Ron Paul not good on Meet the Press

[top gun]

I just watched presidential candidate Ron Paul on Meet the Press and I'm afraid I have to say... not very good!

The problem is Paul is stuck somewhere in the past. Waving around his view as "Constitutional" philosophy is not in step with the needs of today's country.

One might be able to agree that "some" Constitutional amendments might be warranted for consideration but his broad brush, let's take America back to 1776 game plan, would have fatal flaws.

I've said before I don't disagree with everything the man says... but on total if you watch & listen to him in depth... I'm kinda amazed he really has a following.

America with a Federal government run as if it were before the Civil War would be disastrous. There's a huge difference between cutting waste and abolishing entire programs.

I have to now put Ron Paul in the same category as Ralf Nader. Maybe a spoiler somewhere but not even in a catch basin... leading to a creek... dumping into a tributary... flowing into a river... ending up in any mainstream ocean.

Sorry but in real votes the American people will say he's only an "also ran".

 

[Popeye]

I just watched presidential candidate Ron Paul on Meet the Press and I'm afraid I have to say... not very good!

The problem is Paul is stuck somewhere in the past. Waving around his view as "Constitutional" philosophy is not in step with the needs of today's country.

One might be able to agree that "some" Constitutional amendments might be warranted for consideration but his broad brush, let's take America back to 1776 game plan, would have fatal flaws.

I've said before I don't disagree with everything the man says... but on total if you watch & listen to him in depth... I'm kinda amazed he really has a following.

America with a Federal government run as if it were before the Civil War would be disastrous. There's a huge difference between cutting waste and abolishing entire programs.

I have to now put Ron Paul in the same category as Ralf Nader. Maybe a spoiler somewhere but not even in a catch basin... leading to a creek... dumping into a tributary... flowing into a river... ending up in any mainstream ocean.

Sorry but in real votes the American people will say he's only an "also ran".

You couldn't be more right, top gun. Among other things, Ron Paul wants to abolish the, Federal Reserve, Dept of Education, IRS, EPA, and the FDA.

He's a niche candidate, nothing more.

 

[heyjude]

He used to be a Libertarian. I'm glad he isn't anymore. I don't know what he is now, except as top gun said, a spoiler.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I just watched presidential candidate Ron Paul on Meet the Press and I'm afraid I have to say... not very good!

Of course you don't think he was very good. You're a collectivist statist and Ron Paul is an individualist.

Tim Russert, also a statist, was definitely out to get him. I knew it would be a hit piece but Paul held his own.

I loved seeing Russert's ignorance on display with gems like "If we didn't have the Civil War there would still be slavery in 2007." ROTFLMAO. These buffoons really crack me up. Paul countered brilliantly stating that we could have done what every other country in the world did and end slavery without a war killing over 600,000 people. He specifically mentioned the British example in which the British government simply purchased all the slaves and then freed them. That shut Russert's ignorant trap on that subject for the rest of the interview.

Then Russert tried to claim that Paul's introduction of spending bills at the request of his constituents, while voting against those same bills on the floor, equated to a contradiction. Again, Paul refuted him by correctly noting that the money was going to be taken by force regardless, and that he had no control over the process as a whole. Since the money was going to be stolen regardless, Paul's constituents had as much right to it as any other citizens who had taxes stolen from them.

The problem is Paul is stuck somewhere in the past. Waving around his view as "Constitutional" philosophy is not in step with the needs of today's country.

Inverse of Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Your argument is stuck somewhere in irrationality.

 

[Popeye]

Sure, he's an "individualist" all right. If you mean looking out for no. 1, you're correct.

Check out these companies Ron Paul has invested in, no wonder he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the EPA.


Agnico Eagle Mines
Iam Gold Corp
Kinross Gold
Alumina
Claude Res Inc
Mag Silver Corp
Apollo Gold
Pan American Silver
Golden Star Resources
Great Basin Gold
Eldoraldo Gold
Golden Cycle Gold
Barrick Gold
Virginia Mines
GoldCorp Inc
Metalline Mining
Lexam Explorations
Coeur A'Alene Mines
Silver Wheaton
Petrol Oil and Gas
Vista Gold
Newmont Mining Corp
Dundee Preceious Metals"

 

[top gun]

Of course you don't think he was very good. You're a collectivist statist and Ron Paul is an individualist.

