PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul whooped ass on Hardball (video)




Gaddafi Duck
05-13-2011, 05:21 PM
If no one has seen the video, the YouTube is below. This pumped me up. Chris Matthews is a tough interviewer and I've rarely seen him check himself at the door like Ron made him in this interview.. He almost seemed intimidated that Ron Paul was firing back! Usually Matthews is the one throwing his weight around on "his program" trying to do rapid fire questions with constant stone-faced interruptions.

Hopefully this version of RP shows its face more often!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBbV7mURP0I

HarryBrowneLives
05-13-2011, 05:24 PM
Hell yea Ron! THAT's the way you do it!

JoshLowry
05-13-2011, 05:29 PM
Matthews knows what's up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XddokAhdRc0#t=2m15s

buck000
05-13-2011, 05:36 PM
Matthews: "The idea of total freedom doesn't seem to work."

Could it be that Libertarians are naive about people's true nature and non-Libs are highly accurate in their realism/cynicism about Man...? ;)

AuH20
05-13-2011, 05:37 PM
Matthews: "The idea of total freedom doesn't seem to work."

Could it be that Libertarians are naive about people's true nature and non-Libs are highly accurate in their realism/cynicism about Man...? ;)

Total freedom coupled with a sense of total responsibility will work.

jkr
05-13-2011, 05:38 PM
he is radiant with energy of the spirit!

he is articulate and assertive.
he refuses to be interrupted
hes on point, now he needs the grassroots to run and win seats-everywhere.

Agorism
05-13-2011, 05:41 PM
They are allowed to be methadone addicts already.

It's essentially just the same thing, but it keeps them at baseline in their addiction and clean needles already.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 05:46 PM
They are allowed to be methadone addicts already.

It's essentially just the same thing, but it keeps them at baseline in their addiction and clean needles already.

Have you ever encountered heroin addicts? I worked close to this Methadone clinic for a few months and it was the most depressing thing I've ever seen. A couple real young kids as well. They literally remind me of zombies.

Agorism
05-13-2011, 05:50 PM
Have you ever encountered heroin addicts? I worked close to this Methadone clinic for a few months and it was the most depressing thing I've ever seen. A couple real young kids as well. They literally remind me of zombies.

I may have lived with dealers in college. heh
Stuff makes you feel good.

Michigan11
05-13-2011, 05:51 PM
he is radiant with energy of the spirit!

he is articulate and assertive.
he refuses to be interrupted
hes on point, now he needs the grassroots to run and win seats-everywhere.

Absolutely Agree! !!!

Wow he is on fire I love it

Bruno
05-13-2011, 05:52 PM
Have you ever encountered heroin addicts? I worked close to this Methadone clinic for a few months and it was the most depressing thing I've ever seen. A couple real young kids as well. They literally remind me of zombies.

And the worst part of their addiction is what they have to do to pay for it and who they hang out with to do so, all because it is illegal.

PermanentSleep
05-13-2011, 06:03 PM
"Let me go..." LOL

NickOdell
05-13-2011, 06:03 PM
WOW! I wish he was like this in every debate he gets into!

sailingaway
05-13-2011, 06:11 PM
Woah! That will come back to us, but at least we're hitting it on principle!

angelatc
05-13-2011, 06:14 PM
Woah! That will come back to us, but at least we're hitting it on principle!

THe neocons are already sneering at his "admission" that he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.

ClayTrainor
05-13-2011, 06:15 PM
Woah! That will come back to us, but at least we're hitting it on principle!

Say anything in the MSM, and someone will try to hit you for it.

AlexMerced
05-13-2011, 06:22 PM
I like how their trying to make it sound that Ron Pauls type Priority is to give out heroine, segregate businesses, and let people drown in floods... the demogoguery is insane today.

amonasro
05-13-2011, 06:23 PM
Nice! He is on point.

And he looks good too. Nice shirt/tie color combination, collar spread & proper tie knot with dimple. Very Presidential! He makes Matthews look like a hobo.

emazur
05-13-2011, 06:27 PM
Chris Matthews was playing "hardball" but he actually let Ron play too, giving him time to answer (and like with Snffalupagus this morning, Ron was swinging back hard). Effin' Lawrence O'Donnell wouldn't let it down that way.

