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:8543 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.
W Bush is/was clearly in incompetent retard who can/could not function or 'lead' without handlers guiding him every step of the way. Anyone who trusts or trusted Bush now or then is/was either too naive or is/was not paying attention or makes/made a decision to trust him regardless of the abundant evidence. This is not uncommon. Most Americans bought the pre-war propaganda and supported the Iraq invasion. The evidence was clearly lacking and the scare campaign was so crude, most people should have saw it for what it was but they didn't.
Oh, but we were talking about 'trust'. Clearly, it's impossible to completely predict how much of one's promises will become one's future actions. However, I have little doubt that McCain's promises of more war are likely to translate into more war if he becomes the U.S. president. I believe that it will be less war than McCain dreams and promises because the country can't afford a lot more, but there will be more. I also have doubts that Hillary's promises of ending the Iraq involvement are likely to be fully kept because she promised not to talk with the local 'adversaries' and it's hard to reach some good and final outcome absent either some good negotiations or a complete victory and Hillary promises not to do either. In the case of Obama, I believe that he is likely to do more than he is promising, as far as the ME involvement is concerned. He is as intelligent as Hillary but he also appears to be more principled. He also must carry the black man's burden. He will only be judged good or satisfactory as a prez only if he performs way beyond expectations and he seems to be ambitious enough to actually give it a try.
Vast. After reading your post, the thought struck me we're debating the merits of professional American politicians based on 'hope', 'change' and 'trust.' Looking back at my life, in terms of America's foreign policy, it would be illogical for me to 'hope' that a selected politician could 'change' what has become an imperialistic nature, driven by the military industrial complex.
I was born at the end of WWII (FDR knew about PH in advance of the attack, but his desire shuck our isolationism won the day. American troops are still in Germany and Japan). Then Korea came ("The only reason I told the President to fight in Korea was to validate NATO." - Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, but more importantly a CFR member. American troops are still there). Following Korea was Viet Nam (the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, and that nation is now our low labor manufacturing colony). Scattered between Viet Nam and Iraq (WMDs my ass and 9-11 "a second Pearl Harbor"), were Desert Storm, Somalia, Serbia, and probably a half-dozen or so other little messes I've forgotten.
Given this fully developed, interventionist foreign policy of ours, are you honestly telling me you believe one man, Barack Obama, a lowly state senator three years ago, will be able to stop the the MIC and its lust for money and power?
There is a very small chance Obama would do something on that front.
Oh really?
His defined Middle East policy is to hold Israel "sacrosanct" and to move "some" troops from Iraq to Afghanistan so they can "hunt down" Al Qaeda, which is nothing more than creation of the US government.
To anyone who thinks we're leaving the Middle East, Santa is coming 12/25/08.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Israel may care little whether we expand, maintain or end the war there. Israel is probably worried about the Paki nukes so, to the extent that the Paki gov't is kept on the leash, they don't really care who's in charge in Kabul.
I didn't say it was. Obama is sending troops currently in Iraq, to Afghanistan to war with a US government created entity. And, BTW, should Pakistan (a nuclear power) pop it's ugly head up, he said he'd poke them in the ribs too.
should Pakistan (a nuclear power) pop it's ugly head up, he said he'd poke them in the ribs too.
Obama stated that he would try to blow up AlQueda guys in Paki if there was sufficient intelligence that made it possible. He never threatened to obliterate Pakistan or overthrow their government.
yes, Al quaeda is likely a CIA creation. and Obama's statements that he is hot on the 'war on terror' and wants to expand operations in pakistan indicates that he just doesn't get it or worse yet is a willing puppet of evil. Also, that Obama wants to expand the ethanol subsidies and thus kill millions of people through starvation indicates to me the man is no different from his opponents.
However, Robin made a very strong & logical case that Obama was differentiating himself. She did it in a very civil manner using links showing Obama's speeches & stances on issues. Obama has changed his web site in the last month/6 weeks to say that he will withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months and leave only enough to protect the embassy. When he says he'll leave enough to protect the embassy this seeems like a weasel phrase to me and discounts his promise. But he is the only one of the 3 who even hints at a withdrawal. and so Robin's case to support him was a very strong one IMHO.
But people greeted Robin with contempt and persistent insults over this. and so Robin bozo'd them. She bozo'd 14. That was judged to be too many. and she was limited to 10. Then she quit the forum.
she posted a lot of articles and was always ready with links and info to make her comments worthwhile.