Ron Paul Wins Faux News Debate....Again

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

cindywinter

Banned
Banned
Jul 13, 2007
109
0
0
#41
Here is the interview where he discusses the American Civil War. He said "There would have been a better way to end slavery," and "It was not necessary." He further said, "Lincoln was not the greatest opponent of slavery."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/ron_paul_talks.php
wow! I sure wish I hadn't looked at those although I'm more educated now. I didn't know our problems with Iran were due to our killing their leader back in 1953. If Paul is elected I'll be afraid to fly without an FAA. And his comments about Lincoln?...well,I'll never look at a penny the same again.
 
Nov 1, 2004
4,529
480
1,713
#42
Didn't look at website ... but we didn't kill Iran's leader back in 53. There is some fuzzy data that can give conclusion we helped oust "Mossie" (the leader for a short period) ... to be replaced by The Shah ... who Mossie had replaced temporarily to begin with. Decent write up about it in The Persian Puzzle by Ken Pollack.

DB ... nice analysis ... flowery illustrations a bonus.

Desert ... think you mentioned somewhere in this thread that Uncle Ronnie supported Paul for Pres in 88. Thanks for the laugh ... always need at least one good one a day. Not the way the system works. See ... the outgoing incumbent always supports his VP ... Bush back then. Whether they want to support them or not doesn't much matter ... Ike/Nixon ... it's just the way of the world. Reagan may not have really wanted Bush on the ticket in 80 ... but thought it the best way to win the White House. And supporting him in 88 was the best way to keep the White House. Paul wasn't even on the radar screen in that election.
 

osucowboysr1

Territorial Marshal
Jun 11, 2004
7,444
235
1,693
Stillwater,OK
www.orangepower.com
#43
wow! I sure wish I hadn't looked at those although I'm more educated now. I didn't know our problems with Iran were due to our killing their leader back in 1953. If Paul is elected I'll be afraid to fly without an FAA. And his comments about Lincoln?...well,I'll never look at a penny the same again.
Well as far as Iran goes and many of the Middle East countries its not what we did to their leader. Its simple most of them not all of them dont like Americans or really anyone that is not Islam or folks that do not agree with them on every issue. They are dictators they have always been this way through out their history. Folks that have never been to the Middle East dont always understand this. To many people get wrap up into what some politician says or what somebody says on the net. There is allot of misleading information out there and sometimes its hard for people to really find out the truth.

As far as Ron Paul goes I think he is clueless when it comes to the War in Iraq and on many other things. Overall he has some good views on somethings but he is by far someone that should not be President. Website polls can be misleading due to one they are not always accurate and sometimes folks can find ways to make the results show favor in someone else that was not intended.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#44
Here is the interview where he discusses the American Civil War. He said "There would have been a better way to end slavery," and "It was not necessary." He further said, "Lincoln was not the greatest opponent of slavery."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/ron_paul_talks.php
So how is that crazy talk? If any other country was capable is ridding slavery without a Civil War, I don't see how it's so weird to assume we couldn't as well. But I haven't studied a whole lot about the Civil war to know exactly what all it was about. Slavery is usually the defining issue. I have seen this interview and heard it before, but I just didn't remember much of it because Bill Maher was just wasting Ron Paul's time. Thankfully he invited him back to have a real interview. As for Lincoln not being the greatest opponent of slavery, that's true. Lincoln owned slaves.

As for highlighting the democrats.org, there's a lot of Democratic support out there for Ron Paul. People are for once setting aside their differences to support someone that they think is right for America and will get it back on the right track (considering Dems and Repubs alike have been sucking).
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#45
Desert you said Paul has won straw polls.....which ones has he won that don't involve texting or the internet. If his abolish the gubment sound bite campaign miraculously escapes the primary it would get ripped to shreds when his interviews come back to haunt him.......it is mush easier to say you are for getting rid of gigantic portions of the government than it is to lay out a detailed workable plan for the solution the average voter can understand.

Paul doesn't have a chance and frankly it is a sad thing.....not that I am a fan of his per se' but that the "Ron Paul's" of the world don't have a chance in our system. He has moments of brillance sprinkled in a dish of crazy .....get rid of the IRS, INS, Homeland Secruity, Dep. of Energy, Dep. of Education etc etc while not offering a solution other than "we don't need them". If you add up all the Rep votes in the primaries from all the states Paul will have less than 5% of the vote. He and "I'm your Huckleberry" will split the fringe vote.......Romney will win the hair gel vote, and a crusty old white man will win the Rep. nom. You may not like it but it is what will happen.

Paul doesn't have answers he only identifies problems.......it makes for an entertaining interview but no one likes that guy.
Well first, these straw polls are from actual voters at various states. Not texting / call in. These people go to the republican conventions, typically pay a fee to enter the convention, listen to some speeches from whatever candidates are there to speak, and then they vote on who they would chose for president.

This is as of August 26...

