ABC/Stossel Hour Interview w Paul

[tanstaafl]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stoss...3970423&page=1

So, Stossel has an hour long interview with Ron Paul - a revolution is REAL NEWS - and what does ABC decide to do with it?

"Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active."

I am so glad we cleared THAT up! So, I think they are saying, they don't want to do anything which might affect the thinking of the people NOT on the web? They are afraid that Paul's admitted big influence on the presidential campaign might actually become something else? Do they fear it might become bigger or smaller, I wonder?

ABC's new motto: "All the news that fits our corporate agenda for what we want people to think."

Ah, well. What are WE going to do with it? How can we get it out to those who don't frequent the internet chat rooms?

[BLS]

link no worky

[jufreese]

removed from site

[RonPaulLibrary]

New Link:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1

[ThePieSwindler]

um, it says the interview is an hour long, yet all i end up watching is a 4 minute video...?

[Libertarian]

They split it into sections. They are going to release a new segment every day this week.

[ThePieSwindler]

They split it into sections. They are going to release a new segment every day this week.

oooh ok i get it haha... thanks, silly me :rolleyes:

[frasu]

This is ridiculous!!!!!!!!

In their own wording, "Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active."
Again, a proof that the media has no clue of what people like, follow or understand. The money? The followers? How about the message? The fact that they will broadcast this interview only on the web, it is proof of how unwilling MSM is to show the opinions of Dr. RP on the air, as it should, to get the proper exposure, and the scope of this interview is reduced to number of hits on this web page.

There is no respect for Ron Paul, his message or us. This is just paying lip service. We always get the second stage like some stupid kids.

Pissed off

[brumans]

Yeah.. I would love to see this on the REAL 20/20. They have tons of viewers.

[pacelli]

So they post snippets of the interview on their site because they want to limit the debate about Dr. Paul ONLY to where it is "active". They don't want the debate about Dr. Paul to become active in the mainstream. So they limit it to the internet. Come on, what a joke. It is a very good interview, it is a shame that most Americans will never see it.

[RonPaulMania]

Not a good interview. This will hurt him. People don't like hearing that morality can be distanced from government, which does have some some merit. He should have been more "political" with his answers.

[Libertarian]

Don't worry folks...We are going to send them a message on 12/16 they will NOT be able to ignore.

[brumans]

Not a good interview. This will hurt him. People don't like hearing that morality can be distanced from government, which does have some some merit. He should have been more "political" with his answers.

I hate when people say this. The man is going to tell you what he thinks. He's not going to pander to politics and run around the question like typical politicians. Isn't this why we like him so much?

[Flirple]

I hate when people say this. The man is going to tell you what he thinks. He's not going to pander to politics and run around the question like typical politicians. Isn't this why we like him so much?

Exactly.

[DJ RP]

I hate when people say this. The man is going to tell you what he thinks. He's not going to pander to politics and run around the question like typical politicians. Isn't this why we like him so much?

QFT. If Ron Paul started pandering, all the people who work so hard on this campaign would miraculously no longer give a shit.

[RonPaulMania]

I hate when people say this. The man is going to tell you what he thinks. He's not going to pander to politics and run around the question like typical politicians. Isn't this why we like him so much?

Well it's true, whether you like it or not. Paul has been "political" about some of his answers in certain venues. I don't see how he could have been about the same I've seen him in other circumstances. I can give examples of times he's done this, I just think this wasn't the best "news" story where economy, health care, war, and taxes and they come out about prostitution and drugs. I've never seen another politician be asked those questions and it only seeks to harm him.

[torchbearer]

So they post snippets of the interview on their site because they want to limit the debate about Dr. Paul ONLY to where it is "active". They don't want the debate about Dr. Paul to become active in the mainstream. So they limit it to the internet. Come on, what a joke. It is a very good interview, it is a shame that most Americans will never see it.



SOLUTION!
We can buy the footage and the right to use it from ABC, a pre-packaged infomercial.
Then start a chipin to get it played in key early states.

[unconsious767]

ABC, Just Another Mickey Mouse News Outfit ®

[torchbearer]

//

[speciallyblend]

torchbearer great idea,can we make this happen,if so ,please lead the way;)

[propanes]

Ron probably thought an interview with ABC (American Broadcasting Company?) would be broadcast through normal channels, not just the internet piecemeal.

[torchbearer]

first step, contact abc. provide me with a contact to media buys... i will find out how much they want for the footage, then start a chipin to buy the rights to use it in an infomercial....

next step is to poll what everyone thinks is the key state to advertise it in... get contact info, find out the rate.. start chipin #2, send footage to abc in that region. collect and send money.

did i leave anything out?

[torchbearer]

//

[Abu]

Ridiculous.

[Matt Collins]

I pulled this from the interview:



http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/sonicspike/RonPaul-Biggovernmentputsabadtastei.jpg

[Roxi]

Not a good interview. This will hurt him. People don't like hearing that morality can be distanced from government, which does have some some merit. He should have been more "political" with his answers.

not true, Ron Paul hit it out of the park.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I pulled this from the interview:



http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/sonicspike/RonPaul-Biggovernmentputsabadtastei.jpg

LOL

What was being said to him or what did he say at that point?

