See other Ron Paul Articles
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: 8577
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-63) not displayed.
.
.
.
#64. To: FOH (#62)
This was, as always, a set up by the CFR on both sides. That we see obamanation going on is like taking a blunt instrument and clubbing the last freedom puppy to death with it . . . So, if I understand it you think maybe we should figure out--how exactly I am not sure--which one is the worst and vote for that one so we can just go ahead and get it over with? You might be surprised how many people think that.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. And what pray tell is that reality? Is everyone who doesn't vote for Obama now going to be called a racist? Whooptie-do. I'm not voting for Obama because I don't vote for central planning collectivists. I have never voted for a central planning collectivist and I never will. On top of that, I believe Obama is a made member of the two party fraud, along with his two partners in crime, Hillary and McCain. Because he is a member of the two party fraud, I do not believe Obama will bring the troops home. I believe it to be an election ploy. If this makes me a racist, then so be it. I will vote for whoever the LP candidate is unless Chuck Baldwin is on the ballot in my state. I've always liked him. I'm through giving a rat's ass about who other people vote for.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
The Revolution was a lovely dream and I chucked a few bucks at it and touted it loudly here. But it's nut cutting time now and past time to get serious about the next four years.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Congratulations VRWC!! you win the pissing contest. I'm glad Paul said that. He's a patriot. I don't like Obama, but the others are worse (I think). If Obama's name is on the ballot in November I might actually vote for him.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
He posted what he heard on live television. It's easy to miss a sentence or two. After I posted the video, he realized he overstated what Dr. Paul said and corrected it in the posts that followed.
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years,” “Maybe a hundred ... ... that’d be fine with me,” McCain responds ROFL!!!! Poor Kenny.
yes, but only if you're white.
Would you like the title corrected to something more accurate? If so what would you like it to say? Perhaps "Ron Paul says Obama is "slightly better" than Hillary"
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years,” “Maybe a hundred ... ... that’d be fine with me,” McCain responds But of course. There can be no other reason why people who have been fighting against big government for (in my case) decades would vote against Obama. Racism has to be the answer.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
I'm not voting for Obama because I don't vote for central planning collectivists. I have never voted for a central planning collectivist and I never will. On top of that, I believe Obama is a made member of the two party fraud, along with his two partners in crime, Hillary and McCain. Because he is a member of the two party fraud, I do not believe Obama will bring the troops home. I believe it to be an election ploy. If this makes me a racist, then so be it. I will vote for whoever the LP candidate is unless Chuck Baldwin is on the ballot in my state. I've always liked him. I'm through giving a rat's ass about who other people vote for. Well articulated...
How about, Ron Paul says Obama's name while talking.
Let's start a rumor. Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin are going to team up after the Republican Convention in Minnesota this summer. See how fun that is?
I don't see any correction in any thing he posted. Let him speak for himself.
Thanx. I'm about done with this thread. I'm through arguing with people over who they are going to vote for. It's never worked in the past when I attempted to talk small government republicans against voting for the lessor of two evils and it's not going to work now. People are going to vote for who they are going to vote for.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Pay it no mind. There's probably a very rational answer to why poor and ill educated whites are doing their best to swamp him. The race this time apparently will be decided by rabid feminists and little old ladies or morons.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin are going to team up after the Republican Convention in Minnesota this summer. See how fun that is? LOL! I'm enjoying the suspense as it is. Media mentioned Evan Bayh is a contenter for a Hillary VP today.
Obama/Bloomberg 2008?
Sounds like a blue plate special at Tahoe Joes.
Sounds like a blue plate special at Tahoe Joes. LOLOL !
The race this time apparently will be decided by rabid feminists and little old ladies or morons. I'm confused. Your post appeared to be about the anti-Obama people on f4um. Was I mistaken or are you of the opinion that the people on this site are poor and ill educated? I can asure you that I am neither, and as to the other folk on this site, while I cannot attest to their financial status, most are hard core political junkies and can be called just about anything BUT ill educated in regards to politics.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
That there poster smells like an elitist-wannabe...get invited to all the cool local social events.
