Ron Paul comments on Obama

[D-Mack]

Ron Paul:" ....
They had been positioning Obama for a long long time.... it's about 750 million dolllars, but when you look at all the free stuff , when you look at all the things that have gone in the last 3 or 4 years, I consider the fact the he has probably had a 2 billion dollar campaign .... you know that the plans are laid for him to be the individual that's going to be talken care of the corporate elite."







http://www.dailypaul.com/node/71908














more audio then video

[sn1p3r]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

This should be a comment on EJ's vote Obama post

[grapejelly]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

he sounds so tired...poor guy

[metalman]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

gee, wonder why ron paul didn't get on the ballot? maybe has something to do with taking money from white supremacists and making frequent appearances on conspiracy nutjob sites like 'prison planet'? dunno, just a guess.

the rallying cry of conservatives for 20 years... 'we're leaving our next generation with piles of debt!' while for the past 8 yrs the right wing doubled it. leave it to the lefties put the debt to practical political use.

the next generation just voted to NOT pick up the previous generation's tab. that's what obama means that has all of the libertarian fruitcakes whining about 'redistribution of wealth'. redistribution from rich to poor in the usa means from boomers to gen-xers. duh.

[Scot]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

the next generation just voted to NOT pick up the previous generation's tab. that's what obama means that has all of the libertarian fruitcakes whining about 'redistribution of wealth'. redistribution from rich to poor in the usa means from boomers to gen-xers. duh.

Oh, that's a crock of crap.

The next generation are a bunch of followers that couldn't wait to collectively punish the dumb kid and his friends that made them all look bad. This election was about image. And the left are full of professional image makers.

But let's suppose this is some kind of effort on the part of the next generation to throw of the debt shackles. If so, then they've probably bungled it.

They've probably bungled it, because, for all the talk of "wealth redistribution", what we'll probably get instead is income redistribution, which means the only wealth that will be taxed is that wealth carried around in the hands and in the head - the professionals whose wealth is less tangible will be taxed. Engineers, surgeons, highly skilled workers, anyone whose "means of production" is their skills, they will be the ones to shoulder the burden.

I suspect that's Ron Paul's point. The rich have already ingraciated themselves to Obama. And will be the duty of the next generation to service that debt that built the wealth of his rich sycophants.

The rich are protected. Anyone that made serious money in government subsidized technology is protected. The borrowed money that flowed into the economy, then into their companies, and finally into their wallets, has been turned into instruments that will support them for the rest of their lives.

This site is full of such people that are not going to have their wealth redistributed. And many of them love Obama. Of course they do. Because they know the terrible secret: that wealth and income are not the same. And will be income, not wealth, that will be taxed.

[tombat1913]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

gee, wonder why ron paul didn't get on the ballot? maybe has something to do with taking money from white supremacists and making frequent appearances on conspiracy nutjob sites like 'prison planet'? dunno, just a guess.

the rallying cry of conservatives for 20 years... 'we're leaving our next generation with piles of debt!' while for the past 8 yrs the right wing doubled it. leave it to the lefties put the debt to practical political use.

the next generation just voted to NOT pick up the previous generation's tab. that's what obama means that has all of the libertarian fruitcakes whining about 'redistribution of wealth'. redistribution from rich to poor in the usa means from boomers to gen-xers. duh.

I usually like to hear what you have to say, then you say something like this. First off, this last group were not conservatives, they're neoconservatives and if you can't make the distinction then you belong in the same category as the moron conservatives who voted them in.

Secondly, about Ron Paul's white supremecist campaign contributions, do you think a campaign has the time to look at each individual contribution and do a background check? Furthermore, in a free society people can believe what they wan't and make donations to whomever they choose. In a Fascist society the candidate is packaged real nice with funding by huge mega corporations so all the dipshits jump around thinking they've won a prize or something when their constitution goes down the drain.

[metalman]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

Oh, that's a crock of crap.

The next generation are a bunch of followers that couldn't wait to collectively punish the dumb kid and his friends that made them all look bad. This election was about image. And the left are full of professional image makers.

But let's suppose this is some kind of effort on the part of the next generation to throw of the debt shackles. If so, then they've probably bungled it.

They've probably bungled it, because, for all the talk of "wealth redistribution", what we'll probably get instead is income redistribution, which means the only wealth that will be taxed is that wealth carried around in the hands and in the head - the professionals whose wealth is less tangible will be taxed. Engineers, surgeons, highly skilled workers, anyone whose "means of production" is their skills, they will be the ones to shoulder the burden.

