PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul is NOT LIKE OBAMA




NH4RonPaul
06-18-2008, 07:00 PM
Please disabuse this nutcase of the idea that Ron Paul is like Obama, should be a Democrat, would sign Kyoto or any other one world government socialistic nonsense!

Where do these people get these wacky ideas that Ron Paul supporters would EVER vote for OBAMA???

Geesh.

http://www.ohboyobama.com/Publicity/Make-a-video-with-Ron-Paul

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

SeanEdwards
06-18-2008, 07:09 PM
They know paulites are adrift without a presidential candidate so they're trying to scoop them up. Seems pretty smart to me. Smarter than the GOP strategy of calling us all moonbats.

tonesforjonesbones
06-18-2008, 09:44 PM
YEs...the GOP has told Ron Paul supporters to go away and find another party. They are going to lose in november big time. Bob Barr and the LP are moving on up...to the eastside..to that deeelux apartment in Washington..hey hey we're movin on up...to the eastside...we'll finally get a piece of the PIEE EE EEEEE..

Oh Ron Paul is nothing like Obama. Whoever thinks that is just silly. TONES

swifty_s
06-19-2008, 04:26 AM
I feel a bit guilty now, but when I saw the suggestion that ObombaIran was just like Ron Paul I had to comment on it, I'm affraid I was a little sarcastic.

Arghh!!! I hate my hasty judgment sometimes.

http://www.ohboyobama.com/Publicity/Make-a-video-with-Ron-Paul

newyearsrevolution08
06-19-2008, 04:29 AM
Dr. Paul and Obama are pretty much one in the same, just look at their platforms....

lol....

come on now, the only people who buy into that bullshit is the media who push it and sheeple who eat it up.

Truth Warrior
06-19-2008, 04:30 AM
Well they ARE both US Congress critters. :D

berrybunches
06-19-2008, 06:17 PM
At least he didn't ask him if we was going to be supporting McCain!

Danke
06-19-2008, 06:18 PM
Well they ARE both US Congress critters. :D

And they are both at least 50% white.

1000-points-of-fright
06-19-2008, 07:47 PM
Where do these people get these wacky ideas that Ron Paul supporters would EVER vote for OBAMA?

From Kade (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3537).

electronicmaji
06-20-2008, 04:24 PM
There are similarities. Both appeal to young voters, both are charismatic common sense speakers, both appeal to socially liberal and fiscally conservative people.

Kludge
06-20-2008, 04:25 PM
There are similarities. Both appeal to young voters, both are charismatic common sense speakers, both appeal to socially liberal and fiscally conservative people.

Hm. Obama appeals to fiscally conservative people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

"advocacy of lower governmental spending practices"

forsmant
06-20-2008, 04:25 PM
Obama does not appeal to fiscal conservatives.

electronicmaji
06-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Obama does not appeal to fiscal conservatives.

He appeals to those who want balanced budgets...maybe I should better explain this. He appeals to the Fiscally Responsible; which most Fiscal Conservatives are.

Also he will have less spending. There will be more spending at home but most overseas spending will be cut.

forsmant
06-20-2008, 06:32 PM
He appeals to those who want balanced budgets...maybe I should better explain this. He appeals to the Fiscally Responsible; which most Fiscal Conservatives are.

Also he will have less spending. There will be more spending at home but most overseas spending will be cut.

Anyone can balance a budget. Sticking to it is the trouble. You can even balance the budget at 10 trillion dollars. So what. Fiscal conservatives want the government to reduce spending massively. Obama does not, he wants to increase spending and taxes.

electronicmaji
06-20-2008, 07:29 PM
Anyone can balance a budget. Sticking to it is the trouble. You can even balance the budget at 10 trillion dollars. So what. Fiscal conservatives want the government to reduce spending massively. Obama does not, he wants to increase spending and taxes.

No. Apparently not anyone can balance the budget; as Bush's Deficits seem to indicate.

forsmant
06-20-2008, 07:37 PM
No. Apparently not anyone can balance the budget; as Bush's Deficits seem to indicate.

:rolleyes: I said any can, not Bush did.

electronicmaji
06-20-2008, 09:46 PM
:rolleyes: I said any can, not Bush did.

Apparently Republicans can't. And haven't. For the past 3 times they spent as Presidents.

winston_blade
06-21-2008, 07:24 AM
Apparently Republicans can't. And haven't. For the past 3 times they spent as Presidents.

Dems hold congress. If they won't cut Iraq spending now, they won't do it later either.

electronicmaji
06-21-2008, 10:45 PM
Dems hold congress. If they won't cut Iraq spending now, they won't do it later either.

And Republicans held it before. I feel safer when the fair balance of power shifts like it should every 2 terms at least.

LibertyEagle
06-21-2008, 11:53 PM
And Republicans held it before. I feel safer when the fair balance of power shifts like it should every 2 terms at least.

You're falling for it. I've mentioned this to you before and I will do so again here. Get a copy of Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and READ IT. You will find out that both major parties are controlled by the same group of people. They just switch off when it looks like the people are sick of the party currently in power. The goals do not change. Haven't you noticed? Think about it. For example, Clinton was the person who started NAFTA; Bush continued it.

