(10/26/11) Ron Paul on Fox News - Official Thread

[sailingaway]

In the extended portion of this interview, Ron said that he wouldn't put any of our troops along the border. If Ron wants to bring all of our troops home from overseas, what would he use them for here at home? What would they do if they weren't used to secure the borders?

Training, rebuilding the bases and spending money. Some would be on the border but he doesn't mean lining it sea to shining sea. He has spoken of the cartels and troops, though.

What do you suggest they do?

 

[Brett85]

What do you suggest they do?

I would put them around the entire perimeter of our country. If we did that, it would ensure that we would have a strong national defense. It would make Ron look like the strongest candidate on national defense in the race if he came out in favor of something like that. I guess my political views are really more in line with Pat Buchanan's political views than Ron's.

 

[milo10]

To answer your last question (I think)...I'm looking for you and every other libertarian out there to tell me why Ron Paul (or even Fox News for that matter) presently has just a little bit of a problem detailing exactly how 16 trillion will ever be repaid...let alone how 'we' (or apparently not libertarians) will somehow accomplish this Herculean feat while keeping said 'promise' to those scared to death of the necessary term "shared sacrifice".

I frankly don't think the amount that we are liable for can ever be paid without inflating the currency to oblivion. What we can do is put the United States on an even footing in terms of balancing the budget and laying the framework for solid economic growth. Beyond that, we would have to look into something that completely rearranges the framework of the current world monetary system. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, read individuals like Jim Rickards. There may be some combination of renegotiating our debt down while paying part of it in gold (but gold would have to be vastly higher in price). While of course countries like China would be very unhappy about our not paying our debt in full, they would at the same time be elated that we would be stepping back from being the policeman/bully of the world. I think this could all be negotiated with good will to spare, to be honest with you.

This is a very complex topic, and if you think it is incumbent upon Ron Paul to explore it in depth, you are being totally unrealistic. Ron's cuts, which are really much less than what would be ideal, will be absolutely savaged by the MSM if Ron wins the nomination. For him to talk about giving some of the U.S.'s gold to other countries and bond holders, stepping back from having the world reserve currency, and truly abandoning American exceptionalism (not just the Bush doctrine and preemptive war, but American exceptionalism period) is completely off the map to the current electorate. Ron is as real as the American public can possibly take right now. When they see that his policies work, we can move to the next step.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I would put them around the entire perimeter of our country. If we did that, it would ensure that we would have a strong national defense. It would make Ron look like the strongest candidate on national defense in the race if he came out in favor of something like that. I guess my political views are really more in line with Pat Buchanan's political views than Ron's.

The entire world population can fit into Rhode Island. I don't think we have enough troops to cover the entire perimeter of our country.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

"Oh, you mean I share responsibility for the 16T debt? No, I don't. I have opposed big government since before I could vote...
...Perhaps it's more appropriate to ask me what Ron Paul thinks, but again, maybe someone should ask him? I think I've heard him respond to a question like that but it was not in the context of being president. I think he responded by saying the debt wasn't going to be paid back. That America would default on it and that *inflation* was the way we would default on it. That was his assessment of what had been done throughout history in such circumstances..."
By the time we've gotten to this point I think you should be a little more honest with your pose as just a regular guy considering Ron Paul. Personally, I think you're just here to troll around. You have an entirely different agenda than just to consider a candidate.

You refuse to take responsibility for the debt...Fox (and all other media) realize that discussing ultimate responsibility for the debt 'upsets' evidently both yourself and Ron (which is blasphemy even on the RP forums)...so any simple question by 'trolls' such as myself to have either three of you explain (or in the case of Fox 'expose') how the nation's debt will ultimately be repayed by who (and when) is in fact 'mute'...as default is always a 'given' throughout history in these circumstances (not to mention politically expedient).

You're right, if I could look a kid in the eye and tell him or her that the lifetime mess they are all inheriting is 'not my fault' or 'inevitable' and that I had indeed 'opposed it all from the beginning'...I could probably convince them to be more receptive to their unexpected new lot in life as well.