I suspect that's Ron Paul's point. The rich have already ingraciated themselves to Obama. And will be the duty of the next generation to service that debt that built the wealth of his rich sycophants.

The rich are protected. Anyone that made serious money in government subsidized technology is protected. The borrowed money that flowed into the economy, then into their companies, and finally into their wallets, has been turned into instruments that will support them for the rest of their lives.

This site is full of such people that are not going to have their wealth redistributed. And many of them love Obama. Of course they do. Because they know the terrible secret: that wealth and income are not the same. And will be income, not wealth, that will be taxed.

you make a very, very good point. if that's what ron paul was saying, i missed it. and he could use a better channel the prison planet to distribute it.

[metalman]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

I usually like to hear what you have to say, then you say something like this. First off, this last group were not conservatives, they're neoconservatives and if you can't make the distinction then you belong in the same category as the moron conservatives who voted them in.

most of america is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. how we got a rep party that is the exact opposite of that is a riddle to me.

Secondly, about Ron Paul's white supremecist campaign contributions, do you think a campaign has the time to look at each individual contribution and do a background check? Furthermore, in a free society people can believe what they wan't and make donations to whomever they choose. In a Fascist society the candidate is packaged real nice with funding by huge mega corporations so all the dipshits jump around thinking they've won a prize or something when their constitution goes down the drain.

oh, c'mon. you're going to tell me that if you were running for office and some nazis gave you money and went around saying in youtube videos 'we love tombat! we gave him money!' you wouldn't send out a press release that said 'we do not support the nazi party and do not accept their money'? can you imagine what the republicans might say if obama was found accepting $$$ from muslim extremist groups who put out videos bragging about it? the explanation 'it's a free country, anyone can contribute to our campaign' idea ain't gonna fly then, is it?

ron paul says, 'see who obama really is? look who he took his money from. he's bought and paid for by the wealthy elite'.

does the source of campaign contributions matter or not? can't have it both ways.

[tombat1913]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

most of america is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. how we got a rep party that is the exact opposite of that is a riddle to me.

oh, c'mon. you're going to tell me that if you were running for office and some nazis gave you money and went around saying in youtube videos 'we love tombat! we gave him money!' you wouldn't send out a press release that said 'we do not support the nazi party and do not accept their money'? can you imagine what the republicans might say if obama was found accepting $$$ from muslim extremist groups who put out videos bragging about it? the explanation 'it's a free country, anyone can contribute to our campaign' idea ain't gonna fly then, is it?

ron paul says, 'see who obama really is? look who he took his money from. he's bought and paid for by the wealthy elite'.

does the source of campaign contributions matter or not? can't have it both ways.

The difference here is that Ron Paul recieved maybe $2,300 from some neo-nazi asshole. His campaign ( or should I say entire political career) wasn't majority funded by neo-nazi assholes.

[Guest]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

Tombat1913 has a point you are studiously ignoring Metalman. You want to compare Ron Paul's being compromised by one or two tiny campaign contributions compared to the monetary Niagara of Obama's campaign donors, to discern which one has the greater potential for being "owned", then you have one tough argument as you are boostering for the wrong end of it. Give that one up, I'd suggest, and give Ron Paul a clear preference in that regard since the election machine truck ran over him, and it elevated Obama to the white house. I detect more than a hint of a partisan in you. Nothing wrong with that, just it's better to be frank about it.

[metalman]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

Tombat1913 has a point you are studiously ignoring Metalman. You want to compare Ron Paul's being compromised by one or two tiny campaign contributions compared to the monetary Niagara of Obama's campaign donors, to discern which one has the greater potential for being "owned", then you have one tough argument as you are boostering for the wrong end of it. Give that one up, I'd suggest, and give Ron Paul a clear preference in that regard since the election machine truck ran over him, and it elevated Obama to the white house. I detect more than a hint of a partisan in you. Nothing wrong with that, just it's better to be frank about it.

no, it's a good point. i concede, comrad. especially in light of...

America Serves

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

that's a 'require' for the age group that voted him in and an 'encourage' for the age group he's going tax.

[Scot]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

most of america is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. how we got a rep party that is the exact opposite of that is a riddle to me.

I don't think the US is as socially liberal as you think. Consider the passage of proposition 8 in California, outlawing same-sex marriage. How can one of the most liberal states in the nation prohibit same-sex marriage?

Pollsters have given us the answer: hispanic and black turnout. Both groups tend to oppose same-sex marriage. A majority of blacks and about 2/3rds of hispanics voted for proposition 8.

