Ron Paul Ambushed On Face The Nation,

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
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'.

Well said...

His domestic policy seems to be: Sink or Swim...with little empathy for the "weakest amongst us", and gives lip service to the "Throw granny under the bus" crowd.

reply to post by romanmel


Hmm, actually what I have been noticing, and there is a significant pattern in the way folks who do not support Ron Paul, like the MSM news people, and they just seem to twist and fabricate and spin everything he says, so that it sounds bad.. For example, what you and the person you were responding to are saying illustrates the real twisting of words and remaking his statements.

Excellent job by the way, you both definitely are doing it better than this old washout news guy tried to do with him..fortunately, most people see it for what it really is...

Unless I misunderstood your post..aplogies if that's the case...

reply to post by Ryanssuperman


They figured they lost of Mr paul.

2nd

Originally posted by spacekc929

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.

True! And also don't forget about the fact that if all the troops were here in the states, their money would be spent within the states helping out even further. Also, in another interview he mentions that he doesn't want to cut much, if any, in military defense. It is the offense and sending our troops all over the world.

I mean honestly; how the heck are 2500 marines sitting in Australia going to help with our defense here at home? That is just pathetic and a waste of money. It's like Obama is purposely trying to drive us into the ground. It couldn't be any more obvious. That is just antagonizing China; and for what purpose? I honestly don't believe it in China's best interest to war with us (again, how the heck are troops in Australia going to defend us..lol).

The only reason I see him putting troops in Aussie is because he is planning something with Iran or Syria, to which China may then get involved. That stands to reason; otherwise I see no other reason. I don't know if Obama is getting more bold or more stupid.

I understand Ron Paul is no god, and may not be able to fix everything, but I believe he is consistent, and has integrety. He may stammer, but he always has an answer and shows himself to be smarter than the interviewers. I honestly feel that if we pass on this opportunity of getting him in office, we are screwed. It's not everyday we get a candidate with the balls of JFK. Lets use this chance we have, because he isn't getting any younger and this is probably it for him.

~ Noah

reply to post by romanmel


He's essentially a religious fundamentalist; The Invisible Hand is his God, and Milton Friedman is his prophet. Nevermind that these principles have been an abject, and often bloodily violent failure in every other nation they were instituted in, his personal jihad still requires him to try to force it on us, just so that his religion can be "proven right."

reply to post by alienreality


As I've explained before... What Ron Paul is proposing - economically at least - is not actually new. It's not different or revolutionary or avant garde or anti-establishment orany of the other BS you get fed to make you believe this wrinkly old twit is edgy and cool and thus deserving of your vote.

His economic plan is identical to Michelle Bachman's. And Newt Gingrich's. And Rick Sanitarium and, goddamn it, all of them. They've all got Grover Norquist's guiding hands up their puppet-cavities and are parroting the exact same old tired free market, invisible hand, cut-taxes-kill-welfare donkey-spooge idea from the diseased mind of Friedrich Hayek that has devastated country after country around the world since 1965, all because Hayek was a narcissist with a grudge against Keynes.

Basically? Look at Greece. See that Austerity package being foisted on those people? The absolute gutting of services to the Greek People to pay off the debts of collusion between Greek Bankers and Greek governance, none of whom are paying off a single drachma from their personal accounts? That's what Ron Paul wants us to impose on ourselves. He wants businesses liberated from dues and regulations, and we the people will be footing their bills for them to make up the difference.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I watched an interesting documentary on victorian British bankers last night. What I found quite interesting was that these Bankers, the Lord Rothschilds of the world, actually shared the same philosophies as those who support Ron Paul. When LLoyd George brought in the pension for the elderly and an end to the workhouses through the use of taxation. Lord Rothschild, went mad, Claiming that no one should be forced to pay tax, giving should be a voluntary action and that charity instead of taxation should provide services for the poor.

It seems some want to take us back to this Victorian era, where us lowly folk doff our caps to the rich folk.

Another establishment hit piece from the "impartial" media. But wait, I thought these guys were the "Liberal" media?

You would think that the Liberals/Democrats would support his position of peace and ending the wars, no?

