Ron Paul Semi-endorses Obama

**Carlos_E** · 05-04-2008, 10:54 AM

(CNN) — Even though Rep. Ron Paul has never officially ended his long shot presidential bid, he’s ready to weigh in on the three remaining major candidates for the White House.

In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”

Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.

Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.

Paul recently released a new book titled “The Revolution: a Manifesto.” “Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution,” Paul said of the book’s title.

**Carlos_E** · 05-04-2008, 10:54 AM

That's close enough of an endorsement for me. He had nothing nice to say about McCain or Clinton.

**Panzerfaust** · 05-04-2008, 11:01 AM

Far from being an endorsment, he basically said that Obama seems to have the least shitty foreign policy platform, make no mistake about it, it is still pathetically shitty.

**Carlos_E** · 05-04-2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by muriloninja

Far from being an endorsment, he basically said that Obama seems to have the least shitty foreign policy platform, make no mistake about it, it is still pathetically shitty.

Well, he had nothing nice to say about Clinton or McCain.

**Panzerfaust** · 05-04-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Well, he nothing nice to say about Clinton or McCain.

And I can't blame him either...

**SMCengineer** · 05-04-2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Well, he nothing nice to say about Clinton or McCain.

He had nothing nice to say about Barack either, just that he's be the least worst of the three candidates and he was strictly referring to foreign policy. It's not really that much of an achievement considering both Mccain and Clinton are horrible on foreign policy.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBnkI...dailypaul.com/

**SMCengineer** · 05-04-2008, 02:29 PM

I must say though, I do love any threads on Ron Paul.

**Panzerfaust** · 05-04-2008, 04:35 PM

^^^Ditto! I think I might just go buy his book and read it.

**BgMc31** · 05-04-2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Blome

He had nothing nice to say about Barack either, just that he's be the least worst of the three candidates and he was strictly referring to foreign policy. It's not really that much of an achievement considering both Mccain and Clinton are horrible on foreign policy.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBnkI...dailypaul.com/

Isn't that how most people vote anyway...the lesser of two (or in this case 3) evils?

Ron Paul and Barack attract similar demographics (young, educated, independent minded). So Barack could spin this in his favor. Definitely a blow to McCain.

**zimmy** · 05-04-2008, 05:15 PM

no... most people vote whatever there parents told them they were growing up or based on some misguided notion of of unity with a candidate based on race / sex / religion. And alot vote because they are elderly and only care if a candidate will help them with social services or health services. And yes...some vote because some one is cute...or looks strong...or really wears his/ her suite right. So it's rarely the lesser of 2 evils... it's more of a crap shoot. Anyway off topic....yah that was less of an endorcement and more of stating a very very very very very sad fact. We will get a politician in office again instead of a representative of the nation.

**Panzerfaust** · 05-04-2008, 05:39 PM

I saw an "Obama 2008" sticker on a car today, I did not even need to look to know it was a black person. I passed and indeed it was.

Zimmy is correct, most blacks will vote for Obama because he is black and a Democrat because the black communities have been programmed to vote Democrat all their lives.

I mean god forbid you vote for someone who stands up for the US Constitution and Civil Liberties.

**Carlos_E** · 05-04-2008, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by muriloninja

^^^Ditto! I think I might just go buy his book and read it.

His book is a best seller on Amazon. I think it hit #1.

**SMCengineer** · 05-04-2008, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Isn't that how most people vote anyway...the lesser of two (or in this case 3) evils?

Ron Paul and Barack attract similar demographics (young, educated, independent minded). So Barack could spin this in his favor. Definitely a blow to McCain.

BG, most people voting for Ron Paul are not going to vote for Mccain. Ever. So, yeah I could see how Barack could spin this in his favor, but I'd never vote for him.

Originally Posted by muriloninja

^^^Ditto! I think I might just go buy his book and read it.

You definitely need to get. It's only like $12 on Amazon and it's a very informative read. Personally, I would like to see everybody read it just to get a basic understanding of what it means to actually follow the Constitution.

**BgMc31** · 05-04-2008, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by muriloninja

I saw an "Obama 2008" sticker on a car today, I did not even need to look to know it was a black person. I passed and indeed it was.

Zimmy is correct, most blacks will vote for Obama because he is black and a Democrat because the black communities have been programmed to vote Democrat all their lives.

I mean god forbid you vote for someone who stands up for the US Constitution and Civil Liberties.

I don't recall this thread being about the 'black' vote or why blacks vote democrat. As a matter of fact this thread wasn't about race at all...don't see why you felt the need to interject it!

**SMCengineer** · 05-04-2008, 11:14 PM

^^BG, how you come you don't like Ron Paul?

