Ron Paul on CNN soon (The Arena)

[KramerDSP]

Twitter Feeds are saying Ron Paul will be on The Arena on CNN around 8:15 (a few moments from now), and then again with Anderson Cooper.

[KramerDSP]

NEXT after the Commerical. Looking annoyed and pissed at the preceding conversation.

[KramerDSP]

10 minutes between Spitzer and RP. It was a pretty good interview. Ron called out the administration for going into Libya, and said there were humanitarian crises in a lot of places. He said the reasons for this action are not sincere. Spitzer asked him if there ever were a time to get involved in a war in our history, and Ron basically said "Not militarily. Voluntarily" but got off track because he had to clear up Spitzer's terminology of using "isolationist" as opposed to "non-interventionist".

[axiomata]

did i miss it?

[specsaregood]

did i miss it?

Unless KramerDSP has developed some really great ESP, then I'd say you must have.

[KramerDSP]

Unless KramerDSP has developed some really great ESP, then I'd say you must have.

LMAO. Twitter feeds are negative thus far. Expect news stories on this tomorrow.


RaeWild Rae Miles
Ron Paul answers there is no genocide/humanitarian crisis that could ever be bad enough that he'd agree to use the US military.



coffeedude25 Coffee Dude
I wish Elliot Spitzer would ask Ron Paul if he would have objected to US military intervention to stop the Holocaust. What an ass (Paul).



mkpfilos89 Mary Kay Filos
Holy Shit! Did Ron Paul basically just say - even with hindsight - we did right thing by NOT helping to prevent genocide in Rowanda?!?



rickpallen Rick Allen
Amazing how ron paul couldn't name a single situation in which he wld support a pres 4 removing a dictator type 4 humanitarian reasons #dems


Amazing! Obama just put us into a third War, and these idiots are bashing the one man who would actually end the wars. Sickening.

[PermanentSleep]

LMAO. Twitter feeds are negative thus far. Expect news stories on this tomorrow.









Amazing! Obama just put us into a third War, and these idiots are bashing the one man who would actually end the wars. Sickening.

Unfortunately, I'm not even slightly surprised. :(

[freshjiva]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

I think Rand's approach in explaining nonintervention is much better, with something to the degree of, "If we are to send our men and women in uniform into harms way, we need to think of it like we're sending our own children out to battle. There needs to be a grand debate in Congress, fully visible to the public, and it must be declared. That way, military intervention would only be waged with the full backing of the Electorate."

I think the majority of Americans could live with nonintervention if presented in this much more reasonable way.

[KramerDSP]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

I think Rand's approach in explaining nonintervention is much better, with something to the degree of, "If we are to send our men and women in uniform into harms way, we need to think of it like we're sending our own children out to battle. There needs to be a grand debate in Congress, fully visible to the public, and it must be declared. That way, military intervention would only be waged with the full backing of the Electorate."

I think the majority of Americans could live with nonintervention if presented in this much more reasonable way.

Any chance Ron and Rand are ALREADY playing bad cop/good cop?

[AZKing]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

People wouldn't be so fast to want to go "humanitarian war" (a bit of an oxymoron) if we had a draft and/or a war tax. They don't care because they aren't the ones on the front lines and they essentially don't pay for it.

[freshjiva]

People wouldn't be so fast to want to go "humanitarian war" (a bit of an oxymoron) if we had a draft and/or a war tax. They don't care because they aren't the ones on the front lines.

Well, I think the point I'm trying to make is that if Ron is first and foremost a devotee of the Constitution, then he should promote the Constitutional protocol of going to war over his personal preference. Not saying noninterventionism shouldn't be our foreign policy, but that the Constitution requires a declaration by Congress and that should be the most important thing to remember when assessing the question of whether or not to go to war.

[Gage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

[AlexMerced]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

I think Rand's approach in explaining nonintervention is much better, with something to the degree of, "If we are to send our men and women in uniform into harms way, we need to think of it like we're sending our own children out to battle. There needs to be a grand debate in Congress, fully visible to the public, and it must be declared. That way, military intervention would only be waged with the full backing of the Electorate."