AuH20
05-13-2011, 06:35 PM
THe neocons are already sneering at his "admission" that he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.

Goldwater didn't vote for it either. But the neos secretly don't like Goldwater either, but they like to keep that to themselves.

rockandrollsouls
05-13-2011, 06:38 PM
He tends to ramble a little bit, but some of his responses were good.

He responded well to Matthews hot button question about Heroin tearing apart families.

The Civil Rights Act argument could have gone better...

It was okay.

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 06:41 PM
We're looking at Goldwater 1964 all over again. I bet the convention is brokered and Rand rises out of the ashes as the compromise candidate.

low preference guy
05-13-2011, 06:43 PM
We're looking at Goldwater 1964 all over again. I bet the convention is brokered and Rand rises out of the ashes as the compromise candidate.

I think this is what will happen: The Republican establishment will try to frame Ron Paul's candidacy as another Goldwater-like run. They believe Ron won't be elected and would like to push him as someone who spreads ideas. Then the unexpected happens and Ron Paul wins the presidency!

mport1
05-13-2011, 06:43 PM
Wow, one of his best performances EVER!

SovereignMN
05-13-2011, 06:45 PM
I love this man.

brandon
05-13-2011, 06:51 PM
Damn he was spitting fire. That was great! The old man has managed to convince me, once again, that he will win.

specsaregood
05-13-2011, 06:53 PM
Goldwater didn't vote for it either. But the neos secretly don't like Goldwater either, but they like to keep that to themselves.

Reagan was against it as well and said he would have voted against it.

sailingaway
05-13-2011, 06:53 PM
go to this youtube and down vote the 'he's a racist' comments. These people never watched the video. Give thumbs up to good comments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc&feature=youtu.be

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 06:54 PM
I think this is what will happen: The Republican establishment will try to frame Ron Paul's candidacy as another Goldwater-like run. They believe Ron won't be elected and would like to push him as someone who spreads ideas. Then the unexpected happens and Ron Paul wins the presidency!

As Ron famously said, "anytime you write your name on that ballot, there is a risk you could win". :D

I would pay $1,000 (and I'm broke) to see Ron Paul debate Barack Obama in the General Election. Obama's head would spin.

brandon
05-13-2011, 06:54 PM
We're looking at Goldwater 1964 all over again. I bet the convention is brokered and Rand rises out of the ashes as the compromise candidate.

Haha could be! Either way, win or lose, this primary will be a game changer for the Republican party. If he loses, the nominee will lose the general, and the party will shift even more in line with us for 2016, almost ensuring a Rand win. And if Ron wins the primary, America is in store for something it has never before seen.


Fuck, I love this man!

low preference guy
05-13-2011, 06:58 PM
Fuck, I love this man!

that's a great line. you should quote yourself in your signature.

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 07:01 PM
That was a great interview! I wish he'd be like that in debates!

runningdiz
05-13-2011, 07:02 PM
wow.... amazing

libertybrewcity
05-13-2011, 07:02 PM
He looked a lot younger!!! It's a good thing that these issues won't really come up in the Republican Primary. Well, maybe the heroin one, but I really think that people will understand or look past that.

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Weigel speculated in a tweet that Herman Cain and Ron Paul would clash at the next debate about the CRA.

Schifference
05-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Ben Franklin Was a junkie

AuH20
05-13-2011, 07:05 PM
Weigel speculated in a tweet that Herman Cain and Ron Paul would clash at the next debate about the CRA.

Are you serious?

eduardo89
05-13-2011, 07:06 PM
Ben Franklin Was a junkie

you have such an awesome user name!

ClayTrainor
05-13-2011, 07:08 PM
Weigel speculated in a tweet that Herman Cain and Ron Paul would clash at the next debate about the CRA.

When i see the CRA, i think of "Canada Revenue Agency" :o.... what is it you're referring to when you say CRA?

Edit: nm... just realized u prob mean the Civil Rights act.

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 07:09 PM
Are you serious?

daveweigel daveweigel
The countdown to a Cain-Paul debate exchange about the Civil Rights Act starts NOW

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 07:09 PM
When i see the CRA, i think of "Canada Revenue Agency" :o.... what is it you're referring to when you say CRA?

