PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Interview On Hardball With Chris Matthews 04.19.2011




Immortal Technique
04-19-2011, 04:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQZVD4PFWY


Airing Date April 19 2011

Ron Paul kicks butt on Hardball

sailingaway
04-19-2011, 04:11 PM
the birther crap was unfair. Ron made it clear it wasn't his issue, he shouldn't have to exonerate nor condemn anyone.

ForLibertyFight
04-19-2011, 04:11 PM
thank you :)

KramerDSP
04-19-2011, 04:17 PM
One of the best RP interviews ever, until the very end. But RP said "that's for the talk show hosts and Donald Trump to hash out" and that pissed Matthews off. LOL.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 04:23 PM
Ron Paul is being coached. He didn't use the word empire.

I heard Ron speak so many times that I can sometimes know in advance what he is going to say. But when I expected to hear "empire", I heard "foreign policy".

Hopefully it was not an accident.

KramerDSP
04-19-2011, 04:24 PM
* Wants to end the wars
* Prefers to cut overseas foreign policy over domestic programs that he philosophically does not agree with
* Clearly explained the blowback principle of "humanitarian" wars
* Warned that we are in a dollar crisis and that the consequences are far more severe if we don't take care of our own problems.
* Stated he is not a birther and doesn't care about the issue.

I'd say it was a home run in terms of bringing disaffected Obama voters over to the Revolution.

Corto_Maltese
04-19-2011, 04:24 PM
AWESOME interview. Really energetic.

ItsTime
04-19-2011, 04:33 PM
He was talking about what he would do as president and doing it very well! He even stopped himself from his usual ramblings. Who ever is coaching him is doing great.

How is this man not our president?

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-19-2011, 04:35 PM
Chris Matthews couldn't wait to ask him the birth question.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 04:36 PM
He was talking about what he would do as president and doing it very well! He even stopped himself from his usual ramblings. Who ever is coaching him is doing great.

Could that be... his current tenant in Washington?

ItsTime
04-19-2011, 04:37 PM
Could that be... his current tenant in Washington?

Very well could be. Rand would be the most honest with him!

rawful
04-19-2011, 04:39 PM
One thing he needs to do is start using "the government" instead of "we".

yoshimaroka
04-19-2011, 04:41 PM
One thing he needs to do is start using "the government" instead of "we".

Yep! That's for sure.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-19-2011, 04:41 PM
I can't believe they credited him with the Tea Party movement. Shocked.

Sentinelrv
04-19-2011, 04:44 PM
If he is being coached then it will definitely help him out. I've met a bunch of people that agreed with him about how things should be, but felt that he wasn't presenting practical solutions in how to transition us from the mess we're in now to a better scenario. So it's good when Ron stresses that he doesn't want to throw people out on the streets, that there are better ways of transitioning out of our current economic situation. This is the reason why many people are scared of him or call him crazy. They think he would just end the federal reserve, the IRS, SS foodstamps, etc... overnight, when that's not the case at all.

trey4sports
04-19-2011, 04:51 PM
Ron Paul is being coached. He didn't use the word empire.

I heard Ron speak so many times that I can sometimes know in advance what he is going to say. But when I expected to hear "empire", I heard "foreign policy".

Hopefully it was not an accident.


yo i thought the exact same thing. I was watching the interview and i was about to cringe because I know that Ron uses "empire" in that context and then i heard him say foreign policy and I could tell he had some coaching. Hell, the whole interview sounded like he had replaced negative words with more neutral words.

anaconda
04-19-2011, 04:54 PM
Ron missed the opportunity again to emphasize that our military could be much stronger by being at home rather than spread around the globe and wasting munitions. By default he yielded to Matthew's assertion that we "wouldn't be number one militarily." Somebody in Ron's office needs to throw together some numbers regarding the amount we could cut militarily and still be "number one." I seem to remember Truth Warrior posting a pie chart showing that the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Can anyone confirm off the top of their head?

ds21089
04-19-2011, 04:55 PM
I can't believe they credited him with the Tea Party movement. Shocked.

Only because the tea party is losing popularity.

Chieppa1
04-19-2011, 04:56 PM
Every Ron Paul interview, if you took the names away and sent it a 3rd world country, they would prob think "President of the United States". He just talks so much truth he HAS to be an important person.

sailingaway
04-19-2011, 04:57 PM
Only because the tea party is losing popularity.

