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:8781 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.
#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,
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."
#110. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, robin.All (#97)
BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL WOULD LIKE TO SEE OBAMA U.S. PRESIDENT - that better?
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.
BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL STATES THAT OBAMA IS THE LESSER OF THE THREE EVIL CANDIDATES!
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.
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.
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
China makes a lot money by selling stuff to us and taking either IOUs or U.S. assets in exchange. It is apparent that there aren't a lot of U.S. assets they would like to buy, other than those that the congress refuses to let them buy - some defense-related stuff. As for the IOUs, they are watching in horror as our currency dropping in value so... I'm not sure how much more the gov't can keep borrowing from China or from others. I'm afraid that future wars and future government expansions are going to be financed via inflation constantly increased inflation rates - money printing that is.
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?
I don't expect Obama to perform miracles. I don't even know if he would be able to set a trend toward less U.S. belligerence but, it's possible that, if the neocon cacophony is muffled, more intelligent people would realize that America's problem is not 'America's (imaginary) enemies' but America's effectively committing economic, cultural and moral suicide. I am skeptical that the process can be reversed but, man... can we get a little break before we resume our slide down the slippery slope?
By the way, it is true that there continue to be U.S. troops in Korea, Japan and in Europe. However, there are no U.S. troops left in Vietnam, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon. It is true that, in all these instances, the U.S. was driven out either by force or via eviction notices served by sovereign governments. While Obama may not be able to fully withdraw all of our troops from Iraq on his own, a sovereign Iraqi government may be in the position to demand the complete withdrawal once our occupation army shrinks to a level that permits the Iraqi government to make such a request without fear of being brutally coerced.
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.
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?
Are we talking about the same guy that early on the labeled the Iraq invasion, in non-elitist terms, easily understood by all, a "dumb" war?
One ne'er-do-well, with more than a little help from his "friends", got us into this mess and one man can get us out.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
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.
One ne'er-do-well, with more than a little help from his "friends", got us into this mess and one man can get us out.
That is one of the stupidest comments ever posted on this forum ever. If you think the President of the USA has any real power other than figure head than you haven't been paying attention the last 100 years.
To the extent that 'national priorities' are identified and pursued, national resources, such as the military, can be maintained and the proper level. The neocon cacophony makes a rational discussion of national priorities impossible and false priorities (the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on climate changes - talking about fighting windmills) are presented and funded as main priorities.
Obama owes nothing to the neocons while McCain owes them nearly everything. So, yes, there is some 'hope' that Obama may try to purge them off the executive's most powerful positions.
I don't expect Obama to perform miracles. I don't even know if he would be able to set a trend toward less U.S. belligerence but, it's possible that, if the neocon cacophony is muffled, more intelligent people would realize that America's problem is not 'America's (imaginary) enemies' but America's effectively committing economic, cultural and moral suicide.
Well said.
Ron Paul wouldn't have produced miracles either, but each man would do his best to execute a serious U-turn.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Do you agree with Ron Paul that Obama is slightly better than Hillary and McCain?
No, RP is wrong. Obama - on the domestic front - can make things for me significantly worse for me and others who want to hold onto what little freedom we still have.
Our foreign policy isn't controlled by the president.
Ron Paul is to Obama as Iraq is to 9/11. If you repeat it enough times, no matter how unrelated they are, in the same sentence then soon people will draw a connection between the two.
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.
The neo philosophy wasn't at the root of our internationalism. It goes back to at least Wilson, probably earlier. Removing them changes the chairs on the Titanic. And again, Obama has promised us more war in different locations.
Ron Paul is to Obama as Iraq is to 9/11. If you repeat it enough times, no matter how unrelated they are, in the same sentence then soon people will draw a connection between the two.
that's the objective here
The fact is that Ron Paul did express a preference for Obama. It happened and it is documented. I am personally not surprised that he prefers Obama, given the reality of Hillary and McCain bidding for the same job but I do find it surprising and refreshing that he actually publicly stated his preference while he is still, in theory, still running for the same position. This is quite unprecedented.
Can anyone name ANY other presidential candidate expressing a preference for another candidate FROM ANOTHER PARTY while he was still in the running? I don't believe that it ever happened but... maybe I am wrong.
Given the circumstances - Ron Paul technically running against Obama - his expressing a preference for Obama should be viewed as an implicit endorsement of Obama. That's how I interpret it.
Ron Paul has been with us for twenty five years, anti government all the way.He came in on his own, all alone, and is still alone. The lone American in Congress that is shunned by all.
Obummer was created from nothing, from dust if you will, created for a purpose. And white guilters are marching as if to war, doing exactly as they are programmed.
Given the circumstances - Ron Paul technically running against Obama - his expressing a preference for Obama should be viewed as an implicit endorsement of Obama. That's how I interpret it.
And also think of the reason why he did it: the war issue.
Some people here may think that the war issue does not matter, because -- they think -- no president can change things. It would appear Ron Paul does not agree with that.
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 neo philosophy wasn't at the root of our internationalism.
True, but the neocons are the engine sustaining it. I would call it 'imperialism' though. It seems that the US has 2 main imperialist priorities now: Israel-related issues and Latin America. With the Neocons diminished, all Israel-related activities could decrease. As far Latin America, they seem to be able to increasingly take care of themselves - they don't seem to be as afraid or as submissive no more so... we may be left facing ourselves in a mirror, soon.
Like Ben Stein used to say, 'it's going to be ugly'.
It goes back to at least Wilson, probably earlier.
Wilson eventually lost the political argument. It could happen again.
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.
They were created by the American government. Agree?
Our government helped the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan in the 80's. This was one good thing that our cover services did well. They gave the Russkies a bloody nose and, in the end, they lost half of their empire.
Al Queda emerged as a reaction to our government's attempts to rule the Arab world via war (Iraq), the establishment of military bases and buying off, corrupting and maintaining in power the local governments for the purpose, they concluded, to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously.
And your confusion may subside when you come to the realization that you cannot hold two beliefs, both of which are mutually contradictory, and believe they are both equally credible. That is one of the definitions of insanity.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
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.