PDA

View Full Version : Paul up next on Cavuto (fox news)




Lafayette
09-30-2011, 02:14 PM
Just said Paul is up next, i guess to talk about the Yemen drone attacks and Al-Awlaki

Lafayette
09-30-2011, 02:24 PM
Neal is a giant ass hole!
Twisted Paul's words to make him look weak on terrorism.

tribute_13
09-30-2011, 02:25 PM
Toobsssssss

angelatc
09-30-2011, 02:32 PM
I am a little pissed at Cavuto. He implied that we should ignore our laws because the lawbreakers do, and then painted some scary doomsday strawman scenario, where President Paul wouldn't respond to terrorists, then wouldn't let Paul address the accusation.

bluesc
09-30-2011, 02:33 PM
Cavuto was a dick. Toob coming up.

HeyArchie
09-30-2011, 02:33 PM
Sounds like Cavuto got word from the higher ups that he needs to treat Paul that way. He is usually fair.

specsaregood
09-30-2011, 02:34 PM
I am a little pissed at Cavuto. He implied that we should ignore our laws because the lawbreakers do, and then painted some scary doomsday strawman scenario, where President Paul wouldn't respond to terrorists, then wouldn't let Paul address the accusation.

At this point, I'm sure Dr. Paul is used to having his friends stab him in the back, but i doubt it gets any less painful.
Ignoring laws because lawbreakers do.....well I guess there should be no laws then.

bluesc
09-30-2011, 02:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVp0_Zy-eFQ

slamhead
09-30-2011, 02:38 PM
Ron Paul missed the opportunity to tell what he would have done as President. Seek and indictment for treason. Trial for Awlaki in absentia, strip him of his citizenship then kill him. Most of the sheep when they hear "rule of law" they have no clue what the end result of the rule of law would be....death for Awlaki.

Feeding the Abscess
09-30-2011, 02:42 PM
Ron Paul missed the opportunity to tell what he would have done as President. Seek and indictment for treason. Trial for Awlaki in absentia, strip him of his citizenship then kill him. Most of the sheep when they hear "rule of law" they have no clue what the end result of the rule of law would be....death for Awlaki.

But he's also against the death penalty, and that is a de facto death penalty.

theczar1776
09-30-2011, 02:47 PM
I was afraid to watch this because of the comments but come on. He did great. I must have heard a different interview.

eleganz
09-30-2011, 02:54 PM
RP held his own, I have no quarrels with that interview.

RonPaulFever
09-30-2011, 02:57 PM
Sounds like Cavuto got word from the higher ups that he needs to treat Paul that way.

Most likely, yes.

I'd also like to remind everyone that it is the job of the news media to be objective, not to blindly praise Ron Paul. It's hypocritical to criticize the media for gushing over Perry, Romney, or anyone else and then expect the same biased treatment towards Ron Paul from "our guys" (Cavuto, Cafferty, etc.). Cavuto was merely doing his job; his questions weren't outrageous, and besides, Ron answered them very well.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2011, 02:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVp0_Zy-eFQ

I thought Ron did great. If I could armchair quarterback a little bit, I wish Ron would have reminded conservatives that Obama's DHS is already targeting constitutionalists as potential terrorists.

mwkaufman
09-30-2011, 03:03 PM
Cavuto was fine, he talked over him a bit, but these are tough quesitons. Paul was also fine, but could've done better in addressing other things.

D.A.S.
09-30-2011, 03:09 PM
Guys, are you a little on edge lately? lol.

This was an AWESOME interview!!! Ron's presentation of his case hasn't been this clear in a long time. And while Cavuto played the devil's advocate well, Ron defended himself and his positions with plenty of gusto and with clear arguments. I think Ron couldn't have done a better job articulating his position on this.

Case closed. :D

georgiaboy
09-30-2011, 03:12 PM
fine job.

And he's right.

And wow, Neil definitely treated him rougher than normal with the interruptions, though it seemed it was just to get more questions in and stop Ron's monologuing, and Ron stood his ground better than I've seen in some other interviews.

Badger Paul
09-30-2011, 03:13 PM
Isn't it amazing that even with the death of several prominent terrorists this past year Paul still leads Obama among independents in Florida?