Edit: nm... just realized u prob mean the Civil Rights act.

LOL. Two points for you! :D

ssantoro
05-13-2011, 07:16 PM
Wow, I think he is feeding on the growing support and it is giving him superhuman strength. He is becoming a super hero.

ClayTrainor
05-13-2011, 07:21 PM
Wow, I think he is feeding on the growing support and it is giving him superhuman strength. He is becoming a super hero.

http://www.infowars.com/images/paul-super.jpg

Zeeder
05-13-2011, 07:23 PM
While I'm glad Ron is getting a little more assertive, I don't think his answer about the civil rights act is as good as it could be.

When asked if a person can discriminate on their own property, Ron should always say "absolutely" with absolute confidence. If you don't want to sell to blue haired old ladies, you don't have to. It's very simple. Your business is like your house.

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 07:31 PM
Is this a good analogy to use?

Should I as a Deaf person, if I owned a business, be forced to allow someone who was mocking the use of sign language to frequent my business?

Should minority owners be forced to allow Ku Klux Klan-wearing members to sit in their restaurant?

ssantoro
05-13-2011, 07:33 PM
http://www.infowars.com/images/paul-super.jpg

LMAO

+Rep

IDefendThePlatform
05-13-2011, 07:35 PM
Is this a good analogy to use?

Should I as a Deaf person, if I owned a business, be forced to allow someone who was mocking the use of sign language to frequent my business?

Should minority owners be forced to allow Ku Klux Klan-wearing members to sit in their restaurant?

Great analogy. I thought RP did awesome today, but this would also work as a rebuttal.

no representation
05-13-2011, 07:36 PM
While I'm glad Ron is getting a little more assertive, I don't think his answer about the civil rights act is as good as it could be.

When asked if a person can discriminate on their own property, Ron should always say "absolutely" with absolute confidence. If you don't want to sell to blue haired old ladies, you don't have to. It's very simple. Your business is like your house.

I think Walter Williams does the best job defending against the "discrimination" line. Ron Paul should go that route.

ssantoro
05-13-2011, 07:36 PM
Is this a good analogy to use?

Should I as a Deaf person, if I owned a business, be forced to allow someone who was mocking the use of sign language to frequent my business?

Should minority owners be forced to allow Ku Klux Klan-wearing members to sit in their restaurant?


OOOhh, thats a good weapon. Dr. Paul needs to put that one in his arsenal.

AGRP
05-13-2011, 07:37 PM
Holy smokes. This is an awesomely great sign. He's never been so polished.

Either he's learned though experience and practice or someone is coaching him.

Wren
05-13-2011, 07:43 PM
Lol at the way matthews says "heroin"


hurrowin!

Dianne
05-13-2011, 07:54 PM
Paul nailed him !!!! In my view, Paul made Matthews look like the Obama owned news media schill he is. Chris Matthews... White House spokesman goes down.... loved it.

KramerDSP
05-13-2011, 07:57 PM
To carry that on, re: the Maddow tweet...

Should Lesbians that own a restaurant be forced to serve blatant homophobes and/or the West Baptoro (sp) Church folks?

specsaregood
05-13-2011, 07:57 PM
Is this a good analogy to use?

Should I as a Deaf person, if I owned a business, be forced to allow someone who was mocking the use of sign language to frequent my business?

Should minority owners be forced to allow Ku Klux Klan-wearing members to sit in their restaurant?

those won't work as examples because they aren't protected groups.

sofia
05-13-2011, 08:08 PM
Holy shit!.....Who gave Ron that testosterone injection? That was an epic smackdown....delivered in a manly yet cordial manner.

iGGz
05-13-2011, 08:21 PM
owned

Endgame
05-13-2011, 08:26 PM
I do wish he had a better answer for this prepared. It's almost as if he didn't expect MSNBC to Rand Paul him.

Gaddafi Duck
05-13-2011, 08:47 PM
Holy shit!.....Who gave Ron that testosterone injection? That was an epic smackdown....delivered in a manly yet cordial manner.

lol that's one way to put it

nobody's_hero
05-13-2011, 09:00 PM
To carry that on, re: the Maddow tweet...