**BgMc31** · 05-05-2008, 07:14 AM

^Its not that I don't like him. As a matter of fact I dig many of his ideas. I just think that some of his ideas are a little far fetched and he never had a chance at the presidency from jump. The debates made that obvious.

Plus the fact the he's a Republican and such a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan that I wouldn't feel right supporting him. Lastly, I'm for making good quality, affordable healthcare available to everyone. He doesn't support that.

**SMCengineer** · 05-05-2008, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

^Its not that I don't like him. As a matter of fact I dig many of his ideas. I just think that some of his ideas are a little far fetched and he never had a chance at the presidency from jump. The debates made that obvious.

Plus the fact the he's a Republican and such a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan that I wouldn't feel right supporting him. Lastly, I'm for making good quality, affordable healthcare available to everyone. He doesn't support that.

He was a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan until Reagan deserted many of his conservative ideals during his presidency. He's called him a traitor since. As for his ideas, they're all consistent with the Constitution. Every one of them.

I say Obama/Paul! (even though I don't like Obama it would be an unstoppable ticket)

**thegodfather** · 05-05-2008, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

^Its not that I don't like him. As a matter of fact I dig many of his ideas. I just think that some of his ideas are a little far fetched and he never had a chance at the presidency from jump. The debates made that obvious.

Plus the fact the he's a Republican and such a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan that I wouldn't feel right supporting him. Lastly, I'm for making good quality, affordable healthcare available to everyone. He doesn't support that.

This is simply untrue. Had you taken any time to investigate his policies on healthcare you would understand this. He is for ending government involvement in healthcare, and allowing the free market to determine prices. It is because of governments current intervention into healthcare that costs are so high. His policies allow more people to HELP THEMSELVES to attain healthcare. Many people throw around a statistic that 47 million Americans have no healthcare, and it is a grossly misrepresented number. Nearly 1/3 of those in the 47 million are people who are switching jobs and will have no healthcare for 3 months or less. The true number of people who can truely not afford healthcare is much lower, and Ron Paul believes that the majority of those cases could be handled by charitable organizations. Additionally, he believes that there should be no FEDERAL mandates for government healthcare, and that the right to institute such programs is reserved to the states respectively. The Federal government has no authority to implement such plans, as per the Constitution. You might want to give that document a read sometimes, as further debating someone who has not read it is rather trivial.

Also, quality healthcare and government intervention are antonyms. It is an inevitable fact that when government gets involved, quality goes DOWN!

**BgMc31** · 05-05-2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

This is simply untrue. Had you taken any time to investigate his policies on healthcare you would understand this. He is for ending government involvement in healthcare, and allowing the free market to determine prices. It is because of governments current intervention into healthcare that costs are so high. His policies allow more people to HELP THEMSELVES to attain healthcare. Many people throw around a statistic that 47 million Americans have no healthcare, and it is a grossly misrepresented number. Nearly 1/3 of those in the 47 million are people who are switching jobs and will have no healthcare for 3 months or less. The true number of people who can truely not afford healthcare is much lower, and Ron Paul believes that the majority of those cases could be handled by charitable organizations. Additionally, he believes that there should be no FEDERAL mandates for government healthcare, and that the right to institute such programs is reserved to the states respectively. The Federal government has no authority to implement such plans, as per the Constitution. You might want to give that document a read sometimes, as further debating someone who has not read it is rather trivial.

Also, quality healthcare and government intervention are antonyms. It is an inevitable fact that when government gets involved, quality goes DOWN!

Settle down little guy! I have researched his stance on healthcare. I have a hard time believe that the vast majority of stats on healthcare are erroneous. But believe what you want. The fact that the US ranks 37th in the world in regards to healthcare is simply pathetic considering we are the richest, most powerful country in the world. The sad part is the 36 other countries ahead of us don't have nearly the money and/or resources we have.

Blome, I'm not a strict constitutionalist like you and other Paul supporters. I believe that government involvement is necessary in many aspects of our lives. Its unchecked government, IMO, that can pose a problem.

I'm a firm believer that every country is judged by the level of poverty nd thoe stricken by poverty. Paul and other strict constitutionalist believe that government should have little to no impact on our lives. In theory that's great but unfortunately that doesn't work. Again, just my opinion.

**Act of God** · 05-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

^Its not that I don't like him. As a matter of fact I dig many of his ideas. I just think that some of his ideas are a little far fetched and he never had a chance at the presidency from jump. The debates made that obvious.