Tim Russert, also a statist, was definitely out to get him. I knew it would be a hit piece but Paul held his own.

I loved seeing Russert's ignorance on display with gems like "If we didn't have the Civil War there would still be slavery in 2007." ROTFLMAO. These buffoons really crack me up. Paul countered brilliantly stating that we could have done what every other country in the world did and end slavery without a war killing over 600,000 people. He specifically mentioned the British example in which the British government simply purchased all the slaves and then freed them. That shut Russert's ignorant trap on that subject for the rest of the interview.

Then Russert tried to claim that Paul's introduction of spending bills at the request of his constituents, while voting against those same bills on the floor, equated to a contradiction. Again, Paul refuted him by correctly noting that the money was going to be taken by force regardless, and that he had no control over the process as a whole. Since the money was going to be stolen regardless, Paul's constituents had as much right to it as any other citizens who had taxes stolen from them.

Inverse of Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Your argument is stuck somewhere in irrationality.

Wow, I guess I hit a nerve... sorry.

But I really did give him the benefit of the doubt and only watched it to see if there were more things I could agree with him on.

I just couldn't see it... and I thought Russert was very fair. The things he pointed out on the Ron Paul record were pretty cut & dry. America is just too big and too diverse to ever be a "Ron Paul" territory. As I watched I saw he was even a little shaky and that surprised me a little.

There were a couple of his positions I could go along with maybe part way... but as far as President America won't embrace it.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Sure, he's an "individualist" all right. If you mean looking out for no. 1, you're correct.

Check out these companies Ron Paul has invested in, no wonder he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the EPA.


Agnico Eagle Mines
Iam Gold Corp
Kinross Gold
Alumina
Claude Res Inc
Mag Silver Corp
Apollo Gold
Pan American Silver
Golden Star Resources
Great Basin Gold
Eldoraldo Gold
Golden Cycle Gold
Barrick Gold
Virginia Mines
GoldCorp Inc
Metalline Mining
Lexam Explorations
Coeur A'Alene Mines
Silver Wheaton
Petrol Oil and Gas
Vista Gold
Newmont Mining Corp
Dundee Preceious Metals"

Those precious metals investments have done quite well since 2000 with our current economic structure. They would have been a wise investment for anyone. I invest in gold myself. Nothing immoral about that. Were all the people who made money in the stock market under Clinton when the rich got richer looking out for #1? Did you criticize them when Clinton was in power?

Did you criticize Gore when he sold out the environment to make a profit for himself? I dare you to even try and defend his actions. Yet I'm betting that you voted for him in 2000. Whoops...

And let's see your source on this.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Wow, I guess I hit a nerve... sorry.

No, you just got called on your B.S. Again, it's not shocking that a statist such as yourself would think that a statist like Russert was fair.

 

[Popeye]

For a so called Libertarian Paul has allowed religion to influence his politics

When asked if he would encourage presenting so called facts to contradict the theory of evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design. As we all know, intelligent design is nothing but dressed up creationism.

Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a program of mass murder". He has consistently voted against a womens right to choose.

I listen to Gene Burns, a talk radio radio host on KGO San Francisco regularly. He was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1984. Burns, still a strong Libertarian, says the government has no business getting involved in such a personal decision. What's with Paul, is he a Republican Christian Conservative or a Libertarian? And how can you reconcile his allowing his religious views to influence his policy stands?

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

 

[Truth-Bringer]

For a so called Libertarian Paul has allowed religion to influence his politics

When asked if he would encourage presenting so called facts to contradict the theory of evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design. As we all know, intelligent design is nothing but dressed up creationism.

What he has stated in regards to education is that the federal government should stay completely out of it. It should be left up to the states and local communities. Yes, he is a Christian, and I am not, but Ron Paul is no threat to free thought. That's absolutely absurd - considering he doesn't want the federal government to be able to mandate anything regarding education.

Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a program of mass murder". He has consistently voted against a womens right to choose.

I listen to Gene Burns, a talk radio radio host on KGO San Francisco regularly. He was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1984. Burns, still a strong Libertarian, says the government has no business getting involved in such a personal decision. What's with Paul, is he a Republican Christian Conservative or a Libertarian? And how can you reconcile his allowing his religious views to influence his policy stands?

