Jump to content

Ron Paul On Face The Nation


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Totally agree with him when he says about what motivated the 9/11 terrorists.

but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."
You have to understand your enemy and what motivates them and to take the simplistic view that it was because they hate American's Freedom is just ignorant.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Schieffer is wrong when he corrects Paul's statement that we are talking about bombing Iran.When Barack Obama said, “We are not taking any options off the table,” he means to communicate that he might use military intervention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to understand your enemy and what motivates them and to take the simplistic view that it was because they hate American's Freedom is just ignorant.
It's certainly a foolish notion. If you'll allow me to split hairs, ignorant isn't quite the word I would choose. I don't they're missing facts about politics or the Middle East, it's just a bizarre idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Schieffer is wrong when he corrects Paul's statement that we are talking about bombing Iran.When Barack Obama said, “We are not taking any options off the table,” he means to communicate that he might use military intervention.
I think Schieffer was wrong about quite a bit in that interview especially how he kept twisting Paul's opinion about blame for 9/11. I think in many ways Paul is a kook but it isn't right that his position is twisted like that. Schieffer is either too dumb to understand a slightly nuanced position or he was trying to distort what Paul means.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Schieffer was wrong about quite a bit in that interview especially how he kept twisting Paul's opinion about blame for 9/11. I think in many ways Paul is a kook but it isn't right that his position is twisted like that. Schieffer is either too dumb to understand a slightly nuanced position or he was trying to distort what Paul means.
Welcome to reality. Schieffer is just doing what he and every other host of the Sunday Shows do just about every week. Of course he tried to distort and misrepresent what Paul was saying, Paul is a republican candadate. He will do the same to a democrat occasionally, but that is standard fair for republicans. Ok, now that a got my "the media is shameless tool for the democrat party" rant out of the way. You are right, Shieffer was actually quite a bit worse than he normally is, he didn't even pretend to be fair. He tried to distort each one of Paul's views. It is not hard to make Paul look bad. You can't explain how you are going to close a dozen government agencies in easily digestable sound bites on Sunday morning political shows.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree with him when he says about what motivated the 9/11 terrorists.You have to understand your enemy and what motivates them and to take the simplistic view that it was because they hate American's Freedom is just ignorant.
While I agree with your statement, Paul's "don't make them mad at us" stratagy is also a simplistic view.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The coverage of Paul has been ridiculous. It's ridiculous how many videos exist of newscasters reading the results of a poll or an election with the results on the screen, and the newscasters just skip over Paul's name as if he wasn't in there. If that happens once or twice, that's fine. If it happens more often than not, it's an organized campaign. My guess is the MSM gets pressure from both sides to downplay his significance because he would actually do something about the corruption, and neither party wants that. They've got this false dichotomy game going where they blame it all on the other party while they both loot the treasury for personal gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is the MSM gets pressure from both sides to downplay his significance because he would actually do something about the corruption, and neither party wants that.
My guess is that it's because he says a lot of crazy things and has very little chance of winning the Presidency.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is that it's because he says a lot of crazy things and has very little chance of winning the Presidency.
He doesn't say crazy things, he just says things that career politicians normally don't say. Remember when "end the Fed" was crazy? It's mainstream now, even part of the leftist OWS thing. Most of what he says is like that: he's just saying things most politicians are too cowardly to say until it is too late.This "no chance of wining" meme is falling apart, too, he has a good chance of winning in Iowa and is showing strength against Obama that is comparable to any other Republican.I have a number of things I disagree with him about, but he is the only candidate (that has a chance) that would address the actual problems instead of just paying lip service and then doing the same as the rest. Remember when Obama wanted to end the wars and close Guantanamo and allow medical marijuana and stop spying on Americans? Good times... yeah, nothing crazy about that guy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't say crazy things, he just says things that career politicians normally don't say. Remember when "end the Fed" was crazy? It's mainstream now, even part of the leftist OWS thing. Most of what he says is like that: he's just saying things most politicians are too cowardly to say until it is too late.
End the Fed is still bat shit crazy, it's just more people who have no clue are saying it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
End the Fed is still bat shit crazy, it's just more people who have no clue are saying it.
It's crazy because you say it's crazy? What he really wants is an open Fed and competing currencies. He has no illusion that he can actually shut down the Federal Reserve, and I'm not sure he would if he had that power. But by saying End The Fed, he has brought attention to an issue that was 100% ignored before he started beating the drum and is one of the most important issues in the country -- the Federal Reserve's irresponsible behavior with our money supply.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's crazy because you say it's crazy? What he really wants is an open Fed and competing currencies. He has no illusion that he can actually shut down the Federal Reserve, and I'm not sure he would if he had that power. But by saying End The Fed, he has brought attention to an issue that was 100% ignored before he started beating the drum and is one of the most important issues in the country -- the Federal Reserve's irresponsible behavior with our money supply.
I'm not saying that all of Paul's ideas are 100% bad or that he's not good at bringing up issues that he favors. I'm saying that it's understandable that he's "forgotten" or ignored when describing the list of Republican presidential candidates.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This "no chance of wining" meme is falling apart, too, he has a good chance of winning in Iowa and is showing strength against Obama that is comparable to any other Republican.
the right seems to be even more fucked than I thought.honestly, if I wanted to vote republican in 2012, I'd be fuming right now. this is downright hilarious.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the right seems to be even more fucked than I thought.honestly, if I wanted to vote republican in 2012, I'd be fuming right now. this is downright hilarious.
You know what. I don't think Mitt Romney is all that horrible. I'd be okay with a Romney/Huntsman campaign. Is that why the right hates him?
Link to post
Share on other sites
the right seems to be even more fucked than I thought.honestly, if I wanted to vote republican in 2012, I'd be fuming right now. this is downright hilarious.
???
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that all of Paul's ideas are 100% bad or that he's not good at bringing up issues that he favors. I'm saying that it's understandable that he's "forgotten" or ignored when describing the list of Republican presidential candidates.
Why? Because he has things he believes in? Because he would actually do something about our insane wars? Because he'd protect our rights?The real question is why the others AREN'T ignored when it is obvious they stand for nothing and have no intention of following through on any of their promises. Are we really so stupid as a nation that we'd prefer empty warm promises to realistic tough choices? Four more years of theoretical hope and change while the reality is more "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? Because he has things he believes in? Because he would actually do something about our insane wars? Because he'd protect our rights?
My guess is that it's because he says a lot of crazy things and has very little chance of winning the Presidency.
Link to post
Share on other sites