The left credits him with the tea party, then says astroturf stole it. They know it pisses off the teocons.

trey4sports
04-19-2011, 04:58 PM
Ron missed the opportunity again to emphasize that our military could be much stronger by being at home rather than spread around the globe and wasting munitions. By default he yielded to Matthew's assertion that we "wouldn't be number one militarily." Somebody in Ron's office needs to throw together some numbers regarding the amount we could cut militarily and still be "number one." I seem to remember Truth Warrior posting a pie chart showing that the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Can anyone confirm off the top of their head?


thats correct,

the US spends roughly 80% + of the worlds military expenses. If i remember correctly it used to be 90% but china has beefed up a bit

FreedomProsperityPeace
04-19-2011, 05:03 PM
Good interview, very polished. It would have been nice if Matthews didn't frame the birther question one way (is it legitimate?), then accuse Dr. Paul of dodging when he answered it that way.

dannno
04-19-2011, 05:04 PM
I'd say it was a home run in terms of bringing disaffected Obama voters over to the Revolution.

Good thing he didn't bring up abortion.

Chieppa1
04-19-2011, 05:10 PM
I love the liberal collective mindset. "YOUR NOT A BIRTHER." Its so lazy. I just laugh at it. So clueless and useless. They're the reason Skynet is self-aware. :)

Paulfan05
04-19-2011, 05:12 PM
Good interview, I wish Ron coudl get rid of those bags under his eyes though!

thedude
04-19-2011, 05:21 PM
Good interview, I wish Ron coudl get rid of those bags under his eyes though!

oh please :p

Chris Matthews looked a lot worse. I couldn't tell if he was stoned or insanely tired.

FreedomProsperityPeace
04-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Good interview, I wish Ron coudl get rid of those bags under his eyes though!Money Bomb for some Preparation H? LOL! :p

QueenB4Liberty
04-19-2011, 05:28 PM
Good interview, very polished. It would have been nice if Matthews didn't frame the birther question one way (is it legitimate?), then accuse Dr. Paul of dodging when he answered it that way.

Yeah he sounds like he's running for the White House. :D

And yeah Chris Matthews pissed me off with that birther crap.

Brett85
04-19-2011, 05:31 PM
* Prefers to cut overseas foreign policy over domestic programs that he philosophically does not agree with.

I would think that he would cut both as President. I don't like it when Ron tries to use liberal rhetoric.

Chieppa1
04-19-2011, 05:33 PM
The Twitter response is mixed. However the negative tweets are unintelligent and dishonest (as usual).

sailingaway
04-19-2011, 05:33 PM
I would think that he would cut both as President. I don't like it when Ron tries to use liberal rhetoric.

He never said he wouldn't cut both. He said he opposed both but wouldn't START with cutting for the needy first.

Immortal Technique
04-19-2011, 05:35 PM
Ron Paul's reaction to being asked if he was a birther

http://i56.tinypic.com/hrbptc.png

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 05:35 PM
I think it's cool that Ron Paul will take office in 2013, one hundred years after Woodrow Wilson took office.

Theocrat
04-19-2011, 05:39 PM
That was a good interview, as is usual with Congressman Paul. The "hardball" question was definitely the birth certificate question at the end. Chris Matthews just ignored Dr. Paul's response, though. He'll probably ask Congressman Paul that question again at the next MSNBC debate.

Bruno
04-19-2011, 05:40 PM
Ron Paul's reaction to being asked if he was a birther

http://i56.tinypic.com/hrbptc.png

+ rep

Carehn
04-19-2011, 06:21 PM
Ron Paul is being coached. He didn't use the word empire.

I heard Ron speak so many times that I can sometimes know in advance what he is going to say. But when I expected to hear "empire", I heard "foreign policy".

Hopefully it was not an accident.
I was thinking the same thing. I don't know why it should be a surprise. We know he is running. It would be odd if he wasn't being coached.

specsaregood
04-19-2011, 06:39 PM
Ron Paul is being coached. He didn't use the word empire.

Who ever is coaching him is doing great.

If he is being coached then it will definitely help him out.

I could tell he had some coaching

It would be odd if he wasn't being coached.