Note: Quigley was Clinton's mentor.

Pauls' Revere
06-22-2008, 01:02 AM
He appeals to those who want balanced budgets...maybe I should better explain this. He appeals to the Fiscally Responsible; which most Fiscal Conservatives are.

Also he will have less spending. There will be more spending at home but most overseas spending will be cut.

Wrong on all accounts, esspecially overseas spending will INCREASE 845 BILLION if OBAMA has his way! Please take the time to read this informative article I found.

THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 14, 2008
3:53 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Barak Obam

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

(Story continues below)


Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.

:mad:

electronicmaji
06-22-2008, 02:15 AM
Wrong on all accounts, esspecially overseas spending will INCREASE 845 BILLION if OBAMA has his way! Please take the time to read this informative article I found.

Yes its true Domestic Spending will increase 845 Billion but foreign spending will decrease by 2-4 trillion. It's that simple.

electronicmaji
06-22-2008, 02:16 AM
You're falling for it. I've mentioned this to you before and I will do so again here. Get a copy of Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and READ IT. You will find out that both major parties are controlled by the same group of people. They just switch off when it looks like the people are sick of the party currently in power. The goals do not change. Haven't you noticed? Think about it. For example, Clinton was the person who started NAFTA; Bush continued it.

Note: Quigley was Clinton's mentor.

Its conspiracy theory bull man. I expected better from you.

Democrats and Republicans are not controlled by the same forces. Althought they may pander to them.

tribute_13
06-23-2008, 10:52 AM
Its conspiracy theory bull man. I expected better from you.

Democrats and Republicans are not controlled by the same forces. Althought they may pander to them.

It's not conspiracy theory, it's common sense. Obama is a CFR member, his top political advisor is Zbigniew Brzezenski, a top member in the Trilateral Commission. I dont believe in the whole Illuminati bullcrap. But they all answer to one force, greed, PAC's are all the influence a politician need to pander to others hidden agenda's.

But Obama's affiliation with Zbigniew Brzezenski is enough to turn me away from him. He was an advocate for mobilizing radical islamists to fight communism. He's a nutjob.

CUnknown
07-19-2008, 02:39 PM
Clinton balanced the budget in one of the biggest boom periods this nation has ever seen. It was relatively easy. There is no way that -any- candidate would be able to balance the budget for 2009, unless they are committed to completely overhauling the current system, like Ron Paul is.

And to be honest, I think that balancing the budget at this stage would cause a (possibly) worldwide depression. I am still in favor of it, as this depression is coming either way, but still. The problems are just too big to think that anyone can solve them quickly at this stage. We should be committed to moving in the right direction, at least, not committed to making the problems worse, as Bush and probably Obama are.

electronicmaji - did I read that right? Did you say that Obama is going to decrease foreign spending by 2-4 trillion? First of all ... we don't even spend 2 trillion overseas every year.. second of all, Obama is not going to significantly reduce overseas expenditures. What gives you the idea that he will? Or did you mean 2-4 billion? Yeah, I believe that Obama will reduce overseas expenses by 2-4 billion, lol. ;)

Danke
07-19-2008, 03:13 PM
Clinton balanced the budget in one of the biggest boom periods this nation has ever seen.

Didn't he have a Republican Congress after 1994?

Not that it matters. Too many other things going on with the end of the Cold War and in monetary policy that Clinton had little to do with.

But the budget wasn't really balanced anyway. He was spending SSN and Medicare to pay for the budget.

Liberty Star
07-19-2008, 06:57 PM
For a brief while I thought Obama had some qualities like RP but it didn't take long to realize that Obama is little more than a flip flopper and just another dishonest politician who will say anything to try and win an election. Obama looks like a crook politician and a sham.

brandon
07-19-2008, 07:17 PM
Yes its true Domestic Spending will increase 845 Billion but foreign spending will decrease by 2-4 trillion. It's that simple.

did you even read the article? The article outlines his plan to spend 845 billion in FOREIGN countries, no domestically. It will be really interesting to see him cut foreign spending by 2 - 4 trillion when we currently only spend about 500 billion on defence and foreign affairs per year.

The_Orlonater
07-19-2008, 08:04 PM
But Obama is like Ron Paul.


HE VOTED AGAINST TEH WARZ IN IRAAAQ.



Courtesy of BarleyPolitical.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2008, 09:47 AM
Obama voted in favor of Telecom Immunity and shredding the Fourth Amendment.

After he said he wouldn't.

He helped give Bushco everything he wanted on a silver platter.

That alone, even without considering all the other hideous ideas he has ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147294 ), is enough for any freedom minded person to not vote for him.

Truth Warrior
07-20-2008, 01:01 PM
Hmm, let's see here, Ron is older, more intelligent, wiser, principled, Caucasian, has integrity, a grandfather, a doctor, NOT A LAWYER, and honest.