:D
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Your implication that government under Obama will expand more appreciably than under Clinton or the Bush clone is phony on it face.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
10 minutes ago, on CNN. Wolfie interviewed him. He was careful to say that it's not 'an endorsement' (because he's still in the running) so he called it a 'preference'. freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...gi?ArtNum=79645&Disp=6#C6 #7. To: Jethro Tull (#5) It's strange that he didn't mention Barr. He noted that both Hillary and Obama voted to fund the troops in Iraq but, on balance, he found Obama 'better'. #15. To: RickyJ (#12) I would like to see the transcript myself. Of course, you should not change your views just because Ron Paul's are different from yours now but it's interesting that someone both of us respect seems to be in total agreement with me. Even to the 'nuances' level. #19. To: robin (#17) Let's see the transcript but, based on my imperfect recollection, RP called Obama 'slightly better' than Hillary. Not 'less evil'. This is exactly my view. He's a minor positive which is A LOT, when compared to the past few presidents and the 2 monsters he needs to defeat to get the job. #23. To: robin (#18) Thanks for posting the videos. In Ron Paul's words, Obama would be 'slightly better' in foreign policy. His main concern: where would Obama spend the money he would save from stopping the wars. I have the same concern myself but... let's get the wars stopped first.
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years,” “Maybe a hundred ... ... that’d be fine with me,” McCain responds Red herring. I've never said that Obama would expand the government more than Clinton or McCain.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Did the word implication sail unimpeded through your ocular orbs and out your ears? In your own words ... There can be no other reason why people who have been fighting against big government for (in my case) decades would vote against Obama. The last time I looked there were only three candidates remaining. I would expect better from a well educated "political junkie". Wanna try again?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I don't have to try again. My statement about Obama does not imply that I think him to be any better or worse than either Clinton or McCain. Especially when I specifically stated that I believe them all to be made members of the same cabal. May YOU would like to try again.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
"mr. molester" .... hee hee ... your starting to lose it Mr. Pompous. Your huffing and puffing usually gets a free pass here ... but next time don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Night night.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Your huffing and puffing usually gets a free pass here ... but next time don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Night night. I actually deleted it almost as soon as I posted it. But that's OK, it gives you an excuse to run away like the bitch you are. Anyone reading the thread will see that I never implied that Obama was worse than Clinton or McCain and that my statement put them all in the same boat.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Night night. I actually deleted it almost as soon as I posted it. But that's OK, it gives you an excuse to run away like the bitch you are. Anyone reading the thread will see that I never implied that Obama was worse than Clinton or McCain and that my statement put them all in the same boat. I thought it was 'rock, paper, scissor night'. Whoever is in charge of the weapons memo, is in deep guano.
Even if it's an exaggeration to say that Ron Paul endorsed Obama, or indicated that he supports him, I think it is clear that he would not approve of the vitriolic attacks on Obama that we have had the unpleasant experience of having to read on this site.
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 see any correction in any thing he posted. Let him speak for himself. Correction: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL WOULD LIKE TO SEE OBAMA U.S. PRESIDENT - that better? Understand the context. Realistically, there are 3 people who can get the job and Ron Paul named ONE. He did not dodge the question and he did not say that it does not matter which one gets the job. Ron Paul said the following: 1 - he OPPOSES McCain because he's a warmonger. 2 - between Hillary and Obama he, reluctantly, if you want, prefers Obama. You can call this 'support' or you can call it 'preference'. RP said it was not an 'endorsement'. Do you prefer 'preference' over 'support', that's fine but, whatever you call it, Ron Paul named Obama as his favorite candidate for the U.S. presidency, OF THE THREE WHO ARE LIKELY TO GET THE JOB.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That was his problem, a refusal to set himself above other candidates by direct,strong and repeated comparisons of his own ideas to the trash offered by other candidates. I say if it gathers with racist elites, then don't vote for the bird. Then again, makes very little difference.. whoever wins gets to rule by the script handed to them. : )
Robin, thank you for the summary. I agree that 'supports' may be a tiny bit too strong a word. 'Expresses' or 'announces' or 'states a preference for Obama' would have been a more proper headline. But... the essence of his commentary was something that one must be blind or extremely biased to ignore - it is possible to rate the 3 current contenders. They are not the same. We need to be wise and make the best of a not so good situation.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Is everyone who doesn't vote for Obama now going to be called a racist? I'm voting for him because I'm a racist. I mean, just look at what he's done for DU and 4um! He's a godsend.
Be happy, go lucky, go Lucky Strike today!