Paul's Straw Poll Victories

FIRST PLACE (5)
New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 65.3%
North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6%
New Hampshire, Stafford, NH, August 18 ~ 1st 72.7%
Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2%
Washington State, August 21 ~ 1st 28.1%

SECOND PLACE (5)
Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4%
LibertyPapers.org conference, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7%
Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17%
South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 18%
West Lafayette, Indiana, August 18 ~ 2nd 11.7%

Number of Times Placing In Top Three

Candidate First Second Third Total
Ron Paul 5 5 6 16
Mitt Romney 4 6 6 16
Fred Thompson 10 4 0 14
Rudy Giuliani 0 3 2 5
Mike Huckabee 0 2 3 5
Duncan Hunter 0 1 3 4
Sam Brownback 1 0 1 2
John McCain 1 0 1 2
Tommy Thompson 0 1 0 1
John Cox 0 0 0 0
Jim Gilmore 0 0 0 0
Tom Tancredo 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0

Source: Oklahomans for Ron Paul

And Paul's answers are very simple when it comes to eliminating those bureaecracies that you mentioned - let the market decide. Leave it in the hands of private owners to compete and come up with the best product / service available.

So you're happy with the IRS & Fed, how about INS? INS is doing a hell of a job, minus the 12 million illegals. Paul has said 100 times, get our troops out the middle east and use those forces to protect our borders. So you don't have war, you don't have our young people dying everyday in the middle east, terrorism against us declines by about 99.9% since we're not on their turf, the holes along our border are secured plugged with our army, etc etc etc.

Paul has offered up numerous fixes, you just constantly overlook them and continue to parrot, "all he talks about is problems, where's the solutions?"

But really, all you have to do is ask yourself, "what is the constitutional solution to this problem?" That is what Paul does. You may not think that means anything, but that is the only oath our Pres is sworn to uphold. His voting record is the most consistent of anyone in congress, and he's been there for 10 terms. Who gives a crap about what these other slime bags say, show me their voting record and then explain why you think they're telling you the truth.

I guess if you think the Constitution is crazy, then I can see why you'd call Paul crazy.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#46
Didn't look at website ... but we didn't kill Iran's leader back in 53. There is some fuzzy data that can give conclusion we helped oust "Mossie" (the leader for a short period) ... to be replaced by The Shah ... who Mossie had replaced temporarily to begin with. Decent write up about it in The Persian Puzzle by Ken Pollack.

DB ... nice analysis ... flowery illustrations a bonus.

Desert ... think you mentioned somewhere in this thread that Uncle Ronnie supported Paul for Pres in 88. Thanks for the laugh ... always need at least one good one a day. Not the way the system works. See ... the outgoing incumbent always supports his VP ... Bush back then. Whether they want to support them or not doesn't much matter ... Ike/Nixon ... it's just the way of the world. Reagan may not have really wanted Bush on the ticket in 80 ... but thought it the best way to win the White House. And supporting him in 88 was the best way to keep the White House. Paul wasn't even on the radar screen in that election.
You're right, he absolutley supported his VP. But he thought Paul was very qualified (don't forget that Paul wasn't running on the GOP forum that year).

Reagan: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense."

Reagan: "As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first"

Reagan: "We need to keep him fighting for our country"
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
0
0
#48
So how is that crazy talk? If any other country was capable is ridding slavery without a Civil War, I don't see how it's so weird to assume we couldn't as well. But I haven't studied a whole lot about the Civil war to know exactly what all it was about. Slavery is usually the defining issue. I have seen this interview and heard it before, but I just didn't remember much of it because Bill Maher was just wasting Ron Paul's time. Thankfully he invited him back to have a real interview. As for Lincoln not being the greatest opponent of slavery, that's true. Lincoln owned slaves.

As for highlighting the democrats.org, there's a lot of Democratic support out there for Ron Paul. People are for once setting aside their differences to support someone that they think is right for America and will get it back on the right track (considering Dems and Repubs alike have been sucking).
Where did I say it was crazy talk? I'm not sure you can compare England's slavery issue with the United States. I believe England was mainly profiting from the transportation and sale of slaves. They also were deeply into the drug trade back then. Neither were ingrained in their society when they decided they had made enough money on both and to make them legally immoral.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,838
22,572
1,743
#49
Well first, these straw polls are from actual voters at various states. Not texting / call in. These people go to the republican conventions, typically pay a fee to enter the convention, listen to some speeches from whatever candidates are there to speak, and then they vote on who they would chose for president.

This is as of August 26...

Paul's Straw Poll Victories

FIRST PLACE (5)
New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 65.3%
North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6%
New Hampshire, Stafford, NH, August 18 ~ 1st 72.7%
Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2%
Washington State, August 21 ~ 1st 28.1%

SECOND PLACE (5)
Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4%
LibertyPapers.org conference, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7%
Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17%
South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 18%
West Lafayette, Indiana, August 18 ~ 2nd 11.7%

Number of Times Placing In Top Three

Candidate First Second Third Total
Ron Paul 5 5 6 16
Mitt Romney 4 6 6 16
Fred Thompson 10 4 0 14
Rudy Giuliani 0 3 2 5
Mike Huckabee 0 2 3 5
Duncan Hunter 0 1 3 4
Sam Brownback 1 0 1 2
John McCain 1 0 1 2
Tommy Thompson 0 1 0 1
John Cox 0 0 0 0
Jim Gilmore 0 0 0 0
Tom Tancredo 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0

Source: Oklahomans for Ron Paul

And Paul's answers are very simple when it comes to eliminating those bureaecracies that you mentioned - let the market decide. Leave it in the hands of private owners to compete and come up with the best product / service available.