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

That is one libertarian's viewpoint. About 60 to 70 percent of libertarians are pro-choice - but 30 to 40 percent are pro-life. They have their own group - Libertarians for Life - and their views are not based on religion. They are athiests. Their views are based on science - and they will scare the living @#$% out of people like you who base the entire argument on emotion.

"The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, Libertarians For Life argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them."

Here's another site you'll despise, Popeye:

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

Are they trying to force their religion on people by being Pro-Life? LOL.

 

[top gun]

No, you just got called on your B.S. Again, it's not shocking that a statist such as yourself would think that a statist like Russert was fair.

There's no need for any insults. I totally uphold your right to think Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread if you like.

I just watch and listen as open mindedly a possible and try to envision what would happen to the country under different scenarios.

I can go along with cutting waste.

But abolishing the department of education... come on. Abolishing all Federal Taxes (the IRS) sounds good until you take about 2 and a half seconds to think about it. The whole Federal Government of the United States of America run on tariffs and a few user fees... please.

Go back to when women were being forced into back alley & self induced abortions???

I could go with some "Ron Paul light" theories. Try to stay out of international conflicts. Only go into declare wars... things like that. Making some soft drugs like Pot legal has some reasonable standing... but I can't really see making Heroin legal can you... he said legalize ALL drugs!

The bottom line I believe is Ron Paul's Libertarianism could never hold up in a large & diverse society and in a world that has evolved to where it is today. You'd actually increase the gap by leaps & bounds between the rich & the poor.

It's horse & buggy thinking. It sounds quaint but in America we drive cars.

 

[Popeye]

What he has stated in regards to education is that the federal government should stay completely out of it. It should be left up to the states and local communities. Yes, he is a Christian, and I am not, but Ron Paul is no threat to free thought. That's absolutely absurd - considering he doesn't want the federal government to be able to mandate anything regarding education.

Left up to the local communities? You do that, 90% of the small towns, in the Bible belt, will be teaching creationism as outright fact. Nothing but religious indoctrination. You admit he is a Christian, how can you say it is not affecting his views negatively?

That is one libertarian's viewpoint. About 60 to 70 percent of libertarians are pro-choice - but 30 to 40 percent are pro-life. They have their own group - Libertarians for Life - and their views are not based on religion. They are athiests. Their views are based on science - and they will scare the living @#$% out of people like you who base the entire argument on emotion.

"The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, Libertarians For Life argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them."

Here's another site you'll despise, Popeye:

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

Are they trying to force their religion on people by being Pro-Life? LOL.

I looked at the site and, as you say, they make a big deal about being non Christian. Basing your opposition to abortion on science is fine, but that does not hold true for admitted Christian Ron Paul. I suppose his opposition is all based on science as well?

While we're at it, belief in a supreme being is totally unscientific. Christian beliefs have and are an impediment to free thought. It's looking to me like Ron Paul is a Conservative Christian wolf dressed in Libertarian sheep clothing.

Btw, I see he is Mr. Big corporation as well. He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. Add to that, his terrible environmental record, opposition to the raising of the minimum wage, no on alternative energy, no on CAFE standards etc.

It just goes on and on. I can tell you this, if Paul were to run as a third party candidate, liberals, that support him now based on his opposition to the war, would drop by the wayside once his real record was revealed.

 

[top gun]

Left up to the local communities? You do that, 90% of the small towns, in the Bible belt, will be teaching creationism as outright fact. Nothing but religious indoctrination. You admit he is a Christian, how can you say it is not affecting his views negatively?

I looked at the site and, as you say, they make a big deal about being non Christian. Basing your opposition to abortion on science is fine, but that does not hold true for admitted Christian Ron Paul. I suppose his opposition is all based on science as well?QUOTE]

The whole fertilization on thing for being a person is total religious hocus pocus.

For instance in the Jewish faith a child is not considered a person until "crowning" occurs in the act of child birth. It's all religious interpretation and nothing more. And I could go on & on how different religions define personhood at various & different stages. You can also see in the 14th Amendment the following...

The first section formally defines citizenship and requires the states to provide civil rights.

“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is ridiculous to think that the government should wheeled such a power of forcing women to be government forced baby incubators and women should have absolutely no control over the processes that take place within their own personal, private bodies.

