have simply said, "I cannot make any choice, they are all exactly the same" or "I cannot pick one, they are all horrible choices" ?
I respect him for giving an honest opinion, although I disagree with the spin AVRC has put on it. Youm know what I'd like to see? Tim Russert (Chris Matthews? never could tell them apart) asking Hillary if she prefers Ron Paul over John McCain. Now that would make for some Must See Tee Vee.
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 have never called Obama my "hero". Again you show little respect for the truth.
You were totally unsuccessful in proving that Ron Paul did not pick Obama from the 3 when asked by Blitzer.
uh huh. No, Obama isn't your hero but he is SO FAR SUPERIOR to the other two scumbags, right? Yeah, that must be it.
As for Ron picking him or not picking him he plainly stated that what he said was not--repeat NOT--an endorsement. But you people who love Obama so much can't believe that a "non endorsement" is not an endorsement.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
My friend, I don't 'spin' because I have ethics and morals.
Ron Paul could have told Blitz exactly what he told AC350 on March 10, but he didn't. Clearly, Obama kind of grew on him. Can you interpret RP's changing from what he stated on March 10 to the views he expressed on May 2?
I posted the link at #288, I believe.
These are RP's views on March 10:
:: the flip side of that coin, you are the only republican calling for a withdraw from iraq. if you're not going to become president and be in a position to affect that, would they be better off voting for the democratic candidate?
:: i don't think so i don't think they're very sincere. if you look at obama's voting record, he's voted not to end the war. he's voted to finance the war. his rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way but he is every bit as much of an -- he wants to send more troops into afghanistan. he wants to broaden the military. i think it's a fraud what he's talking about when he wants to really get out of iraq. i think that's politics.
"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
But Obama was against the initial invasion. Since then the voting waters have been muddied a bit since it wasn't just voting for "the war" but for funding defensive tools for the troops. Did McCain vote against the initial invasion?
While there's certainly virtue in being firm in what's desired, and Cain wins that award over Obama, I think I'd prefer someone who's wishy-washy on the war to someone who's honest about wanting a lot more of it.
Note when I say "prefer" I do not mean "vote for". I guess I should make that my tag line since so many willingly misinterpret me. I believe we're best off voting for Ron Paul than anyone else, in spite of any preference for one of the three.