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:9067 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.
I do not know who was 'worse'. I believe that many contributors to this discussion are quite passionate about their views and they should defend them vigorously but there's a difference between a battle of ideas and a battle of the egos.
Like I said before, someone's fool could be someone else's wise man. If you respond to the "fool's" statement with a personal attack you will not persuade those who view him as the wise man to abandon him and re-examine his views.
There are also some (very few) who seem to take pleasure it engaging in personal attacks and contribute almost nothing else. Those, in my view, deserve to be ignored.
"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
That's how I see it too, but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it, especially with people I agree with so much else on. Did being called a Paultard on LP do much to bring you around to the way of thinking of those doing the namecalling?
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
Sure. Mr. Paul may be asked this question again or he may volunteer to further expand on his CNN remarks. Until then... his statement is somewhat open to interpretation as of to the degree to which he prefers Obama to McCain or Hillary.
[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.]
Wolf Blitzer: Don't you want to see a Republican in the White House?
Ron Paul: Well, that's secondary to wanting the constitution defended, and wanting the country to go in the right direction, bringing peace around the world, having sound money and balanced budgets: all the things the Republicans have, you know, traditionally have stood for. All of that is more important than just having a Republican. We have to know what we believe in.
...
Wolf Blitzer: If you had to pick one of those three (remaining presidential candidates) right now, who would it be?
Ron Paul: Well, that's tough because I see them as all about the same. I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably, probably Obama. But that doesn't mean that's an endorsement, because he'd spend the money somewhere else and his voting record isn't all that great. But you asked me the question, and I would say that he would be slightly better on foreign policy.
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.
You folks pushing this bs that Ron has somehow "endorsed" the idiot you support other than the other two seem to have a bit of a problem with understanding or accepting words you wish weren't there. Can you not see that Ron, being diplomatic and measured (as he always has been for as long as I have known him), damned Obama with faint praise? Do you not know the difference between that and an endorsement? If not then maybe you should take up another hobby.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
I don't remember saying I would "likely be a Democrat", but I don't doubt I said that the Democratic platform's position on abortion was one I found untenable. Abortion is one big reason I am not a Democrat, and have never voted Democrat, but not the only reason.
Too bad McCain finds bombing babies and pregnant women so easy, what's the difference?
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Like I said before, someone's fool could be someone else's wise man. If you respond to the "fool's" statement with a personal attack you will not persuade those who view him as the wise man to abandon him and re-examine his views.
I never called anyone a fool. You can read every post I have ever made on this board or any other board I have ever posted on (if you knew the screen names I used that is) and you would never find one instance of me calling anyone a fool, at least not that I can recall. I did say that anyone who can hold two ideas, both of which are mutually contradictory, and consider them both valid, was insane and that is quite true. That is not the same as name calling, rather a statement of what is a fairly well-accepted fact.
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.
I wished I had the quote where he explained why he couldn't support McCain - BECAUSE McCain stands on war was totally at odds with his, explicitly stating or at least implying that ending the ME involvement was the main reason or one of the main reasons he decided to run for U.S. prez.
That's a stupid title, it's a lie, and actually, who gives a sh!t who 'ron paul supports' anyway, like it makes a difference?? lol
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
The Daily Kos thread has a link to a video/audio clip that probably has that language in it.
I can't run audio or video on this computer.
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.
Ron Paul: Well, that's tough because I see them as all about the same. I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably, probably Obama. But that doesn't mean that's an endorsement,
Thanks Ari. Doesn't sound like an endorsement in any way,shape ,or form to me. Just a simple statement from a real statesman who gave his assessment of the three candidates. I wonder if vast would go face to face with Ron Paul asking him why he endorsed obama? He might be dumb enough to do that.
I suspect it's about as close to an endorsement of a member of the opposition party as a member of the House of Representatives who wants to stay in his party's caucus can come.
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.
"picks (when asked)" instead of "support" would have been more accurate, I agree - but understand vast made the thread before the transcript or audio were available. He had been listening on television. And later says we should wait for the transcript. Then in post #18 I posted the video.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I suspect it's about as close to an endorsement of a member of the opposition party as a member of the House of Representatives who wants to stay in his party's caucus can come.
