Ron Paul Ambushed On Face The Nation,

page: 6
107
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Not Afraid

I think that sums Dr. Ron Paul
But, on the other hand as a non-party partier, am I out of line for taking this side or is this simply just another dud :puz
edit on 11/22/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
i'd take him more seriously if he were independent, lets be honest, he's a 1% republican with a different sales pitch

don't be fooled



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Wow what a puppet Bob Schieffer is. Maybe Jim Henson's crew should hire this guy.





posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   


In case you were wondering, yes he is a sith, and he uses a pink saber! On his really really good days, he prefers the rainbow sabar. Drives all the little boys and girls wild...!
edit on 22-11-2011 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
he's a registered republican right ?

so if you are a 1% er , go ahead and vote for him

always vote your interest, always ignore the smoke and mirrors they use to confuse you

he's part of the problem, he's just better at confusing the people, especially those that will attack this post
edit on 22-11-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)


Hey Syrinx. Are you saying that Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing? If so, what specific matters is he confusing his supporters on?


Ron Paul uses the system to "bring home the bacon" just like all insiders.




Thanks for attempting to answer but the video you provided pretty much supports the opposite of what Syrinx put forward. He analogously qualified "bringing home the bacon" when he made the comparison to accepting tax credits.

I did notice the potential double standards with federal funding for floods but beyond that, you'd need to have a fairly convoluted or impressionable mind to not see through the blatant techniques being used by the interviewer (Russert). He has semantics at best. Paul however, spoke clear logic.

I'm open to scrutinizing Ron Paul as a potential controlled opposition but the video you presented is fairly weak.

edit on 22/11/2011 by rexusdiablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


HE says "um" a lot? Have you ever listened to comrade Obama speak?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Dear Seabag;

I have an idea. For the future military personal such as your self -

Let's have Japan, Russia, and South Korea build military bases here. Instead of 190 countries with a US base... let's aim small with lets say 17 foreign Nations having bases in our land. Or, lets just say one. A Chinese base in Central Nebraska.

Does this sound like a good idea to you?

We can learn with the Chinese and bond. They can spend all their Chinese money in Nebraska and help stimulate that State's economy.


Edit: Or, we can just bring allies. Saudi Arabia is considered an ally. How about a Saudi Arabia base in lets say Key West, Florida. Thoughts?

edit on 04/04/2008 by Diluted because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


I watched this yesterday. Ron Paul handled himself great and I love how he always leads with facts.. pretty much stating right off the bat on the first question that it was our own government institutions that said 9/11 could have been influence in part by our current actions with our foreign policy


He points it out perfectly and did as good a job as you can with such malicious questions. that anchor guy looked angry extremely angry.. the fact that he cut him off so quickly shows that he did not get what he wanted. it just showed that anchor as a angry old man with a chip on his shoulder.


GG

Paul- 1 Mainstream media- 0



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diluted
reply to post by seabag
 


Dear Seabag;

I have an idea. For the future military personal such as your self -

Let's have Japan, Russia, and South Korea build military bases here. Instead of 190 countries with a US base... let's aim small with lets say 17 foreign Nations having bases in our land. Or, lets just say one. A Chinese base in Central Nebraska.

Does this sound like a good idea to you?


We can learn with the Chinese and bond. They can spend all their Chinese money in Nebraska and help stimulate that State's economy.


Edit: Or, we can just bring allies. Saudi Arabia is considered an ally. How about a Saudi Arabia base in lets say Key West, Florida. Thoughts?

edit on 04/04/2008 by Diluted because: (no reason given)



One of our thunderstorms would send China home crying.

I agree with your sarcasm and tend to think that we need to keep our military bases out of other countries. Ontop of being expensive, it's egotistical.
edit on 11/22/2011 by minikin84 because: edited for more words AGAIN



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You are paranoid. People across the world do not hate our way of life, they do however hate that we occupy their country because A FEW people have a problem with the USA. Those FEW PEOPLE turn to more not because they started by hating the USA but because they have suffered for the actions of a few.

