Ron Paul Smacks Down Fox Moderators on Military/Defense Spending!

page: 1
75
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+57 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   


At least America knows his position now! (I was stated this was the most watched Debate so far), and you can CERTAINLY tell there were lots of Ron Paul supporters in house.

REALLY got a chill watching this.




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Any chance of a transcipt of what was said for those of us who cant see the video please?


+9 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Little-bitty man, big intellect and big cajones. God bless the truth. I wonder if those other geeks on stage ever have a quiet moment when they look in the mirror and wish they had the character of the good Doctor?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Ron Paul Rocks. I like that he always keeps it real. Revolution love.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Classic Paul!
He definitely knows what he's talking about and it goes to prove the ignorance of the Fox news team that they constantly have to have this simple difference between military and defense spending explained to them over and over again. Meanwhile, the other candidates just stand there like deer in the headlights with their thumbs up their @##es. GO PAUL!!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
None of the other candidates had much opinion to lend? Nothing to endorse about what a conservative is?

I simply fail to believe this was actually aired in the MSM. I would've liked to have seen it.

I can't sit through long drawn-out pissing matches on TV.

Thanks to the people who collect items of interest for lazy like-minded individuals such as myself.

Do any of the other candidates bring substance to the table?

I wish the good Dr. would slow down a bit and utilize more emphasis when he lends his listeners words of wisdom.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I think your mistaken, Gerald Seib is from the Wall Street Journal

Please get your facts correct before you make statements that are false.



Thank you
edit on 17-1-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Damn I love that Man and I've never Met him.

Most important keep on with revolution!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Correct, that goes for the Wall Street Journal guy too!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
In The News

1 Mitt Romney 2 Iran 3 Hungary
4 Martin Luther King, Jr. 5 Sidney Crosby 6 Syria


This is from foxnews.com. It's the list of the top searches on their page. About an hour ago, Dr. RP was #2. They took him off the list.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
I wonder if those other geeks on stage ever have a quiet moment when they look in the mirror and wish they had the character of the good Doctor?


You are forgetting that the other candidates are sociopaths. They lack the guilt gene. It's part of the criteria for being the POTUS lately.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I think your mistaken, Gerald Seib is from the Wall Street Journal

Please get your facts correct before you make statements that are false.



Thank you
edit on 17-1-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)


Excuse me? I don't recall saying anything about Gerald.........



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



I think your mistaken, Gerald Seib is from the Wall Street Journal


Even though Gerald Seib was not mentioned by the OP, it is vitally important to point out just who (what parent corporation) owns the WSJ:


A number of key members of the family that controlled the Wall Street Journal say they would not have agreed to sell the prestigious daily to Rupert Murdoch if they had been aware of News International's conduct in the phone-hacking scandal at the time of the deal.

"If I had known what I know now, I would have pushed harder against" the Murdoch bid, said Christopher Bancroft, a member of the family that controlled Dow Jones & Company, publishers of the Wall Street Journal.


Source


AND.......Fox "News" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is owned (an controlled) by whom, again?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 
My...that was quite a pointless post. I believe Calgarian's point in the thread title is that these people, regardless of their affiliations otherwise, were moderating at the Fox debate.

Did you have anything useful to add? Possibly opinions on the video? I personally thought Paul, as usual, made complete sense as he's vindicated by the facts - although I certainly wish he were younger and more marketable otherwise - and it never ceases to amaze me how these other knuckleheads can stand on stage with him and claim to want to spend more, be more aggressive, all the while they're being disagreed with by both US and Israeli military experts, excoriated by former CIA terrorism experts, and soundly rejected in the fundraising realm by our military, government workers, government contractors, and generally the common voters who actually care to support a specific candidate for good reason, as compared to running from media-inflated candidate as they rise and fall and merely look good in the eyes of party-over-principle voters.

It's sad that these people are more interested in rousing emotions and winning elections than they are in knowing what they're talking about or giving us honest truth.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If Paul doesn't become the presidential nominee, I will abstain from voting this coming election. I won't support politics as usual anymore. I'm tired of seeing young men and women dying overseas because of politicians who are controlled by corporations and blind ignorance.

Paul is a breath of fresh air to the political status quot. These other candidates should be ashamed of themselves for the way they throw around the word killing, assassinate and voting for bills that go against the foundation of our constitution. They sway their issue towards voting segments instead of standing up for what they truly believe.

I really think Paul is our only hope to change this country around for the better. I don't see the U.S. economy surviving another 4 years at the rate we are spending. The other candidates are going to be more of the same.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I really like Ron Paul, but I don't think he has any chance to be elected.
and I am really sorry about it.

so called "elections" are just entertainment, it is not important who votes,
but who counts the votes.
US Presidents are "optioned", not elected.
And the Rockefellers and their acolytes have already chosen the next US President.

Like it happened with Carter, in the 70's, or Clinton in the 90's, and everyone else, after Eisenhower, at least.

And do you think they have chosen Ron Paul??
No way...

and, anyway, US Presidents are just puppets, since after Eisenhower, they do not have any true power.
and they have just a middle grade Security Clearance.

US Presidents obey orders from well above, they just sign documents.

and they MUST obey.
Or they are executed.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Absolutely brilliant!! If the american people don´t want him as president, or at least try to understand Mr Paul message, is because of an excess of garbage food, tons of fluoride or something like that. Go Mr Paul!!
edit on 17-1-2012 by greenCo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
you know, the one thing that you (well *i* anyway) never hear about in politics is
military spending! talk is of school budgets, medical. etc. but the real money sucker is the military spending.
all the diesel generators, drones, abroad encampments, etc. is compounding our budget.

but nobody ever steps up on this. --- or you get the argument that we wouldn't be free without it.
when will people get it? there's a giant black hole out there and it's called terrorism and military spending.

not to mention black budgets, but thats a whole different topic.

we are funding something that doesn't need to be.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This guys amazing, to me he represents the last hope for American people. We can't take another four years of this madness. One thing he did say is that he wants to build more bases on American soil, yeah we get more jobs, but that's kinda contridictory to his whole message. The whole not sacrificing safety for liberty thing. Maybe he means something different i'd love to see him go into the subject more.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The one thing I do agree with RP is this nation building that needs to stop. When we go into a target country, we need to reduce it to a wasteland, seize its resources, and then leave it to local bandits to pillage. That's how a glorious invasion used to take place in the good days of old.

On everything else, he is 100% wrong. He's a typical politician. Bringing the troops back and closing embassies is the start, which does seem reasonable, but he will slowly but surely go from there to slash the defense budget. The military industrial complex is what keeps us the great nation we are and what fuels our war machine. Do you really think anyone can justify building large solid state laser weapons or f-18 jets and funding them when we aren't in a war? This will definitely cause job loss and damage the economy. But, of course, a pacifist like him dismisses the benefits of war for our economy and our country in general, so nothing out of the ordinary.





new topics

top topics



 
75
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join