I think the majority of Americans could live with nonintervention if presented in this much more reasonable way.

I agree with Ron Paul, while lives may be saved we have no idea what lives may be lost tomorrow due to our involvement. We can provide asylum for those persecuted around the world and a sound economy for people to escape from the craziness around the world. Although, everytime we stretch ourselves thinner we put at stake the safe haven we created in country with freedom and prosperity it once had.

Although the US could allow for volunteer groups and militias get involved cause it's their choice and their money, but government involvement get to complicated.

[maqsur]

I thought he did fine during the interview, and we know his point: voluntary aid to other nations is fine, but not government aid (via military or otherwise). Do you all remember back in the 2008 campaign, Ron Paul did an MTV show where he was asked basically the same thing regarding foreign aid to other nations (including humanitarian causes).

[mczerone]

Time for a libertarian offensive in propaganda.

"Do you support ordering Obama's slaves to murder Gaddafi's slaves?"

"Would you support a UN resolution to allow air strikes against Obama if the Tea Party revolted?"

"Things in Libya are bad and getting worse, do you think blowing things and people up will help improve the situation?"

After the stupid ass inflation thread on Fark today, I'm about ready to Galt out of here.

[mczerone]

I thought he did fine during the interview, and we know his point: voluntary aid to other nations is fine, but not government aid (via military or otherwise). Do you all remember back in the 2008 campaign, Ron Paul did an MTV show where he was asked basically the same thing regarding foreign aid to other nations (including humanitarian causes).

The problem is that the wider population knows his point, too. They just think that "if the govt doesn't do X, X wont get done. Therefore stealing and murder are justified, to get X done."

[anaconda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XO5ZDb-Ps&feature=player_embedded

Dr. Paul seemed very Presidential in this interview!

[MRK]

Time for a libertarian offensive in propaganda.

"Do you support ordering Obama's slaves to murder Gaddafi's slaves?"

"Would you support a UN resolution to allow air strikes against Obama if the Tea Party revolted?"

"Things in Libya are bad and getting worse, do you think blowing things and people up will help improve the situation?"

After the stupid ass inflation thread on Fark today, I'm about ready to Galt out of here.

Priceless. New sig.

[anaconda]

Time for a libertarian offensive in propaganda.

"Do you support ordering Obama's slaves to murder Gaddafi's slaves?"

"Would you support a UN resolution to allow air strikes against Obama if the Tea Party revolted?"

"Things in Libya are bad and getting worse, do you think blowing things and people up will help improve the situation?"

After the stupid ass inflation thread on Fark today, I'm about ready to Galt out of here.

You are creative and make excellent comments. You should send these to Rand's office. He needs to ramp up his bumper sticker talking points to the next level. Fight fire with fire.

[anaconda]

Although the US could allow for volunteer groups and militias get involved

Then would the U.S., by definition, become a "haven for terrorists," according to these countries that voluntary militia's intervened in?

[low preference guy]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

Under President Paul, you're free to use your own money and body to try to stop any dictator. He won't stop you.

[TheeJoeGlass]

Well, I think the point I'm trying to make is that if Ron is first and foremost a devotee of the Constitution, then he should promote the Constitutional protocol of going to war over his personal preference. Not saying noninterventionism shouldn't be our foreign policy, but that the Constitution requires a declaration by Congress and that should be the most important thing to remember when assessing the question of whether or not to go to war.

Why are you playing there game. Stick to what is happening, not what silly straw man theory they try to create.

[BlackTerrel]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

I think Rand's approach in explaining nonintervention is much better, with something to the degree of, "If we are to send our men and women in uniform into harms way, we need to think of it like we're sending our own children out to battle. There needs to be a grand debate in Congress, fully visible to the public, and it must be declared. That way, military intervention would only be waged with the full backing of the Electorate."

I think the majority of Americans could live with nonintervention if presented in this much more reasonable way.

This. I agree 100%.

[low preference guy]

This. I agree 100%.

wow. didn't expect so many members to become interventionists so easily.

