RON PAUL puts this Newsweek SHill in his PLACE in this interview !!

[Falseflagop]

Great job RON !!


http://www.newsweek.com/id/73850

[Akus]

this was posted before

[Falseflagop]

Sorry I hate that Shill !

[honkywill]

Golden.

[Pete Kay]

Don't be ridiculous. Howard Fineman is a very fair reporter. That's his job to counter Ron Paul's statements and make Ron explain himself. That's how you give a good interview. If he didn't make Dr. Paul elaborate on those issues, some people would come away with the misunderstandings.

Some of you people don't understand journalism. It's not about kissing ass, it's about asking tough questions.

[Mark Rushmore]

Don't be ridiculous. Howard Fineman is a very fair reporter. That's his job to counter Ron Paul's statements and make Ron explain himself. That's how you give a good interview. If he didn't make Dr. Paul elaborate on those issues, some people would come away with the misunderstandings.

Some of you people don't understand journalism. It's not about kissing ass, it's about asking tough questions.

I don't think people had a problem with the questions, I think people had a problem with the presentation of those questions.

[trispear]

All I see are the comments section.

[ReallyNow]

If you only see the comments section, if you're using Firefox, switch to IE.

[rasheedwallace]

does anyone else think that ron paul is TOO unrestrictive on his firearms policy?

a lot of people will strongly disagree. it should be left up to the states, and thats all he should say.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Left up to the states? He doesn't believe that so why would he say that?

[rasheedwallace]

Left up to the states? He doesn't believe that so why would he say that?

well he believes fully auto weapons are fine, machine guns in the home...anything short of a "500 pound bomb"...

you really think this is a good idea? and that people will not jump ALL over this?



...imagine the attack ads.

[Ron Paul Fan]

well he believes fully auto weapons are fine, machine guns in the home...anything short of a "500 pound bomb"...

you really think this is a good idea? and that people will not jump ALL over this?



...imagine the attack ads.

You must not know much about Ron Paul. He isn't going to say something he doesn't believe for political reasons. He does not pander and he believes strongly in the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Saying that he would leave it up to the states to take everyone's guns away would be a total contradiction of everything he's said for 30 years! People on here would jump ALL over him if he said this!

[Alabama Supporter]

Sorry I hate that Shill !

You guys really should chill.

I'm thankful that he was profiled on their website. Heck, he even let Dr. Paul explain some positions rather than make small talk.

[rasheedwallace]

You must not know much about Ron Paul. He isn't going to say something he doesn't believe for political reasons. He does not pander and he believes strongly in the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Saying that he would leave it up to the states to take everyone's guns away would be a total contradiction of everything he's said for 30 years! People on here would jump ALL over him if he said this!

hey hey...

i know plenty about our man, thank you.

i'm just speculating. just something i noticed in the interview.

[LibertiORDeth]

As big of a supporter as I am of RP, his main problem is a lack of actual plans or knowledge for what he is for. As an example, he kind of fudged around the gun control issue, without giving clear guidelines.

[rasheedwallace]

As big of a supporter as I am of RP, his main problem is a lack of actual plans or knowledge for what he is for. As an example, he kind of fudged around the gun control issue, without giving clear guidelines.

thats what i saw, he came off as a bit radical in that segment. explanation would go a long way.

[LFOD]

thats what i saw, he came off as a bit radical in that segment. explanation would go a long way.

Guns are the biggest problem where there is the most poverty. I think we have to consider what would happen with gun crime in a Paul administration, in relation to his other views on the drug war, and sound monetary policy. Prohibition created crime syndicates around alcohol - the drug war does the same around other drugs. An unsound monetary system creates inflations and deflations - and now we're looking at neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures, and families living on the edge constantly losing the battle to inflation.

Those factors are where the real problems with guns originate, in my opinion. Currently, we feed the conditions that create violent crime on the one hand, and try to tamp it down with the other.

[Richandler]

It's so sick that "I want the states to make that decision" isn't good enough for journalists.

[The Plan]

Best interview yet IMO.
He actually had a chance to give decent replies to some questions.

[shrugged0106]

As big of a supporter as I am of RP, his main problem is a lack of actual plans or knowledge for what he is for. As an example, he kind of fudged around the gun control issue, without giving clear guidelines.


He doesnt have to give guidelines necause those guidelines were already granted by our creator and cannot be infringed.

