Hillary praises Ron Paul and his Amazing enthusiastic grassroot supporters - Video

Was it my imagination or was Paul trying to lead by example here??

There are much worse things he could have said to her.
 
Bryan said:
This is what I love about the forum. People posting up once in a blue moon to drop a gem. Thanks!



IMO, our fight is on many levels with a great deal of dynamics. All positive steps are just that. But sure, feel-good talk won't remove chains of slavery either.



I think it's better this come in time. Most people can't expect dramatic shifts in such a short time frame so if Dr. Paul did press too hard he could end up looking bad for expecting too much. What Dr. Paul did however was brilliant in that he fired a warning shot, let them know his is going to be on their tale and later THAT is when he will take them to task. Patients. :)

Just my $0.02- again. :)
Click to expand...

Well, all I know is that 78 more people died just today. How long should we give them Bryan?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
 
TruckinMike said:
Hillery's Answer was bad linking.

If you had a drug store you wouldn't place your lunch plate ad next right next to your diarrhea medication ad - now would you?

The Hillery love fest is not a good thing. IMO

TMIKE
Click to expand...

I completely agree; I'll take the exposure, but I don't consider this a blessing.
 
dannno said:
Was it my imagination or was Paul trying to lead by example here??

There are much worse things he could have said to her.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was about to say the same thing before I read your post.

I was also impressed that Paul simply laughed along to that one Congressman's statement of "Oh, now you'll just encourage him".
Most would view that as a negative statement.
 
fr33domfightr said:
Obviously, it didn't get Ron Paul a win. But you have to admit, Ron Paul, his ideas, and now H.R. Bills, are getting much more exposure than he would have ever gotten, had it not been for his supporters. The strong support gave him credibility in the eyes of his peers, and in the media. If things go well, his new-found credibility will translate into an even larger movement, and positive things to come.


FF
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
MikeStanart said:
Yeah, I was about to say the same thing before I read your post.

I was also impressed that Paul simply laughed along to that one Congressman's statement of "Oh, now you'll just encourage him".
Most would view that as a negative statement.
Click to expand...
I'd probably laugh too. It means they're scared.
 
MikeStanart said:
Yeah, I was about to say the same thing before I read your post.

I was also impressed that Paul simply laughed along to that one Congressman's statement of "Oh, now you'll just encourage him".
Most would view that as a negative statement.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul only needs our encouragement, doesn't that guy know?
 
JoshLowry said:
Natalie and I held signs over a highway (288 South) for 20 or 21 days in a row straight. Just before December 16th.

:o
Click to expand...

I saw the ones on 59S south of the 288 interchange.

Thats what got me to first google Ron Paul. .. Thanks for showing me and others the light! ;)
 
Mrs. Clinton probably did appreciate having a kinder, gentler repartee with Dr. Paul if the previous questioner really was Brad Sherman. LOL

At least Dr. Paul laid the groundwork that she can expect him to be considerate, even if the question is part of his agenda. She obviously knows that he is not a warmonger. She probably thinks she can manipulate him. :D

Still, she nicely non-answered, nicely sidestepped, nicely distracted with flattery on her way to the end of that question.
 
Still dont like her for Bombing Iraq, Serbia.

Its nice that she returned the favor.


But can she return the lost lives that her husband presidency had done?
guess not.
 
He Who Pawns said:
IMO, the Dems have a deliberate new strategy now of trying to pump this "schism" between Ron Paul (libertarian) Republicans and Neocons. It's a winning strategy if your goal is to break up and disable the GOP. In the long run, though, it could have very serious blowback. This could literally cause the breakup of the GOP into two schools - fiscal conservative libertarians and religious warmonger neocons. the former could draw huge, huge numbers of democrats, especially if the economy and taxes get worse. Dems should be careful what they wish for. A highly religious, warmongering GOP is easy to beat.
Click to expand...


DING DING DING!

Even Raquel Maddow recognizes that all the grassroots o f Ron Paul Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionists, and even Independents are becoming a very big and formidable force against democratic politicians and their screwed up ideologies. Even their ORACLE is in Jeopardy of one term if Republicans and the old neocons change their ways, FOR REAL, and except true Conservative values and not the Jingoism Corporatism Fascist Ideology.

The left is realizing, no matter how much they discredit the TEA PARTIES and ASTROTURF horseshyt, opposition is growing against the Democratics/DNC. They will lose in 2010 & 2012 if the center and right unite!

So instead of pushing their screwed up policies, they are trying to fracture the center and right.

