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:9064 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.
Yes, it's difficult to avoid not talking about a "flub"(?) that is a total fabrication about being under sniper fire.
But unquestionably, since Ohio, Barack has taken by far the most flak from the media. To the point that they have had to search (no doubt for hours) for snippets of comments by mere associates, and nothing of substance about himself.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If the worst that can be said of Obama is that he comes out of a similar political machine, maybe the same will be true of him.
No, what Christine said was the worst I'd say of him, but it's true that I'm not a big fan of machine politics.
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
Next debate: Senator Obama, why aren't you wearing a BIGGER flag pin?
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
The Chicago political machine and the Skull & Bones gang, huh.
Screw them both, I'll probably vote for Baldwin.
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
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.
No! That would be the truth! You are a pigheaded lie spreading bushbot who bought into the bushkie lies and promises back in the 2000 election, a close friend of the idiot Medved and wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.
Fruthermore you bought into bushkie's lying tactics to get us involved in the attack of Iraq. Guess you don't have enough sense to know that some of us haven't forgot your blind support of the little chimp.
Oh what a tangeled web we weave when we first practice to deceive. Medved is probably mighty proud of you for this lying thread title. What a fool you have made of yourself just like you did years ago on TOS.
no soft-shoeing off into the dreamworld of the Barr/Baldwin "debaters" here.
I'm not going to vote for someone I don't think represents my interests, nor will I be browbeat into silence. It's just that simple.
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
HE'S A SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT. THAT'S THE ISSUE FOR ME. I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FIG ABOUT HIS COLOR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT DEFINES HIS LEFTIST POLITICS. Exactly! Not to mention that he's a product of the Chicago political machine, a gang that could give Tammany Hall a run for their money.
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I think it was a "Who would you rather have in your home, a person with severe acne or a deranged arsonist with a blowtorch and a head full of meth?" type question.
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
Where were you when I wrecked my Capri? It took six weeks to find a hood for that sucker.
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
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
#230. To: Cynicom, vastrightwingconspirator (#191)(Edited)
i don't interpret that as expressing a preference. Only partisan sheep would see it as an endorsement. The sheep are being herded by one herder and two dogs.
Neither do I cyni. vast deliberately distorts the truth and or can't comprehend what Dr. Paul said. Maybe he has attention deficit disorder and we should all feel sorry for him.
It is obvious that the question was a loaded one and there is really no good answer to give to a loaded question.
I'd like to ask him a few questions and see if he distorts them also. One would be does he still believe Iraq had WMD at the time bushkie lied us into the Iraq war? The other question I would ask him is this. Are you ashamed to admit that you masterbate? Both require only a simple answer. Vast is a master at distortion and could probably distort the simple yes or no answers just like bushkie does.
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Wolf Blitzer asked him of the 3 which would he pick.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I think it was a "Who would you rather have in your home, a person with severe acne or a deranged arsonist with a blowtorch and a head full of meth?" type question.
I believe there are a few folks on here--not to call any names--who would choose the meth head in your scenario. Admittedly, of the three there is NO good choice, in fact not what I would call a choice at all. But I just don't understand why people who CLAIMED to be for Ron Paul are now so strongly attached to Obama and the two of them couldn't be much different.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
That's why it's important that Obama choose a good running mate, like Jim Webb.
I really like jim Webb, I wish RP had past the torch to someone like him.
But Obama is a political creation formed and paid for by the same cabals W and most/all of
our presidents/presidential hopefuls since jfk assasination .For me his inclusion of Brzezinski
screams " the magic negro is a puppet" !!
In his 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski argued that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. Out of this thesis, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose is to strengthen relations among the three most industrially advanced regions of the free world. Brzezinski selected Georgia governor Jimmy Carter as a member. [edit] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski< /a>
As I stated earlier. One way to avoid personal attacks is to bozo the idiots whose contributions are so consistently and predictably uninteresting, nothing would be lost if they disappeared.
So, you just qualified for my bozo list and I can't think of any reason why I would take you off it at any time in the future. You are the third one so, can't even claim exclusivity or being at the top of the list, which you're not.
How bad can someone be who says this? Amid a firestorm over an initial working paper Messrs . Mearsheimer and Walt published last year on the Israel lobby, Mr. Brzezinski rose to their defense, even as he demurred on the question of whether he agreed with their central arguments. The authors, he wrote in the journal Foreign Policy, “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed public debate on the role of the Israel lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.”