[fuzzybekool]

I see us all complaining about How Ron Paul gets no credible air time on the MSM. And I agree 100%. We can all see it day after day. I am really getting fed up with it myself.

Is it time to take a page from MLK Jr. and take the message directly to the people by marching in large numbers to media outlets and forcing them to take notice ?

Do we sit here documenting the thievery, or do we organize some large scale demonstrations ?

Just venting, and I know it's winter, but can we afford to wait ? Just thinking outloud here. RonPaulFreedomMarch.com MarchforRonPaul.com

[fortilite]

We are taking the message to the people - letter writing, canvassing, blimps, and running our own tv ads. In the end though it would really help to get more respect from the MSM though. I suspect if we win either IA or NH they will air the ad. Or maybe if we get over $10 million on the 16th. But it really needs to be blatantly obvious that this Ron Paul thing is for real for them to respect us. They are so used to dismissing liberty.

[fuzzybekool]

Yes, I guess deep inside, I am also thinking that good showings or winning in Iowa and New Hampshire might get the movement more coverage.

[Duckman]

not true, Ron Paul hit it out of the park.

Totally agree!

[dircha]

Stossel is a great asset to the cause of freedom.

Anyone you know who has seen Sicko and thinks it is the end of the story needs to watch Stossel's Sick in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

I mean, 20/20, this is mainstream stuff, the real deal. This is the sort of exposure fiscal conservatives could once only dream of.

[Matt Collins]

What was being said to him or what did he say at that point?It was at the beginning of the interview where he was being asked about drugs or prostitution.

[Mastiff]

I agree that this is not so positive. I never really knew what Paul's personal position was on drug legalization before this. All I needed to know was that as a federal politician, he favors leaving the decision to the states. I wish he had left it at that and not editorialized... I personally don't want meth legal at my local level.

Having said that, my wife heard the last minute of the interview and thought it was good.

[torchbearer]

I agree that this is not so positive. I never really knew what Paul's personal position was on drug legalization before this. All I needed to know was that as a federal politician, he favors leaving the decision to the states. I wish he had left it at that and not editorialized... I personally don't want meth legal at my local level.

Having said that, my wife heard the last minute of the interview and thought it was good.

Then you elect local officials who believe as you do... Dr. Paul's personal beliefs are not going to be pushed on anyone... that's the whole point of a weak president. You get to decide for your community what drug policies you have... people need to understand and learn that there is still law and order without a over-bearing central government...

My line of thinking is 100% in line with Dr. Paul. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE VIRTUE.
Making it illegal does not make it go away, doesn't make it harder to get... in fact, drugs laws cause the opposite. With the increase in prohibition comes the increase in black market prices which increases the number of people willing to acquire and sell it, making it easier to get.
It is easier for a 12 year to buy marijuana than it is for a 12 year old to buy cigerettes and beer! When was the last time you heard about a drive-by shooting over alcohol or cigerettes? you don't, because all sells are legit, and if they aren't you can sue in civil court for damages, in prohibition, people have to take justice into their own hands...
Your heart is in the right place, but you need to grasp the idea of unintended consequences.
If its legal, will you do it? no. and it being illegal doesn't keep others from doing it at will, it just makes them criminals for doing it... and maybe one day your child will "experiment" and get caught, and have his whole life ruined because of stupid drug laws.

[Mastiff]

Then you elect local officials who believe as you do... Dr. Paul's personal beliefs are not going to be pushed on anyone... that's the whole point of a weak president. You get to decide for your community what drug policies you have... people need to understand and learn that there is still law and order without a over-bearing central government...

My line of thinking is 100% in line with Dr. Paul. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE VIRTUE.
Making it illegal does not make it go away, doesn't make it harder to get... in fact, drugs laws cause the opposite. With the increase in prohibition comes the increase in black market prices which increases the number of people willing to acquire and sell it, making it easier to get.
It is easier for a 12 year to buy marijuana than it is for a 12 year old to buy cigerettes and beer! When was the last time you heard about a drive-by shooting over alcohol or cigerettes? you don't, because all sells are legit, and if they aren't you can sue in civil court for damages, in prohibition, people have to take justice into their own hands...
Your heart is in the right place, but you need to grasp the idea of unintended consequences.
If its legal, will you do it? no. and it being illegal doesn't keep others from doing it at will, it just makes them criminals for doing it... and maybe one day your child will "experiment" and get caught, and have his whole life ruined because of stupid drug laws.

This isn't the place to discuss it, but believe me, I've thought it through. I think that the drug market is one of very few cases where the market doesn't work. Dealers and pushers can make a lot of money while causing net harm to the community. In principle, I'm not opposed to legalization as long as appropriate liability rules are instituted at the same time, but I think the typical libertarian position of unregulated (buyer beware) market is a little naive.

If you really care to discuss it, we can start a thread someplace else. My point was mostly just that I think 95% of people are not interested in an unregulated free market in heroin. If Paul is, there's no need to bring it up, since as president he won't be pushing that. It's a liability to the extent that people like to elect people who think like them.