Politics is brutal that way. The left has gone above and beyond to support minority interests and has villified conservatives, branding them all as backward hicks and racists. And in return they get a ban on same-sex marriage from these very people they're trying to help (or use). Conservatives have had a similar situation in their support of Israel. Growing up among religious conservatives in the South, I heard nothing but comments in support of Israel and Jews in general -- "They're God's chosen people". Yet many American Jews still overwhelmingly support the political left, even though many openly oppose Israel.

As far as losing their economic conservatism, well, it's common practice now to buy votes with tax dollars. You can't stay in power unless you payoff certain groups. Eliminate spending on certain programs and you'll have angry voters looking to the other candidate to pay them off.

oh, c'mon. you're going to tell me that if you were running for office and some nazis gave you money and went around saying in youtube videos 'we love tombat! we gave him money!' you wouldn't send out a press release that said 'we do not support the nazi party and do not accept their money'? can you imagine what the republicans might say if obama was found accepting $$$ from muslim extremist groups who put out videos bragging about it? the explanation 'it's a free country, anyone can contribute to our campaign' idea ain't gonna fly then, is it?

ron paul says, 'see who obama really is? look who he took his money from. he's bought and paid for by the wealthy elite'.

does the source of campaign contributions matter or not? can't have it both ways.

Well, the reason for the financial support matters. White supremacists support Ron Paul because, as a libertarian, Ron Paul support freedom of association, including economic association, even for white supremacists. He doesn't advocate Nazism. He doesn't support government enforced segregation. But he believes in freedom of association, on principle, even for nasty people.

Some of the financial support and other assistance for Obama seems much less predicated on his support for principle.

[Nervous Drake]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

.

[sn1p3r]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

Drake...George Bernard Shaw nailed it:

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

[rj1]

Re: Ron Paul comments on Obama

gee, wonder why ron paul didn't get on the ballot?

For the record, he was on the ballot in Montana and Louisiana, although not of his doing and he never campaigned (both on Constitution party lines where the state affiliate decided to put him on instead of the national candidate). He got 2.17% in Montana and <1% in Louisiana.


Barack Obama's rise to power is incredibly unlikely. A Newsweek columnist I read today, who absolutely detests Bush and rejoicing over Obama, even states the following:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168032

I'm under no illusion that Barack Obama will turn out to be Barack Panacea. In terms of holding a major office, he's the least experienced president in memory. He'll probably screw up a lot of things, especially at first. The problems he faces–from the economic crisis to Iran's nuclear program–are just too hard. And I occasionally worry that in his eloquent eagerness to empathize and reach across cultural barriers, Obama may overreach in the opposite direction from Bush, stumbling into the appeasement of adversaries like Iran (whose buffoonish president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, practically invited him to do so this week by sending him the first letter of congratulations from Tehran, to a president-elect, since 1979). Obama must also guard against the sort of intellectual arrogance that characterized the "best and the brightest" of the Vietnam era.

Was talking to my dad post-election. He's a lifelong Republican, hates the rich wing of the party thinking they don't care about anyone but themselves and their bank accounts, Marine Corps veteran, went to Iraq twice as a government employee, thought the Iraq enterprise was a f*cking joke and Rumsfeld deserves to get shot, thinks Bush was little more than a puppet put in power because his handlers knew they could control him, and was disdainful toward McCain. Not to say he voted for Obama because he hates Democrats more than he hates the current Republican Party. And his point was this:

"How did a poor kid from Chicago that had no parents and no money get into Columbia, Harvard, become the Democratic nominee to the U.S. Senate in a state infamous for its political corruption and backstabbing and patronage, while still sitting in the Illinois State Senate (a job less prestigious than Ambassador to Guinea-Bissau) he actually gave the Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and managed to 4 years later become the Democratic nominee to President defeating a Democratic party dynasty name in Hillary Clinton, and was essentially able to dwarf the amount of money the normally more affluent Republican Party in fundraising?"

I don't mean this as a conspiracy, just that there's a lot of curious things there and if any other person tried to do the above on their own, they would've easily fallen at one of the early hurdles. Take our current president, we all know how he got to where he is, he was born rich and his dad was president. How did Obama get here?

I'll give him this, he's a great speaker and that definitely propelled him throughout his political career and in the primary and general elections. And I want to make it perfectly clear I hope Obama is a good president because this country, like in 1980 when Reagan won, definitely needs to have a good president right now.


Anyway, I'll defer to one of my favorites as far as political philosophy, H.L. Mencken:

Democracy is the theory the common man knows what he wants, and he deserves to get it good and hard.