Ron Paul Ambushed On Face The Nation,

page: 1
107
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+95 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
As with many interviews he does, with a mainstream outlet, they try to make him look un-electable, and really, try to slam his point of view from the beginning. But as usual, Ron is much smarter then the person doing the interview, and comes out looking great in another interview. Hope you like.

edit on 22-11-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Our media is sucking on the tit of fascism and communism so they can keep their faces in front of the camera. They would bend over and take it in the back side just for a date with the devil.

2nd line.


+18 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
In case you were wondering, yes he is a Jedi, and he uses a blue saber.



Although he almost broke out a red one here. Who thinks it's time he does? How many more 89 second debates can he put up with?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Whew. Don't scare me like that. I thought he literally got ambushed for a second.
edit on 22-11-2011 by targeting because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2011 by targeting because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2011 by targeting because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
You can see how the opening question immediately tries to paint Paul in a bad light, like some anti-American kook. "You believe 9/11 happened because of of actions that the United States took".

Then "But basically what you're saying, Mister Paul, is that it was America's fault that 9/11 happened and it was our fault that it happened?"

I don't agree with Paul on certain things like the EPA but I'd vote for him if the GOP doesn't sandbag him in the primaries.


+24 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Being an Aussie I try to ignore internal American politics (except when I need a laugh) so havent seen many of this type of interview.
It struck me that the dude asking the questions came across as quite rude and patronising, Is that normal for that kind of interview or is that something reserved for Ron Paul?

I hope he gets in but being honest Ive lost all faith in America as a world leader/power. I genuinely believe this is ur last chance. Dont screw it up!!!



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Hm... coming from a Ron Paul supporter (vaguely... I agree with him 110% on foreign policy but only about 50% on domestic policy) he didn't actually sound very calm and composed. I've never watched an interview with him, is that how he speaks every time? His voice gets very high and squeaky and he sounds like he's about to be tortured and is trying to get his answer out quickly so that he can avoid the pain.... Don't get me wrong, he SAID the right things, but I worry that he is not saying them in quite the right way, and that people will use that against him to portray him as "weak" because he says "uhm" a lot and stammers a bit. As idealistic as I am, it's hard sometimes for me to remember that in politics, it is hardly ever about saying the right things or having the right policies, but portraying yourself in the correct way. But RP is so clear spoken that maybe he can pull it off, by simply sounding like a normal guy and actually making that connection with the average American. We shall see. His support right now leads me to think that he is doing alright even with this issue of sounding somewhat squeaky and a bit stammering, but I just hope it doesn't lead to a failed candidacy. Ron Paul, I'm rooting for ya!!!!!
My vote is for you!



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


I love Ron Paul on economic issues. If I had my way I would appoint him chairman of the Federal Reserve just so he could close it!

However….

The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!


He loses me on foreign policy….sorry!


+13 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

However….

The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!


He loses me on foreign policy….sorry!




His entire point (which I thought got a bit lost with Schieffer honestly) was that the perceived reason for our troops being in so many places abroad is because it shores up our defense, but in reality, it antagonizes our enemies and doesn't do anything to protect us. Since we have missiles that can hit any place in the world in an hour and we have plenty of submarines which have those missiles inside of them and who can shoot at will, there is no reason to waste money on the troops who are unnecessary and in fact, potentially HARMFUL to our national defense. A strong point that I feel got a little lost because of both Schieffer and because RP didn't convey himself horribly well on that one.


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
It struck me that the dude asking the questions came across as quite rude and patronising, Is that normal for that kind of interview or is that something reserved for Ron Paul?


It's reserved for anyone who does not agree 100% with the 9/11 Omission report and/or all US gov't foreign policies. Ron Paul is not in the pockets of the military industrial complex so he gets the least TV media and debate time.


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Being an Aussie I try to ignore internal American politics (except when I need a laugh) so havent seen many of this type of interview.
It struck me that the dude asking the questions came across as quite rude and patronising, Is that normal for that kind of interview or is that something reserved for Ron Paul?

I hope he gets in but being honest Ive lost all faith in America as a world leader/power. I genuinely believe this is ur last chance. Dont screw it up!!!

You sort-of have to know who Bob Schieffer is. A lot of interviewers have tried to make Ron Paul look bad; they take his stance on policies out of context and try to make him look like a loony, and they almost always fail--correction: the DO always fail. I think the idea was "Well, then, goddammit, we'll put Bob Schieffer on him."

(You might check Wikipedia for Schieffer. By the way, he's CFR [Council on Foreign Relations--also see Wikipedia]. He's one of the people who devise the bad foreign policies that Ron Paul is fighting against.)
edit on 11/22/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/22/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I agree, Paul's delivery is a lot stronger here. I've been waiting to see this from him. He is taking control for once. Superb.


