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: 8613
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 (1-73) not displayed.
.
.
.
#74. To: robin (#71)
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
I believe I remember that. An one must be dishonest to state that a few trillion dollars unwasted and hundreds of thousands not killed don't matter.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
He also said that he will not be endorsing McCain. I just watched parts 1 and 2. You are exactly correct. He said BHO would be slightly better because he (BHO), in his (RP's) opinion, BHO would not expand the war as much. But that BHO voted for the war, spending for the war, etc. I agree, but I asked that question about a month ago here to a few posters and they all disagreed. How much bigger does it get than EU-like Super State Regional and Global governance ?? Gore's one of them...dow-un jigh yo-say-if.
I believed Bush too.
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.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
There ain't no money (only empty promises to pay for credits) so as long as there isn't a revolution the Fed will keep printing dollars and the public will pay for the wars through inflation. Other nations will be forced to accept the depreciated dollar or some other threat. The ME wars are for the (false zio-nazi) Jews, these false Jews run the Fed, the Fed prints the currency ... war will continue until the people put an end to it.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson
Not much. You could have saved yourself alot of time by not muddying the water in the beginning. Your title would have been more honest had you posted it this way. BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL STATES THAT OBAMA IS THE LESSER OF THE THREE EVIL CANDIDATES! There are still six months to go before the General Election. Many things can happen between now and then. Bon Paul didn't quit the campaign yet. Had many of you wishy-washy supporters stayed HARD IN SUPPORT OF RON PAUL all along, there could be numerous senarios that could take place. For instance: The Viet Nam vets, especially the POW could 'Swift Boat' Mcinsane. Mcinsane could get physically sick, the 'Keating Five' and the whole Silverado could re- emerge and destroy his candidacy. The Ron Paul Revolution could by election day have enough write-in votes to take the election overwhelmingly. ....and the worst nightmare of all is the possibility that the bushites and bushkie could declare martial law and suspend the elections, I could go on with even more, Of course if we all continue bickering, have already thrown in the towel by sensless speculation nd posting lies and twisting the truth, we definitely will end up with one of the three evils, all foisted upon us by the establishment. I'm sure many around the country and on here really don't care. I do! HELL! It wouldn't cost a dime to get up a 'WRITE_IN' campaign going and we got 6 months to do it. No chicanery needed, no blimp, and no more FRN's needed to accomplish a successful write-in stampede for Ron Paul. All it would take is for someone with a lot of leadership savvy and some great HTML skills to get it up and running on the net and around the country. If this opportunity passes us by, we can all talk about what could have been, once they have us all behind the barbedwire in one of their fema camps. But if we all sit on our lazy asses and are willing to settle for one of the thre three stooges (my apology to Larry, Curly, Moe), we have become what the establishment hopes we are. Take a stand for decent government, stick with it til the election and maybe we can pull off a "MIRACLE". Remember, " It ain't over til 'The Fat Lady' sings.
China's running out of money?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Now, THAT, my friend, would be a completely dishonest headline. It COMPLETELY distorts the fact that Ron Paul virtually endorsed Obama for U.S. president. As far as the posted headline, while it could have been marginally improved, as I indicated, it very much summarizes what Ron Paul did, which was to support Obama in his match against Hillary and McCain.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Hillary and McCain are tired old establishment personified. The kids got it right with Dr. Paul and they've got it right with Obama. The old ladies can't stand the idea of dying without seeing a woman in the White House and the old men can't bear having a Black man in the White House while they're still drawing breath.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Comments (114 - 534) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWould 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.
#104. To: robin (#103)
#105. To: robin (#20)
Dr. Paul said it is not an endorsement but that Obama is slightly better than Hillary.
#106. To: robin, a vast rightwing conspirator, all obamaneocon deceived Believers (#103)
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.
#107. To: robin (#33)
But Obama will get us out of Iraq, I believe.
#108. To: angle (#107)
#109. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#108)
(Edited)
I believe that it will be less war than McCain dreams and promises because the country can't afford a lot more,
#110. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, robin.All (#97)
BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL WOULD LIKE TO SEE OBAMA U.S. PRESIDENT - that better?
#111. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#108)
I believe that it will be less war than McCain dreams and promises because the country can't afford a lot more,
#112. To: LACUMO (#110)
BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL STATES THAT OBAMA IS THE LESSER OF THE THREE EVIL CANDIDATES!
#113. To: James Deffenbach (#55)
I think most of us who have made a couple of trips around the block know that the establishment is happy enough with any one of those three.
.
.
.