All you silly people thinking he needs "coaching". The man has been playing this game longer than many of us have been alive. He knows what he needs to say. When it is game time, he doesn't need others to tell him. Up until now he needed to be blunt in order to raise passion of the foot soldiers. What you are seeing now it seems is "game on" for the role of candidate for President Dr. Paul.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 06:45 PM
All you silly people thinking he needs "coaching". The man has been playing this game longer than many of us have been alive. He knows what he needs to say. When it is game time, he doesn't need others to tell him. Up until now he needed to be blunt in order to raise passion of the foot soldiers. What you are seeing now it seems is "game on" for the role of candidate for President Dr. Paul.

I think he is open to suggestions and takes them. He can't know all the words people don't like.

specsaregood
04-19-2011, 06:48 PM
I think he is open to suggestions and takes them. He can't know all the words people don't like.

Well I wouldn't characterize that as "coaching"; which I usually take to mean being told what to say/instructed. But ok, I agree he is probably open to suggestions as to how to frame the message.

White Bear Lake
04-19-2011, 06:49 PM
I think he's had this planned all along. In 08 he needed to be bold and "out there" compared to the other candidates in order to draw attention and build a base. If he tried to just play it safe and blend in, there's no way we'd all be posting here today. Now he has the base, the name recognition, and the media attention and therefore he can afford to skillfully talk his way through interviews and debates. This time around he can afford to not drop bombs everytime he speaks. He just needs to continue to lay out the truth and the movement will only build from here. The purpose of his last run was to set up the framework needed for this run.

And if he still comes up short this time, the framework will be even better set up for Rand in '16.

Sola_Fide
04-19-2011, 06:55 PM
Great!

KramerDSP
04-19-2011, 07:02 PM
I think he's had this planned all along. In 08 he needed to be bold and "out there" compared to the other candidates in order to draw attention and build a base. If he tried to just play it safe and blend in, there's no way we'd all be posting here today. Now he has the base, the name recognition, and the media attention and therefore he can afford to skillfully talk his way through interviews and debates. This time around he can afford to not drop bombs everytime he speaks. He just needs to continue to lay out the truth and the movement will only build from here. The purpose of his last run was to set up the framework needed for this run.

And if he still comes up short this time, the framework will be even better set up for Rand in '16.

+rep and welcome to the forums!

roho76
04-19-2011, 07:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQZVD4PFWY


Airing Date April 19 2011

Ron Paul kicks butt on Hardball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQZVD4PFWY

Matt Collins
04-19-2011, 07:38 PM
I think he is open to suggestions and takes them.
He hasn't been until very recently. I think Rand's victory made an impression on him regarding a well run campaign. I think he might change some things. At Rand's primary victory party I overheard him saying that he was shocked at the margin that Rand had.

In fact we have experienced professionals on board now and Ron is taking a bit different approach than 2008. I'm telling ya, things will be a lot different this time around.

Feeding the Abscess
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
He hasn't been until very recently. I think Rand's victory made an impression on him regarding a well run campaign. I think he might change some things. At Rand's primary victory party I overheard him saying that he was shocked at the margin that Rand had.

In fact we have experienced professionals on board now and Ron is taking a bit different approach than 2008. I'm telling ya, things will be a lot different this time around.

Changing out "empire" for "foreign policy" isn't a lot different. If he makes those types of changes he'll be fine. Anything further...

"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

Johnnymac
04-19-2011, 07:54 PM
good for Ron sticking to his guns giving some of that hard ball back to Matthews

Romulus
04-19-2011, 07:59 PM
He hasn't been until very recently. I think Rand's victory made an impression on him regarding a well run campaign. I think he might change some things. At Rand's primary victory party I overheard him saying that he was shocked at the margin that Rand had.

In fact we have experienced professionals on board now and Ron is taking a bit different approach than 2008. I'm telling ya, things will be a lot different this time around.

He's wise to do it. Rand is a master at messaging. Ron is a master at philosophy, but needs to sharpen the message tailored to his audience. He needs to continue to critique "the govt" instead of saying "we".

acptulsa
04-19-2011, 08:01 PM
I seem to remember Truth Warrior posting a pie chart showing that the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Can anyone confirm off the top of their head?

I remember the chart. It showed us spending 48%--only very nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.


He needs to continue to critique "the govt" instead of saying "we".

