 |
 |
Ron Paul shredded MSNBC/Morning Joe in their hack attempt. Great job RP.
Posted December 27th, 2007 by informant
output
[Editor's addition: Link to MP3 interview. (Thank you robinlynn)]
Joe Scarborough wasn't on, but I know for sure he wouldn't have been as snooty, giggling, mocking, and outright vile and disrespectful as those 3 on Morning Joe who had RP on...
He tore them to pieces and all they kept doing was smiling and giggling, and the gray haired older man said openly to the sickening woman nutjob: "Isn't he the crackpot"?
They had no facts, they tried to get him to retract his Civil War comments on MTP the other day, and get him to conform to Lincoln worship, which he would not do and stood by his principles and correct interpretation of history... He even mentioned Lysander Spooner!!!! Do a GOOGLE search on this genius 1850's lawyer, he's got 2 free ebook online, No Treason, and The constitution of No Authority....
AWESOME showing by RP! He was mean and aggressive and I LIKED IT!!!!!! Put up the VID ASAP!!!
I am excited! And it goes to show even more how vile these journalists are... I'd say the 3 that interviewed him on MSNBC this mornign were more vile and outright putrid than ANY of the FOX News hosts or "journslists" or NPR or any of the other outlets.. THis was really transparent on how the MSM is gooding on RP.... But RP prevailed handsomely, 10/10! He was very quick on his feet this time.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Hey informant are u that
Hey informant are u that person who wrote "journalist" in that 'HERE WE GO AGAIN..NOT IGNORING RON PAUL' page ..AP's may be ,cant rem exactly.. Are you?
sig...........................
MEDIA censoring Ron Paul??
http://www.skaskiw.com/Wr...
hmm
amusing interview yes. But, shredded, not so much.
That's two derogatory posts from you I've read
If you found that interview "amusing" and weren't outraged at the low class attack and shoddy journalism of it, I can safely assume you are not here as a Ron Paul supporter.
Welcome to the r3VOLution
If you read more and comment less - perhaps you might get a good education.
You are a member for 25 minutes and have 5+ posts...
also,
I've been reading this forum for some time before joining. Thus, the high post to membership time ratio.
reading
My expensive private education provided me with the tools to read quickly.
Perhaps
You misunderstand the conceptual difference between reading and understanding.
Ron Paul is a messenger and the head of a freedom movement. Would you prefer to have your rights stripped away for the 'illusion' of security?
You are welcome to read in the forum, but I might suggest that you try to contemplate why there are so many who support Ron Paul - in that vein, I believe you might get an education...
Dr. No is a voracious Reader !
I just love it how Dr. Paul keeps suggesting reading material to the braindead unread sheeple. I was really holding my breath waiting for him to tell these clowns to read the fourth Lincoln Douglas debate (Sept 18, 1858) where Lincoln refers to blacks as inferior and not deserving of equal rights, etc., etc. sounding like the grand dragon of the Klan... that or the Emancipation Proclimation where none of the northern slaves were "freed" and only some of the ones in the south were.
Right now, I'm reading Andrew Napolitono's book, "A Nation of Sheeple" - excellent to reccommend to establishment GOP types since the Judge is a popular FAUX news speaker. In it, he really goes after the Bush regime with irrefutable detailed case reports.
The Ron Paul of 87' is back.
The Ron Paul of 87' is back. He is no longer allowing the dumbass MSM to get away with the smears. He is on attack mode and they are tooooo stupid to continue the conversation. This is the Ron I've been waiting for. I glad to see him back. Now I feel more confident about our chances. I think he is starting to feel he could actually win this thing and will now stop the MSM from purposely trying to rainroad the campaign.
yeah, he bitch-slapped 'em
a thing of beauty!
Here's to the Ron Paul of '87. I like him, too! I appreciate the way he's trying to stop people from cutting him off and not letting him answer.
btw, do you think the 19 mill is also making him bolder? Napoleon Hill says a man acts entirely different when he has money in his pocket, than when he doesn't, implying it gives him confidence. (maybe that's obvious)
The logic of David Shuster
The logic of David Shuster myth lovers: If a president is "revered" (by the Schlesinger-worshipping textbook writers), he must be a good president. I can understand why Gore Vidal expressed support for Ron Paul. Our greatest essayist has a very similar view on Lincoln and Civil War as Ron Paul.