I'm guessing that they'd just as soon see us man up, discuss honestly what the amount owed truly is/who owes it and (heaven forbid) set an example for 'their' kids to follow in regards to the possible collective consequences of voting irresponsibly or accepting perverted 'norms' over time.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

"Oh, you mean I share responsibility for the 16T debt? No, I don't. I have opposed big government since before I could vote...
...Perhaps it's more appropriate to ask me what Ron Paul thinks, but again, maybe someone should ask him? I think I've heard him respond to a question like that but it was not in the context of being president. I think he responded by saying the debt wasn't going to be paid back. That America would default on it and that *inflation* was the way we would default on it. That was his assessment of what had been done throughout history in such circumstances..."

By the time we've gotten to this point I think you should be a little more honest with your pose as just a regular guy considering Ron Paul. Personally, I think you're just here to troll around. You have an entirely different agenda than just to consider a candidate.

You refuse to take responsibility for the debt...Fox (and all other media) realize that discussing ultimate responsibility for the debt 'upsets' evidently both yourself and Ron (which is evidently blasphemy even on the RP forums)...so any simple question by 'trolls' such as myself to have either three of you explain (or in the case of Fox 'expose') how the nation's debt will ultimately be repayed by who (and when) is in fact 'mute'...as default is always a 'given' throughout history in these circumstances (not to mention politcally expedient).

You're right, if I could look a kid in the eye and tell him or her that the lifetime mess they are all inheriting is 'not my fault' or 'inevitable' and that I had indeed 'opposed it all from the beginning'...I could probably convince them to be more receptive to their unexpected new lot in life as well.

I'm guessing that they'd just as soon see us man up, discuss honestly what the amount owed truly is/who owes it and (heaven forbid) set an example for 'their' kids to follow in regards to the possible collective consequences of voting irresponsibly or accepting perverted 'norms' over time.

 

[acptulsa]

If you have no problem with admitting (some) personally responsibility for both the mess that we are in presently and ideally being part of the solution that saves this country from the brink of disaster...why won't you share an opinion as to how responsible you now are (reduced benefit-wise) to be perceived as less than greedy? (your words)

To answer your last question (I think)...I'm looking for you and every other libertarian out there to tell me why Ron Paul (or even Fox News for that matter) presently has just a little bit of a problem detailing exactly how 16 trillion will ever be repaid...let alone how 'we' (or apparently not libertarians) will somehow accomplish this Herculean feat while keeping said 'promise' to those scared to death of the necessary term "shared sacrifice".

I think that a lot of folks understand exactly what I am saying...and they're presently either receiving a check from 'somebody' right now...or are scared to death (again) that Mom, Dad, sister, brother or relative/friend will be moving in with them directly should ever the necessary collective sacrifices be finally made to save this great country from fiscal ruin.

I don't blame Ron Paul or any other old line libertarian like myself for the present mess. I opposed these imperialistic wars from the start, I opposed the deficit spending since I was old enough to understand what it was, I didn't use any of the federal stuff personally except less unemployment insurance than I paid over the years, and I reject your notion that I, or Ron Paul (who has never voted for an unbalanced budget) is to blame for this.

He will stimulate the economy, as he said in the extended version, by allowing us to use sound money and by making entrepreneurs unafraid of the regulatory and tax burden which currently makes them scared to death to try to create enterprise in this land. Then Dad, sister, brother, relative/friend, and even Mom if she so desires stands a decent chance of getting a decent job, which is what most of us want more than some vague welfare of some kind.

And I fear that the bonds will be paid at pennies on the dollar--in other words, at full value but in crashing Federal Reserve Notes.

Next troll, please.

 

[acptulsa]

You refuse to take responsibility for the debt.

We refuse your assertion that it's our fault or Ron Paul's fault.

...so any simple question by 'trolls' such as myself to have either three of you explain (or in the case of Fox 'expose') how the nation's debt will ultimately be repayed by who (and when) is in fact 'mute'...as default is always a 'given' throughout history in these circumstances (not to mention politcally expedient).

Read my lips. The bonds will pay off in full in Federal Reserve Notes as promised. Of course, these FRNs, now worth about three 1913 cents, will be worth a fraction of a 1913 cent. But they'll be paid. How else could it happen?

I'm guessing that they'd just as soon see us man up, discuss honestly what the amount owed truly is/who owes it and (heaven forbid) set an example for 'their' kids to follow in regards to the possible collective consequences of voting irresponsibly or accepting perverted 'norms' over time.