[Kotin]

wow. didn't expect so many members to become interventionists so easily.


Yeah what's the deal..??

[acptulsa]

wow. didn't expect so many members to become interventionists so easily.

Well, try to adjust. Fascism was an ugly cancer, and if we had allowed it a foothold across Europe, much of Asia and half the Atlantic and Pacific (and all of the Indian Ocean) it would have grown into something that could have eventually strangled us. Now, that was a hard lesson the big world taught us, and I do indeed believe deep in my heart that, as a nation, we generally overlearned it. We're just way, way too obsessed with 'nipping it in the bud'. But the notion is still there, and we get farther treating it with at least some respect.

There is a certain amount of sense in 'never say never'.

[low preference guy]

Well, try to adjust. Fascism was an ugly cancer, and if we had allowed it a foothold across Europe, much of Asia and half the Atlantic and Pacific (and all of the Indian Ocean) it would have grown into something that could have eventually strangled us. Now, that was a hard lesson the big world taught us, and I do indeed believe deep in my heart that, as a nation, we generally overlearned it. We're just way, way too obsessed with 'nipping it in the bud'. But the notion is still there, and we get farther treating it with at least some respect.

today, NOT ONE COUNTRY is a threat to the united states.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I was kind of disappointed in Ron's response to the question of whether he'd get involved in ANY humanitarian crisis.

I understand the merits of noninterventionism, but how can someone sit around and allow the extermination of an entire ethnic group like in Nazi Germany or under Stalin?

I think Rand's approach in explaining nonintervention is much better, with something to the degree of, "If we are to send our men and women in uniform into harms way, we need to think of it like we're sending our own children out to battle. There needs to be a grand debate in Congress, fully visible to the public, and it must be declared. That way, military intervention would only be waged with the full backing of the Electorate."

I think the majority of Americans could live with nonintervention if presented in this much more reasonable way.

As long as we covertly meddle in world affairs, there will always be a "good" reason to intervene. We need to stop ALL intervention, especially economic intervention, which is really an act of war. Having a public congressional debate about when to go to war won't do anything. Our government has to become almost completely transparent which would be a lot easier if it was smaller.

[acptulsa]

today, NOT ONE COUNTRY is a threat to the United States...

...except maybe the one who holds our mortgage. We're also way, way to military minded. The Japanese kicked our asses in a whole different way a couple of decades ago, and somebody was paying attention.

[low preference guy]

...except maybe the one who holds our mortgage.

sure, but we are talking about military interventions here.

[tangent4ronpaul]

mega late - but he was good!

[Orgoonian]

...except maybe the one who holds our mortgage. We're also way, way to military minded. The Japanese kicked our asses in a whole different way a couple of decades ago, and somebody was paying attention.

What are you referring to here?
Manufacturing?

[acptulsa]

sure, but we are talking about military interventions here.

Hey, don't mistake me for someone who disagrees. All I'm saying is, we can spend our energy spitting at the attitude, or we can realize that it's deeply rooted...


"Here we go again! America is running true to form, fixing some other country's business for 'em just as we always do. We mean well, but will wind up in wrong as usual." --Will Rogers 1931

...and we have to have respect for the people afflicted with the attitude in order to relieve them of it.


What are you referring to here?
Manufacturing?

That's an oversimplification, but it will do. Don't tell me, let me guess. You're too young to remember the Eighties, right? Milli Vanilli is a flavor of ice cream?

The more I talk to you kids the more grateful I become for my good old, ever-present hair and teeth.

[Orgoonian]

That's an oversimplification, but it will do. Don't tell me, let me guess. You're too young to remember the Eighties, right? Milli Vanilli is a flavor of ice cream?

The more I talk to you kids the more grateful I become for my good old, ever-present hair and teeth.
Actually i am 46,and i was wondering if there was something i missed.

[acptulsa]

Actually i am 46,and i was wondering if there was something i missed.

