Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Dec 22, 2007.
Tim Russert vs. Ron Paul on Sunday
Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 22, 2007 07:36 PM
Tomorrow morning, Ron will triumph on Meet the Press. Russert, an establishment journalist if ever there was one, would like to demolish Ron. He won't be able to do it, of course. Our man is unflappable and right. But here's one reason he won't want to be hyper-vicious: capitalism.
Russert and his bosses know that this will be the most-watched MTP in Russert's career, and maybe ever. They'd like to keep some of those new viewers around. So as much as they might wish to take the shiv out, market pressures will prevent pure nastiness (as versus partial!).
December 23, 2007
Posted by James Ostrowski at December 23, 2007 08:34 AM
Since I'm a college professor now (con law), I can give Ron Paul a big A+++ for his masterful performance on Meet the Press.
He made Tim look silly more than once.
Tim, it's constitutional to amend the constitution. You're an attorney and you should know that.
I thought Paul did an amazing job. He addressed the so called "hypocrisy" of earmarks by explaining that he's just tyring to return money that Washington never should have taken to begin with... he even referred to Washington's taking it as "theft"! Go, Paul, go!
Tim Russert's Hit Job on Ron Paul
I am proud of Ron Paul for taking that in such a good-natured way. That episode of Meet The Press was nothing but a hit job. An attempt by big media, and no doubt both political parties, to bring down the liberty candidate. Some of Russert's questions were really good examples of digging deep. A perfect example of that was Russert's lame attempt to suggest that supporting an amendment to the constitution is not being a strict constructionist. How silly! I suppose Russert is not aware of the historical fact that our founders applied the first amendments to the constitution. Were they not strict constructionists? Also, will Russert quiz Obama, Hillary, or Rudy on their intent to run in a third party if they do not win their party's nomination? That little quiz was the dead give away that Russert's interview was nothing but a hit job. I lost a lot of respect for Russert in that interview.
Here is the video of the interview:
What struck me as odd was the complete lack of personal chatting that usually goes on at the first couple of minutes on shows of this kind. Russert basically said, "Hi, now explain 'x'!"
This was a great interview and it certainly allowed Ron Paul to respond to some of the negativism about why he does things the way he does. Was very dissapointed in Russert for not letting Ron Paul to respond to some questions.
Absolutely agreee with that statement. Ron Paul listed who the fascist bad guys are...the media....big corporations and the Military complex.
I am more compelled more than ever to stand behind Ron Paul.
I was not that impressed with Ron Paul on the interview.
Paul advocates we should cut spending, but does not hesitate putting pork in bills. He then says he votes against the bill !?. Russert responds "so you were for the bill before you were against the bill" Paul defends that by saying he was only representing his constituents. That, by the way is code for "I vote according to the polls". Does Paul believe in cutting the budget or NOT!!!
I found it interesting that most of the items russett kept wanting to bring up was from 20 years ago.
Can't he find any quotes from Ron Paul more recent that he could ask questions about?!?
I think Ron Paul did an excellent job. He lost nothing in this interview and gained greatly I think. Time will tell..
Thanks for posting this. I think this is one of his most interesting interviews to date.
Paul's message is for us to abandon any type of leadership or peacemaking in the Middle East as well as abandon our alliance with Israel.
Then all the muslim terrorists will love us and stop trying to kill us.
Is this true Ken?
If Paul wants to abandon Israel, this goes against God's Word and I must x him off my list.
God Bless! :thumbs:
Ron Paul wants to end all taxpayer-funded foreign aid, as do I. Unless we are giving money/arms to another nation in the interest of the national security of these United States it is an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayers' money.
By the way, steaver, I am not a premillennialist. Therefore, I will not agree with any arugment that not giving my tax money to Israel goes against God's Word.
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
You better rethink just Who it is that keeps the national security of these United States!
I don't know what premillennialist has to do with it, but we better continue to bless Israel. Not blessing them DOES go against God's will.
I must x Paul from my list. He is either ignorant of God's word or does not care about it.
God Bless! :thumbs:
Better vote for Paul despite that than cast a vote for abortionist A Giulilani or abortionist B Romney.
Well, I have never had much respect for Russert to begin with.
I watched the interview and was very impressed with Ron Paul straightforward answers to Russert's attempt to discredit him.
I believe that someone in Russert's position should ask honest questions and then allow the person being interviewed to answer. Russert, and those like him, appear to only being interested in causing a person to trip up or to catch them in a lie. I don't like Russet's tactics at all.
I don't believe that applies to the modern day political state of Israel that doesn't even believe in Christ Jesus.
Besides, steaver, consider this. If Ron Paul is able to get his idea of repealing the federal income tax passed through the Congress and reduce federal spending you and other like-minded individuals will have that money to send to Israel if that is what ya'll want to to do.
Surely you don't think that it is proper and right to take money from me and send it to Israel to satisfy a personal religious belief of yours that I disagree with. There is nothing Christian about doing such a thing.
Paul doesn't want to abandon Israel, he wants to stop giving them, and every other country a blank check from the U.S. taxpayers every year. He want's us to stop telling Israel what to and not to do when it comes to defending themselves. There have been many times that Israel wanted to defend themselves, but the Bush administration told them to restraing. Paul's argument is that giving handouts to other nations only makes them dependent on the U.S., just like the welfare system does to individuals here in the US.