So you're happy with the IRS & Fed, how about INS? INS is doing a hell of a job, minus the 12 million illegals. Paul has said 100 times, get our troops out the middle east and use those forces to protect our borders. So you don't have war, you don't have our young people dying everyday in the middle east, terrorism against us declines by about 99.9% since we're not on their turf, the holes along our border are secured plugged with our army, etc etc etc.

Paul has offered up numerous fixes, you just constantly overlook them and continue to parrot, "all he talks about is problems, where's the solutions?"

But really, all you have to do is ask yourself, "what is the constitutional solution to this problem?" That is what Paul does. You may not think that means anything, but that is the only oath our Pres is sworn to uphold. His voting record is the most consistent of anyone in congress, and he's been there for 10 terms. Who gives a crap about what these other slime bags say, show me their voting record and then explain why you think they're telling you the truth.

I guess if you think the Constitution is crazy, then I can see why you'd call Paul crazy.

Thanks for the polls didn't say they didn't exist just haven't seen the low tech numbers.......

Desert you are sounding equally naive.....how does the market decide issues the INS or FEMA or the Dept of Education deal with? You have griped about "big oil" guess who the market that replaces the Dept of Energy will be......good bye green world good bye! I think you would be hard pressed to find an American that will say all the agencies are a well oiled machine.....but let the market decide is the answer to whether or not McDonald's needs fruit on the menu not immigration. You can't just say get rid of all of it with out a detailed plan for a replacment of all the facets of the various deptartments. The INS isn't unconstitutional......the answer to all these questions isn't "he's for the constitution" as history teaches us there have been different views of what is and isnt constitutional in the first place. Immigration is a good example of this......different judges at different levels of state and federal gov. have ruled different measures legal/illegal and or constitutional both from an individual's/business' rights and from the perspective of state and local jurisdiction.......so what is the answer? Oh wait it is the let the market decide....?

His message is great for the soundbite and he presents his freewheeling idea of government, or lack there of, with an exciting amount of charisma......but the his message has gaping holes in it........holes that aren't answered with "let the market decide" or "I'm for the constitution" and holes that would be instantly thrown in his and the parties faces if he makes it far enough to be taken seriously.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
8,423
4,195
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#50
So how is that crazy talk? If any other country was capable is ridding slavery without a Civil War, I don't see how it's so weird to assume we couldn't as well. But I haven't studied a whole lot about the Civil war to know exactly what all it was about. Slavery is usually the defining issue.
That is the common myth. Read this article by Walter Williams, an African-American economics professor from George Mason University.

Question: What Was the Real Reason for the Civil War?


THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ----big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

Walter E. Williams is an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
0
0
#51
That is the common myth. Read this article by Walter Williams, an African-American economics professor from George Mason University.

Question: What Was the Real Reason for the Civil War?


THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ----big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

Walter E. Williams is an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Great find.

My grandmother, who grew up in the Houston area and was born just before 1900, hated Lincoln and his polices. I never really understood it as a kid. As a man I am developing a new prospective of what the big money of the North has and is still during to the rural areas of America.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#52
Where did I say it was crazy talk? I'm not sure you can compare England's slavery issue with the United States. I believe England was mainly profiting from the transportation and sale of slaves. They also were deeply into the drug trade back then. Neither were ingrained in their society when they decided they had made enough money on both and to make them legally immoral.
Sorry, just seemed to me like you were insinuating it was. And Donnyboy, I don't think Ron Paul necessarily wants to get rid of everything as much as he just wants to make a lot of that stuff efficient by revamping it and preventing a big waste of money. Even if he did want to literally get rid of all of that stuff he wouldn't. What Congress would vote to literally get rid of all of those departments?
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,838
22,572
1,743
#53
Sorry, just seemed to me like you were insinuating it was. And Donnyboy, I don't think Ron Paul necessarily wants to get rid of everything as much as he just wants to make a lot of that stuff efficient by revamping it and preventing a big waste of money. Even if he did want to literally get rid of all of that stuff he wouldn't. What Congress would vote to literally get rid of all of those departments?
OK Kaje if he doesn't want to get rid of as in elimante all these departments why does he repeatedly say so in interviews, speeches and debates. When he says those things he sounds like an idiot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....Paul has some good ideas. The people running his campaign are idiots, it's like they are trying to run off the republican voting base before the primary. It would be different if he were taking all the obscure statements and making brash declarations after he won the primary and was trying to woo dems........but he hasn't won the primary nor is he close in the polls so I just don't get it.


I'll be honest with you I think some of it is he likes the attention. He knows as well as anyone he isn't going to win but the "kill whitey" schpill gets him in the press and on all the "cool" shows like Billy M and Colbert. If he were just another Rep from Texas the press tour wouldn't be nearly as cool.