Ron Paul too old?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely laughable. Public awareness rose after the financial crash because Ron Paul had been warning that the Fed was going to cause a crash, and after the crash he was everywhere discussing it. It became an issue when he started talking about it with a soapbox to reach the masses which he didn't have prior to the 2008 elections.

So the debt only became an issue with the recent debt ceiling theatrics? Ever heard of the Tea Party? They were around a few years before the debt ceiling debate, ironically they came around shortly after Ron Paul was discussing the debt in the Presidential election and after Ron Paul supporters held the first modern Tea Party rally.

Here's what I don't get Kevin.

You tell everyone that Ron Paul is ignored by the media, that he doesn't get opportunities to tell people his message, etc. And yet somehow, all of these people are now aware of the federal reserve and the debt thanks to Ron Paul alone. It's contradictory.

You can't say he gets ignored and then say public awareness about these issues is due to him.

Like I said, you give Paul way too much credit. He deserves a little for being consistent with his views but he's not the reason that these issues have gained awareness.

You bring up the Tea Party. The same Tea Party that wants to cut the debt, but don't want to cut anything but NPR and waste?

I also find it surprising that you're willing to be so dishonest in order to try and prove a point here. Time and time again you have argued (as well as I have) that the Tea Party in it's current form is nothing like the Ron Paul incarnation of it. Furthermore, the Tea Party only got as large as it did because of Fox News and other Conservative media outlets encouraging Conservatives to join the moment. Hence why the Tea Party currently by-and large is made up of people who would be considered the base of the GOP.

The current form of the Tea Party did not come about until after President Obama took office. You and I both know this. However, in your rush to give Ron Paul more credit than he deserves, you ignore that.

It's not contradictory at all. Ron Paul was getting mostly fair treatment in the media from the crash of 2008 up until the Ames Straw Poll. After his second place victory, almost tying for first, the media makes him disappear completely. He gets less media attention after an impressive showing than he did before.

In bringing up the Tea Party I was referring to their rhetoric of wanting to lower spending and lower the debt. I only pointed out how long they've been around because you said the debt has only been an issue since the debt ceiling debate of the last few months. That's ridiculous. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront as an issue, and who is responsible for the Tea Party and their ideas? Ron Paul. Whether the Tea Party formed during the Bush or Obama administration is really irrelevant to the point.

 

[Modbert]

Right now, today, we're talking about the media ignoring his campaign. Before campaigning started, Paul seemed to be pretty well respected by the media. Cavuto used to be cold to him, and then after the crash he was very friendly.

It's interesting that they were so open to him off campaign season, willing to actually publicly give him credit for calling the whole mess, and then all the sudden he's nobody once it's time to start covering the election.

They choose when to cover him (I say USE him), and when not to, as it fits their apparent agenda.

The current form of the Tea Party is a beautiful manipulative tool for the establishment, i.e. Dick Armey, along with the media, to take a groundswell of increasingly popular ideas that began with Paul's 2008 campaign, and twist it around to use it to their own political advantage.

So we pretty much agree 100% on that then.

 

[Modbert]

It's not contradictory at all. Ron Paul was getting mostly fair treatment in the media from the crash of 2008 up until the Ames Straw Poll. After his second place victory, almost tying for first, the media makes him disappear completely. He gets less media attention after an impressive showing than he did before.

In bringing up the Tea Party I was referring to their rhetoric of wanting to lower spending and lower the debt. I only pointed out how long they've been around because you said the debt has only been an issue since the debt ceiling debate of the last few months. That's ridiculous. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront as an issue, and who is responsible for the Tea Party and their ideas? Ron Paul. Whether the Tea Party formed during the Bush or Obama administration is really irrelevant to the point.

This goes against what I've been hearing from Libertarians for the most part who seem to believe Paul has been getting ignored for years now.

Clearly we're not going to agree on how much credit Ron Paul should receive Kevin. However, I do stand by my statement that you're giving him far too much.

 

[Auxous]

It's not contradictory at all. Ron Paul was getting mostly fair treatment in the media from the crash of 2008 up until the Ames Straw Poll. After his second place victory, almost tying for first, the media makes him disappear completely. He gets less media attention after an impressive showing than he did before.

In bringing up the Tea Party I was referring to their rhetoric of wanting to lower spending and lower the debt. I only pointed out how long they've been around because you said the debt has only been an issue since the debt ceiling debate of the last few months. That's ridiculous. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront as an issue, and who is responsible for the Tea Party and their ideas? Ron Paul. Whether the Tea Party formed during the Bush or Obama administration is really irrelevant to the point.

This goes against what I've been hearing from Libertarians for the most part who seem to believe Paul has been getting ignored for years now.

Clearly we're not going to agree on how much credit Ron Paul should receive Kevin. However, I do stand by my statement that you're giving him far too much.

All the media has to do is change to an anti-war stance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVFe1rLKA1k]Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

Clearly we're not going to agree on how much credit Ron Paul should receive Kevin. However, I do stand by my statement that you're giving him far too much.

The irony is, I don't think most Ron Paul supporters really care how much 'credit' he receives. I doubt he does either. What we want is the ideas to be heard.

 

[dblack]

All the media has to do is change to an anti-war stance.

Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue? - YouTube

When people like Amy Goodman realize that Ron Paul is on their side, we'll finally have won.

