Ron Paul and the host John Ziegler really get into it in this strange, stimulating interview. The host gets huffy and agitated - Ron Paul comes out on top. Well worth your listen - 30 minutes.
Link to the interview - click here. Thank you Dennis for the link.
  |
|
★
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Radio Host disrespects the Military
I have seen some propaganda before but this tops the cake. The idea that Ron Paul disrespects the Military is absurd. If any one disrespects the Military it is the people who promote this unjust, unconstitutional war. At the same time they are telling our troops we are fighting for freedom they are taking away our freedoms at home. The constitution is what provides our security towards freedom. Shame on this host for trying to destroy liberty and using our troops (who swear to uphold the constitution) as tools to fight a war for oil.
This host is nothing more than a terrorist himself. I'm more likely to choke on a peanut than get hit by an islamic terrorist. I'm also more likely to have my freedoms taken away by the federal government.
One more point.
Why is it that after everyone admits that Saddam had no connections to Al Queda the media hacks like this guy are still trying to fool the public into thinking there were connections!???? I think maybe these people are just brainwashed still. Will they wake up? Why did America get used as a tool to fight Iraq and Israel is just sitting over there not doing crap? Why is Israel not helping us fight Iraqi insurgents? They take our money but they won't help us fight. Now they want us to fight for them against Iran. Whatever! Israel if you think Iran is going to threaten you and "wipe you off the map" (which was misquoted by fox news) then get up and fight em! Oh I forgot you use the US because you have all the connections in our government. Americans will not fight your wars any longer. We fight our own wars. I would fight for President Paul because I know the wars will be Just. Like the invasion from Mexico.
Win
Ron Paul won in this interview (two in a row after the Johns Hopkins speech) in the way he should have won at the GOP debate and on O'Reilly. Good, concise logic about the War on Terror from Congressman Paul.
As a total aside, the best part was the last 20 seconds, when Ziegler mentions that he's introducing Congressman Paul at a rally the next day.
Exactly
Most people who support us being in other countries, those who support us fighting over there for oil, come across as egotistical. By thinking things like "America gets special privileges compared to everyone else because we are America", and this idea they have that "we deserve to meddle around in the entire world's regional affairs, because we are the morally superior ones" attitude is extremely destructive. We have to stop confusing "patriotism" with "a superiority complex".
Our country has many advantages because of what we have today and what we have done to make it, and it is by what our people have created here, our diversity that has done it. We Americans are not somehow some sort of superior race or something. All other countries in the world should be treated as our adult peers, not like our little children. If there is a regional conflict, we should let the region deal with it, and we should only go over there if we are attacked here, and we should only go after those who were closely involved with the attack on us.
If we mess up things over there, as we have seen in Iraq, there are no legs to stand on (no awful pun on our troops intended). But if "they" come over here and try to attack us, oh, hell yeah then we have an excuse, but we should only go after "them", and not confuse "them" with anybody else.
Futhermore, we should obviously deal with terrorists differently than you do classical country-backed armies. If our allies are attacked by another country, for example, like they were in WWII, then that is a different situation than with terrorists attacking them, and again it is also a very different situation when we are the ones that are pre-emptively attacking first.
Non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism, and it is definitely not the same as our current Neo-con's "strike them first before they strike you" fear-based mentality. If we strike first, we can't prove to anybody whether we were right or wrong in the end, because what is done is done.
If they strike us first, then, yes, no one can argue against us going over there and kicking their asses, but the biggest problem is that people get who 'they' are confused.
I would differ slightly
.
I don't think "a superiority complex" describes our CFR-backed egoistic incursions into other countries, though it is pretty close.
What it is, to me, is a sense of "entitlement." That the world and its resources are there for the taking and we are, somehow, "entitled" to them. The U.S. has long perceived itself---without an ounce of humility or consideration for others---as the "good guys." And because the government perceives itself as good, that perception somehow justifies extraordinary entitlements, such as other people's countries, resources, beliefs, religions and customs.
This has gone on under every president since Eisenhower. Allen Dulles felt that he was somehow entitled to Chilean resources so that his United Fruit Company might benefit. At Eisenhower's behest, the CIA overthrew the Chilean government, set up a puppet dictator, paid him off, and United Fruit won. There is scarcely a country in the world that we have not felt "entitled" to plunder.
America did not start this trend; it is as old as politics, going back to ancient Roman times and the various conquests. The framers of our Constitution sought to avoid this kind of nonsense by relying on the People (who are inherently wise and good) to run things through their representatives. But, with the influence of the CFR and the Federal Reserve, power was effectively stolen from the people and placed into the hands of the unscrupulous. That is where we are today.