To top it off most of the USA occupation is a move for resources which is part of our countries problem right now and that just adds fuel to the fire.

This whole Offense is the best defense is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. If you think about it funding an army overseas is expensive and worse for our security. If we are financially strained as our economy is now, it would be a lot easier to take us out since we are financially stretched. Not to mention our industry is crap.

All our occupation is doing is creating more enemies who are waiting for us to get weak, which is happening. We would be better off taking a defensive position than to continue to go offensively but if you want to continue going balls to the wall go for it.

I am no pacifist by any means, I want to win.. but making more enemies is not the way to go. If our country is unwilling to eradicate our enemies then there is no point to having a presence there. Just take a defensive position, make allies and let our enemies break their bodies on our defenses.. i mean how many countries can actually muster up an invasion of the USA? If they do it's not like we won't know about it and won't be able to neutralize it before it is an issue.


If we do as Paul says it will not be all sunshines and rainbows.. our country has cause much destruction in other nations and there is a chance for retaliation.. but we made our bed now we sleep in it.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Ron Paul answered well. And that was definitely some tough, ambush journalism right there, that actually brought out great responses from Ron Paul. Bravo.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Nov. 22, 2011: CNN Republican National Security Debate - Ron Paul Highlights
www.dailypaul.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Ron Paul doesn't go down easy I've noticed. He's so much smarter than the reporters. They have scripted questions designed to make him look bad in there opinion, but he ends up making them look bad, and himself look good. That's even harder for him because, he has to answer the questions on his feet,

You can tell this is true because when they don't get the answer they're expecting, instead of moving on to the next question, they ask it again and again untill they give up lol.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I don't think that's true. I hope it isn't, but even if it is it doesn't matter, because so is everyone else only more, and then some.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
American Troops to Occupy Austrailia

I am so glad I saw this thread. I wanted to reply earlier but I didn't get a chance to. I think that Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy is idealistic but not feasible. Obama promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq and foreign soil as well but yet there are even more articles like the one I linked above coming out monthly. The worst part about this all is that we (American Tax Payers) are paying for 2500 Us troops to go to Austrailia...to do what exactly?!
It just makes me sick.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Plotus
 


Tisk tisk, How dare I have an opinion not the same as yours. I see where you are coming from but rmember that perception is reality. I found it a brash but fair interview. Ron Paul handled it adequately and there was a clear line on where Ron stands on his policies and views in that interview. An intelligent and informed citizen will fully observe that in my opinion. So be as it may, my Kool-Aid tastes just fine.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Good post OP.
Glad to see some Ron Paul supporters here.

Has anyone else noticed that the idea of "non-intervention" and "neutrality" is now called "isolationism".

I am somewhat curious how Switzerland is on the Respect-O-Meter/
Should we be more like the Swiss?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 


Yeah, it's funny because before WWII we were considered just that. WE were very peaceful and prosperous as a people and while the depression took it's toll, we were climbing out of the slump. The war changed everything. Here we see history repeating itself as usual.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   


our Space Based Weapon Systems
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


You must be joking. What Spaced based weapons systems?

There are none, see "Militarisation of Space"



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


It's not really an "ambush" if it's a prepared interview.
I swear, Ron Paul's adherants are getting almost as bad as fundie Christians, with how much they get off on pretending to be "oppressed."

Anyway. He remains a very solid idealist on foreign policy; good for him. Unfortunately for him, he continues to either lie or be utterly stupid when it comes to his domestic policy.

"No no, we'll still have parks after I do away with the department of the interior" - Either that's an outright lie, or he's simply utterly clueless of what he's talking about... and I'm tired of giving this guy the benefit of hte doubt with regards to him just not knowing stuff. He could read a damn book, is all I'm sayin'.





new topics
top topics
 
107
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join