Anyone still doubt that there is a 2-headed 1-party system?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What Ron Paul is proposing - economically at least - is not actually new.

You are correct in that all of the other candidates are regurgitating Ron Paul's ideals but other than stating it, you fail to show us where or how his ideals on solving our economic policies aren't "new" or different.

Allow me to enlighten you with regards to Greece.

The Greek government borrowed themselves into oblivion. Unable to service their debt, they did what any insane group of people would do: borrow MORE money and plunge the country into FURTHER debt. Shockingly, they were unable to support this additional debt burden. How strange that the solution to a debt crisis is NOT MORE DEBT. Sound the least bit familiar?

Youre also correct in saying that the International banksters colluded with the corrupt politicians in Greece to impose "austerity", guaranteeing the repayment of bank loans on the backs of the Greek people. However, you are absolutely WRONG in saying that this is in anyway similar to Ron Paul's proposals.

Bush, then Obama signed TARPS 1, 2 and 3. These funds guaranteed that the banks would not fail. Who got stuck with the bill, you guessed it, we did. Exactly like Greece, the banksters have been guaranteed payment.

Ron Paul said NO to the bank bailouts under Obama AND under Bush. Ron Paul suggested that we NOT payback the banksters. Ron Paul is advocating that the American people should NOT be liable for our government's insane debt burden.

And as Paul himself commented recently: "We owe, like, $1.6 trillion because the Federal Reserve bought that debt, so we have to work hard to pay the interest to the Federal Reserve," Paul said. "We don't, I mean, they're nobody; why do we have to pay them off?"

www.wnd.com...

As much as you are dying to maintain a failed welfare state, I've got some really terrible news for you. Much like the warfare state, it is not sustainable. Those who are working and who pay taxes and who are trying to prevent the loss of what little they have left, refuse to support a hundred years of failed government programs which have destroyed this nation.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


However, I believe most people unfairly criticize Ron Paul because they have been deceived for so long and simply do not expect any thing different from any other politician. I understand your concern. You are justified in that. You do not have to agree with Ron Paul on everything. Not even "Paulites" agree with him on everything. However, you can still disagree all you want, but the reason that we are in this mess is because of two things that Ron Paul has been speaking about for the past 25 years. 1) Our foreign policy 2) Federal Reserve monetary policy. These two issues are the main reason you have seen the decline in prosperity throughout America for the past 40 years and will continue to see more decline if continued.

The only trap we and they are in is one directly caused by Federal Reserve manipulation of interest rates, and massive federal debt -- both of which apparently you'd like more of.

There's a reason folks like you were blindsided by the housing crisis and crash of '08, while economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted exactly why and how it would occur.

In reality your only concern is social safety nets, i assume you are on welfare or have been. No doubt part of the 99% that want hand outs and more government.

My concern is saving the country..

reply to post by seabag


How would ending over seas operations hurt our national security?
If anything it would make us safer.

Wow, just wow. I am canadian, so i rarley follow these interviews and take each comment on here with a grain of salt.

But it is to obvious from watching that video that someone really hates Ron Paul, I mean a 10 year old could tell you the person interviewing him was outright attacking him and twisting his every word.

Im sorry but almost everything Ron Paul says just makes sense, with plain and simple words. And that other guy could hardly make a non double negative sentence that didnt make we think "what a jerk"

How can one be so honest and yet be hated so much? If you guys dont elect him, ill happily elect him as our canadian prime minister. Its gotta be worth a shot. He possably couldnt do much more harm.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by seabag

 

How would ending over seas operations hurt our national security?
If anything it would make us safer.

As I’ve stated before, Ron Paul does a great job on the economy and other domestic issues but he loses me when it comes to national security and defense.

For those of you who support Ron Paul’s approach to national defense, you had to have reevaluated your position after the debate last night. I’m paraphrasing here but Paul basically suggested we deal with killers and terrorists through our legal system. He then used Timothy McVeigh as a shining example. He was promptly schooled by Newt Gingrich when Newt accurately pointed out that the Timothy McVeigh situation was an absolute FAILURE because 168 Americans DIED! Had we been able to use the tactics we have today (which Paul opposes) we would have prevented those needless deaths. Under a Paul administration, those things will happen again, and again, and again because he holds civil liberties much higher than a common sense defense policy.

