Ron Paul on Meet the Press, Sunday, December 23.

[quade 4]

I'll be watching it. Will you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

(Ok, I'll probably have it recorded on my DVR for watching later, but, you get the drift.)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[b1jercat 0]

I'll be clapping with one hand.

blues

jerry

[Darius11 12]

Yep already have the DVR set.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Tink1717 2]

Yawn.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[dan_iv 0]

But, why waste your time watching a "nutcase"

edit: just for those without the background of another thread ( I am being sarcastic)....

[quade 4]

Quote

But, why waste your time watching a "nutcase"

edit: just for those without the background of another thread ( I am being sarcastic)....

Are you familiar with the term schadenfreude? It's essentially why I watch GWB's State of the Union Addresses and why most people can't turn away from watching a train wreck.

You're new here as far as participation in SC goes so probably don't fully appreciate my fascination with what I consider to be goofy politicians.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dan_iv 0]

I may not have been a constant or prolific poster for a while but I have been around long enough to realize when you are full of scheisse.

come on admit it, you have an interest other then Schadenfreude in him, deep down I think you do... maybe it's Angstlust, no?

[quade 4]

Heheh . . . ok . . . that made me laugh.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dan_iv 0]

Then my job is done here...

[Lucky... 0]

He's even a bigger nutcase than I thought. He's aginst the 1964 civil rights act, thought Lincoln overstepped his bounds and continually interrputed Russert when Russert cited the earmarks presented by Paul.

I see here by the way the Paul fans have posted since his appearance that even they don't really care what he stands for, just vote for him.

[Lefty 0]

Ron Paul seemed woefully unprepared for this interview, and I think he blew a big opportunity. He neither looked nor sounded presidential.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[SpeedRacer 1]

Russert was definitely on the attack, but I thought Ron Paul's replies were intelligent & had substance.

One thing I like about Ron Paul's campaign is that it inspires discussion & challenges ideas about serious issues. Many of the other Republicans seem to be in a contest to show how much religious posturing they can do.


The other candidates seem to be carefully-schooled panderers. Which could be why Ron Paul doesn't sound "presidential." He says exactly what he means & he's not a slick bullshit artist.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[dannydan 5]

Quote

He says exactly what he means & he's not a slick bullshit artist.

Thats what I saw and thought during His interview with Bob Scieffer a month ago on FACE the NATION (of sheeples).....

I was almost not going to vote but I am re-thinking this b/c of RP!...

He IS however still a politician...! About likeMOST Drs, lawyers car salesmen ins agents.....

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

He says exactly what he means & he's not a slick bullshit artist.

Thats what I saw and thought during His interview with Bob Scieffer a month ago on FACE the NATION (of sheeples).....

I was almost not going to vote but I am re-thinking this b/c of RP!...

He IS however still a politician...! About likeMOST Drs, lawyers car salesmen ins agents.....

I expect you'll be pleased to have a physician if you break a femur on a hard landing. And a lawyer will be handy if you want to set up a business, get sued, or divorced.

I've even found car salesmen and insurance agents useful at times.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dannydan 5]

So Kal... WHO you gonna vote for dude? And WHY?

[algboy 0]

Quote

Ron Paul seemed woefully unprepared for this interview, and I think he blew a big opportunity. He neither looked nor sounded presidential.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Ghandi

Russert, the business-as-usual MSM shill, was so busy trying to throw disjointed spitballs at Paul that I'm surprised Paul didn't go off on him.

As usual, Paul was a reasonable gentleman who defied conventional wisdom by being respectful, congruent and articulate. Typical politician "slick"--not in his DNA.

I've been following Paul since the early 80s. He's got my vote (even if it's a write-in). Not gonna buy into the left-right, Dem-Repub paradigm pablum being peddled ad nauseum to the masses. Anyway . . . never 'misunderestimate' the power of the Perpetually Pissed Off!

"DON'T TASE ME, SANTA!!!"

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Russert, the business-as-usual MSM shill, was so busy trying to throw disjointed spitballs at Paul that I'm surprised Paul didn't go off on him.

Well, as you said Russert was "business-as-usual". Paul should have been better prepared for it.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>Russert was definitely on the attack, but I thought Ron Paul's replies were intelligent & had substance.

Oh really? Like when Russert posted a quote where Paul called Reagan a traitor and Paul denied it? Like when Russert stated several earmark spending bills proposed by Paul, then Paul kept interrupting and claiming he proposed them but nver voted for them? Like when Russert posted several cites of Paul saying Reagan was a traitor and a failure, GHW Bush was...... I forget, but a derogatory remark, and Bush was a disaster, then said the Republican Party was lost - Russert asked whey he's running as one. How about when Russert asked if Paul would run as an indep if he didn;t get the Repub nod? Paul sidestepped and said he had no plans to do so. Russert asked if the door was open, they went back and forth, and Pual said the door was open a little bit. This is what I've said for a while now, Paul is going to do that, just like Lieberman. There were others too, but I can't recall them all, I am going to get he transcript from MTP and make a few more arguments.

So did you agree with Paul when he said that America has become a fascist, corporatist mess; the same thing I've said for years?

>>>>>>>>>>>One thing I like about Ron Paul's campaign is that it inspires discussion & challenges ideas about serious issues. Many of the other Republicans seem to be in a contest to show how much religious posturing they can do.