That is why the support for Dr. Paul is so important. He would seek to restore our Republic to its rightful owners, us, and return the rest of the world to itself.
entitlement
Yeah, I agree. I now realize that when I wrote that, I wasn't going by the proper definition of superiority complex. Rethinking what I said, I think you are right, that whatever it is going on in the minds of many of the powerful in our government is more similar to "a sense of entitlement" than "a superiority complex". (More alternative possibilities found below).
High school and early or immature college students are the ones who often seem to have the so called superiority complex, with their ridiculously silly cocky behavior, trying to compensate for something that they lack. So, as an example, while Dick Cheney might come across sometimes this way as well, as a snotty know-it-all, but I think "a sense of entitlement" describes him and others in our government much more accurately.
Other words came to mind, including: narcissism, elitism, snobbery selfishness, jingoism, chauvinism, conceit, extreme or banal nationalism, and xenophobia. We have got to get this type of arrogance out of our government, now.
Would not load..
I could not get this file to load for me...dang.
Jane, try......
Try www.ronpaulaudio.com
It's listed about 3/4 down the page under "Latest Audio".
You have the choice between mp3 and Windows Media.
By the way, www.ronpaulaudio.com is a treasure chest for Ron Paul interviews.
.
.
www.vaclib.org
?
Ziegler wanted us to believe that we are in Iraq because we want to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then he changed his mind and said we're defending the oil in those countries. He's talking about Israel as if it's the 51st state of the US. He said in indirect way it is ok to support dictators if it is in our own benefit. I just wanna know are there people who listen to this guy and believe him in anything he says?
--------------------
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
Couldn't bear to listen
.
I can only take so much from a pompous gas-bag like Zigler, and 5 minutes was enough. What I heard of Dr. Paul was good, no surprise.
What often comes across in interviews such as this one, is the enormous ego of the interviewer. We have seen this with Hannity, O'Reilly, Stephanopolous and now this creep.
I am hopeful that the PBS debates (without Romney and Giuliani, thank goodness; so there will be less sniggering and smirking) will be less of an ego-fest for the moderators and will give Dr. Paul the chance to calmly explain his views, as he did at Johns Hopkins.
By the way...! There is an interesting book by former NYC Mayor, Ed Koch, about Giuliani. The title is "Nasty Man." With Rudy as the current front-runner, this might be a good thing to read in case you run into some Republicans who think that "Benito" Giuliani has the nomination sewn up.
a good fight
this is a very good debate. Ziegler, for the most part, asks penetrating questions to which any reasonably intelligent person might seek answers. thankfully he affords our good Dr. the courtesy of allowing him to answer them, which he does with well reasoned, well educated answers. after almost every point Ziegler concedes. how many times did he say, "i agree", or "i can't argue with that". give it another listen.
a good bout, with our champ on top. very good training for the months ahead.
wtf over?
At about 6:50 whoever the guy is interviewing the good doctor says, "I couldn't agree with you more about following the constitution but I believe in a post 9/11 world we shouldn't be wrapped up in technicalities." How does someone defend that statement?
Then he pulls up the argument that Operation Iraqi Freedom was just a resumption of hostilities from Desert Storm.
He keeps peppering the debate with how much he agrees with Ron Paul. This guy is not a libertarian just like Bill Maher is not a libertarian. They are both vegetarians who occasionally enjoy a hamburger. Hypocrite phony bull$h!t.
Neocon lackey in Libertarian clothes. If you remember the old horrible Halloween costumes from the 80's this guy is wearing an odd plastic mask and a plastic jumpsuit that says "Libertarian". He is no more of a Libertarian than I was He-Man when I was 8yrs old.
Not good at all
Don't get me wrong I know how a libertarian stands on these issues as libertarianism has all its roots in property rights and almost all issues are easily derived from property rights.
I know how Paul reasons. But in the interview he was played and lost his string of thought resulting in himself contradicting himself in the turmoil about pulling out of Iraq and all other countries is that they would "Win". But it was said Osama wants US their because it is easier to kill and at the same time he wants US out of the region.
No, Ron Paul did not come out on top
I felt Ron Paul was rather (I'd almost say extremely) weak on the issue of the Iraq war and foreign policy in general (especially during the first few segments), he should have destroyed Ziegler's arguments concerning the invasion of Kuwait, the war in Iraq, "fighting" al-Qaeda etc. but he barely managed to put a dent in them. I felt Michael Scheuer in his interviews over the last couple of days came across a lot stronger in condemning U.S. foreign policy.
P.S.
