5 votes

David Gergen of CNN cannot answer simple questions.

David Gergen CNN TV commentator cannot answer simple questions. He does not know if the government should protect peaceful citizens against people that want to use force to take their money. He does not know if there are people in our society that want to use force to take other people's money. Apparently, he can't even understand the questions much less answer them. He is clear about one thing, he doesn't like the questions and he wants to leave.

http://youtu.be/8e9QTD_1tiU



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Look at him squirm when they

Look at him squirm when they ask him questions. That means the conspiracy must be true!

ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT!

cancel

cancel

Truth before all else.....it is what will allow us to emerge with dignity and honor.

I love how the interviewer

I love how the interviewer was using Bastiat's arguments to point out the hypocrisy in Gergen's beliefs.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you

Thank you

Jan Helfeld

Alex Jones DESTROYS David Gergen

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

This is gold, UPVOTE!

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

Isn't that the guy who sells

Isn't that the guy who sells $1200 juicers and $400 bags of freeze dried beans because the world is ending?

sharkhearted's picture

Trying to get a straight answer out of a neocon...

...is like trying to rake leaves on a windy day.

Just ain't gonna happen.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

was interesting

i don't like gergen at all - but i think he was justified in his response. it seems like you are just steering him into your line of thinking with questions that are so abstract that its hard to see what you are getting at. there's probably a way you could do it more eloquently. i'm not exactly sure how - maybe people here have a better approach

you might try one of the two sets of questions:

the question i never have had anyone answer is (and it should be fact checked - but i think its right)

1. "in 2008 the Federal Reserve effectively printed 16 Trillion Dollars in one year alone. About half of that was sent from the Federal Reserve to European Central Banks and half went to Wall Street Banks (such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Bank of America). The US Debt at that time was 14 Trillion Dollars. Do you believe that this was fair to the US taxpayer?"

if they answer fair or unfair you got them on tape

then you can say. "Is it fair to the US taxpayer than these same Wall Street Banks (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America) that received 8 Trillion Dollars from the Federal Reserve are the largest campaign contributors to both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?"

They can answer "fair or unfair" and you got em on tape

then you can say "Do you think the US taxpayer is better represented by a candidate like Ron Paul whose largest campaign contributors are the US military, US airforce and US navy or Romney or Obama whose largest campaign contributors are Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America?"

that would be so neat to see!!!!!!!!!!

OR you could a similar one on foreign policy:

"do you think its fair that the US foreign policy is strongly influenced by the CFR of which the following CEOs of defence contracting companies A, B, and C are members of the board and have made x Billion of Dollars as a result of wars that have not resolved for over 10 years in Iraq and Afganistan"

* i wasn't sure of the companies on the board of the CFR so i just left them as A, B and C

"do you think it is fair that John Kerry serves on the CFR and has invested in these same defence companies and has personally made over $20M in a single year based on his investments in these companies"

* i am guessing at the amount he made, but its something like that

"if you were a US soldier would you rather a war declared constitutionally and debated in congress with a strict goal and timeline. or set as an executive order by a president acting on reports from the CFR"

"would you support the abolishment of the CFR and that a war could only be declared in accordance with the constitution and passed by congress"

Something like this could really go viral if it was answered and the guy squirmed! i think the fed one is much better than the CFR one

Agree. Gergen justified.

I didn't know what the interviewer was talking about either. Once Gergen responded re the tax issue, for the interviewer to continue on in such an oblique manner only made himself look bad, appearing both manipulative and immature. If you want to have a philosophical discussion, then be honest and say so. This could have been an enlightening exchange. Instead it only served to generate ill will.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Jan Helfeld's picture

Do you really think he is justified in not answering simple ques

Do you really think he is justified in not answering simple questions like if the government should protect peaceful citizens against people that want to use force to take their money. He does not even know if there are people in our society that want to use force to take other people's money.

Jan Helfeld

i think you do great work and

i think you do great work and i'm a big fan. and i thank you for doing these videos.

as constructive criticism, i suppose as a viewer i thought he was justified in not answering that particular question. its so broad that the interviewee thinks its just a trap and doesn't want to answer it unless its a specific more formulated question. its like trying to answer "what is more powerful the wind or the sword". i'd be like "what the heck - ask me a specific question that i can get my head around!!".

what did you think about the specific questions i had above? you would know much better than i do - would that work in an interview environment?

Jan was simply pointing out

Jan was simply pointing out that it is hypocritical to think that the government should protect citizens from those who wish to use force to take money and then support the redistribution of wealth. The problem that the CNN guy had was that he saw how ridiculously easy it is to show that taking money through use of force and giving it to another is wrong. They think that it is all in the name of democracy......amazing really. There are much better ways to maintain government as long as the government does not get so large that we have no other choice but to steal from people to maintain it. Strong National Defense and Infrastructure could be maintained with minimal taxing of the people.

Truth before all else.....it is what will allow us to emerge with dignity and honor.

i get all that. and i agree

i get all that. and i agree with that point. taxes are taken at gun point when you look at it.

but i don't think jan brought the questions together as well as he could. as a result, it came out as a little clumsy. which to me is a waste b/c to get such well known people - jan should really work on a line of questioning that is more clear. then i think his work will go viral with millions of hits. its his line of questioning that needs a tweek in my estimation.

Jan Helfeld's picture

he was exposed

He does not know if there are people in our society that want to use force to take other people's money.THIS EXPOSES HIM TO RIDICULE AS WELL AS HIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER.

Jan Helfeld

i don't think this exposes

i don't think this exposes him to ridicule because most people would just see an overly broad question with an obvious trap at the end, being forced upon the guy. his look was more confusion with the line of questioning in my opinion.

i'm a huge fan of yours. your interviews are totally unique. something the world has never seen. and i think serve the liberty movement very well.

but because they are so unique, i think its a bit of a learning tree. i do think that your questions would benefit from being more clear and specific. also i'd love to see you take it down a specific question line (like the Federal Reserve one i had above)

or if you have a broad, open ended question, maybe you preface it with "philosophically speaking, do you think it is just for the government to use force to take money from certain citizens?". and continue your questions with 'along those philosophical lines... do you think.....".

i don't know of any reporter that has the balls to do what you do. i really admire you for this. i hope you read my posts (especially the first post of mine here about the Federal Reserve line of questions). if it helps fine tune the line of questioning, that would be wonderful!