Here is an awesome clip of Ron Paul being quizzed by three attorney generals, during a Republicans' Presidential Forum hosted by Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul was once a pretty good baseball player and he handled these questions like I am sure he handled routine flyballs. Note well, the book he recommends at the end of the interview. What could be a more appropriate book to name in front of a bunch of attorney generals who regularly usurp the rights of individuals!
Ron Paul was terrific in that interview. Here are the names of those Attorney Generals. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-huckabee-gop-forum-2012-20111204,0,639024.story
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed. He accepts the incorporation doctrine, i.e. that the federal government should be in the business of enforcing the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteHe's great, of course, but he missed on the "amendments" question.
ReplyDeleteHe should have said let's remove the 16th and 17th amendments!
I thought he did a poor job of answering the question about the Patriot Act. As I said on YouTube, "When people bring up the Patriot Act, Ron Paul should always bring up the fact that it's not the case that 9-11 would have been prevented if we had the Patriot Act. We had all the information we needed without the Patriot Act, and it was human error that allowed some an unfortunate event to take place. Human error will occur with or without the Patriot Act. (Some would argue our government did 9-11 itself, but Paul isn't going to say anything like that)"
ReplyDeleteIt's a very important issue, and there's no reason for Paul to acquiesce and say "Sure you can give up your liberty and you might be safer" because there's really no true trade-off between liberty and security.
Where's the evidence that the Patriot Act prevented anything?...other than peaceful people being able live their lives unmolested, of course.
ReplyDeleteBastiat's - The Law, it what started me on the journey around 20 years ago!
ReplyDeleteHe stumbled on the amendments, of course. The 16th and 17th need to go...that probably just caught him off guard a little...I'm sure he kicked himself in the ass afterwards on that.
The amendment question was a setup and I think he saw it as he was starting to answer. Had he started enumerating amendments that were a mistake he would be open to the argument of how can he not be sure that other parts of the Constitution are not also a mistake as well. If this had been a group of left wingers it would have thrown the door wide open to the argument that the Constitution is a living document and thus its the will of the people at the time that is most relevant and that supersedes anything the founding fathers had intended. I think he answered it as best he could to not have this used against him by the left later on. This is a very strange question to come from right wingers though.
ReplyDeleteThink about this, what other Rep candidate would even be capable of answering these types of questions without stepping into a trap?
The patriot act is nothing short of criminal. period. P.S he wasn't saying the 4th amendment needed to go, he was saying the patriot act discredited it you dolts. Really, the 16th and 17th amendments need to go? Do you idiots even know what the 16th and 17th amendments are? Oh yeh...they're the ones that keep us from paying outrageous taxes, and lay the ground for how the senate works. Typical fucking idiots.
ReplyDelete@anon 7:26
ReplyDeleteI see why you are remaining anonymous, genius...
"The amendment question was a setup and I think he saw it as he was starting to answer. Had he started enumerating amendments that were a mistake he would be open to the argument of how can he not be sure that other parts of the Constitution are not also a mistake as well."
ReplyDeleteYes - excellent point! When I first watched the vid, I thought he stumbled there, but turns out he was way ahead of me.
Needs a hearing aid!(s). Love him but his military stance is a generation ahead of itself. Most people do not realize that most of his military scale down ideas would not be implemented as they would have to pass through the senate and house. He has stated several times he would not use an executive order. Romney will be the guy. Buy silver and gold.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the hearing issue was an attempt to embarrass Dr. Paul. I don't believe Fox is a friend of the Congressman. This was an attempt to give the impression he would be too old to serve as Commander in Chief.
ReplyDeleteI cringed a bit with the Patriot Act question and answer. The PA is just like all the new gun control laws that get passed every time some freaking crime happens - for starters, largely because we aren't enforcing the laws we already have on the books.
ReplyDeleteMiss blonde interrogator interrupts and references the 9/11 towers right around the corner as the real trump card in the debate, but there is no mention that, one, we let these guys into the country in the first place on questionable visas. Two, the FBI on the ground knew they were putzing around in flight schools etc. etc. but after it is all over, Tenet at the CIA gets a medal and neither he or Muether at the FBI are fired.
Dunno. Guess they are patriots.
Just like the Faux interviewers.
Paul's closing comment was pretty good though.