So you're comparing garbage to garbage. Paul has some good ideas, but his absolute constitutional stance is idiotic and unrealistic. There is the living constitution that is more realistic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>The other candidates seem to be carefully-schooled panderers. Which could be why Ron Paul doesn't sound "presidential." He says exactly what he means & he's not a slick bullshit artist.

When he sidestepped the question of running indep if he loses teh Repub primary he sounded just like them.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>Russert, the business-as-usual MSM shill, was so busy trying to throw disjointed spitballs at Paul that I'm surprised Paul didn't go off on him.


Yes, Paul s/b praised for not going off (rolls eys). If you want to cheerlead, you want vanilla questions, as it appears you wanted. But if you want to see what the candidate is made of at the core, you want tough questions.

>>>>>>>>>>As usual, Paul was a reasonable gentleman who defied conventional wisdom by being respectful, congruent and articulate. Typical politician "slick"--not in his DNA.

I think I saw him levitate at one point (vomits). Paul kept regurgitating this constitution rhetoric and running from certain issues, answerd sme.

>>>>>>>>>>>I've been following Paul since the early 80s. He's got my vote (even if it's a write-in).

Don't worry, he'll waffle and run as an indep when the R's toss him.

>>>>>>>>Not gonna buy into the left-right, Dem-Repub paradigm pablum being peddled ad nauseum to the masses. Anyway . . . never 'misunderestimate' the power of the Perpetually Pissed Off!.

Yea, buy into such nuttiness that your vote won't count - I'm good with that

[Broke 0]

Quote

Ron Paul seemed woefully unprepared for this interview, and I think he blew a big opportunity. He neither looked nor sounded presidential.

Why would you say he neither looked nor sounded presidential, because he give real answers instead of just tap dancing around issues. He writes his own stuff instead of his PR posse.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Ron Paul seemed woefully unprepared for this interview, and I think he blew a big opportunity. He neither looked nor sounded presidential.

Why would you say he neither looked nor sounded presidential, because he give real answers instead of just tap dancing around issues. He writes his own stuff instead of his PR posse.

Well, he forgot to write himself out of the mess when Russert asked him about running as an indep if the R's toss him. He also forgot to write himself out of the mess when Russert asked how he could run as an R when all he's done is hammer the R's. It's obvious to those with a pulse that he's running as an R for 2 reasons:

1) More exposure as an R than as a Libertarian

2) A second chance if he runs as an R, then goes Indep.

You are unwilling to see his shimmy-shammerring, it was there.

[Broke 0]

let looks beyond what he is running as and look at his platform.

Most of the time now republicans and democrats are the same thing just using different words to blind the public.

Ron Paul actually gives up front answers. He tells you where he stands. It is not like some candidates who use language that is so middle of the road you can't tell what they are for and against.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>let looks beyond what he is running as and look at his platform.


Aren't you saying he's not full of shit like other politicians? I agree, substance is what matters, but he plays games like any other dirty politician. I like some of his points and his positi0on on some/many issues, but his idea and the Libertarian idea that social security and universal-type healthcare be abolished or greatly limited is pathetic. The Libertarian idea that health-related issues can be handled by the church is pure idiocy. I can take any environment, ignore the biggest issue and then claim the problem solved and declare genius too, but that is juts pathetic. If he had his head out of his ass and wanted pure socialized medicine I would probably vote for him, but that is the key issue now, bugger than even the debt the R's have run from 1T in 1980 to 9.1+ today.

As for his articulation someone suggested, he called nuclear weaponry, "nukular" and referred to paying down the deficit. The deficit is the annual figure that establishes how much we went into the hole for that year, the debt is the grand tally. You don't pay down the deficit, you balance the budget to avoid a deficit and you pay down the debt. Kind of like credit cards, you avoid using them to not run up the balance and then you pay down the total at the end of the month. So is he articulate? Hardly, but some of his ideas are good. If he insists on ignoring health issues of the country, he needs to allocate some money for garbage trucks to haul away the dead bodies. For that he is an idiot.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron Paul actually gives up front answers. He tells you where he stands. It is not like some candidates who use language that is so middle of the road you can't tell what they are for and against.


For the most part, but he did that with the question of whether he will run if the R's toss him in the primary.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a link for the transcript.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/print/1/displaymode/1098/

[Lucky... 0]

Paul praises Clinton -

REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago.


Paul uses a ridiculous comparison -

But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.

Me: We couldn't handle the Great Depression, women couldn't vote and we were still too dumb to relize that prohibition wouldn't work, so that is a comparison of futility. Most importantly the family strcture looked like the Walton's, so it was a different world then.


Paul makes sense -

That's good. I mean, we--but we could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy.


Paul sounds confused -

MR. RUSSERT: But if you had a flat tax, 30 percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.

REP. PAUL: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it.

MR. RUSSERT: So you have nothing?

REP. PAUL: I want to cut spending. I want to get a--use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax.


I thought he wanted the flat tax. Hmmm, so he really has no global plan, just cut spending, that is not a realistic, comprehensive plan.

Paul is a bit optimistic -

REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument.

Me: I don;t think it's a trillion dollars, hell, we spend 550B per year on the military, so we could perhaps cut that in half.

Paul is uneducated / uninformed -

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?

Me: How can you not know that for a guy in his position making the claims he makes? What a buffoon. Come on, you Paul cheerleaders must agree.