Hello .... is there
anyone out there with a You tube
link to this??? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... :)
...
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Ron Paul during DAY ONLY INTERVIEWS, but
Isn't it disgusting that Dr. Paul is interviewed during the DAYTIME when most people are at work?? But, not during PRIMETIME at NIGHT?? Yes, his I.Q. is off the charts, but they will refuse to put him on in the evening, and instead, they put on Mitt who was the PITS...no pun intended, but he said absolutely nothing about Bhutto and what the USA should or should not do. Instead, he was the consummate B.S. politician who is waiting for someone behind the curtains to tell him what to do. Hannity & Colmbes are disgustingly controlled by the Neo-Con money elitists, and that is pretty obvious.
We say to use this knowledge when trying to win over converts in BOTH Iowa & New Hampshire!! We are driving and almost to Iowa, yeh!!
Carl & Laura Pivonka
What disgraceful Journalism
That was a very low class attack on Ron Paul. That those journalists weren't fired immediately amazes me. It WAS worse than FOX! Ron Paul is one cool cucumber though.
penn of penn and teller and
penn of penn and teller and the showtime show bullsh*t is on glenn beck right now and has been a very interesting interview with very similar points to ron pauls
old show...
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Penn Gillette
Penn is one of the few entertainers out there who seems to actually use his brain. I generally agree with his philosophy of freedom, though I think sometimes he doesn't emphasize enough "With great freedom comes great responsibility." (or something like that)
will this attract unsavory characters?
some people believe that this whole abe lincoln thing might attract a whole bunch of redneck wackos. but why not? ron paul's tent is huge: it's for freedom. besides they are a very small minority of the american public and won't be such a threat compared to the minority of neocons who have taken over. also, whether we like it or not these people are still americans. so i say to those scaredy cat politically correct blockheads out there, suck it up and welcome everybody into the revolution.
btw, being a brown skinned immigrant i wouldn't be caught driving around in the backwoods of the south anytime soon, but i will welcome these rednecks into ron paul's tent anytime. as long as they don't infringe on my rights.
attract unsavory characters? Carefull with name calling...
Please don't label people, we all have human life value which should be respected. The way we are raised, taught, and educated is how we live. When we know better, we do better. ALL people are the assets and we, here and now, all want the same future. Let's work towards that end.
Those with different thoughts and views should be welcomed and learning from these posts, not insulted.
I love rednecks
They are unpretentious and often have more common sense and good humor than their snobbish counterparts. Your assumption regarding the southern states is very false. You need to get out more.
Rednecks
Thank you. I agree. Definitely need to get out more.
New Rule for the Media
Never ever ever ask Dr. Paul to take something back. Doing that is just asking for a public butt whoop'in.
Excellent point.
This is a very good point and people sense this. This is progress, not going backward, maybe not even a revolution, but it is just natural progress.
stormrunner said, "The time has come to pull back on the power that is the "money trust", by introducing a competing currency and reducing government size and credit, as their ambition is no longer to create a great example, but to force a Plutocracy via the advance of globalization."
GREED is BAD!
bhutto said bin ladin murdered!!?
check this link:
http://youtube.com/watch?...
spread this pls
re: Bin Laden murdered
You're not the only one who noticed this. What about the news media? I didn't hear a bloody thing about this comment anywhere else.
Hamilton's Biggest Mistake
Dear Mr. Mayor,
Since you are kindly doing research for us poor simpletons, you might want to read us some passages from the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. Or do you think the Anti-Federalists are just a bunch of obtuse numskulls?
Looking back, almost all of the fears of the Anti-Federalists have turned out to be well-founded. Hamilton had argued in Federalist No. 84 that the Bill of Rights is not really necessary. His argument was quite sound, and he had foreseen the danger:"Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Indeed, when the U.S. Attorney General claims "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution", you know Hamilton was right.
