Ron Paul Interview on Blitzer + Should People Listen to Ron Paul? (videos)

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

OCTOBER 04, 2007 CNN WOLF BLITZER

OCTOBER 04, 2007 CNN JACK CAFFERTY

see

Joe Scarborough Explains Why Ron Paul Is So Popular (video)

15 thoughts on “Ron Paul Interview on Blitzer + Should People Listen to Ron Paul? (videos)

  1. Mr. Austin, you evidently have a different definition of “civil liberties” than most of us have. There is no personal freedom if the federal government controls us form womb to tomb.

    Re abortion. Ron Paul has his beliefs along with everyone else. He simply says, the fed should not be imposing its will on the people, that should be left up to the states. I agree with that. Each community is different and that’s where the morals can be decided.

    Also, you seem to be hung up on Nazis and Germans. Perhaps you would be better off moving to Germany, I’m sure you will be allowed to participate in the anal sex that you speak a lot about too.

    And, your comment “I know Social Security isn’t bankrupt”, prove it.

    Oh, one more thing. Enjoy your ranting and buffoonery as long as you can because next November you are not going to be happy. Because true freedom and liberty loving Americans are going to elect Ron Paul president. You cannot stop it.

    I’ll look for the SS proof. Millions of young Americans are counting on you to be right. Myself, I have no doubt.

  2. once again, it is not a matter of “controlling a woman’s womb,” it is a matter of defining where life begins, so that we don’t get into eugenics-type situations in the future, especially with the rise of genetic engineering. read any bioethics text. the definition of “life” is not as simple as a sweeping supreme court ruling.

    and please show me where the u.s. constitution talks about sodomy? quite frankly, i’m at a loss.

    the founders tried to devise, as best they could, a system that would balance the extremes of a pure democracy and a constitutional republic. this is why they delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal government (there are certain fundamental things the majority will, exercised on behalf of the states, cannot do) and gave the rest to the individual states.

    just as it is up to us to elect libertarian representatives to the federal government to stem the tide of federal power, so it is up to us to elect libertarian representatives to our state governments as well, to stem the tide of the “moral majority” and mob rule there. ron paul as the chief executor will make sure there is no abuse of federal power with his veto and as commander in chief he will make sure that there is no abuse of military power as well. but this is only the first step. anything more would mean he is overreaching his *own* responsibilities. i am fairly certain, for example, that you would never see him issuing “executive orders” like FDR-style presidents who also fancy themselves above congress and its legislative duties.

    how is it that almost every other civilized country in the world (i.e. britain) got rid of slavery without a civil war…everyone knows that the civil war was not so much about ending slavery as creating a stronger national government, just look at the black codes and the economic conditions of blacks directly *after* the civil war. even the amendments were intentionally vague, so as to create loopholes that would allow indentured servitude that was pretty much on par with the old form of slavery. was it really worth almost a million american lives? not only that, but by trying to change the human heart through force and forcibly desegregating people you have the inevitable backlash in the rise of violent reactionaries like the ku klux klan which murdered thousands more. it was only after the civil rights movement that we started to see a *real* authentic change in people’s perceptions, and this was done through peaceful means, remember.

    the democratic process may be slow, long and deliberate, but i think persuasion is always better than coercion and always produces better results. fortunately we live in a system that is amenable to such change, and it is our duty to exercise our conscience in the most responsible, peaceful and effective manner possible.

    -b-

  3. “i don’t agree with the texas sodomy laws. then again, i don’t agree with texans on many things. that’s why i don’t live there.”

    Yet US citizens do in fact live in Texas, and the same Constitution applies to them, too. Texas isn’t Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. It’s an administrative unit within OUR country. The state of Texas as no authority to treat OUR citizens like crap. The only way Texas could have a right to do trample OUR citizens’ rights is if they succeed from the Union (and then we might invade and occupy them in order to save US citizens). Until they do, they are obliged to obey the laws of our nation.