Or being foolish enough to keep buying T bills and not cash them in. Which I would never do nor suggest anyone else do at this juncture of history for fear of my mortal soul, because that's how it's going to get paid off whether Ron Paul is president or not. The only question is, will we be allowed to use sound money if we want to or will we be forced to carry our money to the market in a basket and take our groceries home in our pocket?

 

[IterTemporis]

You refuse to take responsibility for the debt...Fox (and all other media) realize that discussing ultimate responsibility for the debt 'upsets' evidently both yourself and Ron (which is evidently blasphemy even on the RP forums)...so any simple question by 'trolls' such as myself to have either three of you explain (or in the case of Fox 'expose') how the nation's debt will ultimately be repayed by who (and when) is in fact 'mute'...as default is always a 'given' throughout history in these circumstances (not to mention politcally expedient).

You're right, if I could look a kid in the eye and tell him or her that the lifetime mess they are all inheriting is 'not my fault' or 'inevitable' and that I had indeed 'opposed it all from the beginning'...I could probably convince them to be more receptive to their unexpected new lot in life as well.

I'm guessing that they'd just as soon see us man up, discuss honestly what the amount owed truly is/who owes it and (heaven forbid) set an example for 'their' kids to follow in regards to the possible collective consequences of voting irresponsibly or accepting perverted 'norms' over time.

I apologize, but I do not understand.. If a manager of a store makes a decision, and it turns out to be detrimental, and causes the store to go bankrupt. Would it be the manager's fault? Or would it be both the employees and the manager's fault? The way that I am reading your post, it seems as if you would think that it would be the latter, both the employees and the manager's fault.

----------

Also, please stop labeling SharedSacrifice as a troll. Let us not go through this again.. There is no justification in insulting someone just because their views are different. If you disagree with their views, then simply state that, but please do not resort to insults.

 

[acptulsa]

Also, please stop labeling SharedSacrifice as a troll. Let us not go through this again.. There is no justification in insulting someone just because their views are different. If you disagree with their views, then simply state that, but please do not resort to insults.

SS, I apologize for calling you a troll, even if you did come here trolling for a reaction.

Now that I've given you a straight answer, how about it? Do we get to hear your reaction? If you'd care to tell me if what I said makes sense or not, I'll even edit the 'next troll please' out of my previous post and assume you came here with an open mind.

 

[69360]

You refuse to take responsibility for the debt...Fox (and all other media) realize that discussing ultimate responsibility for the debt 'upsets' evidently both yourself and Ron (which is evidently blasphemy even on the RP forums)...so any simple question by 'trolls' such as myself to have either three of you explain (or in the case of Fox 'expose') how the nation's debt will ultimately be repayed by who (and when) is in fact 'mute'...as default is always a 'given' throughout history in these circumstances (not to mention politcally expedient).

You're right, if I could look a kid in the eye and tell him or her that the lifetime mess they are all inheriting is 'not my fault' or 'inevitable' and that I had indeed 'opposed it all from the beginning'...I could probably convince them to be more receptive to their unexpected new lot in life as well.

I'm guessing that they'd just as soon see us man up, discuss honestly what the amount owed truly is/who owes it and (heaven forbid) set an example for 'their' kids to follow in regards to the possible collective consequences of voting irresponsibly or accepting perverted 'norms' over time.

There's no need to sacrifice or share any blame. Shrinking the size of the federal government will allow existing revenue to eventually pay down the debt. Ron has a plan to do just this.

 

[IterTemporis]

SS, I apologize for calling you a troll, even if you did come here trolling for a reaction.

Now that I've given you a straight answer, how about it? Do we get to hear your reaction? If you'd care to tell me if what I said makes sense or not, I'll even edit the 'next troll please' out of my previous post and assume you came here with an open mind.

Thank you .

Now if only I could convince those aggressive RP supporters on other sites to please stop insulting anyone who does not see eye to eye with them..

 

[LibertyEagle]

Thank you .

Now if only I could convince those aggressive RP supporters on other sites to please stop insulting anyone who does not see eye to eye with them..

Hi.

We are all individuals and as such, can only control our own actions. So, I will talk about my own. I went to a certain tea party facebook page the other day and found my blood pressure rising quite a bit. Ron Paul had been left out of their poll and several individuals were insulting both he and anyone who supported him. I will tell you that it got more than a little old. I refused to lower myself to their level and left fairly quickly, but it most certainly was not a RP supporter who was being aggressive and rude.