I agree that we should finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan and get the heck out.

I also agree that we should stop poking our collective nose into the business of other nations. That alone will help our security.

However, if we follow Ron Paul’s form of national defense, I believe more Americans will die here in America because he will take away all of the means we use to uncover these plots. IMO we cannot afford to have a reactive strategy while terrorists are actively seeking small, briefcase sized nuclear devices.

We must be proactive…..and YES, even if it means we give up SOME civil liberties.

I’d rather be patted down at the airport than dead.

I’d rather have my electronic transmissions monitored than be dead.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

Yeah i'm down with the red.....maybe a dual one like Grievous?

reply to post by seabag


How do we finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan? What is there to finish?
We have done enough. It's over. There is no job to finish. That's like saying we should have finished the job in Vietnam.

Ok.. I'm blown away by what you said at the end.
We must be proactive even if it means giving up some civil liberties????
You are crazy. You don't speak for anyone, but yourself. You are like a fascists model citizen. NEVER give up civil liberties under any circumstance. We are fools for changing anything after attacks. We should have continued on as if nothing ever happened. All that has changed for us is for the worse and we are in no more and no less danger than we were before. That is such a foolish thing to say.

You would rather be patted down at the airport than dead? Haha man, I am sorry you have a lot to learn. I feel for you really because you apparently have to start over on your enter ideology. From the ground up. You think being patted down at the airport keeps you alive? Lol. Man seriously, your post is the far and away the most laughable post I have seen on ATS to date. I can't get over it. It's like if Goebbels retarded half brother took over as the head of propaganda. You really think those things are making you safer? Lol.

Originally posted by seabag

However, if we follow Ron Paul’s form of national defense, I believe more Americans will die here in America because he will take away all of the means we use to uncover these plots.

Wrong. And uncover what plots? I would love to see a list of plots we have really uncovered that our government didn't directly have a hand in inciting and orchestrating. I can't believe you think we are made safer by this garbage.
Maybe we should all just be locked in padded rooms with three meals a day and no sharp objects? Then we'd all be super safe! Actually, if "terrorists" from another country really wanted to get us (most all plots/attacks are domestic and not related to foreign countries) they would still get is.

Eventually an attack will happen again, someday, it's inevitable. I would rather the people that die have lived completely free with all their liberties until their death than have lived under lock down and still be killed.
All of these stupid systems are useless and are more effective at stealing liberties than stopping terrorism.

reply to post by ker2010


It would seem very likely that she/he is either on some type of government support system or works for the government which means she is guaranteed a tax payer funded retirement.

No one wants to be on welfare. There was a time when people wanted to be self sufficient and productive until the government got involved. They have in-fact created a "welfare state". What may have started out as a helping hand has now turned into an attitude of entitlement and "gimme gimme gimme".

Once again, government has failed us.

Had the government not destroyed our economy, destroyed the value of our dollar and absorbed so much of our money in taxes, people may actually be able to help themselves.

reply to post by MysticPearl


Ron Paul is going to be the spoiler for the democrats. He'll take away just enough votes to put some other idiot republican in office.

reply to post by seabag

The issue has never been over surveillance.

The issue, and I wish RP had pointed this out last night as he has done in the past, is warrant-less spying without any oversight.

Theres never a legitimate reason for the government to spy on its citizens without probable cause or a subpoena or some kind of 3rd party oversight. Never. This isn't even debatable.

The government wants to spy on a "bad guy", no problem. Goto a FISA type court, state your case, show your evidence and there you go.

As usual, the government and its minions will blur the discussion, make it about "safety and terrorism" when in fact its about accountablility and oversight, something our government hates.

And everyone knows, we can trust our loving government.

They would never spy on war protesters or Birthers or Truthers or those who dont buy into climate change, least of all a Congressman who threatens the entire system.

Starts at 3:30

www.youtube.com...