Should Lesbians that own a restaurant be forced to serve blatant homophobes and/or the West Baptoro (sp) Church folks?

I'm guessing that liberals (and neocons) will probably say "yes." It doesn't exactly make them hypocritical either, because it is consistent with their belief that government can force you to do pretty much anything and it is justified in the name of the common good.

Unfortunately, this is an unwinnable argument. The best we can hope for is that they use the race card so much that they wear it out, which is probably going to happen by the time Obama's administration ends.

doodle
05-13-2011, 09:01 PM
So Rome is burning and America is on verge of backruptcy and Chris like his neocon Fox debate allies has to start with "heroin" questions when Ron Paul takes stage?

Ron Paul did great but it's the issue of priorotizing message that needs to reach people, these are not top issues on people minds right now. I'm starting to think if Ron Paul should start being more choosey about these interviews and control the message bit more using other channels besides media pundits.



Matthews knows what's up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XddokAhdRc0#t=2m15s

"Sarah Palin has appeal and platformability and Rand Paaul has none of those things going for him, he's just thoughtful guy".

My view of Chris just changed, he's sunk much lower. I suspect he was sent out to talk down Rand and not be an honest observer. Great clip.

BenIsForRon
05-13-2011, 09:01 PM
Ron Paul needs to stop saying "You're calling me a racist" and instead say: "Most of the segregation in the south was government enforced!"

Matthews was never implying Ron Paul is a racist, it was more along the lines that racism will run rampant in the south without anti-discrimination laws.

Lothario
05-13-2011, 09:02 PM
Holy smokes. This is an awesomely great sign. He's never been so polished.

Either he's learned though experience and practice or someone is coaching him.

I couldn't be happier about the fire he brought in that interview.

I must say however, that it wasn't near as polished as it could be. The questions that Matthews threw at him will keep coming, and Ron needs to have powerful 1 liner responses ready to go. It tended towards rambling a little too much, and the layman likely won't decipher the rambling to understand the principle Ron is espousing.

There is powerful economic theory behind the abolition of discrimination laws - you have the principle of property rights, but you also have economic law which states that in a free market, anyone engaging in discrimination of any kind would be severely and naturally penalized by the market not only for moral reasons, but based on simple supply and demand as well. Any capitalist that shrinks his customer base for any reason is necessarily forgoing potential profits and market share.

http://mises.org/daily/3261

I think the point needs to be raised as well, that drug laws simply don't work. Anyone that truly wants to consume heroin today is already doing it - and it's still illegal. Where there is a will, there is a way, and law matters little. All the horrible things people argue will happen when "legalizing freedom" would all be dealt with under Ron Paul doctrine - he's very strict about no man infringing on another man's rights sober or not, so if someone on heroin is endangering someone, they're locked up, if parent's are neglecting a child, they get locked up. It's such a fallacy to believe that Ron Paul's system is one of no penalties, and these people/interviewers need to be called out on it bluntly.

Great job with the fire Ron, and now let's focus that into a powerfully succinct delivery, and you're success in this campaign may just become unstoppable.

Travlyr
05-13-2011, 09:14 PM
Ron Paul is an ACE!

rockandrollsouls
05-13-2011, 09:31 PM
Am I the only one that thinks if one saw that interview and didn't understand the reasoning behind a lot of his positions that it could be very polarizing and turn off some potential supporters?

I still think there is room for a great deal of improvement.

nobody's_hero
05-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Am I the only one that thinks if one saw that interview and didn't understand the reasoning behind a lot of his positions that it could be very polarizing and turn off some potential supporters?

I still think there is room for a great deal of improvement.

When I first heard of Ron Paul, he said a lot of things I didn't understand (former neocon). It wasn't until I started listening to his rationales for his positions that I came around.

The same thing will happen here. Either people will be open-minded enough to follow up with Ron Paul and really make an effort to understand his positions, or they won't.

And if they won't . . . fuck'em. We can't wait around for them to pull their heads out of their asses.

QueenB4Liberty
05-13-2011, 10:14 PM
he is radiant with energy of the spirit!

he is articulate and assertive.
he refuses to be interrupted
hes on point, now he needs the grassroots to run and win seats-everywhere.