    We have identified the fundamental flaw in Paul supporters’ reasoning. Either they don’t understand what civil liberties are or they believe that the Constitution allows the various states to oppress US citizens. This has never been true or desirable (or else the Articles of Confederation would still be in force and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution’s additional amendments would never have been proposed and ratified). In any case, we fought a civil war to settle the issue. It was the racist slave owners in the south who pushed states’ rights. They lost. After the civil war, it was the racist segregationists who pushed states’ rights. They lost.

    The consistent pattern in all this is that authoritarians believe that the individual states should be able to discriminate against citizens of the United States of America. The civil libertarian understands that the Constitution protects the individual from state discrimination.

    Paul opposes the fundamental civil libertarian position and we now know why: he’s an extreme Christian conservative who opposes fundamental individual liberty, right down to aggressively advocating for state control over the womb. The man is an authoritarian of the first order.

    Women, please explain to your husbands and boyfriends that Ron Paul wants to control your womb.

  4. and you can say that social security isn’t bankrupt all you want…let’s see if *you* will be able to live off of it when the time comes without relying on the private sector to supplement your income…that is to say, since the military has already spent most, if not all, of the social security loot, and replaced it with more IOU bonds which will probably *not* be able to be paid back by the shrinking younger population (let’s face it: we’re not “baby boomers”) and work force (which means we will probably have to print more worthless dollars and inflate the economy so *more* of us will become dependent on the government because we no longer have any purchasing power of our own).

    and yes, i have read that essay. what it comes down to is this: would you rather have a federal judiciary that is really not accountable to anyone acting as our “platonic guardians” and telling the democratic governments of the various states what they can or cannot do with regard to “privacy” issues, or would you rather fight it out in the local municipalities themselves? i guess it depends on whether you have any faith whatsoever in the democratic process. just look where the federal route has taken us: a bureaucracy that has its own agenda with a black budget and a runaway military and departments that micromanage every aspect of our lives and which clearly doesn’t care whether 18% of its constituents feel represented or not. what if the FCC, for example, feels that certain language and images on TV infringes upon your “privacy” rights…do we “appoint” the FCC commissioners?

    as ron paul said in the article, “privacy” is not really defined in the constitution, but states rights are clearly articulated in the 9th and 10th amendments. there was a clear reason for this. it was to give the *people* jurisdiction over these matters, not federal courts; it is up to the people to define where life begins, where “privacy” begins, not the “one-size-fits-all” definition of federal judges. besides, those judges were there to make sure *congress* did not step out of line. “*congress* shall write no law”

    less face it: it is much easier to effect social change in our home states. i can drive to my state capitol and sit in on most of the hearings and make my presence as well as my voice heard (and i do). but how many of us can even go *near* washington, and how many of our voices can be heard among the lobbyists and special interest groups?

    it’s simple: if you don’t like what they are doing in texas, you move to california. but if they screw it up on the federal level…how many of us can get up and leave the United States altogether?

    i don’t agree with the texas sodomy laws. then again, i don’t agree with texans on many things. that’s why i don’t live there.

    in the end, i trust the deliberations of the various states and the millions of varied constituents over the elite whims and caprices of a small group of FCC commissioners and federal judges, whom we have no power to appoint or dismiss one way or another.

    -b-

  5. Where does Andrew Austin get that nonsense? First of all, I’m a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I’m dubious of his religiousity. Nevertheless, as a man who supports personal freedom and government NOT interfering in the lives of its citizens, how do you get off on spreading this nonsense:

    – supports the criminalization of private sexual conduct
    – opposes the right of consenting adults to marry
    – opposes a woman’s right to control her reproductive capacity
    – refuses to believe that this country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state

    ?

    Prove it, don’t just say it.

  6. wow, i’ve just been enlightened as to why i think Ron Paul rocks…it’s because i’m a homeschool mom of three (you know, a BREEDER) and i believe in states rights. hell, i even live in the south.

    thanks guys!