It's surprising, then, that Hamilton could entrust the Federal Government with such powers and still believe it won't be abused. History has shown that the Constitution is not enough to restrain the government. Now it's largely being ignored, especially by the current Bush Administration. So it can be said that the Constitution is Hamilton's biggest mistake
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You said:"The Articles of Confederation which existed from 1776-1787, allowed for secession because the weak, federal government derived its power from the loose alliance of sovereign, independent state governments, which led to numerous problems such as, for example, different currencies, different laws and moral codes leading inevitably to mass confusion." If a strong Federal Government is the solution to that "problem", then I guess it makes sense to bring the whole world along as well. Because, you know, all these sovereign, independent countries, with their different currencies, different laws and *gusp* moral codes, are really causing all the problems in this world. Some of these countries are not even democracies!
In short, this pretense about so called "foreign policy of freedom" is nothing more than a means to justify the right of the evil dictators of other countries to oppress their people. I say let's invade them all so we can bring freedom to ALL the people of the world.
You're pretty off-base there
You're pretty off-base there dude. Lincoln killed 650,000 Americans. He suspended Habeas Corpus. He imprisoned dissenters...
The Constitution placed restrictions on the states -- yes -- but one of those restrictions was not that those states could not secede. The Constitution is a treaty between the sovereign states delegating a number of duties to a federal government, that would have the upper house of it's legislature as well as the President effectively appointed by the state governments. The election of a President and Senators by the people was a later development.
The federal government was designed to be limited, and the states were intended to maintain sovereign rights -- delegating some of those rights to the federal government (and agreeing not to exercise them concurrently) while they were within the treaty. There is no prohibition on secession, and the 10th amendment delegates all rights not expressly given to the federal government or otherwise denied to the states in the Constitution to the states. That would include the right to secede -- which, since the Constitution was a treaty, was an assumed right of the sovereign governments entering that treaty anyway.
Now, you might be able to argue that Lincoln was not wrong in waging war on the Confederacy (as any party who withdraws from a treaty is potentially committing an act of war), but I would venture that, at least by modern standards, such an action would be condemned by most of the world.
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
Article 10
I read Article 10 in the Constitution, and there is no mention anywhere about secession; reading Amendment 9, an unenumerated right is the right to seceed; and reading Amendment 10, it states if the Constitution doesn't say it, it will be left to the states. Also when you read some of the state constituions, they state the fact that the people have a right to abolish their [state] governments. So I have proof that the people have an unalienable right for their state to seceed, in spite of what Abe may think. Abraham Lincoln was really America's first tyrant.
Rude tone aside...
I will concede that there isn't really a secession clause in the Constitution. However, the Constitution only specifies the rules of playing in the USA sandbox. That presumes that the state is a member of the USA to begin with. The argument here is whether a state can choose to opt out and therefore be outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Therefore your citation of Article 1 Sec. 10 is irrelevant. In fact, any citation of the constitution on matters of secession is pretty moot.
The question is a moral one, and obviously cannot be answered objectively. I think you need to really understand the intent of the Federal government (something long disputed even at its inception). You mention the Articles of Confederation. Good! Clearly, since it was the first choice, we can infer how important state sovereignty was to our founders. So I highly doubt that when the constitution was ratified, they swung the pendulum to the other side and demanded centralized government. (See Amendments 9 and 10).
Your lack of respect in dialogue mutes your arguments...
"Foul, intellectually dishonest, good-for-nothing, dumbell, ignorant asses, simpletons, obtuse numskull..."
These are just a few of the names you used when talking with other Paul supporters, your allies in the fight for your liberty. Whether or not you agree with them on Lincoln or what means were necessary to abolish slavery, this disdainful lack of respect is akin to something we'd find the MSM doing to Dr. Paul.
The fact is Dwayne, I've studied under the best minds on our Constitution and the Articles, on 3 continents...and there's another tale, besides yours, to be told. Watch your attitude in your discussion, you're better than that, this movement is wiser than that.
Thank you
I learn so much from these types of discussions- but it's completely unnecessary to resort to such disrespectful name calling.
Battle of minds while they were unarmed.
Wow they were uncomfortable. Way in over their heads while Talking with Dr. Paul.