 

[Paulie]

It's not contradictory at all. Ron Paul was getting mostly fair treatment in the media from the crash of 2008 up until the Ames Straw Poll. After his second place victory, almost tying for first, the media makes him disappear completely. He gets less media attention after an impressive showing than he did before.

In bringing up the Tea Party I was referring to their rhetoric of wanting to lower spending and lower the debt. I only pointed out how long they've been around because you said the debt has only been an issue since the debt ceiling debate of the last few months. That's ridiculous. The Tea Party brought the debt to the forefront as an issue, and who is responsible for the Tea Party and their ideas? Ron Paul. Whether the Tea Party formed during the Bush or Obama administration is really irrelevant to the point.

This goes against what I've been hearing from Libertarians for the most part who seem to believe Paul has been getting ignored for years now.

Clearly we're not going to agree on how much credit Ron Paul should receive Kevin. However, I do stand by my statement that you're giving him far too much.

The reason we give him so much credit is because Paul's 2008 campaign incited so much strong support from people that all around the country people were joining together in meetup groups, political canvassing events, etc, and spreading these ideas that the tea party now claims. It literally became a movement, it's not really something that can be denied. I was very active in the movement and met people from all over the country at events, where I would otherwise have probably never done so. Before that, there was no groundswell movement. Probably only about 1% of the country knew who Paul was, and that's being generous. Before then, the overwhelming majority of republicans were satisfied with the nation's path simply because republicans had congress and the white house, and at the very least they had the white house.

Now even most republicans can admit that Bush's spending was extreme.

The original fire that was lit under the asses of your average citizens was lit in 2007/08 with the Paul movement. It simply grew and branched off from there.

 

[Auxous]

All the media has to do is change to an anti-war stance.

Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue? - YouTube

When people like Amy Goodman realize that Ron Paul is on their side, we'll finally have won.

I wrote to her asking that she bring Ron Paul onto her show, but I am not going to hold my breath.

 

[CMike]

In other words he blames the woman for being raped, rather than the rapist.

I find the Paul blame America attitude offensive.

False. He just won't see every third-world tinpot dictator as a threat, because, well, they're not.

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

 

[Wicked Jester]

All the media has to do is change to an anti-war stance.

Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue? - YouTube

When people like Amy Goodman realize that Ron Paul is on their side, we'll finally have won.

Amy Goodman is a far left loon.......As far left as it gets.

Thanks for FINALLY admitting what your movement is all about........An equal mix of crackpots and nutjobs.

 

[Paulie]

In other words he blames the woman for being raped, rather than the rapist.

I find the Paul blame America attitude offensive.

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

If a woman ran into a room packed full of rapists and started trying to cut off dicks, what is the most likely outcome?

 

[Auxous]

All the media has to do is change to an anti-war stance.

Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue? - YouTube

When people like Amy Goodman realize that Ron Paul is on their side, we'll finally have won.

Amy Goodman is a far left loon.......As far left as it gets.

Thanks for FINALLY admitting what your movement is all about........An equal mix of crackpots and nutjobs.

Challenge her claims rather than espousing your BS.


I believe that your idiocy lost your mod power.

 

[Wicked Jester]

When people like Amy Goodman realize that Ron Paul is on their side, we'll finally have won.

Amy Goodman is a far left loon.......As far left as it gets.

Thanks for FINALLY admitting what your movement is all about........An equal mix of crackpots and nutjobs.

Challenge her claims rather than espousing your BS.


I believe that your idiocy lost your mod power.

I don't need to challenge her claims.....I watch her all the time on LINK TV, and fully understand what she's all about......A far left idiot.

And, what mod power are you speaking of, clown?

LMAO!

Tell ya' what, "anarchist".........You fully further prove what is obvious, Paul attracts the looniest of the loons. The fringers.

BTW, anarchists are fuckin' pussies..........Real good at breaking windows, and then run like sissies when the cops arrive.

 

[Auxous]

Amy Goodman is a far left loon.......As far left as it gets.

Thanks for FINALLY admitting what your movement is all about........An equal mix of crackpots and nutjobs.

Challenge her claims rather than espousing your BS.


I believe that your idiocy lost your mod power.

I don't need to challenge her claims.....I watch her all the time on LINK TV, and fully understand what she's all about......A far left idiot.

And, what mod power are you speaking of, clown?

LMAO!

Tell ya' what, "anarchist".........You fully further prove what is obvious, Paul attracts the looniest of the loons. The fringers.

BTW, anarchists are fuckin' pussies..........Real good at breaking windows, and then run like sissies when the cops arrive.

You are a bore.

 

[Unkotare]

The war machine marches on.

Learn a little history, Neville.

I know history.

I don't think you do, Neville.

 

[Auxous]

Learn a little history, Neville.

I know history.

I don't think you do, Neville.

Try me, fucktard.

 

[elvis]

Learn a little history, Neville.

I know history.

I don't think you do, Neville.

"Neville" was revered as a hero when he came back from Munich.

 

[Unkotare]

Once again Paul supporters prove 'realitiy-challenged'

Because I don't think that polling at third makes one "unelectable?" .

That was not the standard in question. You said he was "ahead of the electable candidates." That statement suggests he was ahead of them all, when in fact he was not ahead of any of the front runners.

 

[Unkotare]

I know history.

I don't think you do, Neville.

"Neville" was revered as a hero when he came back from Munich.

Yeah, and how'd that work out?

 

[Unkotare]

I know history.

I don't think you do, Neville.

Try me, fucktard.

Too late for posturing, you already falied, idiot.