Yeah that was amazing!

libertybrewcity
05-13-2011, 10:15 PM
I am happy to see that Ron Paul is taking an active and aggressive role in shaking off any racist image he might have.

JoelYrick
05-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Dr. Paul handled that very well. I'd like it if he could just reference a website that fully explains his views whenever it comes up. Kind of like Bush's factcheck reference during the '04 election. (Hopefully he'd get the site right, unlike Bush.) We can't expect much better responses on TV than what he did here.

speciallyblend
05-13-2011, 10:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBwvFBxf_Eg

lx43
05-13-2011, 10:36 PM
Now thats the Ron Paul I like to see! Imagine if he was this charismatic everytime. ;)

rockandrollsouls
05-13-2011, 10:58 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor the delivery of the message? It's become pretty easy for me to see how it could turn people off, so I don't really subscribe to the notion of "If they don't see it, forget 'em." I think you could easily sway these people if the campaign understood how they receive information.


When I first heard of Ron Paul, he said a lot of things I didn't understand (former neocon). It wasn't until I started listening to his rationales for his positions that I came around.

The same thing will happen here. Either people will be open-minded enough to follow up with Ron Paul and really make an effort to understand his positions, or they won't.

And if they won't . . . fuck'em. We can't wait around for them to pull their heads out of their asses.

ronpaulitician
05-13-2011, 11:19 PM
Good ending about it being a package deal. He needs to expand on that. I also like how he's starting to phrase the answers to questions about one extreme side of a freedom principle ("Heroin should be legal") with the less extreme side ("You should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to."). That should be expanded upon as well, and can be part of the "package" theory.

"When I argue for freedom, it is all too easy to take one extreme end of the spectrum and dismiss the argument outright because that extreme is unpleasant to deal with. If I argue that individuals should be free to do anything that doesn't hurt another individual, the easy extreme to pick is heroin. "So heroin should be legal?" It is all too easy then to shy away from the argument, but I believe that those extreme examples are simply a part of the package, and I will defend the extremes as well. That doesn't mean I believe that the extremes are good for humanity, but it does mean that I will defend that extreme just as fiercely. Just like we should not demonize lawyers who, honoring our justice system which believes that even the guilty deserve representation, decide to defend someone accused of even the most heinous crimes, we should not demonize people who, in defending liberty in general, decide to defend liberty for even the extreme cases. Defending a murderer in court that not mean you condone murder. It means that you understand that in order for our society to remain just and fair for all, even those who would be thought undeserving of that justice and fairness should receive it. Even heroin, although a dangerous drug that can ruin someone's life, should have a defender in the court of public opinion, because once we deem heroin to not deserve that justice and fairness, then it becomes all too easy to also deny less harmful and possible even some beneficial sustances that same benefit. I apply this principle across the board, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint is. We all agree that the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity committed against the world in general and the Jews in specific. Yet we didn't just shoot the nazis responsible on sight. We captured them, tried them in court, and then punished them for their actions. We can all agree that the terrorist attacks against the world over the last few decades and against the United States in specific were terrible. I argue that the ideal response is to capture those responsible and properly try them in our court system. This allows us to maintain our principled freedoms while punishing those responsible for their heinous actions. One of the possibly most divisive issues is that of racism. An ugly blight on our human condition, where we judge an individual not on merit but on preconceived and wholly unmerited notions, and where we treat those individuals as lesser, denying them our friendship and hospitality. However, to accept that we should all be free to socialize with whomever we want is to also accept that we are free to choose to not socialize with certain individuals. To accept that racism, no matter how ugly, no matter how small, will always have at least some place in our society. Racism, like heroin, like murderers, and like terrorists, is on one extreme side of the spectrum. But no matter how unpopular, and no matter how indefensible, trying to outlaw it will inevitably lead to restrictions on freedom on the other side of the spectrum. And no matter how hard we try, we just won't be able to successfully remove these unwanted elements from our society, no matter how many laws we come up with, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, and no matter how many freedoms we are willing to sacrifice.