Think about it. Hopefully when you do you'll quit whining every time some terrorist dies and RP gives the answer he always gives when asked about it.

blabam
09-30-2011, 03:14 PM
LOL Am I the only one who thought that 2:29 sounded f'n funny :D?

extrmmxer
09-30-2011, 03:15 PM
Neal is a giant ass hole!
Twisted Paul's words to make him look weak on terrorism.

my thoughts exactly

D.A.S.
09-30-2011, 03:18 PM
LOL Am I the only one who thought that 2:29 sounded f'n funny :D?

was that another "lemme lemme lemme lemme lemme finish"? ;-)

erowe1
09-30-2011, 03:21 PM
For those saying Paul's statement about this today was bad timing, the fact that it gets him on TV like this is proof to the contrary. I also heard Hannity talk about what he said today. You don't get that exposure when you wait until it's not news any more before you say anything.

Meiun
09-30-2011, 03:22 PM
I disagree that this is in any way bad for Ron Paul! I think he did very well, and defended his position soundly. I also don't think it was Cavuto's intention to diminish Ron, he was pointing out how his colleagues in the media (and especially FOX) could twist his words to show that Ron is somehow weak on American Defense.

Consequently, if you were watching The Five just a little bit later you would have seen that, I think, 4 of the 5 AGREED with Ron Paul that this was a questionable, if not out right illegal, act by the Obama Administration; precisely what Ron was saying.

So, I think things went rather well here.

MRoCkEd
09-30-2011, 03:23 PM
For those saying Paul's statement about this today was bad timing, the fact that it gets him on TV like this is proof to the contrary. I also heard Hannity talk about what he said today. You don't get that exposure when you wait until it's not news any more before you say anything.

Sometimes, no press is better than bad press.

erowe1
09-30-2011, 03:25 PM
Sometimes, no press is better than bad press.

This isn't bad press. It's just people disagreeing with him. His position on this issue isn't even strange.

D.A.S.
09-30-2011, 03:25 PM
This is FOX News -- what, do you expect them to lay out a red carpet for Ron and sweet-talk him? Neil is on our side, but he has to make it look like he's being tough on the Congressman, and the Congressman was up to the task. On FOX Business, this could be a different story, but this was great stuff for FOX.

I was just thinking this morning how Ron's interviews have all dried up lately. I think he used to poll best when he was interviewed more, and he hasn't for a long time - and now he's doing it again.

RonPaulCult
09-30-2011, 03:27 PM
Good interview. You people are overprotective papa bears. :)

growburn13
09-30-2011, 03:29 PM
I also don't think it was Cavuto's intention to diminish Ron, he was pointing out how his colleagues in the media (and especially FOX) could twist his words to show that Ron is somehow weak on American Defense.

This. In a round-a-bout sort of way explaining what the rest of the media was/is about to do, before they landed in all of their punches... and without Ron being on the line to elaborate. Now that the trick of twisting his words is out in the open it seems less likely people will jump on the bandwagon of condemning Ron's point of view and possibly have a less bias discussion moving forward.

mconder
09-30-2011, 03:31 PM
The point is that Osama did facilitate an attack on Americans and authority was given through the proper channels. If the case and evidence could be made that someone was plotting or had plotted an attack, you can't just say this authority is needed without even trying to get approval through proper channels. The president should always have to make his case after the fact that a target was a clear and present danger to U.S. security if someone is taken out in this manner. If the case can not be made, it should be considered an impeachable offense with possibly criminal and civil penalties as well.

eduardo89
09-30-2011, 03:35 PM
He should have brought up the constitutional way to assasinate enemies: LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL!!!

RDM
09-30-2011, 03:42 PM
Bare with me as I try to type this while recovering from a massive heart attack, but Bob Beckel agreed with Ron Paul's take on this.

NewRightLibertarian
09-30-2011, 03:43 PM
Good interview. You people are overprotective papa bears. :)

Definitely considering the obvious media conspiracy that's out to get him

HeyArchie
09-30-2011, 03:49 PM
Bare with me as I try to type this while recovering from a massive heart attack, but Bob Beckel agreed with Ron Paul's take on this.
I secretly like Bob. He's why I watch The Five. Bolling is the reason I sometimes don't turn it on.

Billay
09-30-2011, 03:52 PM
This has became an educational campaign.

JoshS
09-30-2011, 03:57 PM
absolutely nothing wrong with this interview, neil wasn't even that tough.

sup with you guys today? haha

Lord Xar
09-30-2011, 04:04 PM
This has became an educational campaign.

That is what 2008 was...... This is suppose to be a presidential campaign.

Deborah K
09-30-2011, 04:09 PM
I secretly like Bob. He's why I watch The Five. Bolling is the reason I sometimes don't turn it on.