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


I love Ron Paul on economic issues. If I had my way I would appoint him chairman of the Federal Reserve just so he could close it!

However….

The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!


He loses me on foreign policy….sorry!




His statement on the subs is that America is on a continent that can be completely defended by our Airforce and Navy. We don't need military all over the place. Any country in Europe/Asia/Africa that is a threat, isn't within reach of our soil.

So he's quite right in saying that all we need is a navy to protect ourselves. We don't need troops stationed half way across the world to defend America.

The money hungry war mongers need troops stationed across the world, however. That's just the nature of the beast.

edit on 22-11-2011 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2011 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacekc929
Hm... coming from a Ron Paul supporter (vaguely... I agree with him 110% on foreign policy but only about 50% on domestic policy) he didn't actually sound very calm and composed. I've never watched an interview with him, is that how he speaks every time? His voice gets very high and squeaky and he sounds like he's about to be tortured and is trying to get his answer out quickly so that he can avoid the pain.... Don't get me wrong, he SAID the right things, but I worry that he is not saying them in quite the right way, and that people will use that against him to portray him as "weak" because he says "uhm" a lot and stammers a bit. As idealistic as I am, it's hard sometimes for me to remember that in politics, it is hardly ever about saying the right things or having the right policies, but portraying yourself in the correct way. But RP is so clear spoken that maybe he can pull it off, by simply sounding like a normal guy and actually making that connection with the average American. We shall see. His support right now leads me to think that he is doing alright even with this issue of sounding somewhat squeaky and a bit stammering, but I just hope it doesn't lead to a failed candidacy. Ron Paul, I'm rooting for ya!!!!!
My vote is for you!


Please use paragraphs


I've been following him for several years, and this is the most .... aggravated ... I've seen Dr.Paul. You can tell that he knows the guy is trying to twist his words and make him look like a monster, ie the 9/11 question.

However, you also have to remember that there isn't much time to respond to questions before interviewers cut you off. Interviewers like this old coot here just want Ron to slip up on some tough question, use that clip to further their career, and move on to the next question.

Ron is answering quickly and decisively. I think the interview went very well, rushed, but went well. I didn't like how they cut him off at the end however.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Why is it ridiculous. What makes you think they are? Because the government told you they are?

That is all you have to go on. The government also said Iraq had WMD's. Does "fool me once.." not apply to you?


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


"The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!

He loses me on foreign policy….sorry! "


Sorry , but he makes Perfect Sense to me on Foreign Policy . Our Nuclear Fleet of Subs and the Offensive Power of the USAF along with our Space Based Weapon Systems could Destroy ANY Enemy that would even Dare Try to Attack us 10 TIMES OVER . This Military Power has been Bought and Paid for by American Tax Payer at the Cost of TRILLIONS of Dollars since the end of WWII . It has kept the Peace yes , but for how much longer can it if the Nation goes Bankrupt due to Corporate and Govermental Corruption? Our Allies Can take care of themselves now , but can we if our Wealth as a Nation is Stolen Away by Greedy Evil Men ?
No , Ron Paul has the Right Idea at the Right time , and that Time is NOW.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Old school "urinalist". Versus common sense politician. Perhaps the only one of a few that still exist.
Paul is not for sale, and that's a problem for MSM and the larger companies that own them.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


I love Ron Paul on economic issues. If I had my way I would appoint him chairman of the Federal Reserve just so he could close it!

However….

The fact that he’s sticking to his guns on Iran saying they don’t have nor are they trying to pursue nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous.

And we shouldn’t have troops deployed overseas because we have submarines?? WOW!


He loses me on foreign policy….sorry!




There is only two types of targets:

1. Those we have sunk (destroyed)
2. and those we plan on destroying

Submarines once...submarines twice....


My point is, that I think he may be right. There is not a single target that our submarines cant hit at this time. We can launch a drone from a submarine and do the recon even. A tomahawk cruise missile can carry do many diff kinds of payloads they deal with just about any kind of threat. I agree with him "Bring our Troops Home".

It is time to defend our borders, not spread ourselves so thin so to speak. I am not for isolationism but we need to focus on what is closest to us and stop #ing around with other nations.
edit on 22-11-2011 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
God I hope Ronny gets in. Even if I live here in NZ. I would party all night long.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


For everyone that has questioned my comments on RP's foreign policy...

From a military perspective I can tell you that it is very important to have a presence overseas. While deployed I had the opportunity to train with soldiers, sailors and Marines from many different countries. The knowledge we gain and bonds we form from working together are invaluable. It allows for cohesion when called upon to fight side by side in some unforeseen conflict in the future. 

It's not about warmongering or occupying countries. Our militaries train together...we're allies. You can't do that from here. 

And it doesn't provoke other countries. If that is true then please tell me how many countries have attacked us here lately?





top topics
 
107
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join