Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Ron Paul on ABC w/ John Stossel & Recent Coverage of the Ron Paul Blimp

footballhenry

By footballhenry
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

footballhenry

footballhenry

Posted
Posted

Hey guys, I just wanted to share some of the recent media coverage related to Ron Paul. John Stossel did a fine job with questions, and Tucker Carlson as always did a great job reporting the news of the Ron Paul blimp.

Ron Paul on ABC w/ John Stossel

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3970744

Coverage on MSNBC about the Ron Paul Blimp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIFsq0KEeHc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted

I was starting to think that the blimp was going to be a fantasy, but they pulled it off. Great media coverage so far. Will be interesting to see if it has an impact.

Even if it doesnt, I love seeing support in this form coming from the grass roots. It shows that people are voting with their feet and wallets both. The campaign has literally nothing to do with it too. All the other candidates would love to have this type of passion in their supporters, but they never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I can honestly say that interview has completely changed my opinion of Ron Paul - in a positive way. I never liked him, never understood the points he was trying to make, but I get it now. Great interview.

I agree with every position he stated.

Now, he stayed away from a lot of issues, and as I understand it, I disagree with him on a lot of those. But on the issues covered in that interview, I'm with him 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Head

Head

Posted
Posted
wow! very cool! what specifically changed your mind from the interview? :cheers:
I really respect his view of the government, and how they tend to overstep their boundaries. I too believe that to an extent, people should be allowed to make their own decisions, as long as it's not gonna dramatically interfere with the wellbeing of others. If you wanna smoke pot, fine, it's free will. If the states want to allow it, fine. The feds have no place in it, just as he said. And while I don't agree with gay marriage, who am I to deny them the right to me as miserable as the rest of us? :laugh:
I agree with every position he stated.

Now, he stayed away from a lot of issues, and as I understand it, I disagree with him on a lot of those. But on the issues covered in that interview, I'm with him 100%.

I'm with you on that. His foreign policy, which I heard him discussing on CNN and Fox, seemed to be a bit of a joke. Maybe I misunderstood :whoknows:
You are almost there Larry! LOL :D
No, He's almost here. :)
:notworthy :laugh: Funniest response I've seen in a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

I'm with you on that. His foreign policy, which I heard him discussing on CNN and Fox, seemed to be a bit of a joke. Maybe I misunderstood :whoknows:

.

I have lots of concerns about his foreign policy as well. There are some areas where he makes total sense, and others where he is completely off. With that said, his views are consistent and logical. Of course, I have never agreed 100 percent with anyone I have voted for

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
I have lots of concerns about his foreign policy as well. There are some areas where he makes total sense, and others where he is completely off. With that said, his views are consistent and logical. Of course, I have never agreed 100 percent with anyone I have voted for

We share some of the same opinion, I think. While I have always been a bit hawkish in terms of making enemies pay, I've now started to question the scope and capability of reported "enemies" within my own line of thought.

To me, if you have to have a war, you win it quickly and powerfully (wthout a bit of politics) and then come home. Unfortunately, we seem to now be engaged of never ending presence in the nations we attacked and that riles up the natives against us more than the initial intent to help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted

This is a clip of a 5 part 20/20 interview:

"On Monday, we'll examine the role of government -- what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Tuesday, Paul gives his views on when war is justifiable. On Wednesday we'll tackle immigration. Like many of his GOP colleagues, Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants more border enforcement. But he says the real problem lies with birthright citizenship and other enticements of the American welfare state. On Thursday we discuss health care, and on Friday, we'll discuss one of the Texas congressman's favorite topics, the Constitution. "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1

I do urge anyone interested, annoyed or unaware of him and his stances to watch and judge for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan999

skinsfan999

Posted
Posted

Something tells me Reagan and Paul agreed on this outlook on government, at least by comparing quotes:

"Governments can't protect individuals from themselves."

-Paul

"Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

-Reagan

Uncanny similarities, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImmortalDragon

ImmortalDragon

Posted
Posted

Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become.

- Ronald Reagan

How can I run for office and say I want to be a weak president? We need a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn’t have.

- Ron Paul

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.

- Ronald Reagan

As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means. And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home.

- Ron Paul

"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.

- Ronald Reagan

Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference.

- Ron Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrumanB

TrumanB

Posted
Posted
Yep, Ron Paul uses the same sound bites that Reagan did.

(Only difference is, I get the impression that Ron Paul would follow them.) :halo:

The problem with that statement Larry is that Reagan would have followed most of what he said if he could have. We don't elect kings. Ron Paul would have to work with Congress just like any other president. But, it's a moot point since Paul has no chance at being elected president anyway. :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
The problem with that statement Larry is that Reagan would have followed most of what he said if he could have. We don't elect kings. Ron Paul would have to work with Congress just like any other president. But, it's a moot point since Paul has no chance at being elected president anyway. :silly:

Right. The Evil Congress forced Reagan to propose all those spending increases he proposed, even though he didn't have the revenues to pay for them.