All I will ask is that when these extremes come up in a discussion, to not assume that if I do not argue that these extremes can be removed from our society by law, that that automatically means I must be in favor of their existence. We can agree that we should always try to minimize the negative effect that these extremes have on our society, but we should do so in the understanding that we just have a differing opinion on how to best accomplish this."

cubical
05-13-2011, 11:32 PM
Ron Paul>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Matthews

Matthews keeps uttering "ok" while Paul is talking, as if to get him to stop. Matthews doesn't really want to listen to what Paul is saying.

Jay Tea
05-14-2011, 12:23 AM
Am I the only one that thinks if one saw that interview and didn't understand the reasoning behind a lot of his positions that it could be very polarizing and turn off some potential supporters?

I still think there is room for a great deal of improvement.

No, you're not. I always watch these interviews with a critical eye and try to think about what would happen if you showed the clips to 100 random people on the street. I know what Ron's saying, but he and his staff need to work on coming up with answers that are concise and will translate well to the average voter. The response to the heroin question in the SC debate was great because it was something that would make sense to someone who's never even heard of libertarianism. He needs a lot more of those moments.

Athan
05-14-2011, 12:28 AM
I felt a chill going up my leg!

Fredom101
05-14-2011, 01:14 AM
This is a different Ron Paul, and I like it.
The early interviews in 08, he sometimes seemed surprised at some of the ridiculous MSM questions. Now he FIRES back solid answers, and seems unphased by this rapidfire approach that Mathews and other MSM bores have. As far as civil rights, I want to hear RP talk about the social pressures that have made the 64 civil rights act irrelevant.

jclay2
05-14-2011, 01:28 AM
The economy is crashing, gas is over $ 4, our debt has gone over 100% of gdp, and what does the msm spend ten minutes talking about? Heroin and CRA of 1964!

Carson
05-14-2011, 01:33 AM
The only part missing was Ron Paul drop-kicking him and Chris Matthews giggling as he left Ron's foot and took flight.

Just kidding about that.^


P.S. It was really good to see Ron Paul stand up the way he did. I think the important thing is to try and get through to people in the little time that is left. The time for playing games is over.

Ninja Homer
05-14-2011, 02:22 AM
Wow, Ron's on fire! That last minute or so is epic:

"I think we'd be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, policing the world, and running the economy. We're facing a calamity because of that.

We have a financial crisis. We have a crisis in the foreign policy. We're losing thousands of people... hundreds of thousands are coming back sick because of our foreign policy. And we're at a point where we can not sustain this, and we're on the verge of runaway inflation because there's too much acceptance of big government. That is the problem.

No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves."

Matthew Zak
05-14-2011, 02:57 AM
He is much more confident and assertive this time around, I fucking LOVE it.

"Hey Chris let me FINISH!" ... wow that never happened in '07, '08.

GO RON!!!

MozoVote
05-14-2011, 06:10 AM
I think we saw a flash of the old 1988 Ron, there!

nobody's_hero
05-14-2011, 06:21 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor the delivery of the message? It's become pretty easy for me to see how it could turn people off, so I don't really subscribe to the notion of "If they don't see it, forget 'em." I think you could easily sway these people if the campaign understood how they receive information.

Okay, but there's a difference between people who are open-minded and people who are just out to make Ron look bad—no matter what.

Don't let them fool you, Chris Matthews's audience knows in the back of their minds that Ron Paul could make sense to people if they ever listened to the doctor's reasoning, and they perceive that as a threat, so they have to twist and distort everything he says hoping that it drives away people who might get curious.

If they are open-minded, they'll find us. If they're close-minded, they'll just keep electing the same people over and over thinking that something will change.

When I made my comment, it was really frustration that time was running out. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt because I remember when I held neoconnish views (fortunately, I never voted, so my hands weren't too bloody), and I know a bit about what it takes to change views.

I also know that if someone absolutely doesn't want to change their mind, we're wasting our time with them.

Bobster
05-14-2011, 06:36 AM
Oh my God, Paul put on his Chuck Norris face and totally backhanded Chris all over his own show. That was epic. The points were excellent and were articulated. Awesome.

Gaddafi Duck
05-14-2011, 08:02 AM
Oh my God, Paul put on his Chuck Norris face and totally backhanded Chris all over his own show. That was epic. The points were excellent and were articulated. Awesome.