Hey Archie, this ones for you: <3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9nE2spOw_o&feature=related

georgiaboy
09-30-2011, 04:14 PM
more debate fodder. Ron Paul is unrelenting. God bless his pea-pickin' heart.

mpdsapuser
09-30-2011, 04:16 PM
Anyone that thinks assassinating U.S. Citizens, even if they are accused of heinous crimes, is fine, is obviously a sheep or neocon. This is how dictatorships are born.

beardedlinen
09-30-2011, 04:16 PM
He should have brought up the constitutional way to assasinate enemies: LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL!!!

This is something he needs to bring up much more in order to let those who thirst for blood know that he won't sit on his hands when we are actually threatened. He needs to bring this up in all of the interviews that are sure to follow this one as well as the next debate.

GeorgiaAvenger
09-30-2011, 04:34 PM
What the heck is that noise at about 2:30?

RDM
09-30-2011, 04:50 PM
Anyone that thinks assassinating U.S. Citizens, even if they are accused of heinous crimes, is fine, is obviously a sheep or neocon. This is how dictatorships are born.

You got that right. Notice how the hypocrites who would have been bashing Bush if he would have done this are all quiet right now in the press. These are troubling times we are living in right now. It's a RENEGADE government right now.....and it MUST BE STOPPED!

centure7
09-30-2011, 04:51 PM
Ron Paul missed the opportunity to tell what he would have done as President. Seek and indictment for treason. Trial for Awlaki in absentia, strip him of his citizenship then kill him. Most of the sheep when they hear "rule of law" they have no clue what the end result of the rule of law would be....death for Awlaki.

I agree he could have done a lot better.. You have to be more specific than "rule of law". Rule of law means putting people on trial and then if they are guilty, they will be punished. Being more explicit would have helped.

Maximus
09-30-2011, 05:22 PM
He did fine, would have been nice if he would have said, "Not even President Bush did this"

Sola_Fide
09-30-2011, 05:28 PM
I agree he could have done a lot better.. You have to be more specific than "rule of law". Rule of law means putting people on trial and then if they are guilty, they will be punished. Being more explicit would have helped.

Well, "rule of law" is a distinction that comes from Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex".

The rule of law means that the law is king (as opposed to the King is law). The rule of law means that no person, especially rulers, are above the law.

phesoge
09-30-2011, 06:22 PM
I was talking about this with some one at work today, and they replied to me that the Alwalki, or whatever his name was......renounced his citzenship and no longer eas privy to consitutional protections.

ANyone have any details on that?

sailingaway
09-30-2011, 06:27 PM
You can only renounce your citizenship before a consulate officer, I'm pretty sure. Under oath.

The point is, they never even CHARGED him, or allowed any challenge of information. No one is saying he killed anyone, himself, so ties have to be shown that are pretty imminent for danger, I would think.

Carole
09-30-2011, 07:48 PM
But he's also against the death penalty, and that is a de facto death penalty.

He opposes the death penalty, but he upholds the rule of law. If the rule of law demands the death penalty, Ron Paul would not and could not interfere with that. He certainly would not pardon the terrorist!

Same with abortion and other laws. He only might fight to get certain laws changed, but it is ultimately not up to him.

Carole
09-30-2011, 07:59 PM
I disagree that this is in any way bad for Ron Paul! I think he did very well, and defended his position soundly. I also don't think it was Cavuto's intention to diminish Ron, he was pointing out how his colleagues in the media (and especially FOX) could twist his words to show that Ron is somehow weak on American Defense.

Consequently, if you were watching The Five just a little bit later you would have seen that, I think, 4 of the 5 AGREED with Ron Paul that this was a questionable, if not out right illegal, act by the Obama Administration; precisely what Ron was saying.

So, I think things went rather well here.

Agree with Meiun. Good grief, if they start labeling patriots as enemy combatants, they would have carte blanche to shoot/assassinate them, too!!! :eek:

phesoge
09-30-2011, 08:00 PM
You can only renounce your citizenship before a consulate officer, I'm pretty sure. Under oath.

The point is, they never even CHARGED him, or allowed any challenge of information. No one is saying he killed anyone, himself, so ties have to be shown that are pretty imminent for danger, I would think.



Thanks sailingaway. Makes sense now.

Tod
09-30-2011, 08:20 PM
"somebody who tried to institute sound money was charged with being a terrorist" ~ Ron Paul @ 1:02 in the above video.

Anyone know offhand who he was talking about?