Ziegler actually proclaims himself a libertarian? I don't think he understands what libertarianism means considering the fact he actually supports government intrusion (PATRIOT ACT, Military Commissions Act) under the guise of "keeping us safe". He also doesn't quite seem to understand basic property rights judging by his response to Ron Paul's assumption that the airliners are responsible for safety aboard their aircrafts.
Confident and quick
The best thing about this interview, IMO, is that Ron seemed confident and quick. He was able to get his answers in pretty concisly in the face of some very aggressive questioning. Sometimes he falters when he tries to get into too much detail in a forum like this. He succeeded in generally getting his position across. I would be intrigued by RP if I was a casual listener to the show. Because, let's be honest, I don't think he'll ever appeal to or win over the hard-core Neocons.
I agree... Ziegler doesn't
I agree... Ziegler doesn't even have a clue about property rights and what it means for decision making to uphold property rights above all.
Jeeeeese!
I'm beginning to think that the prerequisite for working in broadcasting is a complete frontal lobobtomy. I'm basically a glorified, non college educated, ditch digger and I can readily grasp the concepts and reason espoused by RP. FER CRIEYIEEEI !!!!
Way to go
Ron was sharp as a tack.
Zig, O'reilly, Hannity ....
I don't know what it is about our man Ron Paul, but these aggressive TV/Radio talking heads think he is easy pickings for them to dish on. I think the fact that Ron has been such a lone wolf in a pack of Congressional foxes, they conclude that his issues must be easy to attack. A miscalculation on their part, and it shows up in interiew after interview. These guys want to put on the show of being "great Americans" and "true conservatives", but when they examine their viewpoints with Dr. Paul's, they come out looking kind of "liberal". I think that tends to frustrate them, and the adage comes about, : If you can't win the argument, speak louder than the other guy.
Do our readers know that the US has over 600 military bases scattered around the world, and the new embassy under construction in Iraq is the world's largest and most expensive in history. The neo-cons don't plan on leaving the region- ever.
alan laney
We should keep doing the wrong thing because why?!
One argument I keep hearing for staying in Iraq - including during the KFI interview - is that if we leave, we're doing what they want us to do... in other words, 'they win.'
People can debate the pros and cons of the validity of being in Iraq - I happen to agree with Dr. Paul - but if pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do, then that's the reason we should do it. Because it's right!
It doesn't really matter what it looks like. It only matters if we do what's right. THAT is honor.
Besides, after what our leadership has done, our ego could stand to be bruised for awhile. Better that than another 1,000+ troops kill in an unconstitutional war.
Hack Job
John Ziegler is nothing but a Neo-Hack! He has no credibility. If he agreed with Dr. Paul he would probably lose his job.
The more I hear Ron Paul the more I love this guy. He sounds like me when I talk to my friends and family. One thing I can't stand is that the MSM calls Ron Paul supporters "conspiracy theorists." I'm not one of those and I hate to be lumped into that kind of thing.
I do have a question though. Don' beat me up because I'm with you. I'm voting for Ron Paul but I need the following answered.
I know Ron Paul thinks we should be able to opt out of Social Security. I fully agree with this. But I don't think we should be made to invest it in Wall St. These people are nothing but criminals and crooks!
My question is: What do we do with the disabled, the mentally incompetent, mainly the people, who by no fault of their own, cannot take care of themselves. What do we do for them? We can't have them living out on the street. What are Dr. Pauls views on taking care of these people? When I hear him talk I always get the impression that he is forgetting about these people. Any thoughts? These are questions I am asked and I honestly don't know how to answer when asked.
I'll tell you though, out of all the presidential candidates, and I listen to them all, Ron Paul is the only true leader.
The disabled, needy, etc are state/local issues......
Ron Paul would definitely agree that these areas are to be left to the states and/or people to take care of - NOT the federal government.
The federal government is extremely corrupt and inefficient in taking care of these things. Eventually the whole system is going to collapse to the point where EVERYone is going to be needy if we remain on this path of financial destruction due to the feds usurping power from the states.
The 10th Amendment reads as follows (and has NOT been repealed):
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. â€
So as Ron Paul continually states; most of our problems can be solved by abiding by the Constitution.
.
.
www.vaclib.org
Free Markets
If I understand Dr. Paul correctly, he says that a truly free market and individuals always take care of their needy. He uses the example of when he was a young physician in a church hospital and they regularly treated people who could not afford pay. It was a nonissue. Private facilities are also in place to care for the disabled and mentally ill. It is when a big federal bureaucracy inserts inself that quality suffers, prices go up and good docs/caregivers seek other lines of work. Think about county hospitals and vet homes that no one wants to go to because the service is subpar. He, however, has consistently said that he is not in favor of eliminating all services to our most needy, but that the national mindset of the government's role as our caregiver has to gradually shift. Self-reliance and individuals caring for one another work much better.
