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:8953 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.
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.
I never said Obama is "SO FAR SUPERIOR". I very clearly have stated on a number of threads, including this one, that I find him the lesser of 3 evils.
What is your problem with the truth? Vast may have chosen the wrong word in the title when he started this thread (and I explained why), but you deliberately go out of your way to just plain LIE about what I have posted on this forum.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
What did Ron Paul say? He said that he won't endorse McCain. That's not the same as saying that he's going to vote for or endorse a Democrat. Then he said that Obama is slightly better than Hillary. Not exactly support, endorsement, or even high praise.
so is God going to show this on his big plasma, or do you think a pride full request like that
> Vengence is mine saith the Lord". I'm simply stating that I would love to see God's justice, wrath, or whatever carried out upon those who destroyed God's living creation(s), babies if you will.
Don't worry about my salvation. God will judge me. It sounds to me like you had better worry about your own salvation. You pretty much have judged me yourself.
P.S. My statement must have really gotten to you. Did you have an abortion/supported one, or all of the over 40 million that have been carried out in the U.S.?
My friend, I don't 'spin' because I have ethics and morals.
That's a judgment call in this case, I thought the title of this thread alone was spin, but I wasn't trying to be hostile. I just thought you read more into Dr Paul's comments than were there.
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
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.
How many times must we post that we understand Ron Paul did not endorse Obama?
What is your problem?
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Obama said that he prefers Hillary to McCain and McCain to Bush. By the standards that started this thread, that must mean that Obama has "endorsed" Hillary for President.
I'll avoid a visit from the SS and quietly agree with you.
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
Look, he's been quoted verbatim on this thread at least a dozen times and analyzed and interpreted 100 times. If you are in the mood to reject reality, go ahead. At this time, it's a harmless exercise in denial.
I never said Obama is "SO FAR SUPERIOR". I very clearly have stated on a number of threads, including this one, that I find him the lesser of 3 evils.
What is your problem with the truth? Vast may have chosen the wrong word in the title when he started this thread (and I explained why), but you deliberately go out of your way to just plain LIE about what I have posted on this forum.
I never SAID that you said that. But your continual cheerleading would lead one with any cognitive ability to believe that you indeed think that. And I have no problem with the truth. I have not lied about you or anyone else nor do I need to. Your support of a genocidal freak should tell anyone all they need to know about you. That and the fact that there is so little (if any) difference between the genocidal freak you support and the other two that everyone is yammering about.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
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.
good idea. i understand what you're saying, but i also understand the misunderstanding by some from your original post. many could not understand the correlation you were trying to make.
Obama said that he prefers Hillary to McCain and McCain to Bush. By the standards that started this thread, that must mean that Obama has "endorsed" Hillary for President.
That's what I meant by "spin". Remember when we use to call it "twisting one's words"?
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
Ron Paul has said that he thinks Obama is better than Hillary. Obama has said that he thinks Hillary is better than McCain - according to you, that must mean that Obama has endorsed Hillary for President.
#324. To: robin, a vast rightwing conspirator (#316)
He later explains we must wait for the transcript and then in post #18 I posted the video.
It's still spin, but that's what politics are all about.
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
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.
IMO, "endorsement" is a much bigger word than "prefer". The quote on this thread:
Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better ...
The context is predicated on which of the 2 dems is "preferred". You may hate squash and also hate cucumbers, but being forced to compare the two as Paul was with the question, doesn't mean you suddenly like one over the other.
Ron Paul would probably prefer Obama over Stalin, but that wouldn't be an endorsement either.
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 disagree. It was a simple question and simple, honest answer.
(I'm assuming we're talking about the same quote).
Yes, it is fair to expect that Obama will be endorsing Hillary for prez. if he loses to Hillary.
So you think Ron Paul should endorse McCain, or are you just making excuses for Obama. I said earlier, to Cynicom, that I doubt he will be riding her train (someething to that effect), and I meant it. If he's to keep the respect he's garnered in a crazy-ass hick like me he'd do best to tell her to shove it.
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
Surprised by what finding? If Obama says that he likes Hillary better than McCain and McCain more than Bush, he's not going out and telling people to vote for Hillary or McCain over Obama. So how is saying that Obama is better than Hillary an endorsement? I also agree that he's slightly better than Hillary, that doesn't mean that I'll be voting for the guy or trying to convince somebody else to vote for him.
Ron Paul would probably prefer Obama over Stalin, but that wouldn't be an endorsement either.
Are you sure that EVERYONE would prefer Obama over Stalin?
If Obama and Stalin were in the running for the U.S. presidency and Ron Paul said that, given that his own campaign is very much against Gulags he would prefer to see Obama nominated, even though he's not so sure what Obama would do with the money saved by the closing of the existing Gulags but that was not an Obama endorsement.
Well... I would take that as an endorsement and I hope that everyone got Ron Paul's non-endorsement message which is: "pssst... vote for Obama"
Ron Paul has stated that he will not endorse McCain because of his foreign policy.
I know that, so why should Obama be expected to endorse Hillary?
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
How many times must we post that we understand Ron Paul did not endorse Obama?
If you phd's would get it straight in the beginning, read very carefully, and quit posting titles that are outright lies, you wouldn't be having to keep answering and covering up those lies.
The word choice was not uttered by Dr. Paul period He simply made a statement and made sure he said he made no endorsement of obama period. Vast made the choice to post a thread that is absolutely an outright lie. You apparently are having trouble getting a grip on that fact and continue insisting on digging yourself into a deeper hole.
I'm beginning to pity you! Stop it now before the pity turns into something else.
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 never have expected and still don't expect Obama, when he wins the D nod, to choose Hillary. Uniting the D's is not important. He'll get 85% of those votes anyway. What's important is not totally alienating the R's that don't like Cain, and he has to know that a huge reserve of R's can be tapped if only he chooses someone they don't hate.
Choosing Hillary would keep them away. Look for Obama to choose a white guy for VP.
Whatever points Obama gains in foreign policy, he loses on domestic policy. He's less likely to start new wars, sure, but he'll also support the biggest tax hikes and the most social welfare / social engineering do-gooder programs of any of the candidates. Heck, the guy even wants a special tax to pay for Africa's problems. When I heard about his Global Tax proposal, I knew that Obama was as rotten as the rest of the lot, just in a different way.
Whatever points Obama gains in foreign policy, he loses on domestic policy. He's less likely to start new wars, sure, but he'll also support the biggest tax hikes and the most social welfare / social engineering do-gooder programs of any of the candidates.
As president, Obama can withdraw our troops from foreign lands but he can not institute one extra dollar in taxes or spend one more dollar than the congress appropriates. This, too, is common knowledge - see the constitution.