FSP-Rebel
09-30-2011, 08:23 PM
"somebody who tried to institute sound money was charged with being a terrorist" ~ Ron Paul @ 1:02 in the above video.

Anyone know offhand who he was talking about?
Liberty Dollar folk, as in financial terrist.

HOLLYWOOD
09-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Points in the dialog:

Ron, "...this(assassination) has never happen before..." Oh... It's happen before

Ron brought up two very good points and he needs to put more emphasis into them in the future:

1. How many innocent people over the years have died across the globe from the US targeting Alwalki and like others, of who, many have never even been charged with crimes? How much hatred/vengeance has the U.S government create across the globe against America with their current violent foreign policies...

2. All the dead and wounded innocent victims, may become recruit-able terrorists or at least sympathizers of the future against the United States, making Americans less safe, and also leads to the slippery slope of tyranny in less freedoms and liberties for the American people.

Frankly, I wish someone in the campaign would correct one of Ron's public speaking skills habits... try getting him to eliminate using "AND", "AND DAH", "AND AH" which he uses too often and puts too much emphasis upon.

Publicani
09-30-2011, 08:30 PM
Each time Ron Paul talks about Awlaki he should ask the interviewer these three questions

1. If we had captured Awlaki, would it be ok to torture him without a trial? If not, why killing him without a trial is ok?

2. If the president thinks that an American is not a terrorist but is a serial killer, or involved in some other criminal activities, may the President give an order to assassinate that American without a trial?

3. If an American assassinated by a direct President order is proven later to be innocent, should the President be tried for murder?

VoluntaryAmerican
09-30-2011, 08:39 PM
absolutely nothing wrong with this interview, neil wasn't even that tough.

sup with you guys today? haha

Correct... It was a good interview. Neil was playing devil's advocate, however, Ron stepped up and shot him down... because assasinating an American without a trial is so outrageous, so absurd, that it should not even be played as devil's advocate.

Ron showed he honestly believed what he said by being so tough on Neil.

Suzu
09-30-2011, 09:06 PM
RP held his own, I have no quarrels with that interview.
I concur fully with this opinion.

AlexAmore
09-30-2011, 09:25 PM
Neal didn't twist his words. Neal is channelling his neocon viewer-ship so that Ron Paul can talk directly to their word twisting thoughts via proxy. Thanks NEAL! He did us a great favor.

Tod
09-30-2011, 10:35 PM
Liberty Dollar folk, as in financial terrist.

Ah, thanks much!

Rocket_pilot
09-30-2011, 10:47 PM
The only thing I wish he would have said is...

What's the point in having a rule of law if it can be bent or broken when deemed convenient?

For that matter, what good is a constitution if it's not to be followed?

Rocket_pilot
09-30-2011, 10:50 PM
Neal Cavuto seems to be reasonable in all the interviews I've seen him give to Ron Paul. He presents an opposing point of view to give RP the chance to counter it. Cavuto has Ron Paul on quite a bit, we should be thankful he gives him the face time and actually lets RP speak his position.

Cleaner44
09-30-2011, 11:01 PM
"somebody who tried to institute sound money was charged with being a terrorist" ~ Ron Paul @ 1:02 in the above video.

Anyone know offhand who he was talking about?

Bernard von NotHaus the creator of the Liberty Dollar.

axiomata
09-30-2011, 11:03 PM
But he's also against the death penalty, and that is a de facto death penalty.

Convicted murderers in prison are of no danger to those outside. Convicted treasonous terrorists in Yemen can be a danger to US citizens. I'm not a fan of drones but if he resists arrest deadly force is acceptable.

sunghoko
09-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Ron could have done a better job.

He was in full Hannity defense mode when all Neil was doing was playing devil's advocate. Why does Ron try to interrupt here but can't do it in debates?

C_J_Burns
10-01-2011, 02:49 AM
He can't go the 'future conspiracy' route on this issue like he did w/ the border fence question...
Dr. Paul NEEDS to make the point that (1)this President has constantly encroached upon the constitution,(2) he has assumed powers that he shouldn't have, and (3)America is losing the battle for her principles b/c of it.

I like how he started off this interview saying what happened probably is a "net-plus"... That's a good start. But he HAS to realize that the conspiracy stuff (and YES that's what it will be labeled), no matter how logically put forth, will not resonate with these primary voters. What will resonate is him pointing out Obama's power play. Oh and memorizing this quote for the debate could help: “The natural progress is for liberty to yield and the government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

fatjohn
10-01-2011, 08:16 AM
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.