You mean when he completely schooled everyone's ass on every topic? If you were referring to that, I agree

Plus the fact the he's a Republican and such a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan that I wouldn't feel right supporting him. Lastly, I'm for making good quality, affordable healthcare available to everyone. He doesn't support that.

Why wouldn't you "feel right' voting for someone who admired Reagan? Are you back on your conspiracy brotha tip again?

**BgMc31** · 05-05-2008, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Act of God

Why wouldn't you "feel right' voting for someone who admired Reagan? Are you back on your conspiracy brotha tip again?

As you probably determined from your lst post on the other thread, I'm not going to answer your snide comments. Grow up! If you can't have a civil debate without being condescending, find someone else to whine to because I'm not the one!

**Carlos_E** · 05-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

As you probably determined from your lst post on the other thread, I'm not going to answer your snide comments. Grow up! If you can't have a civil debate without being condescending, find someone else to whine to because I'm not the one!

**SMCengineer** · 05-05-2008, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Settle down little guy! I have researched his stance on healthcare. I have a hard time believe that the vast majority of stats on healthcare are erroneous. But believe what you want. The fact that the US ranks 37th in the world in regards to healthcare is simply pathetic considering we are the richest, most powerful country in the world. The sad part is the 36 other countries ahead of us don't have nearly the money and/or resources we have.

Not that I really want to get into another health care debate (there's a thread 3 pages long already), but those stats are form the World Health Organization and they're innaccurate at best and dangeroulsy misleading at worst. They purposely skewed the rating system to fit their political agenda, which of course is a push towards universal health care. Here's what I mean: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259 (yes, I know the Cato institute is libertarian biased, but it's still a good article).

If you want more info on Ron Pauls stance on health care, check out this site: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Blome, I'm not a strict constitutionalist like you and other Paul supporters. I believe that government involvement is necessary in many aspects of our lives. Its unchecked government, IMO, that can pose a problem.

I'm a firm believer that every country is judged by the level of poverty nd thoe stricken by poverty. Paul and other strict constitutionalist believe that government should have little to no impact on our lives. In theory that's great but unfortunately that doesn't work. Again, just my opinion.

I respect your opinion, but let me just ask you two things. When you give government control over your life, how can it realistically be kept in check? Never forget, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Further, what exactly has the government done that you have so much confidence in it to run more of your life? The few things that it's supposed to take care of (ie national security, protecting personal liberties, following the constitution) are being completely mishandled and abused, yet the most critical and vociferous people are the same people that claim they want more government intervention. It's asinine.

**SMCengineer** · 05-05-2008, 02:44 PM

BG, one more comment. This:

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Blome, I'm not a strict constitutionalist... Its unchecked government, IMO, that can pose a problem.

is a contradiction. The Constitutions primary purpose is to keep the government in check and assure that no branch gets to powerful. It's when we disregard or "loosely interpret" it that we see usurpations of power.

**Act of God** · 05-05-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

As you probably determined from your lst post on the other thread, I'm not going to answer your snide comments. Grow up! If you can't have a civil debate without being condescending, find someone else to whine to because I'm not the one!

Excellent dodge, now continue to talk about not being a strict constitutionalist but being weary of an unchecked government, lol

In case you didn't know, speaking in a matter-of-fact tone doesn't hide the fact that when it comes to politics and economics you are horrifically clueless.

**bigt10** · 05-05-2008, 06:42 PM

You know what well i dont mind obama but people love paul for a reason

the other stuff is the small fish but the monterary and foregin policy are the big Tuna's and are the problems running this country in a shit hole.

Once this nation stops being run by a bunch of elite and bureacrats in the oil and war industrial complex, you get rid of NAFTA and all that nonsense, SCRAP THE FEDERAL RESERVE, and have currencies compete with gold, stop invading the world and protect our own soil, and stop all the inflation.

Then we can fix the rets and restore america.

The biggest problem is the monetary policy. Certain people are benefiting from all the war and inflation (printing the money) and they are the ones at the top.

The money thing is huge and so is the foregin policy.

I have yet to see anyone address DEBT DEBT DEBT besides paul.

you can live well boroiwign and printing money but that will stop. You need true wealth.

Bring back gold, stop the federal reserve, call the troops home from around the world, cut the costs, withdrawl from the Un and WTO etc. Now you have real money people can save, not companies like walmart sending all their jobs to asia. You know have a country about americans and true liberty. YOu have money coming back into the country a grossly growing middle class.

it isnt about Paul its the fact government has gotten to big and has to much control and we dont need to police the world.

With the money system we have it doesnt encourage.

IF we had gold coins we wouldnt be in iraq. Where would they get the money from. they cant print it and the citizens would go nuts in order to pay for it by tax.