There have been lots of calls on the Web for expelling Lieberman from the caucus. And the Democrats have always been much less of a lockstep party than the Republicans.
Do you know why Bob Barr had to leave the House? He was gerrymandered out of his seat by Republicans when Georgia redistricted.
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 point is when asked, Ron Paul did pick one and stated why (foreign policy)!
Remember, no one was forcing Dr. Paul to make a choice, but he managed to make a choice anyway. He could have said it's impossible to make a choice.
You're beginning to sound just like vast. There was no choice made, no endorsement made. Ron Paul simply made a statement that he thinks maybe obama would be different than the other two twits in relation to the war.
Have you been mentally tested lately? Maybe you need to be. Some people on here couldn't win a buck on the show Smarter Than A Fifth Grader. I know vast couldn't!
Lieberman has endorsed McCain, and now constantly accompanies him on campaign.
I suspect he has hopes of becoming VP, or of otherwise participating in a McCain administration.
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 remember saying I would "likely be a Democrat", but I don't doubt I said that the Democratic platform's position on abortion was one I found untenable. Abortion is one big reason I am not a Democrat, and have never voted Democrat, but not the only reason.
Too bad McCain finds bombing babies and pregnant women so easy, what's the difference?
And it's too bad that the man you support sees nothing wrong with partial birth abortion, one of the most horrendous and inhumane practices ever devised to kill the innocent.
Wrong, he managed to select one of the 3 because he was "slightly bettter" on foreign policy. The video and transcript are there. Yes, he qualified his choice but he made it when asked. Again, no one claims he made an endorsement, we have stated all over this thread that this is NOT an endorsement.
Again, Dr. Paul was not required to make any choice when asked by Wolf Blitzer.
More importantly his choice was entirely about the war in Iraq, "foreign policy".
"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
As I was just explaining to Old Friend on another thread...
Obama is not for killing babies in the womb, like Red China, where abortions are forced on women who do not want them.
Rather, Obama believes such decisions are best left up to to the pregnant women. This is supported by many who have bumper stickers like "Keep your hands off my body".
I would like to see laws against abortion, but after voting for pro-life candidates my entire voting life I have not seen any yet.
McCain chooses to bomb babies and pregnant women, perhaps for the next 100 years. This "collateral damage" would be fine with him.
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
He moved from dismissing Obama to naming him as his preferred candidate.
:: the flip side of that coin, you are the only republican calling for a withdraw from iraq. if you're not going to become president and be in a position to affect that, would they be better off voting for the democratic candidate?
:: i don't think so i don't think they're very sincere. if you look at obama's voting record, he's voted not to end the war. he's voted to finance the war. his rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way but he is every bit as much of an -- he wants to send more troops into afghanistan. he wants to broaden the military. i think it's a fraud what he's talking about when he wants to really get out of iraq. i think that's politics.
I want every American citizen to have the same health benefit package illegal aliens now enjoy.
Yes, we'll make slaves of every last healthcare provider. It will work, I know it will work. I'll finally be able to explain the intricacies of music by The Melvins to that pretty nurse at the dentist's office.
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 it's too bad that the man you support sees nothing wrong with partial birth abortion, one of the most horrendous and inhumane practices ever devised to kill the innocent.
You stated the ultimate right answer on abortion. I can't wait to hear the screams coming from the women who aborted their babies as God metes out their punishment. Those screams would be sweet music to my ears. I hope the good lord peels every square inch of skin without any mercy off all those who had abortions and any politican, judge, and doctor who supported abortion or who were in a position to stop it, but didn't.
Funny how long the pubbies have hoodwinked the voters into believing they are pro-life and then never, not once, introduce any legislation to end this atrocity. Under the little chimp, who claimed he is pro-life, and with a house and senate of his own party, never asked for or demanded legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.
I can't wait to hear the screams coming from the women who aborted their babies as God metes out their punishment. Those screams would be sweet music to my ears. I hope the good lord peels every square inch of skin without any mercy off all those who had abortions and any politican, judge, and doctor who supported abortion or who were in a position to stop it, but didn't.
Thats the insane kind of statements that create gun grabbers, think about what that statement says about you.
Not to be pushy but didn't God give free will and it's not for us to judge?