PS: Hillary is a Puppet to money, wealth, etc... the country and people come second and third... BUT, this could be a blessing. If internationally things smooth out, the NEOCON old school power republicans have no platform to run on except true conservative values and the likes of Freedoms/Liberties for REAL.
 
Last edited:
Who cares?

Seriously. why is this topic this long.

She payed him a complement, doesn't mean she's suddenly libertarian-friendly and "on our side".

I disagree with 99% of Obama's policies, but I genuinely think he's an intelligent man and believes what he is doing is right. Doesn't mean I support him though.
 
He Who Pawns said:
IMO, the Dems have a deliberate new strategy now of trying to pump this "schism" between Ron Paul (libertarian) Republicans and Neocons. It's a winning strategy if your goal is to break up and disable the GOP. In the long run, though, it could have very serious blowback. This could literally cause the breakup of the GOP into two schools - fiscal conservative libertarians and religious warmonger neocons. the former could draw huge, huge numbers of democrats, especially if the economy and taxes get worse. Dems should be careful what they wish for. A highly religious, warmongering GOP is easy to beat.
Click to expand...

I’ve noticed this too. Although I see it as a dem & neocon collaboration, political and media wise. (two-faces of same minded groups).

The divisions would be win/win for both major parties. Keep the divisions, add more divisions, up the ante on “outrage” so as to continue the smoke & mirrors of dems vs. repubs. The dems and neocons depend on each other like gun grabbers and the NRA.

Obama has the “I voted for Palin, not McCain voter” so pissed and scared that they’ll take the “best chance of winning” again.

This time neocons have used part of Paul’s message, but again, have drawn the line at nonintervention. And again spreading falsehoods about Pauls complete strategy –economic and otherwise. “Paul’s great, but let’s be realistic, he’s asking for too much too soon.……”

The dems are both hinting that “Paul may have something”, but are also naming him specifically and mocking him. (tea-parties)

Message to republicans not paying attention: “Ron Paul is a liability splitting the vote, democrats seem to like him, his “end the fed” is strange because democrats caused this crisis, his foreign policy is surrender.”

Message to democrats not paying attention: “The republicans don’t even like Ron Paul, his “end the fed” is asking for more corporatism, his pirate strategy is outdated compared to Hillary’s.”

Just attitudes and spin that I’ve gleaned off other forums, FOX, MSNBC, out of politicians mouths, Daily/Colbert show etc..

IMO, dems & neocons would rather go down together than either of them relinquishing control to a third party.

Bunkloco
 
reduen said:
Well, all I know is that 78 more people died just today. How long should we give them Bryan?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
Click to expand...
I understand. And for me, I would want for any one of them that wants to come home to be able to come home. But I'm not the one making decisions, so, IMO, the question you ask has little practical value. IMO, a better question is, how can we get those who want to come home to come home? I wish I knew the best answer to this, but can see how it requires the employment of tact, messaging and more to convince those in power to come to alignment with your position. In this, I do see what Dr. Paul did as a good move here.
 
Bryan said:
I understand. And for me, I would want for any one of them that wants to come home to be able to come home. But I'm not the one making decisions, so, IMO, the question you ask has little practical value. IMO, a better question is, how can we get those who want to come home to come home? I wish I knew the best answer to this, but can see how it requires the employment of tact, messaging and more to convince those in power to come to alignment with your position. In this, I do see what Dr. Paul did as a good move here.
Click to expand...

I think it went right over your head... I was talking about the Iraqi's that are still dying while we still there... The soldiers are there by choice and are getting paid to be there...!

You are certainly entitled to your humble opinion but to say that my question has little practical value seems a bit disingenuous to me... (MHO)
 
reduen said:
I think it went right over your head... I was talking about the Iraqi's that are still dying while we still there...
Click to expand...
OK, I see I didn't read your statement correctly- I misread to think you were referring to our troops that were dying. None-the-less, I think my overall point (below) stands.

The soldiers are there by choice and are getting paid to be there...
Click to expand...
From what I can see, and based on the 2008 donations coming from the military, I don't think that a lot of them want to be there anymore. Sure, they made a choice when they signed up for service but I think this situation is more complicated than that.

You are certainly entitled to your humble opinion but to say that my question has little practical value seems a bit disingenuous to me... (MHO)
Click to expand...
I disagree as you're asking me how long we should give them when I have virtually no power to make a difference in that decision making process. To say the least, president Obama doesn't call me up asking for advice. I'm doing what I can to make a difference and if anyone wants to say that I'm making more than a little practical difference I'd be flattered. Regardless, I do press on. Having your question directed to president Obama or Hilary would be fruitful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top