After all of those 434-1 votes over the years, I'd say he has the right to make that distinction. And needs to.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 08:04 PM
"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

What a pointless and idiotic post. Not unexpected from the guy who doesn't miss any chance to bash Rand.

Feeding the Abscess
04-19-2011, 08:12 PM
What a pointless and idiotic post. Not unexpected from the guy who doesn't miss any chance to bash Rand.


I agree. Rand > Lee. I'm still not pleased with his Republican-lite talking points, but he's been about as good as one can hope so far.

And that's me quoting me.

My point continues to be that Ron's messaging and debate style is what sparked this movement. To drastically change that would possibly help us in the short term, but at the cost of losing in the long run.

sailingaway
04-19-2011, 08:19 PM
Changing out "empire" for "foreign policy" isn't a lot different. If he makes those types of changes he'll be fine. Anything further...

"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

Yeah, my Dad saw Rand in that debate for the first time and never wants to see him again. I'd finally gotten him fully behind Ron (he knew about Ron before I did, but not details), but he was utterly convinced by that debate that Rand just postures. I'm introducing him to things Rand does, and over time he should change his mind, because he DOES believe in substance more than packaging, but he was absolutely disgusted. That sort of thing may charm more of the masses than it turns off, but it can seriously turn off some people, too. Rand may have kind of needed to do it in that circumstance because Conway was just not dropping the issue and playing it way over the top, but to someone who hadn't known anything about Rand before then, I can see where it was jarring. I thought that was Rand's worst debate, myself. I was astonished at the hotair type glee over it.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 08:19 PM
My point continues to be that Ron's messaging and debate style is what sparked this movement. To drastically change that would possibly help us in the short term, but at the cost of losing in the long run.

Still, this is a pointless and idiotic post:


"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

They're not even comparable considering quotes the circumstances. What Rand said was probably the best response one could make in that situation. Yet, you want to criticize him even where there isn't a valid reason. It's obvious you either envy him or have some irrational hatred against him. We got it. We know. There is no need to bring it up in threads that are not even about Rand.

sailingaway
04-19-2011, 08:22 PM
I'm assuming Feeding the Abscess didn't really follow Rand's campaign closely. Conway was literally portraying Rand as a kidnapper. It was ludicrous.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 08:27 PM
If "Feeding the Abscess" wanted to make a proper comparison, he would probably do it between these two quotes:

"That's ancient history!" ________ "Have you no shame?!"

There is no point in making the comparison, but at least it wouldn't be so dishonest as to bring two quotes that are incomparable for having completely different contexts.

Feeding the Abscess
04-19-2011, 08:28 PM
Still, this is a pointless and idiotic post:



They're not even comparable considering quotes the circumstances. What Rand said was probably the best response one could make in that situation. Yet, you want to criticize him even where there isn't a valid reason. It's obvious you either envy him or have some irrational hatred against him. We got it. We know. There is no need to bring it up in threads that are not even about Rand.

Rand has been brought up in this thread as possibly influencing Ron. By yourself, even.


Could that be... his current tenant in Washington?

And that's me quoting you.

I will also argue that they are comparable; Rand's campaign was a defensive campaign, one in which he was constantly walking back earlier statements, hiding his more libertarian views, and couching his ideas in mainstream Republican rhetoric. Had Ron not shaken things up in 07/08, there would be no movement to speak of now. This is a valid concern, and a legitimate debate to be had.

low preference guy
04-19-2011, 08:31 PM
This is a valid concern, and a legitimate debate to be had.

Why do you change the subject and pretend that's the issue? You're such a dishonest guy.

White Bear Lake
04-19-2011, 08:33 PM
I will also argue that they are comparable; Rand's campaign was a defensive campaign, one in which he was constantly walking back earlier statements, hiding his more libertarian views, and couching his ideas in mainstream Republican rhetoric. Had Ron shaken things up in 07/08, there would be no movement to speak of now. This is a valid concern, and a legitimate debate to be had.

That's what I said in another thread. Ron needed to drop some bombs in the debate and shake things up in order to start the movement. Now he already has a base, name recognition, and madia attention so he can afford to approach things more skillfully and craftily.

Feeding the Abscess
04-19-2011, 08:34 PM
Why do you change the subject and pretend that's the issue? You're such a dishonest guy.