I couldn't be happier
If the Morning Joe producers were trying to make Ron Paul look bad, it backfired. Even Mika Brzezinski seemed to be on Paul's side. That was awesome !
Easy on Lincoln
Let me start by saying I'm an avid proponent of most everything Ron Paul. At this point the nation has very few credible historical icons left. Lincoln emerged during a time when the Money Trust was again in overdrive trying to gain acceptance for their Debt-Fiat. History has recorded the numerous times that usury from this system has been used to divide and conquer, split the union install the BANK was the objective. Lincoln countered by issueing his own chartilist GREENBACKS, a major blow to the private "Banksters". Freeing the slaves was secondary to preserving the Republic, as it was at the time. I realize there is little time to respond to a media attack when being interviewed, again as already suggested here, simply stating that actually buying the freedom of the slaves would have been preferable to war, would suffice. But this was not Lincoln's choice, he was not practicing Hamiltonian Policy, implying Central Banking Corporate Fascism but trying to preserve the republic. I actually prefer the 50 state configuration, I'm sure most here do it's why we support Dr. Paul because we want to preserve the union and not have our sovereign borders disappear as we expand into a NAU losing our identity for the profit of a small group of industrialist international players. Hamilton sacrificed a great deal to earn is place in history. The Industrial Revolution that built the US into the haven that it is now would not have been possable without him, the price, a for profit private central bank. Our "Empire" 50 States has grown to a size which allows us to repel any foreign enemy a necessary evolution. We are now small enough to lead by example, and large enough to protect ourselves. The time has come to pull back on the power that is the "money trust", buy introducing a competing currency and reducing government size and credit, as their ambition is no longer to create a great example, but to force a Plutocracy via the advance of globalization.
A few thoughts
The union was created by the States, not vice versa. It was consentual. Unions and countries made with consent are what freedom is all about, for without the consent...you can very well have a union, but it will be as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Who'd wanna preserve that union? I have no problem with union or unity, but the nature of the arrangement as one of perpetually free consent must be present in order to be truly free. This is a God given right that no document in the world can negate.
As Ron has always upheld, the ultimate check on power is the right "of a community to vote with its feet". Honestly, if a man or family has a right to leave a country when it becomes too corrupt, why not a group of people with their homes? It's the simplest thing in the world. Imagine the careful line the Federal government would toe if it knew that violating its contract with the people meant the people could then consider the contract null and void? Ahhh, what a wonderful world that would be. Oh and btw, the US is in fact, the UN. Without U.S. money and participation, the UN really couldn't exist.
Admittedly, the Morning Joe
Admittedly, the Morning Joe folks were embarrassingly poorly informed about American history compared to Ron Paul. He handed them their hats... despite this (and it's all good) staying on message for the good of his campaign would be far more beneficial.
With Ron Paul in office, he could certainly lead us into a golden age of understanding our own US history better and unvarnished by the romantic gloss of time.
MSNBC/MORNING JOE
What was apparent to me (and I would think to anyone), is that these people have an agenda and it's not to report the news! Their sleazy comments hardly justified a civil response, no pun intended.
I loved watching this.
Paul made them look like idiots. And then when it was over, Jack (or whatever his name is), said that Paul was wrong on Lincoln. Of course Jack couldn't substantiate his argument during debate. He came across as a little kid that waits until the scolding parent is out of the room then sticks his tongue out. He's a moron. Someone needs to tell this network that they should hire people with historical knowledge to interview people on historical events.
Go Paul!
Dr. Paul handled himself so well.
And the three commentators showed themselves to be so ignorant. I doubt very much than any of them has read a single book about the civil war, or about history in general, and it was obvious to any intelligent people watching this show.
I'm so angry I could run for office
How about you?
I have been seriously considering that myself...
seriously
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
First President of the USA.
http://digitaldiesel.net/...
I've been thinking about it...
Now that I've filled an open Precinct Chair position (for Ron Paul of course) I mused as to what the ramifications for this choice will be.
Here is the link....
