Ron Paul Ambushed On Face The Nation,

reply to post by swoopaloop

I really hope RP wins and becomes the next president.

there is no way Diebold will allow that to happen, no freaking way. And if by some miracle he gets elected, well, the lonewolf nutjob won't be firing random shots into an empty whitehouse sitting room, that's for sure.

RP seems to have integrity, and that just doesn't float in the political spectrum.

This host is such a patronizing jerk. Who watches these shows?

Does the host forget Ron Paul is IN the USA government and he isn't?

What an importunate cad. Bob is clearly trying to make Dr. Paul seem flagitious, and preposterous. His earnest to portray Paul as one who believes that, in the black and white of things, as a conspiracy theorist; when in reality he is simply quoting and agreeing with the very people this country has put in charge of investigating the events of that day. Paul even gainsays these claims with simple logic, yet the host clearly has an agenda to fulfill; hence he keeps at it. How can he be so insouciant, and still hold his job as anchor? Oh right, 'cause he is a shill.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Being an Aussie I try to ignore internal American politics (except when I need a laugh) so havent seen many of this type of interview.
It struck me that the dude asking the questions came across as quite rude and patronising, Is that normal for that kind of interview or is that something reserved for Ron Paul?

I hope he gets in but being honest Ive lost all faith in America as a world leader/power. I genuinely believe this is ur last chance. Dont screw it up!!!

It's only normal when they are interviewing someone they dislike and want to discredit. American media is far from fair.

As for Ron Paul, I have said it before and I'll say it again. This guy needs to get elected because I am tired of hearing him talk the big talk.
I want to see him walk that big walk he talks about, he reminds me of Obama and how he got everyone to believe in him. Obama got into office and did very little of what he said from my perspective.

Wonder if Ron Paul is the same? It will be President Paul vs the Military Industrial Complex. Last time MIC murdered JFK to get what they wanted, President Paul would be smart to remember history regarding the likes of himself.

I was not a Ron Paul supporter.

I watched that interview and thought he was making a lot of sense.

Perhaps it's time for me to look into Ron Paul more seriously.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by seabag

 

Ok.. now what about the countries that have a population that doesn't want us? That is what we, together with Paul, are against. Also the wars. You are against ending those. You are overstating the important of a presence. We should only be where we are wanted and then needed (if we are really really needed).

Where we are wanted by who? The public or the government of the country we’re in?


Where we are needed? Last time I checked the government makes decisions on where the military goes, not citizens.

Look at the outrage by Aussies about our presence in Australia. Australia was declared a Major non-NATO Ally back in 1989. I trained with Australian Marines during the 90’s. I spent time in Turkey, Spain, Crete, Israel, Bosnia, Italy, etc. It was a great experience and we all learned a lot about how each other operate. Their governments fully supported that joint-training and many joint operations.

So we should stop this because some of their citizens don’t like it? Maybe they should take that up with their government?

There are US citizens who don’t like our military. Should we do away with our military because some people don’t like it? (I know what some of you will say to this )

I firmly believe Ron Paul would end most operations overseas and I think that would be detrimental to our national security. I love the guy but he scares me in that regard….that’s all I’m saying.

reply to post by seabag


hey,
How many countries have military bases on American soil? I've tried looking it up but cannot seem to get an accurate figure.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

For everyone that has questioned my comments on RP's foreign policy...

From a military perspective I can tell you that it is very important to have a presence overseas. While deployed I had the opportunity to train with soldiers, sailors and Marines from many different countries. The knowledge we gain and bonds we form from working together are invaluable. It allows for cohesion when called upon to fight side by side in some unforeseen conflict in the future. 

It's not about warmongering or occupying countries. Our militaries train together...we're allies. You can't do that from here. 

we have trained and trained with other miliotary forces for over 100 years without sending thousands of troops to aggressively occupy their soil.
We need to be honest about why we are there.
Sending armed forces to occupy a nation in order to influence their politics, or to gain access to corporate contracts reeks of tyranny and corruption.
example:
Afghanistan.
We occupied Afghanistan because we needed a single government in power there, instead of the tribal rule that divided the country.
We cannot make deals with 50 tribal leaders who are always in-fighting to access trade routs for oil, or to gain contracts to get at the BILLIONS of dollars worth of minerals recently annnounced as residing under Afghan soil.

The American public was sold on this idea by stating we were going to "hunt down Osama" who we knew wasn't there.

No bid contracts=corruption. no excuses.

And it doesn't provoke other countries. If that is true then please tell me how many countries have attacked us here lately?

Are you serious?

Even the grateful Iraq, who we so gloriously "liberated" according to the MSM, got sick and tired of the bs, and will no longer grant full immunity from prosecution to US troops or contractors.
AFTER Saddam's attrocities!

If you think the world appreciates America's strong arm robbery, you are naive.

reply to post by BadNinja68


I wasn’t talking about Iraq or Afghanistan….that’s a whole other debate.

Ron Paul wants to close virtually ALL of our overseas bases.

Has our presence in Germany, Italy, Guam, South Korea, Netherlands, Turkey, UK, etc, etc provoked an attack on us? Nope!

Originally posted by InspirationEverywhere
reply to post by seabag

 

hey,
How many countries have military bases on American soil? I've tried looking it up but cannot seem to get an accurate figure.

How many other countries are the world’s greatest super power? Yup….just us!

I bet if Germany (or any other ally country) was the world’s super power we’d damn sure like to have their base here!

Any country whose government doesn’t want us there can ask us to leave and we will oblige. Can you name one ally country whose government wants our bases closed?

Well, once again Ron owned this one. He schooled this guy. I'm glad when they ask him questions like this, it really gives him the chance to shine.