For starters...
Hey Piper...
Dr. Paul has addressed these issues. It would be great if they came up in debates or talk shows, but until they do, check out www.ronpaullibrary.org
But for now...
With the billions saved by ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home from around the world, shutting down the military-industrial complex, shutting down entitlements (both for individuals and businesses), shutting down the Federal Reserve which would ultimately end inflation as we know it, having fair trade that doesn't favor other countries...
(what am I forgetting?)
... we would have money to support those truly dependent on 'the system,' while having time to move those capable of taking care of themselves into that capacity.
If doctors and hospitals could operate in the free market, there could be a return to things like 'charity hospitals' - where there wouldn't be a reason to charge those without anything (Dr. Paul worked in these early in his career).
And if the government gets out of the welfare/subsidy business while you and I have more of our own earned income in our pockets, we would have more to help out as well.
Ron Kicked ***!
Awesome interview! This guy tried every Neocon trick in the book to corner RP, but Ron ruled this interview. The host even played the "I'm a libertarian too" card, failing to realize his blanket backing for this war directly contradicts support of individual liberties. Amazingly, RP shows unbelievable energy and metal quickness despite his crazy schedule right now. He seems to be having the time of his life in getting his message out and getting such a welcome response. Terrific!
Ron Paul
understands the subtleties of foreign policy, how it is related to domestic issues. Zig and his ilk obviously do not. I am still searching for the root of this love of war we are witnessing. Fear? Partially. Insecurity? Probably. I think we as a nation viscerally feel our influence in the world slipping away, and we are desperately trying to hold onto the last vestiges of greatness. Like a middle-aged man divorcing his wife and spending all his money on hair transplants and a corvette. In the end, he is still going to age and die. But instead of having a loving family, a healthy bank account and respect in his old age, he is broke, his family ignores him and he has a venerial disease. I've seen it happen. Just too bad it has to happen to all of us at once. And all due to a few vain people in power convincing others of their vulnerability.
If it doesn't work go here:
If it doesn't work go here:
http://tinyurl.com/2jl8hr
Ron Paul is unpredictable?!?!
Instead of "unpredictable", maybe Zig should have said Paul was the most insightful member of congress, being the only Congressman to consult the Constitution before deciding his position instead of basing it on party plank or knee jerk reaction.
but he couched it as a compliment...
a back-handed compliment.
but really, it was a compliment. ;)
no, not really.
It's just because the authoritarians haven't figured out how to attack someone who can trace their positions to the law of the land without exposing their own positions to attack. Thus, this sort of baseless FUD is the only thing they can rely upon.
I sometimes wish Dr. Paul would take the offense in these sorts of arguments. Unfortunately, it is the sort of thing that is best served in a short argument, almost a soundbite. He's starting to make forrays, but he's much too considerate and gentlemanly to directly point out the hypocrisy for what it is.
For example, when a hanoreilywhatever clone says stuff like "following the Constitution is antiquated or not realistic in a post-911 world," I wish he'd carve them up on the "rule of law" issue they harp on whenever immigration or the actions of Democrats are the topic. The two positions are auto-contradictory and hypocritical.
As another example, when his these same people or his competitors for the nomination mock his defense of our natural rights and themselves espouse more expansion of unchecked executive power, he ought to rebuke them by asking how well they would like handing over that sort of power to Hillary, Inc. a year from now.
That host is the ENEMY !!!
He said:
"In a post 9/11 world, we can't be bothered with technicalities of following the Constitution"
He was responding to Dr. Paul's point that we didn't declare war in Iraq
.
.
www.vaclib.org
I agree
The host is a neo-con operative who set out to marginalize Dr. Paul by
1. identifying him as a libertarian, thereby ignoring that he is seeking the Republican nomination;
2. Trying to label Dr. Paul as a 9/11 conspiracist;
3. treating as laughably obvious the usual neo-con BS regarding the Iraq War.
Dr. Paul was very sharp. He has little to fear from these operatives.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Fear of Terrorists
If we properly defended our borders and ports we wouldn't have to try to kill every terrorist or potential terrorist "over there"!
How many American lives do we have to lose before people are sick of this war? So far we've lost over 5,000. In Vietnam we had to lose 50,000 before we got sick of it and Congress stopped funding it.
Radio Talk
Mr. Zigs first loyalty is to Israel and the Neocons. At best, he is a "salad-bar" libertarian who cannot face the truth.
Mr. R.