And they forced him to sign them, too.

They forced him to assign federal law enforcement to assign people to hunting down porn wherever they could find it, and then drag the porn to Tennessee, so that the feds could prosecute people from California for publishing things that folks in Tennessee didn't like, too.

In fact, I'd bet that it was Congress who forced Reagan, when AIDS first became noticeable, to decide that the government's response to a fatal disease was to check the demographics of the people who were dying from it, so that the government could decide whether it wanted to try to stop the disease or not.

No doubt they were also the ones who forced him to order the military to divert federal funds so that he could spend money on things which Congress ad decided that the government didn't have permission to spend money on, too.

Why, I'd bet it was even Congress who decided that The Beach Boys weren't morally fit to perform a free concert on the Mall on the 4th of July, because The Beach Boys perform rock music, and everybody knows that rock music attracts undesirable elements, and made him invite Wayne Newton, instead.

-----

Hey, the Reagan Administration did a heck of a job, by the only standard that matters to me: The country was in a lot better shape when they left, than it was when they started.

But claiming that Reagan was a champion of balanced budgets, small government, and personal freedoms is as hypocritical as, well, as pretty much any other politician making the same claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrumanB

TrumanB

Posted
Posted
Right. The Evil Congress forced Reagan to propose all those spending increases he proposed, even though he didn't have the revenues to pay for them.

And they forced him to sign them, too.

They forced him to assign federal law enforcement to assign people to hunting down porn wherever they could find it, and then drag the porn to Tennessee, so that the feds could prosecute people from California for publishing things that folks in Tennessee didn't like, too.

In fact, I'd bet that it was Congress who forced Reagan, when AIDS first became noticeable, to decide that the government's response to a fatal disease was to check the demographics of the people who were dying from it, so that the government could decide whether it wanted to try to stop the disease or not.

No doubt they were also the ones who forced him to order the military to divert federal funds so that he could spend money on things which Congress ad decided that the government didn't have permission to spend money on, too.

Why, I'd bet it was even Congress who decided that The Beach Boys weren't morally fit to perform a free concert on the Mall on the 4th of July, because The Beach Boys perform rock music, and everybody knows that rock music attracts undesirable elements, and made him invite Wayne Newton, instead.

-----

Hey, the Reagan Administration did a heck of a job, by the only standard that matters to me: The country was in a lot better shape when they left, than it was when they started.

But claiming that Reagan was a champion of balanced budgets, small government, and personal freedoms is as hypocritical as, well, as pretty much any other politician making the same claims.

I'm not sure how the porn thing and the AIDS thing tie into Reagan's stated views and philosophies (and I don't really recall Reagan's reaction to either issue). And the Beach Boys thing was created by James Watt, not Reagan. And if you recall, Reagan took Watt to the woodshed, because he and Nancy were actually Beach Boys fans.

With respect to spending, yes, Reagan did overspend. A large part of that was due to the increase in military spending to fight the cold war and to make up for Carter gutting the military. Unfortunately, Reagan did not take the necessary steps to control domestic spending, although I still contend that he could only do so much with Congress' approval. Remember when his administration attempted to label ketchup as a vegetable for school lunches? Remember the uproar? Welll Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education altogether. What do think the uproar would be for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
The problem with that statement Larry is that Reagan would have followed most of what he said if he could have. We don't elect kings. Ron Paul would have to work with Congress just like any other president. But, it's a moot point since Paul has no chance at being elected president anyway. :silly:

The main source of power that Paul would have to use as President in order to start to get his message re0ingrained into congress would be the Veto pen and the ability to repeal exec. orders of past presidents. This would do a lot in terms of telling Congress that he wont play the game by any rules but the Constitution.

Bush EO's

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

Clinton EO's

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html

while I'm sure some of these are decent in spirit, I'd bet the repeal of many of them would go a long way in reigning in the executive branch back to the balance of power that was intended by the founders.

:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImmortalDragon

ImmortalDragon

Posted
Posted
I'm not sure how the porn thing and the AIDS thing tie into Reagan's stated views and philosophies (and I don't really recall Reagan's reaction to either issue). And the Beach Boys thing was created by James Watt, not Reagan. And if you recall, Reagan took Watt to the woodshed, because he and Nancy were actually Beach Boys fans.

With respect to spending, yes, Reagan did overspend. A large part of that was due to the increase in military spending to fight the cold war and to make up for Carter gutting the military. Unfortunately, Reagan did not take the necessary steps to control domestic spending, although I still contend that he could only do so much with Congress' approval. Remember when his administration attempted to label ketchup as a vegetable for school lunches? Remember the uproar? Welll Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education altogether. What do think the uproar would be for that?

Well when Reagan wanted to eliminate the DoE...he got elected President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...