  7. If Ron Paul were President everybody would be home schooling their children, and we would become a nation of rednecks with all our teenage girls barefoot and pregnant because we’re so prolife! And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Ron Paul is wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  8. It is because I study public policy for a living that I know Social Security isn’t bankrupt. To be frank about it, a person who says that Social Security is bankrupt immediately notifies people who actually know what’s going on that he or she doesn’t know what’s going on. It’s a litmus test (like people who think Ayn Rand is a real philosopher).

    People who want to do away with Social Security have repeated the lie over and over again – “Social Security is bankrupt” ad nauseam. As Hitler and Goebbels understood, if you keep repeating something, eventually many people will believe it. The Heritage Foundation understood this, too, and so they started the lie and have been repeating it for years.

    On to the other stuff. You guys should make yourselves aware of Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) and then learn what Paul’s position on the case is. He’s no civil libertarian, that is for sure.

    In fact, you can read Paul’s speeches for yourself on my other blog, http://www.myspace.com/socius_aa. I am posting more every minute. Discover with others that Ron Paul is an old fashioned state’s rights conservative, just like our old friends the racial segregationists. He actually thinks its okay for Texas police to break down people’s doors and arrest them for having anal sex.

    What Paul doesn’t seem to recognize – because he isn’t a civil libertarian – is that the Bill of Rights protects US citizens from discrimination by the state. Conservative zealots in Texas don’t have the right to tell a US citizen that he can’t have sex with another man. And if you think Texas does have that right, then, well, you aren’t on the side of individual freedom.

    The truth is that Ron Paul supports state discrimination against homosexuals. Do you really want somebody who discriminates against people based on sexual orientation in the White House? I don’t.

  9. as a sociologist, you should know that social security is bankrupt and that with every generation more and more people will have to rely on the private sector to sustain their golden years. besides, payroll taxes are just another way for the government to steal your income so it can spend it on war. even in principle, i should not have to pay for the retirement of the previous generation who could not (or would not) save up for themselves when i can barely pay my own bills.

    and, as with your previous post on joe scarborough, you refuse to back up your claims with sources.

    and it’s not a matter of a woman “controlling her reproductive capacity.” it is a matter of whether or not the fetus is a legal entity, a viable life, that deserves the protection of a government (and a profession) sworn to protect life and liberty.

    nice try. we aren’t buying it.

    -b-

  10. uh oh. seems like your getting scared the person with the most integrity is getting too much publicity. careful America, this man will get this country back on track.

    A modern founding father!!

  11. Interesting. He’s wants to wreck Social Security by letting people take money out of the system. That’s a great way to show the elderly how much we appreciate their contributions to our society. Do people really want to live in a Third World country? Maybe. But I would like to know they actually understand the issues before drawing that conclusion.

    I have to say this again because I don’t want people making a huge mistake by supporting this man: Ron Paul is NOT a civil libertarian. He’s lying when he says this or he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He seems smart enough, so I am going to assume the former.

    Ron Paul
    – supports the criminalization of private sexual conduct
    – opposes the right of consenting adults to marry
    – opposes a woman’s right to control her reproductive capacity
    – refuses to believe that this country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state

    Anybody who holds these positions cannot be a civil libertarian. Believing that a person who believes these things is a libertarian is like believing that a cat is a dog.

    To draw the contrast, I am a civil libertarian. I sit on the board of the ACLU. I support a woman’s right to control her body. I believe in the principle of church-state separation. I believe in the right of consenting adults to marry. I believe in the right to privacy. Paul and I are on opposite ends of these issues.

    The truth is that Ron Paul is an ultra-rightwing conservative Republican.

    The only thing unique about his campaign for president is the number of people who have been deceived by it. As a sociologist, I find this fascinating. It helps me understand why so many ordinary working class people could support the nazis in Germany and the fascists in Italy. But as a citizen of the United States, for precisely that reason, I find the whole thing quite frightening.

  12. As much as I love hearing Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich talk, I hate watching these interviews, The same condescending comments, the same loaded questions. Its like watching the same thing over and over again. The candidates are all three class acts its the “journalists” that I can hardly tolerate.

Comments are closed.