It would seem to me that there could be a variety of benefits if we as everyday Americans could come together and discuss the issues of the day and ideas for resolution. Our country is in big trouble right now.

We aren't the enemy, by the way.

 

[acptulsa]

Hi.

We are all individuals and as such, can only control our own actions. So, I will talk about my own. I went to a certain tea party facebook page the other day and found my blood pressure rising quite a bit. Ron Paul had been left out of their poll and several individuals were insulting both he and anyone who supported him. I will tell you that it got more than a little old. I refused to lower myself to their level and left fairly quickly, but it most certainly was not a RP supporter who was being aggressive and rude.

It would seem to me that there could be a variety of benefits if we as everyday Americans could come together and discuss the issues of the day and ideas for resolution. Our country is in big trouble right now.

We aren't the enemy, by the way.

And when we come to our own house and find someone not asking us if we have an answer to their concern, but (mistakenly) telling us that we do not, that's not particularly good for the blood pressure either. Especially when they leave in a snit upon learning that they were wrong instead of even hanging around long enough to thank us for taking the time to explain it to them.

Yes, we need to be more patient and polite. We really do. The media has been feeding them from its b.s. machine for a very long time, and while what we say was once upon a time the conventional wisdom, the new 'conventional wisdom' is neither conventional nor wise. And the fact that they usually come to us with an obnoxious attitude and get more obnoxious when we don't 'fall into their trap', but have an answer that they don't like but must accept or be intellectually dishonest, they tend to get more so. So, it's hard to be patient, especially 'in our own house'.

But we need to do better, myself included. We have an election to win. And even if the troll is, in fact, unreachable and just here to cause trouble, we still have an audience who will be interested to see how we treat them and (hopefully) if we make good sense. What will win this election is, 'I disagree with you and here are good reasons why.'

 

[IterTemporis]

Hi.

We are all individuals and as such, can only control our own actions. So, I will talk about my own. I went to a certain tea party facebook page the other day and found my blood pressure rising quite a bit. Ron Paul had been left out of their poll and several individuals were insulting both he and anyone who supported him. I will tell you that it got more than a little old. I refused to lower myself to their level and left fairly quickly, but it most certainly was not a RP supporter who was being aggressive and rude.

I understand. I wish more people were like you. An argument causes unneeded stress, and in these cases accomplishes nothing.

Also, let me clarify that I was not referring to acptulsa as being aggressive or rude. I appreciate it that they read my post and reconsidered. I am only trying to express my views to others that insulting or attacking people will bring no net positives. It will give them a sour impression of us, and they will be far less receptive to what we have to say, even if what we are saying is completely true, than if we were to approach them in a kind manner.

As for the aggressive RP supporters, I was referring to those whom anytime they see a post that they disagree with, such as a post from a loving Cain supporter for example, they call them idiots and/or insult who they are supporting, then explain why they are wrong, and then say 'Ron Paul 2012!', etc.

Those are who I refer to as aggressive. They immediately attack and then add in their support of RP. They may have true and valid points, but those kinds of posts tarnish RP's name. Whenever I do see one, I try to reply to them and ask them to please reconsider changing their approach method, to be kinder, and then I proceed to explain why.

Kindness kills. Not only that.. but other people will read your posts too. If you are being kind and civil, they will be more receptive to what you are saying, and even if they disagree, they will not leave with a bad impression of you in their mind. The rare exception being if you have very extreme views.. For instance, Santorum saying that he wants to go to war with China. I respect him, but wow...

 

[Brett85]

The entire world population can fit into Rhode Island. I don't think we have enough troops to cover the entire perimeter of our country.

Well, I would at least use our troops to secure our southern and northern borders. I'm pretty sure we would at least have enough troops for that.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, I would at least use our troops to secure our southern and northern borders. I'm pretty sure we would at least have enough troops for that.

It's a damned long way from Aroostook to Vancouver.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

There's no need to sacrifice or share any blame. Shrinking the size of the federal government will allow existing revenue to eventually pay down the debt. Ron has a plan to do just this.

