Ron Paul: 'There's no difference' between McCain and Obama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has declined to endorse either John McCain or Barack Obama, and he told CNN's Kiran Chetry on Thursday that he sees "no difference" between them because both espouse foreign policies that only create more threats to our national interests.

    Chetry asked Paul, "Do you think it's a valid argument ... that a John McCain administration would be a four-year extension of the Bush administration?"

    "Sure, but I think that's what's going to happen with Obama, too," Paul replied. "There's no difference."

    "Their foreign policies are identical," Paul explained. "They want more troops in Afghanistan. They want to send more support to Georgia to protect the oil line there. Neither one says bring home the troops from Iraq from the bases -- you know the bases are going to stay there, the embassy as big as the Vatican, that's going to remain. So their foreign policies are exactly the same. They're both very, very aggressive with Iran. So I would say there's no difference."

    FULL ARTICLE...
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Ron Paul would stop saying stupid things like this, he'd accomplish far more.
     
  3. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like Ron Paul has a bad case of "sour grapes".
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another example of Ron Paul being out of touch and unqualified for the presidency. McCain and Obama may be more similar to each other than they are to Paul, but it is not true to say that "there is no difference." There are significant differences in some important areas.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    First, Ron Paul has no clue. The difference in the two foriegn policies are a world apart. Just because they do not line up with Ron Paul's doesnt make them the same.

    Second, even if they had the same foreign Policy that doesn't make them totally equal as candidates. Kind of nutty really.
     
    #5 Revmitchell, Aug 30, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2008
  6. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we know why Ron Paul was never a serious candidate :rolleyes:
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I guess you're all happy with how the bankers and corporations are running the country then huh?
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This kind of thinking is what's wrong with Ron Paul. He assumes that if you aren't for one thing, you are for something else. That is a false dichotomy, an excluded middle. It is possible to be for something other than out of touch politicians and bankers and corporations.
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You're talking over my head here PL. Are you saying that the central bankers and transnational corporations aren't the ones who run the country? Please explain.

    Who controls foreign policy? The politicians or their multinational "advisers" that just happen to all come from the same small groups no matter which party is in power?

    Who controls the economy? The politicians or Wall Street and the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve?
     
    #9 poncho, Aug 30, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2008
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I am not saying that at all. When people objected to Paul's assertion that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, you responded with "I guess you're all happy with how the bankers and corporations are running the country then huh?"

    My point is that those aren't the only two options. We can see the error of Paul's statements with being happy with how the country is being run, or without agreeing that bankers and corporations are running it. That's why I pointed out that you had an excluded middle (not technically a false dichotomy). There is a lot of "middle" between Paul's foolish ignorance about these two being the same and being happy with how bankers and corporations are running the country. You should know that.

    Truth is that foreign policy is controlled by a lot of interrelating factors.

    Probably the consumers and employers more than any, but again, there is a variety of factors involved that work together.

    In both of these cases you are ignoring the middle by presenting two options when there are in fact many. It is a common logical and argumentative error when one is trying to reduce an argument to absurdity. But it doesn't work.

    It would be like me saying if you don't like prime rib you must be a vegetarian. Truth is that there is a lot room between those two.
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I see your point PL but, I wouldn't say that I am ignoring the middle. What I am saying is most of those factors in the middle count for very little if anything. I could sit here and count up all the factors and little differences all day too but at the end of the day it still comes down to only two choices. To support a person who has shown contempt for the sovereignty and independence of the USA as these two McCain and Obama have have done. I've read their speeches. I've taken the time check out their "advisers" who they are and what they stand for and recommend. I read their books and papers.

    Both McCain and Obama have clearly shown they are for some sort of new global order in which the USA is either subservient to it in Obama's case, or in McCain's case the opposite which is the USA being top dawg in this new global order with every other nation subservient to the transnational interests who support both political parties.

    Or to support a person who would protect the sovereignty and independence of the USA while not threatening to strike others who themselves wish to remain sovereign and independent of this new global order which is being forced on us from both "sides".

    This new global order is like a global mafia operation PL. There are a few groups who control certain areas..."turf". Each group or "family" may disagree on how their turf should be controlled but they all agree that they should be the ones in control and not those who happen to be trying to live on that turf.

    In the end there are only two choices, join the new global order and give up our freedom and sovereignty as a nation and people and be ruled over by unelected elites which is the easy road before us. All we have to do is follow McCain and/or Obama.

    Or we can restore the constitutional republic our founders gave us by exposing these imposters for who they are and what they're about. I'm all for exposing them and restoring the republic. The only way I know to do that is to educate those who already think they know it all.

    If that's seems to simplistic and foolish for some then so be it. That's the way it is like or don't.

    Here's more educational material.

    What is Globalization? It is the collective effect of purposeful and amoral manipulation that seeks to centralize economic, political, technological and societal forces in order to accrue maximum profit and political power to global banks, global corporations and the elitists who run them.

    "Free Trade" is the central mantra. Globalization is set against national [​IMG]Sovereignty, closed borders, trade tarrifs and anything that would restrict its goals and methods used to achieve them.

    Globalization promotes regional and global government, a one-world economic system of trade and a form of fascism where global corporations and their elite control the policies and directives of individual governments.

    The original and primary perpetrators of modern-day globalization number only in the 100's, representative of which, but not exclusively, are members of The Trilateral Commission.


    To understand the genesis of the [​IMG]Trilateral Commission, read the transcript of the 1979 radio show between Antony C. Sutton, Patrick M. Wood and George S. Franklin, Jr. -- Coordinator of the Trilateral Commission!

    Where did Globalization come from? The "New International Economic Order" was the coinage of the Trilateral Commission starting in 1973. This purpose was stated repeatedly in its papers, journals and conferences.


    [​IMG] New World Order


    In 1991, President George H.W. Bush
    , a member of the Trilateral Commission, began to openly talk about the New World Order, which expanded the concept to include governance as well as economic unity. Click on the movie to hear Bush in his own words!

    The August Review.

    The choice is simple either we remain American citizens with a government of by and for the people or we become global citizens governed by unelected and corrupt elites who have no loyalty to any nation or people. The subtle differences between McCain and Obama count for nothing when one considers that both have the same masters who share the same goal. Bring America down and merge it into a new global order. A high tech scientific global dictatorship where individuals have no say at all.

    Like T. Jefferson said..."the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
     
    #11 poncho, Aug 30, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2008
  12. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul has it right . What a shame that the perfect candidate won't be running for the Republican side. Just goes to show that many will comprimise thier principles and not challenge the GOP bullies.
    Most certainly the real battle today is between Americans and globalists. Between those who believe in constitutional government, national sovereignty and independence, secure borders, and putting America first, and those who want to merge the United States into some kind of global New World Order.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    It's a shame we'll all have to suffer under the yoke of global tyranny because some people insist on keeping score cards on the globalist's puppets while ignoring the puppet's masters altogether.
     
    #13 poncho, Aug 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...