[Mandrik]

I thought it was a good interview so far, but this kid's table BS of only showing it on the internet needs to end.

[torchbearer]

This isn't the place to discuss it, but believe me, I've thought it through. I think that the drug market is one of very few cases where the market doesn't work. Dealers and pushers can make a lot of money while causing net harm to the community. In principle, I'm not opposed to legalization as long as appropriate liability rules are instituted at the same time, but I think the typical libertarian position of unregulated (buyer beware) market is a little naive.

If you really care to discuss it, we can start a thread someplace else. My point was mostly just that I think 95% of people are not interested in an unregulated free market in heroin. If Paul is, there's no need to bring it up, since as president he won't be pushing that. It's a liability to the extent that people like to elect people who think like them.

You won't understand until your child is in prison for hurting no one. Until then, you will advocate destruction through collectivist laws. "I don't like it, so I have to compel everyone through government law to live as i think is proper." Which leads to the type of government we have today.
You can't have it both ways... either you live in a free society, are you live in varying degrees of totalitarianism.
Your children are more at risk under prohibition. You sir are naive, and need to read the facts.
Drug Policy is my specialty as a sociologist.

[Mastiff]

You won't understand until your child is in prison for hurting no one. Until then, you will advocate destruction through collectivist laws. "I don't like it, so I have to compel everyone through government law to live as i think is proper." Which leads to the type of government we have today.
You can't have it both ways... either you live in a free society, are you live in varying degrees of totalitarianism.
Your children are more at risk under prohibition. You sir are naive, and need to read the facts.
Drug Policy is my specialty as a sociologist.

Alrighty then. Way to ignore my points and jump into libertarian name calling mode. I invite you to start a new thread to discuss this reasonably, but I'm out of this thread.

[giskard]

Mastiff, pls. watch this 1.5 hr documentary, then let us know if anything has changed in your views:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=864268000924014458

[Duckman]

This is a very difficult topic, because most people believe that drug users cannot make rational decisions for themselves, and therefore the use of these substances must not be allowed.

The reason drug legalization is not advancing very quickly is because few people seem willing to defend drug use itself, which I think is really necessary before we can reach a more logical debate on this subject. For those that are open minded enough to read more, there is a book on this topic titled "Saying Yes" by Jacob Sullum.

Personally, I know many people who use drugs secretly or semi-secretly and yet continue to have productive and fulfilling lives. Most of these people use only cannabis, but I also know people who have used other drugs on occasion as well and have not become addicts or hurt themselves. There are many things a person can do to harm themselves that are not illegal. Drug addiction, to me, is the equivalent of alcoholism, which is the equivalent of overindulging in sex, spending the rent money, dangerous obseity due to gluttony, or a host of other activities that are harmful but not (yet) illegal.

[ThePieSwindler]

This isn't the place to discuss it, but believe me, I've thought it through. I think that the drug market is one of very few cases where the market doesn't work. Dealers and pushers can make a lot of money while causing net harm to the community. In principle, I'm not opposed to legalization as long as appropriate liability rules are instituted at the same time, but I think the typical libertarian position of unregulated (buyer beware) market is a little naive.

If you really care to discuss it, we can start a thread someplace else. My point was mostly just that I think 95% of people are not interested in an unregulated free market in heroin. If Paul is, there's no need to bring it up, since as president he won't be pushing that. It's a liability to the extent that people like to elect people who think like them.

Interestingly, the worries you have already exist due to the drugs being illegal, and you unknowingly point out one of the main problems that stems from drugs being illegal. There is so much violence related to the drug trade due to the very fact that it is prohibited. Look at alcohol - the only alcohol crime syndacates (who also happened to be ruthless killers) were during prohibition, including al capone. The state is what gives these men their power to push their trade and harm communities!

And on that note, its not like making them illegal does anything more than making people "feel" good. No one refrains from getting drugs due to the law - i could get HEROIN very, very easily, I even know who to ask, and I would be worrying much more about the people im dealing with than worryin about the law, yet of course im not going to get it because im not an idiot, and most people arent. The only difference between legal drugs are illegal drugs are that legal drugs happen to not be cut with poisons and other various addition substances that can do alot more harm than the actual drug. Now, im not advocating freely available legal drugs, of course, and believe it should be something similar to alcohol where only adults are allowed to make the decision to buy.

Despite feeling good about "the law" being against drugs (even though many police forces actually keep the drugs and resell a portion of them while destroying the rest), most evidence points to it, at the very least, doing nothing beneficial, and at worst, increasing needless violence, whether it be gang violence or the War on Drugs.

[torchbearer]

Alrighty then. Way to ignore my points and jump into libertarian name calling mode. I invite you to start a new thread to discuss this reasonably, but I'm out of this thread.

name calling? where? i laid out why you are wrong, you are the one not taking on the data backed facts I laid out. This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of 30 years of sociological study. Get the facts and stop acting like a mortar. You weren't attacked, your dangerous ideas were...