Here is the link to the Joe interview.http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=356
Let it go and move on
What I got out of the interview was that they couldn't attack Dr Paul on his positions so they had to go back 150 years and an opinion that Dr Paul had on Lincoln. They are that desperate and that is a great sign. Do you think that the American voters give a rat's bottom about Lincoln and the civil war?? NO, the Americans are worried about the wars in the MiddleEast, having a job, the declining economy and the deficit. The only thing Dr Paul does wrong is try to explain history to these idiotic journalists when in fact he should just respond I said this on MTP and now let's talk about the problems Americans face today. Dr Paul is just too nice sometimes and he doesn't seem to realize how evil and desperate some of these reporters are.
So it's overwith and Dr Paul held his ground and on a positive note, I just watched Dr Paul on Situation Room where he was asked about Pakistan and his response was brilliant as usual. CNN seems to be warming up to him alot now and Dr Paul show's the confidence and intelligence of a President. Ignore the evil media and don't give them the attention they want, instead, focus on the positive media attention Dr Paul is getting now. He's ready to win for us and America!
Fascinating
.
I don't know who the principal broadcaster was, but he was extraordinarily arrogant and egotistical. Also ignorant of history. A buffoon.
I am really impressed, most of all, with Dr. Paul's self-control. The guy was asking for it and the most RP would say is, "You're confused."
Long ago I suggested that RP steer clear of the media and many reasonable people said it was necessary for exposure, to increase name recognition. Well, he got plenty of it on this show, and I don't think it was 100% favorable.
He deserves better than these pups.
.
That's a top tier lot of air time going into Iowa
I haven't been watching , but are Huck and R&R or John or Fred getting as much ?
www.CoSy.com/Liberty
Fred is about done
.
The nice man has no brains. If he had any, he would not have run, and that he has stayed this long in the race suggests that he has a very able staff, insisting, "Yes Fred, you do have brains. We are almost positive."
Romney and Rudy and Huck are taking pot-shots at each other. This is most satisfying. Not one of them has said anything bad about Ron Paul and that is to their credit.
Romney and Rudy still get the majority of air time among republicans, Huck second. Huck has been treated nicely in the press but doesn't have the dough. Also, his "take back the country for Jesus" remark alienated Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and just about every other non-Christian group. I don't think he is overburdened with brains either.
Rude, immature media
David Shuster and the other guy were rude, arrogant, uninformed, disrespectful and just generally disgusting. That is one of the rudest interviews of anybody I have ever seen. Shuster just displayed what most of the MSM is really like. They're not even remotely interested in what anyone thinks and/or says they are just trying to show everyone how smart and important they are when in reality they are neither.
Of course, Ron Paul not only made them look like fools but he even tried to give them a little history lesson which they obviously need.
I love this guy more every time I see or hear him. He is so humble and intelligent, and exactly what America needs right now.
This is a positive
I have read through a lot of the comments.
Someone mentioned that Gore Vidal ran into trouble in 1984 when he wrote a book about Lincoln that was not adulation. That was 1984, before the internet. A lot more people know about the real Lincoln than they did back then, or at least they are aware there is some controversy about Lincoln (a lot of ground has been profitably plowed by a lot of truth-speakers since then). I wrote a post on a large gun forum on this same subject and was shocked to find not one person supported the supposed "conventional wisdom" about Lincoln!!!
Don't forget the recent movie, "Amazing Grace", how the Brits got rid of slavery in their Empire. Lots of folks have seen it, showing how to do it without a war.
I like taking the Taoist view as one poster proposed.
To me it boils down to this. Southerners care about the Civil War (where in the conventional wisdom they were the bad guys). This stance will be a huge plus among Southerners (watch Huckabee's support slip). On the other hand, non-Southerners don't give a rip about the Civil War. It is old hat. If Ron Paul has the wrong opinion on it, so what? Even if he is wrong (in their eyes), he is wrong in a way they like: not going to war when other options are available. How can this be a negative when 70% of Americans want out of the Iraq war? This just cemented his anti-war credentials.
The only ones he lost, he never had in the first place. People who already think he's nuts, neocons, trotskyites, etc.
I love this stuff. The MSM are digging their own graves! "Don't worry, be happy!" :-)