Ah, so you, too, saw more than one acquaintance trade a Cutlass in on a newfangled little Accord. Sorry. If I had known, I never would have dredged up memories of Milli Vanilli.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul did well. Funny how Spitzer has changed his attitude after that first interview he did with Dr. Paul.

"I'm a free trader" - Ron Paul. :)

[thasre]

If nothing else, Paul should highlight that regardless of whether or not he personally would support "humanitarian" intervention in times of crisis, the fact remains that the only legal recourse for such intervention is through A DECLARATION OF WAR BY CONGRESS. Not "authorization of military activity" or "deployment of forces" or whatever the Newspeak is that these statists are hiding behind. Congress would have to convene, discuss the situation, and vote on a declaration of war. If they did so, then the President would be legally justified in humanitarian intervention even if it were bad policy.

Paul should stick to the legal argument when the moral argument is one that people fail to appreciate. Regardless of whether people agree with him on the propriety of intervention, they ought at least be made to understand the constitutional protocol.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

wow. didn't expect so many members to become interventionists so easily.

Why use your own money or risk your own life to support humanitarian causes in other countries when you can force your neigbhor to send their kids and split the cost?

I should get on the hypocrite bandwagon and start advocating when the bus drives over the anarchy cliff it will be time to start picking off any statist who opens their mouth suggesting a new coercive monopoly government. In self defense and for the kiddies of course.

[acptulsa]

Paul should stick to the legal argument when the moral argument is one that people fail to appreciate. Regardless of whether people agree with him on the propriety of intervention, they ought at least be made to understand the constitutional protocol.

I wonder if the American people are ready to debate the president's use of the War Powers Act this way, right now, in the heat of the moment. If so, it would be the best sign of maturity in the electorate I have ever witnessed thus far.

[Orgoonian]

Ah, so you, too, saw more than one acquaintance trade a Cutlass in on a newfangled little Accord. Sorry. If I had known, I never would have dredged up memories of Milli Vanilli.

Haha no worries,although the Milli Vanilli reference brought a bit of indigestion.God the 80's music was terrible.

I admire your perspective very much,but i think it is imperative that we realize that it is the youth of America that will be our saving grace.
So many on this forum are green to life,but the perspective that they hold dear,is something to be celebrated.
I love Dr.Paul,but it is the youth of this country that gives me hope for my progeny.

[acptulsa]

So many on this forum are green to life,but the perspective that they hold dear,is something to be celebrated.
I love Dr.Paul,but it is the youth of this country that gives me hope for my progeny.

Quite a change, all in all, from the Me Generation, aren't they? And not a turn for the worse, either.

[devil21]

I propose a new amendment to the War Powers Act.

The sitting President must challenge, and follow through with, a pistol duel at dawn with the leader of the country he wishes to attack. I think 20 paces is acceptable.

Pass that and the wars STOP. Remember, leaders never fight other leaders. Their minions do. It's real easy to send someone else's kids to die.

eta: I thought the interview was fine.

[axiomata]

The sitting President must challenge, and follow through with, a pistol duel at dawn with the leader of the country he wishes to attack. I think 20 paces is acceptable.

I recall Saddam challenging Bush to a duel. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2297371.stm)

[roho76]

People like Hitler, Stalin, and every other dictator in history, can not come to power without a complacent people. The only way you solve the problems of people abroad is to show them how to not let your government run your country in the gutter and legislate you into a corner. I wish America was still that shining beacon of freedom in the world but sadly we are right there with everybody else. This is another case of "We can't solve your problems with the barrel of a gun." moment, which has always been his argument and is indeed how I feel as well.

[anaconda]

People like Hitler, Stalin, and every other dictator in history, can not come to power without a complacent people. The only way you solve the problems of people abroad is to show them how to not let your government run your country in the gutter and legislate you into a corner. I wish America was still that shining beacon of freedom in the world but sadly we are right there with everybody else. This is another case of "We can't solve your problems with the barrel of a gun." moment, which has always been his argument and is indeed how I feel as well.

I don't believe there was much complacency in either Russia or Germany in the 1920's. A lot of discontent and sundry groups brawling in the streets and beer halls for power.