The only thing I've talked about in this thread is my preference for Ron's messaging, and my first post on that subject was a response to The Collins:


He hasn't been until very recently. I think Rand's victory made an impression on him regarding a well run campaign. I think he might change some things. At Rand's primary victory party I overheard him saying that he was shocked at the margin that Rand had.

In fact we have experienced professionals on board now and Ron is taking a bit different approach than 2008. I'm telling ya, things will be a lot different this time around.

Romulus
04-19-2011, 08:38 PM
I remember the chart. It showed us spending 48%--only very nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.



After all of those 434-1 votes over the years, I'd say he has the right to make that distinction. And needs to.

Point taken but children don't like to assume responsibility. And ignoramuses need a clear and identifiable problem.

There's winning and telling folks the harsh truth. If you can somehow manage both, like Rand did, you've got the formula for success.

acptulsa
04-20-2011, 08:54 AM
The only thing I've talked about in this thread is my preference for Ron's messaging, and my first post on that subject was a response to The Collins:

Yammer, yammer, foam and froth.

I'm all for Ron conscientiously making sure independents and disgusted liberals understand his message and what's in it for them. All for it. But it don't mean a damned thing if he doesn't win the primary this time. And Rand has done just that. A tough primary in a statewide race where he was not the incumbent, not just a puppet squelching in a little House district where he's been sitting for decades.

Now, if you are against Ron doing what needs to be done to win the primary, that's trollish behavior. Not that we'd expect anything different from you. Just that we won't sit and have our intelligence insulted over it.

K466
04-20-2011, 09:13 AM
I never heard Ron comment on the birther issue. I think he handled it quite well. We don't want p*ss off either side, really. There's more important issues to work on at the moment.

Can't wait for the campaign to start.
BTW, White Bear Lake, excellent comments. Welcome to the Forums.

anaconda
04-20-2011, 04:11 PM
Yeah, my Dad saw Rand in that debate for the first time and never wants to see him again. I'd finally gotten him fully behind Ron (he knew about Ron before I did, but not details), but he was utterly convinced by that debate that Rand just postures. I'm introducing him to things Rand does, and over time he should change his mind, because he DOES believe in substance more than packaging, but he was absolutely disgusted. That sort of thing may charm more of the masses than it turns off, but it can seriously turn off some people, too. Rand may have kind of needed to do it in that circumstance because Conway was just not dropping the issue and playing it way over the top, but to someone who hadn't known anything about Rand before then, I can see where it was jarring. I thought that was Rand's worst debate, myself. I was astonished at the hotair type glee over it.

I'm really curious as to what was "disgusting" about Rand's debate with Conway? Are you saying Rand didn't respond to Conway appropriately? I don't understand.

sailingaway
04-20-2011, 04:48 PM
I'm really curious as to what was "disgusting" about Rand's debate with Conway? Are you saying Rand didn't respond to Conway appropriately? I don't understand.

I didn't like it myself, he seemed to be posturing, but I understood why, because he had to shut up Conway without making the issue even bigger.

Dad just saw posing and bluster and it doesn't go over well with everyone. He decided Rand is all show, essentially. He'll get over it, because I'm persistent and he is fair, but he was disgusted. He thinks people should discuss issues not create controversies and throw red meat to distract from issues. He basically pegged Rand like Trump.

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 04:49 PM
Yammer, yammer, foam and froth.

I'm all for Ron conscientiously making sure independents and disgusted liberals understand his message and what's in it for them. All for it. But it don't mean a damned thing if he doesn't win the primary this time. And Rand has done just that. A tough primary in a statewide race where he was not the incumbent, not just a puppet squelching in a little House district where he's been sitting for decades.

Now, if you are against Ron doing what needs to be done to win the primary, that's trollish behavior. Not that we'd expect anything different from you. Just that we won't sit and have our intelligence insulted over it.

I'm not against Ron saying "foreign policy" instead of "empire," or "cutting militaristic/military spending" rather than "defense spending" to look better in the primaries. I am, however, against running a campaign that uses Rand's rhetoric and hides his more libertarian positions. The movement as it stands was built on Ron's rhetoric, and ditching that for something less may win us the battle, but at the cost of cutting the movement off at the knees. Goldwater brought us Reagan, and Reagan brought us what we have now. I want rhetoric that brings us Goldwater.