[hawkeyenick]

does anyone else think that ron paul is TOO unrestrictive on his firearms policy?

a lot of people will strongly disagree. it should be left up to the states, and thats all he should say.

I don't see how a hand gun is going to help me when the soldiers we may be fighting against have fully automatics and tanks

[frasu]

ma' men, Ron Paul, sticking to his guns, once again... good job

[LibertyEagle]

As big of a supporter as I am of RP, his main problem is a lack of actual plans or knowledge for what he is for. As an example, he kind of fudged around the gun control issue, without giving clear guidelines.

I think he knows quite well what he is for, but I agree that he does way too much of..."well, we *could* do this or that". People want to know what he WOULD do, not what we might or could, do.

I also agree that he kind of talked around the whole gun issue. Sometimes it seems like it would be helpful if he would turn the question around and frame the discussion better. This is where an excellent political coach would help. I'm not sure how best to say it, but I would like to point out to people what has happened in a lot of other countries when the people were disarmed.

It's almost like Americans have forgotten that this country was established by We the People and that the government was supposed to serve US, not the other way around. One thing I've also never heard Ron Paul really drive home is that we talk about "the government" like the only government we have in this country is the federal government. People seem to have forgotten about our state governments. They need to be reminded that our Founders intended the majority of the power to remain with the states and the people, and what exactly the federal government was established to do (and nothing else). They need to be reminded WHY it was setup this way. No one seems to know anymore, so they think it's kooky to want to reduce the federal government as much as he says.

[LibertyEagle]

Anyone remember that poster showing pictures of several old dictators, with a caption something like.... they all agree that gun control is a good thing (or something like that)? Anyone know where a copy of that is?

[andrewgreve]

For the newsweek.com staff reading this thread: I refuse to watch your interview and look at your sponsors because of the advertisement you force viewers to watch before getting to the content. I'll wait for the youtube.

[angelatc]

If you only see the comments section, if you're using Firefox, switch to IE.

Bah. Use the IE Tab plug in.

[DJ RP]

For the newsweek.com staff reading this thread: I refuse to watch your interview and look at your sponsors because of the advertisement you force viewers to watch before getting to the content. I'll wait for the youtube.

Eh? You don't think news agencies and journalists should be able to earn money? You think they should work with no income stream? Not very free-market of you.

[trispear]

If you only see the comments section, if you're using Firefox, switch to IE.Well, I can't even if I wanted too - I just have OS X and Linux -- no IE for us.

It's really the first time in a few years I ran into this problem (granted, I have my own niche of sites) - but damn! Is this 1999 newsweek.com? Weak. I guess old media still doesn't get it, even on their own websites.

Thanks anyway, good to hear RP is kicking ass! Is this video? Maybe I'll find it on youtube.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I notice that Dr. Paul's position on gun control is closer to mine (no constitutional definition of arms, local government regulation can be appropriate) than a lot of libertarians probably would like to admit. :D

Anyway, I think he did a very good job, especially on the civil disobedience question. Howard Fineman is usually a welcome pundit in my book, and I don't think he's a shill like some of the others are.

[Danny Molina]

I think the interview was tough and fair. Dr. Paul handled himself very well.

[Liberty Star]

Howard Fineman didn't ask him one question on Iraq war, bad intel, diminishing liberties or out of control government spending for obvious reasons. Maybe this is why he didn't ask a single question about Iraq war or foreign policy blunders pushing America to huge deficit:




Concerning the Iraq War, on May 7, 2003 on MSNBC Fineman stated "We had controversial wars that divided this country. This war united the country and brought the military back."

[enjerth]

I don't see how a hand gun is going to help me when the soldiers we may be fighting against have fully automatics and tanks

For those of you who objected to Paul's answer seeming too broad, this is a great example of what I thought of.

The 2nd Amendment expresses that the right to bear arms is related to having a well-regulated militia. This means the constitutional right should include weapons of warfare.

In the case of the United States v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller), the Supreme Court ruled,

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

That pretty much means that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment expressly defends the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade weapons, and nothing else (although I would disagree with that).

[runderwo]

For those of you who objected to Paul's answer seeming too broad, this is a great example of what I thought of.

The 2nd Amendment expresses that the right to bear arms is related to having a well-regulated militia. This means the constitutional right should include weapons of warfare.

While there is no question that the people have at least the same right to bear arms as the police are allowed to bear against the people, the need for WMD as a defensive measure is highly questionable. The right to bear arms is not the right to maintain a peacetime arsenal...