I agree, even Ron Paul has basically said they are not the same.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Yes, it's a simple idea: the three candidates to the U.S. president job are not interchangeable. One of them would at a minimum maintain and likely expand our ruinous involvement in the Middle East. Another would somewhat reduce the Iraq occupation force but, like her husband, is likely to stay 'engaged' and bomb lots of innocent people dead. Mr. Obama may drastically reduce our military presence in Iraq and is unlikely to initiate new wars and occupations. Back in 2000, some of us saw no big difference between Gore and Bush. We saw both of them as 'evil' and we refused to back the 'lesser evil'. The common wisdom amongst the FR members, and I believe I was one of them at the time, was that Bush was actually the lesser evil. I supported Buchanan. Now, let's be honest. If Gore got the U.S. presidency, it's hard to imagine how the central government would have gotten any bigger or any more intrusive. It is also very likely that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. What a difference would a Gore presidency have made? We would have hated it because we would have had no idea of how worse the W Bush presidency would have been but... how about hundreds of thousands of human beings, including over 4000 Americans still alive and how about a couple trillion dollars not wasted? I would NOT call that 'insignificant'. It's easy to say 'it does not matter' but when reality screams at us that it DOES matter, we ignore reality at your own risk and at our own expense.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I agree, but I asked that question about a month ago here to a few posters and they all disagreed.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Comments (104 - 534) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhy not use race to elevate the Far Lefty Liberal Marxist Gun Grabbing Establishment selection up to the point of social upheaval !?
Lord Acton
#65. To: iconoclast (#44)
The insincerity of the Obama protesters is palpable ... the hyper protest arises from one and only one reality ... and it ain't "elitism".
#66. To: robin (#33)
He's not Ron Paul.
#67. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#68. To: LACUMO (#63)
Hillary: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
#69. To: FOH (#60)
#70. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
And what pray tell is that reality? Is everyone who doesn't vote for Obama now going to be called a racist?
#71. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#68)
Hillary: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
#72. To: christine (#70)
yes, but only if you're white.
#73. To: Hayek Fan, Post of the Day, , *Chuck Baldwin President 2008* (#65)
And what pray tell is that reality? Is everyone who doesn't vote for Obama now going to be called a racist? Whooptie-do.
#74. To: robin (#71)
Would you like the title corrected to something more accurate? If so what would you like it to say? Perhaps "Ron Paul says Obama is "slightly better" than Hillary"
#75. To: Peppa (#74)
How about, Ron Paul says Obama's name while talking.
#76. To: robin (#68)
, he realized he overstated what Dr. Paul said and corrected it in the posts that followed.
#77. To: FOH (#73)
Well articulated...
#78. To: Hayek Fan (#72)
Racism has to be the answer.
#79. To: FOH (#75)
Let's start a rumor.
#80. To: Peppa (#79)
Media mentioned Evan Bayh is a contenter for a Hillary VP today.
#81. To: FOH (#80)
Obama/Bloomberg 2008?
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
Obama/Bloomberg 2008?
#83. To: iconoclast (#78)
There's probably a very rational answer to why poor and ill educated whites are doing their best to swamp him.
#84. To: All (#82)
#85. To: Hayek Fan (#83)
#86. To: FOH (#82)
LOLOL !
#87. To: Hayek Fan (#83)
I'm confused. Your post appeared to be about the anti-Obama people on f4um. Was I mistaken or are you of the opinion that the people on this site are poor and ill educated?
#88. To: Hayek Fan (#72)
(Edited)
There can be no other reason why people who have been fighting against big government for (in my case) decades would vote against Obama.
#89. To: LACUMO (#76)
Hillary: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
#90. To: iconoclast (#88)
Your implication that government under Obama will expand more appreciably than under Clinton or the Bush clone is phony on it face.
#91. To: Hayek Fan (#90)
(Edited)
I've never said that Obama would expand the government more than Clinton or McCain.
#92. To: iconoclast (#91)
(Edited)
#93. To: Hayek Fan (#92)
would like to try again mr. molester
#94. To: iconoclast (#93)
would like to try again mr. molester "mr. molester" .... hee hee ... your starting to lose it Mr. Pompous.
#95. To: Hayek Fan (#94)
would like to try again mr. molester "mr. molester" .... hee hee ... your starting to lose it Mr. Pompous. Your huffing and puffing usually gets a free pass here ... but next time don't bring a knife to a gunfight,
#96. To: robin (#89)
#97. To: LACUMO (#76)
(Edited)
, he realized he overstated what Dr. Paul said and corrected it in the posts that followed.
#98. To: aristeides (#96)
"he would not approve of the vitriolic attacks on Obama that we have had the unpleasant experience of having to read on this site.
#99. To: robin (#89)
#100. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
#101. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#99)
it is possible to rate the 3 current contenders. They are not the same. We need to be wise and make the best of a not so good situation.
#102. To: robin (#101)
#103. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#102)
Now, let's be honest. If Gore got the U.S. presidency, it's hard to imagine how the central government would have gotten any bigger or any more intrusive. It is also very likely that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
.
.
.