By the way, it's kind of weird that preferring the message that Ron has been spreading for over 30 years is trolling. Especially on a forum that bears his name.

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 04:49 PM
I just want to state that I completely disagree that Rand was "creating a show". He was outraged just like he should've.

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 04:51 PM
I am, however, against running a campaign that uses Rand's rhetoric.

Has anyone said that Ron should use Rand's rhetoric? If not, could you start a new thread on that topic instead of hijacking his one?

sailingaway
04-20-2011, 04:52 PM
I just want to state that I completely disagree that Rand was "creating a show". He was outraged just like he should've.

It looked awfully studied to me. I winced. But I think you know I like Rand. And I don't know what I would have done in his place with someone pretending I had literally kidnapped someone in college, and also not wanting to spend more time on the issue.

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 04:58 PM
Has anyone said that Ron should use Rand's rhetoric? If not, could you start a new thread on that topic instead of hijacking his one?

Saying I'm fine with Ron replacing "empire" with "foreign policy" to help in the primary led to this:


Yammer, yammer, foam and froth.

I'm all for Ron conscientiously making sure independents and disgusted liberals understand his message and what's in it for them. All for it. But it don't mean a damned thing if he doesn't win the primary this time. And Rand has done just that. A tough primary in a statewide race where he was not the incumbent, not just a puppet squelching in a little House district where he's been sitting for decades.

Now, if you are against Ron doing what needs to be done to win the primary, that's trollish behavior. Not that we'd expect anything different from you. Just that we won't sit and have our intelligence insulted over it.

Perhaps you could help me out here? He's talking up Rand and talking down Ron. What else am I to take from that?

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Saying I'm fine with Ron replacing "empire" with "foreign policy" to help in the primary led to this:


No. That's not what led to that. You're lying again.

It's the following pointless and idiotic statement what led people to call you out.


"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 05:04 PM
Changing out "empire" for "foreign policy" isn't a lot different. If he makes those types of changes he'll be fine. Anything further...

"We just marched in, we can just march home" > "Have you no shame?!"

That's the full quote, which shows my support for Ron playing switcheroo with his words.

Ron's campaign was more ideas based, Rand's was more defensive. That's why I chose those quotes; they were representative of the campaigns they ran. I understand why Rand played a defensive campaign. I simply prefer Ron's approach.

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 05:06 PM
That's the full quote, which shows my support for Ron playing switcheroo with his words.

Ron's campaign was ideas based, Rand's was more defensive. That's why I chose those quotes; they were representative of the campaigns they ran. I understand why Rand played a defensive campaign. I simply prefer Ron's approach.

Again, that completely ignores the context. Saying have you no shame is the opposite of playing defense. Do you think that Ron was playing defense when he said "That's ancient history!"?

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 05:09 PM
Yes, I do think Ron was playing defense when he said that. It wasn't his brightest moment, either.

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 05:11 PM
Yes, I do think Ron was playing defense when he said that. It wasn't his brightest moment, either.

How does it make sense to pick up a quote from Rand when he responded to an attack and compare it to a quote of Ron's when he wasn't responding to an attack?

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 05:13 PM
The bulk of Rand's campaign was responding to attacks and walking back many of his libertarian views. The bulk of Ron's campaign was about pushing ideas forward. That's not a crazy observation to make.

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 05:16 PM
The bulk of Rand's campaign was responding to attacks and walking back many of his libertarian views. The bulk of Ron's campaign was about pushing ideas forward. That's not a crazy observation to make.

How does making a pointless and idiotic comparison help to make that point?

Feeding the Abscess
04-20-2011, 05:17 PM
By highlighting an idea versus a defensive statement, representing the tone of the two campaigns?

low preference guy
04-20-2011, 05:19 PM
By highlighting an idea versus a defensive statement, representing the tone of the two campaigns?

Just so you know, you don't achieve your objective. When you take a good quote of Ron and what you consider a bad quote of Rand (which wasn't bad by the way) which were made in completely different contexts it looks like cheery-picking statements out of context.

Also, Rand's quote wasn't defensive. It was part of an attack that destroyed Conway's chances on that race and hurt him for future races. Asking Conway "Have you no shame" can only be considered defensive if by defensive you mean offensive.