Well i will say one thing i disagree with Ron on, and that is that most Americans actually agree with him. Well, no i really feel that is wishful thinking. While i, and many other Ron-supporters, personally, agree with a lot of what Ron stands for..... i still think the majority of the voting public are ... well.... not quite there. Most people are afraid of REAL change, and would rather have lip-service change.... just like we got with Clinton, now Obama. You know, where nothing really changes but we can all have a big "CHANGE" love fest and feel so proud of ourselves as a nation for accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by seabag

I bet if Germany (or any other ally country) was the world’s super power we’d damn sure like to have their base here!

We would?

I wouldn't. And yes even if they are best-est allies.

Yeah.... but i will give you one thing, i think many these days, would probably like it.. which is what is really frustrating.

the Super Congress (all 12 of them) can take a hint from the honorable Ron Paul...

pull all the overseas military units back to the homeland, except for the Embassy guards (Marines)
that action alone would put a serious dent in the $1.2 Trillion the Debt committee needs to slash from the deficit budget...
~deadline i think is tomorrow for the Super Congress to put a deficit cut package to the full Congress to vote on without the automatic cuts taking effect~

reply to post by MysticPearl


Hahahaha, Ron Paul talks of the 9/11 commissions findings, and the CIA's findings,

And the interviewer says something to the effect, their findings cant be trusted......

see the big grin on Ron's face when he says that!!

Priceless

reply to post by seabag

From a military perspective I can tell you that it is very important to have a presence overseas. While deployed I had the opportunity to train with soldiers, sailors and Marines from many different countries. The knowledge we gain and bonds we form from working together are invaluable. It allows for cohesion when called upon to fight side by side in some unforeseen conflict in the future.

It's not about warmongering or occupying countries. Our militaries train together...we're allies. You can't do that from here.

I get where your coming from, when it comes to training and the like having soldiers overseas can teach them a lot.

But to say we need a permanent military force overseas because we are "the superpower of the world" is ridiculous. This is exactly what Dr. Paul is talking about, we can not be the police of the world. Other countries are just as capable as us in defending themselves against the "enemies" (it would be a stretch to call them even that) of today. Do you think the Germans need Ramstein Air Base for their own safety, do you think the Japanese need the Camp Smedley Butler military bases to keep them safe. No...they have their own military and the responsibility to protect their people from foreign aggression.

Now when it pertains our own countries safety I think you pointed that out already

Has our presence in Germany, Italy, Guam, South Korea, Netherlands, Turkey, UK, etc, etc provoked an attack on us? Nope!

No they have not, nor have they been helpful in defending our country. Because no one has attacked us since Pearl Harbor. The only force that has attacked us since were a bunch unorganized wealthy international criminals hiding in the desert, who are now mostly either dead or in prison. The only reason to have these bases is to conduct "preventive" warfare, the absurd idea that "This country is bad but is not a threat at the moment but it could be in the future, so we have to eliminate them before they are". What!? Such a ludicrous philosophy.

These bases DO have a negative effect on how people view us. This negativity comes from the citizens of the "occupied" country and the citizens of this nation. The people of Japan have called for the end of the bases there for many many years but their government wont listen to them, because our government bullies them into keeping it around, the same goes for South Korea (albeit the SK government actually want to have the American base around while the SK people do not).

Every country that our media and empty suits say is a threat to us, is simply put...not. They all have small to medium size armies, little to no modern armor, a small air force and navy if any and the remote POSSIBILITY of WMD's. Our government and media are very good at making these guys look as evil and deplorable as possible, hell some of our politicians and commentators think Iran, Russia, and China are the forces that will instigate the apocalypse. Funny enough these guys are also the biggest advocates for keeping our military bases overseas.

Iran for example might very well be developing a nuke, why? Because they feel that everyone is against them, and that the western powers will attack them no matter of what they due short of adopting western policies. Israel does not play nice with their Arab neighbors, especially when they look around them and see only enemies. I am not saying the Iranian government is innocent and right in what they do, I am saying that we are trying to police the world and inject our values, customs, government and military in as many nations as possible because we want to live up to our "super power" title.

hey newbie here...

What gets me is he did good in explaining himself when the questions were laid out to make is ideas look really dumb. But reguardless, like last night I was watching O' Reilly factor and they took certain bits and made it look even worse while Bill and Brit Hume were trying to discuss what RP's allure is and doing so in a way that makes him and the people who vote for him look stupid. So I don't know, I still think he did a good job but the media still finds a way to make him look insane on another program. He's got my vote either way.

And I looked everywhere for that video, I guess it isn't up yet.

reply to post by MysticPearl


Not being a Ron Paul supporter and not a fan of Mainstream Media most of the time due to it's inequality and propaganda and bias, I must say that was a fair interview in my humble opinion and Ron owned it with regards to the tough questions. The fact remains that a fair majority of Americans think Ron Paul is a lunatic and have many misconceptions about his policies and stances on things and interviews like this get the truth out there if you ask me.

The theory that there is a conspiracy by the media against Ron Paul is COMPLETLEY UNTRUE!

You don't have to be a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy junkie to realize that the perception of Ron Paul being unfairly portrayed and ignored by the mainstream media is a freakin' FACT. No theory, just good ol' observational science revealing the media's true colors...

PS Who is the interviewer? That creepy shill just oozes slime!


#2 PS, nevermind, it is Bob Schieffer. Google, duh.

debate in a few hours:
CNN Republican National Security Debate - 8pm ET
www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by conar


THank you for the heads up. I will definitely catch that. I would have missed it otherwise. Star for you.