Until viability (the ability to live on ones own in terms of living and breathing) the development is not such as to be in any way any crime let alone homicide.

Were it to be then a miscarriage would be the fetus breaking the law for committing suicide and even the birth control pill that prohibits a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb at the 2 cell level would have to be a crime.

It's ridiculous and something that if ever tried to be enforced would cause such an uproar from the vast, vast majority of women and men for that matter that there would be a Constitutional Amendment brought up and passed within 2 election cycles if not much sooner.

So as we talk about it, even more than ever... Ron Paul is just more obviously out of touch and not going to get close to ANY nomination.

Let's watch and see who's side is the best predictor of what will happen because I have absolutely NO, ZERO, doubt.

 

[Bunz]

I actually watched the interview in its entirety as well. Even though it was on basically in the middle of the night here. I went in watching it with an open mind and was very curious how he would do...Well I wasnt impressed.

That being said, I am one who doesnt want to support a Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, Edwards or the like. I share some views with Paul, I just didnt see Presidential material during that interview from him. There were plenty of answers he could have given to the questions that would have sated me much more. Such as when Russert asked about earmarks...all he had to do was say "that if you want to change the rules you have to play the game."

I have never been a big fan of Russert. He doesnt ask the questions that I think are entirely relavant. Irregardless, Top Gun sums up my thoughts on the interview as well.

Also, the notion that abolishing the Dept of Education is flat out dumb in my book. A few reasons...
To remain a world leader status the US enjoys now, it requires a a literate, free thinking, educated work force.
Local governments often simply cant afford the actual cost of education.
The federal pass down money to local schools provides assistance that would otherwise not be available.
It provides some consistency nationwide in terms of actual funding, level of education, quality of teachers, curriculum etc. If there is one department that should not be abolished it would be education in my opinion. I am confident that enough people in America agree with me that Paul doesnt have a shot at 1600 Penn.

 

[vyo476]

Until viability (the ability to live on ones own in terms of living and breathing) the development is not such as to be in any way any crime let alone homicide.

Then is it okay to just off people who can't breathe for themselves? Or who have brain damage?

Were it to be then a miscarriage would be the fetus breaking the law for committing suicide and even the birth control pill that prohibits a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb at the 2 cell level would have to be a crime.

Miscarriage would not be and is not suicide. Suicide requires a human being to actively or passively cause or allow himself/herself to die. Now I'm hardly an expert on misscarriages, but if you can't show how the fetus is choosing to die, it isn't committing suicide.

It's ridiculous and something that if ever tried to be enforced would cause such an uproar from the vast, vast majority of women and men for that matter that there would be a Constitutional Amendment brought up and passed within 2 election cycles if not much sooner.

Then I guess pushing for it would be in your best interest, wouldn't it?

Who's for some political games? Anyone?

So as we talk about it, even more than ever... Ron Paul is just more obviously out of touch and not going to get close to ANY nomination.

There are a lot of people who don't share your views on abortion. I myself tend to sway back and forth, as it's a hard issue to decide on. In any case, saying he's "out of touch" simply because he disagrees with your viewpoint is a bit arrogant.

Let's watch and see who's side is the best predictor of what will happen because I have absolutely NO, ZERO, doubt.

There are any number of reasons Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination. He's too radical. He isn't backed by as many important people or interest groups. If you're paranoid enough you might think it's because the present establishment is working against him because his radical ideas would destroy the ring of corruption which makes them richer every year.

Me, I think it's something else. I had a conversation with someone the other day about politics. She's not braindead on the subject but also doesn't really keep up with current events all that often. I mentioned Ron Paul to her, and she said, "Oh, yeah, him. You do know he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination, right?"

That's why Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination. There are too many people out there who think like she does - since he looks and smells like a third party candidate, all he's going to do is mess up the vote for the other guys. Rather than sitting down and really saying, "I'm going to vote for the person who represents what I believe in," scores of people - I'd wager a majority - are going to vote for who they believe can win.

That's why we keep winding up with these "lesser of two evils" elections.

If you don't like Ron Paul based on his stances, fine. Good, even; by doing so you're demonstrating that you, at least, are thinking about politics for political merit. But you're dislike of his stances isn't what's going to keep him from getting the nomination.

Just thought I'd point that out.