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama, but that doesn't mean that's an endorsement....He would be slightly better on the foreign policy".
Dr. Paul should have said none of the three, but that he would end the war if he were elected. Seems like the dumbing down process of the population in the us has been very successful.
The headline on this thread is completely false. A line in the movie All The Presidents Men has Carl Berstein and Bob Woodward arguing over a simple qestion that goes like this. If you walk up to a person and ask for directions, are you simply asking for directions or interrogating that person? Apparently vastwould have a problem giving the right answer.
But I just don't understand why people who CLAIMED to be for Ron Paul are now so strongly attached to Obama and the two of them couldn't be much different.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
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
So, you just qualified for my bozo list and I can't think of any reason why I would take you off it at any time in the future. You are the third one so, can't even claim exclusivity or being at the top of the list, which you're not.
You mean I finally made the grade? That calls for a celebration.
Geeze, I' all broken up that you claim to have bozoed me. /sarcasm
But he explicitly stated that he can't support McCain and then he explicitly stated that he found Obama superior to Clinton
boy, talk about twisting Ron Paul's words.
"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
And, before that he stated that he could NOT support McCain because McCain's stands on war were the exact opposite of his and because ending these wars was a central principle of his campaign.
Than, RP says: "i would think the one most likely to keep us from expanding the wars is obama"
He's clearly for Obama because he's the one most compatible with his stands on war and war is his main concern at this time.
It's as crystal-clear as it could possible come out of a politician's mouth.
[Sorry, I don't have the transcript and I'm too lazy to try to find it at this time but, if one is available, then I will be happy to quote RP's words directly.]
If Ron Paul explicitly endorsed a Democratic candidate like Obama, I wonder if that would endanger his continued membership in the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.
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.
...it would be a tough choice because i see them all as about the same.....
christine, ask this distortionist the very same question Dr, Paul was asked. Then watch him wiggle and squirm outta answering it. Typical of lifelong bushbot supporters.
#245. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Hayek Fan (#151)
Seriously, there is no reason for personal attacks.
I believe that there is some basis to believe that some oppose Obama because he is a half-darkie. I know of such people and not all of them are 'old'. It is also legitimate to be skeptical that Obama may be able to fully implement his stated anti-war agenda. But, I believe, this can be discussed without getting 'personal'.
And was my comment to him worse (in your opinion) than the comment he made to Hayek Fan? If you recall, he told Hayek Fan: "Your confusion will subside when you manage to grasp two or more ideas simultaneously."
For whatever it's worth, I don't give a $#it what color anyone is. If someone came along verbalizing the same beliefs that Ron Paul has--a reverence for the Constitution and who knows that the oath he takes is binding on honorable people--I could vote for him if he came with stripes or polka dots. I fail to see any honor or understanding with any of the media's magic 3 of the principles Ron stands for but I do see people who will obey their masters.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
robin I am,and have been, since JFK ,a believer in the deceptions foisted upon the citizens of USA.
International groups, loosely affiliated, are trying to have a NWO with castes.
Mr. Brzezinski as creator of the trilateral commisson is a deal beaker for me.
Post 9/11
After 9/11 Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda camps. He asserted that blame rightfully ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union, whose invasion he claimed radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society.
I take them at their word, they don't see third party candidates as having a chance, and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
Nor of much less war that I can tell. He will do what those in charge tell him to do just like Bush has, just like Hillary would or McCain. Not a nickel's worth of difference in the three.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
#249. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, christine, ALL (#242)
[Sorry, I don't have the transcript and I'm too lazy to try to find it at this time but, if one is available, then I will be happy to quote RP's words directly.]
oh, the audacity of this bushbot. This flipping flamingo started many a war over on TOS with bullshit accusations and this was always his standard answer when asked to prove his point.
It will soon be time for the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey game. That would be far better entertainment than reading this persons lying first hand bullshit. More important too!
...and Obama is the only one not preaching the gospel of more war.
" I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."
" The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."
" We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines."
" We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability... "
"We can start by spending homeland security dollars on the basis of risk. This means investing more resources to defend mass transit, closing the gaps in our aviation security by screening all cargo on passenger airliners and checking all passengers against a comprehensive watch list, and upgrading port security by ensuring that cargo is screened for radiation."