See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.See, that's what I keep hearing about Ron Paul. He's unelectable. Why? Because he is.He's too crazy. Why? Because he is.There are a few things he's said I disagree with, but they tend to be non-political (like his doubt of evolution) and inconseqential to anything related to his office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.
It's crazy because it's bad economic analysis. Just like Gold Bugism. I guess I shouldn't use crazy and just say that he's totally wrong in his views of the Federal Reserve, fiat money and his analysis of the monetary system.Nouriel Roubini has been having a fun Twitter War the last couple days with James Rickards who is an author who thinks the Gold Standard will solve everything. NourielNouriel RoubiniGoldbugism is a cult similar to worship of the Biblical Golden Calf. If we kept believin such voodoo we wold still be stranded in the desertThe above is how I view a lot of Paul's Economic thinking.When Paul talks about wasteful spending and getting people to think about what is necessary for the government to do he's valuable. When he pushs his ideas of economics and the monetary system he's dangerous because he is just wrong about so much.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, but you haven't pointed out any crazy things or why they are crazy. Bob said End the Fed is crazy, but not why.
He has no illusion that he can actually shut down the Federal Reserve, and I'm not sure he would if he had that power.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's crazy because it's bad economic analysis. Just like Gold Bugism. I guess I shouldn't use crazy and just say that he's totally wrong in his views of the Federal Reserve, fiat money and his analysis of the monetary system.Nouriel Roubini has been having a fun Twitter War the last couple days with James Rickards who is an author who thinks the Gold Standard will solve everything. NourielNouriel RoubiniGoldbugism is a cult similar to worship of the Biblical Golden Calf. If we kept believin such voodoo we wold still be stranded in the desertThe above is how I view a lot of Paul's Economic thinking.When Paul talks about wasteful spending and getting people to think about what is necessary for the government to do he's valuable. When he pushs his ideas of economics and the monetary system he's dangerous because he is just wrong about so much.
We've discussed this before, I think the gold standard is not ideal, but better than pure fiat currency. Very few doubt that anymore. The question is why not get something better yet?His End the Fed thing is not pie-in-the-sky raving from a street corner lunatic. This is a guy who has been in Washington for decades. He knows how this stuff works, what is possible, and what is necessary. What he is opposed to, and is primarily referring to when he talks about ending the Fed, is ending the idea that an unaccountable, secret, semi-private group of corporate insiders should be able to make decisions that can so dramatically harm us. I would think that believing in that status quo is among far kookier than wanting to fix it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...