Yep, not like Obama, at all. ;)

The_Orlonater
07-20-2008, 01:09 PM
Obama's a great man. He can play basketball. :rolleyes::D

Truth Warrior
07-20-2008, 01:13 PM
Obama's a great man. He can play basketball. :rolleyes::D But he can't bowl, for shit. :D

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:43 PM
He appeals to those who want balanced budgets...maybe I should better explain this. He appeals to the Fiscally Responsible; which most Fiscal Conservatives are.

Also he will have less spending. There will be more spending at home but most overseas spending will be cut.


You either have to be totally ignorant or... I don't know what.

THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!

What kind of responsible person sponsors a bill to transfer $850 BILLION dollars of our tax money to the UN overseas???

Please, where are the ban bots when we need them??

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:49 PM
There are similarities. Both appeal to young voters, both are charismatic common sense speakers, both appeal to socially liberal and fiscally conservative people.

NOT!

Obama is NOT fiscally conservative and Ron Paul is NOT socially liberal. LOL

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Yes its true Domestic Spending will increase 845 Billion but foreign spending will decrease by 2-4 trillion. It's that simple.

Can you READ? :mad::mad::mad:

Or are you just being a troll?

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:51 PM
And Republicans held it before. I feel safer when the fair balance of power shifts like it should every 2 terms at least.

I don't feel safer when half the people in the country are voting with nuts like you..

dannno
07-24-2008, 01:51 PM
Please disabuse this nutcase of the idea that Ron Paul is like Obama, should be a Democrat, would sign Kyoto or any other one world government socialistic nonsense!

Where do these people get these wacky ideas that Ron Paul supporters would EVER vote for OBAMA???

Geesh.

http://www.ohboyobama.com/Publicity/Make-a-video-with-Ron-Paul

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Ron Paul said that Obama was a better choice than McCain.

Nobody said they are anywhere close to the same, but Obama would do less damage to our country via foreign policy (not that his is that good).

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:52 PM
Its conspiracy theory bull man. I expected better from you.

Democrats and Republicans are not controlled by the same forces. Althought they may pander to them.


Well now there is proof you have no clue. There is no conspiracy, only a consensus.

I suppose you think the UN doesn't control school curriculum either?

You're proof of it having been brainwashed by your educational system.

dannno
07-24-2008, 01:53 PM
NOT!

Obama is NOT fiscally conservative and Ron Paul is NOT socially liberal. LOL

Actually a lot of people consider ending the drug war "socially liberal", though I don't know if that is a good classification.

Nobody said Obama is fiscally conservative.

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:54 PM
Clinton balanced the budget in one of the biggest boom periods this nation has ever seen. It was relatively easy. There is no way that -any- candidate would be able to balance the budget for 2009, unless they are committed to completely overhauling the current system, like Ron Paul is.

Yeah right! It was easy because he RAIDED SOCIAL SECURITY! LOL
Please don't try to tell us Clinton was any good...... sheesh.

He signed the Iraq policy that caused the war in 1994...

dannno
07-24-2008, 01:56 PM
Yeah right! It was easy because he RAIDED SOCIAL SECURITY! LOL
Please don't try to tell us Clinton was any good...... sheesh.

He signed the Iraq policy that caused the war in 1994...

He never said that Clinton was good, he said that he was only able to balance the budget because of the boom expansion, but that won't be possible in 2009. And yes, raiding SS was part of it (just about every politician does that)

NH4RonPaul
07-24-2008, 01:56 PM
Ron Paul said that Obama was a better choice than McCain.

Nobody said they are anywhere close to the same, but Obama would do less damage to our country via foreign policy (not that his is that good).

He said SLIGHTLY better only because he was asked. You ought to know RP by now and that he isn't one to trash people publicly.

But I see you fell for the spin in the press that lied and said he endorsed Obama when he did nothing of the kind.

And now Obama has flipped on several issues (FISA and Public Funds) and also has said he would put more troops into Afgh. we KNOW he is the liar we have been saying he is.

dannno
07-24-2008, 01:56 PM
Ron Paul said that Obama was a better choice than McCain.


:)

dannno
07-24-2008, 01:57 PM
He said SLIGHTLY better only because he was asked. You ought to know RP by now and that he isn't one to trash people publicly.

But I see you fell for the spin in the press that lied and said he endorsed Obama when he did nothing of the kind.

And now Obama has flipped on several issues (FISA and Public Funds) and also has said he would put more troops into Afgh. we KNOW he is the liar we have been saying he is.

I never said he endorsed obama. I saw the interview live, I remember what he said.

I'm not voting for Obama, I'm not supporting him, I'm not donating to is campaign, I'm not convincing anybody to vote for him.

I still think he is a better choice than McCain.

votefreedomfirst
07-24-2008, 01:59 PM
Obama and RP do hold vastly different positions on the issues but apparently, according to a new Rasmussen poll, the majority of libertarian voters are planning on pulling the lever for him. This surprised me, to say the least.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/libertarians_favor_obama_and_other_looks_at_electi on_2008


Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

It looks like that for the purposes of this survey "libertarian" is defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.