While I respect your opinion...it is a little (OK, a lot) scary to me that the immediate handling of a nationally shared debt costing literally billions a month in interest (let alone this country's unfunded liabilities pegged at several times this figure) is viewed or even expressed on the RP forums in such a cavalier manner with everybody on here apparently in lock step agreement (I'm sorry, but if the first sentance resonates with most here...I've got better things to do with my time).

It's as if the term 'personal responsibility' has simply become a catch word with libertarians...rather than the educational tool needed (by example) to prevent/caution our younger generation of ever traveling down the same path that we have in but one generation's lifetime.

If I'm in the wrong here as to Fox softballing these type of huge fiscal responsibility questions to Ron and ever other candidate interviewed please correct me on this. Otherwise, I am more than a little disappointed that Ron didn't do any better than he did with the tougher questions (re: those that very simply asked 'what one can do for their country'..) not even put on the agenda that night.

 

[bluesc]

While I respect your opinion...it is a little (OK, a lot) scary to me that the immediate handling of a nationally shared debt costing literally billions a month in interest (let alone this country's unfunded liabilities pegged at several times this figure) is viewed or even expressed on the RP forums in such a cavalier manner with everybody on here apparently in lock step agreement (I'm sorry, but if the first sentance resonates with most here...I've got better things to do with my time).

It's as if the term 'personal responsibility' has simply become a catch word with libertarians...rather than the educational tool needed (by example) to prevent/caution our younger generation of ever traveling down the same path that we have in but one generation's lifetime.

If I'm in the wrong here as to Fox softballing these type of huge fiscal responsibility questions to Ron and ever other candidate interviewed please correct me on this. Otherwise, I am more than a little disappointed that Ron didn't do any better than he did with the tougher questions (re: those that very simply asked 'what one can do for their country'..) not even put on the agenda that night.

The point is that Ron is the only one with a plan to handle the situation. The other candidates will lead the US into a collapse. His performance that night is irrelevant, as it was days ago.

Ron has the plan, we need to get him elected. If you're so serious about the debt crisis, you should know that.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

Johnson's movement is not 'within' Ron's circle, some of his staff, as with some of Johnson's, are both associated with libertarianism. However, it is important to realize that Ron, himself, was a paleoconservative before the libertarian party was ever created. He never made some of the concessions those who grew out of the party sometimes did. Some from the libertarian side I think may have been worried that Gary Johnson would draw some of Ron's support. But on this issue, Ron believes in US sovereignty and he is absolutely consistent on that, as with everything. GJ seems to have a 'cost benefit approach' which is, to me, mushy on principle and too willing to cede principle for 'pragmatism'. GJ came out for NAFTA, for example, while Ron, seeing it as a violation of US sovereignty to put foreign councils preeminent over local law, opposed and opposes it. There is no question that Ron is more of a free trader, but he also understands how much special interest cronyism and delivery of US autonomy is hidden in the 20,000 pages of regulation that stand between what NAFTA is and what free trade is. Ron is kinda a policy wonk, and doesn't go by the title of the bill.

Ron VOTED for the fence, though, because he thought enforcement and other issues were more important than the fence, but we fought a war for the Rio Grande. do we really not want our Ranchers and transporters to be able to use the waterway? That just doesn't feel like the Land of the Free.

Any how, please look deeply, because Ron shines the more you look. He DOES have issues with Club for Growth because he is considered a 'purist' on 'free' trade, putting US sovereignty, and freedom from barriers to entry to small enterprises above compromise, on some specific trade deals. You have to decide what is important to you, of course.

Thank you for the history in relation to Johnson and RP's roots. I would agree that the more you look the more he shines on issues not related to solving the (true) debt crisis or coming across like we all would like a presidential candidate to do on the only significant major news channel that reaches the populous...but is that enough?

To simply be 'better than everybody else' only because none of your supporters are doing the debt-related math...because the rest of the country isn't choosing to either for obvious 'what can my country do for me' selfish reasoning...and that questions concerning 'shared sacrifice' related to entitlements never see the light of day from debate organizers such as Fox (let alone the candidate's own supporters)...is that enough?

If my country is mired in a multi-trillion dollar debt/entitlement/unfunded liability crisis...why in the heck am I concerned about anything other than another country taking advantage of this or who even 'dares' broach the most important subject matters of all honestly?