SMACK! :cool:

brandon
05-14-2011, 08:33 AM
No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves.[/COLOR]"


This is going in my signature.

sailingaway
05-14-2011, 08:44 AM
This is going in my signature.

Arggh. I copied it to put in mine, but the Patriot Act is up, what, next week? I'm keeping the picture/link until it can't do any more good.

ARealConservative
05-14-2011, 08:49 AM
Matthews: "The idea of total freedom doesn't seem to work."

Could it be that Libertarians are naive about people's true nature and non-Libs are highly accurate in their realism/cynicism about Man...? ;)

these responses are cop-outs.

I would immediately shout back to define his use of the term "works". 14 trillion in debt while we face constant threats of government shut down is an example of something that works? Obama and McCain suggesting suspending an election to race back and stave off economic collapse is a govenrment that works?

that was a softball.

IBleedNavyAndOrange
05-14-2011, 01:02 PM
Good ending about it being a package deal. He needs to expand on that. I also like how he's starting to phrase the answers to questions about one extreme side of a freedom principle ("Heroin should be legal") with the less extreme side ("You should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to."). That should be expanded upon as well, and can be part of the "package" theory.

"When I argue for freedom, it is all too easy to take one extreme end of the spectrum and dismiss the argument outright because that extreme is unpleasant to deal with. If I argue that individuals should be free to do anything that doesn't hurt another individual, the easy extreme to pick is heroin. "So heroin should be legal?" It is all too easy then to shy away from the argument, but I believe that those extreme examples are simply a part of the package, and I will defend the extremes as well. That doesn't mean I believe that the extremes are good for humanity, but it does mean that I will defend that extreme just as fiercely. Just like we should not demonize lawyers who, honoring our justice system which believes that even the guilty deserve representation, decide to defend someone accused of even the most heinous crimes, we should not demonize people who, in defending liberty in general, decide to defend liberty for even the extreme cases. Defending a murderer in court that not mean you condone murder. It means that you understand that in order for our society to remain just and fair for all, even those who would be thought undeserving of that justice and fairness should receive it. Even heroin, although a dangerous drug that can ruin someone's life, should have a defender in the court of public opinion, because once we deem heroin to not deserve that justice and fairness, then it becomes all too easy to also deny less harmful and possible even some beneficial sustances that same benefit. I apply this principle across the board, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint is. We all agree that the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity committed against the world in general and the Jews in specific. Yet we didn't just shoot the nazis responsible on sight. We captured them, tried them in court, and then punished them for their actions. We can all agree that the terrorist attacks against the world over the last few decades and against the United States in specific were terrible. I argue that the ideal response is to capture those responsible and properly try them in our court system. This allows us to maintain our principled freedoms while punishing those responsible for their heinous actions. One of the possibly most divisive issues is that of racism. An ugly blight on our human condition, where we judge an individual not on merit but on preconceived and wholly unmerited notions, and where we treat those individuals as lesser, denying them our friendship and hospitality. However, to accept that we should all be free to socialize with whomever we want is to also accept that we are free to choose to not socialize with certain individuals. To accept that racism, no matter how ugly, no matter how small, will always have at least some place in our society. Racism, like heroin, like murderers, and like terrorists, is on one extreme side of the spectrum. But no matter how unpopular, and no matter how indefensible, trying to outlaw it will inevitably lead to restrictions on freedom on the other side of the spectrum. And no matter how hard we try, we just won't be able to successfully remove these unwanted elements from our society, no matter how many laws we come up with, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, and no matter how many freedoms we are willing to sacrifice.

All I will ask is that when these extremes come up in a discussion, to not assume that if I do not argue that these extremes can be removed from our society by law, that that automatically means I must be in favor of their existence. We can agree that we should always try to minimize the negative effect that these extremes have on our society, but we should do so in the understanding that we just have a differing opinion on how to best accomplish this."

^THIS^

+1 rep

bb_dg
05-14-2011, 02:03 PM
It's been a long time since the last time Ron Paul gave me a boner.

TastyWheat
05-15-2011, 01:29 AM
This is the fire I've been missing. Just like back in 2008 when he was going blow-for-blow with Huckabee on Iraq.