Ron Paul to be on CNN Piers Morgan show tonight 9 p.p. ET

[D.A.S.]

This was a GREAT interview!

I sure do wish the audio-visual feed was better, but Dr. Paul did a great job articulating all his points and stating clarifications for his oft-misquoted views. He was sharp, he was funny, and he was charming.

Way to go!!

That should be an even better payback for the Today Show cancelling on him this morning!

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn7FAXVnSR8

Wow. Unbelievably good defense of pro-life libertarianism. Probably one of the best defenses I've ever heard in a TV interview.

 

[rajibo]

Ron Paul's always best when he's sitting in his easy chair talking about the issues he's passionate about. These 30 second debate soundbites are understandably, not where he shines.

 

[Tinnuhana]

He used much the same argument the last election cycle when on The View. He really had them thinking.

 

[mport1]

Awful interview. He rambles and stumbles through every answer. He consistently jumps from point to point without making connections for the listener. He leaves out words that are needed for clarification. He goes on for 3 minutes on the last question! Why has he not hired a speech coach or gotten better at this buy now? I love the guy, but man he would be so much better if he could speak like Rand.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Awful interview. He rambles and stumbles through every answer. He consistently jumps from point to point without making connections for the listener. He leaves out words that are needed for clarification. He goes on for 3 minutes on the last question! Why has he not hired a speech coach or gotten better at this buy now? I love the guy, but man he would be so much better if he could speak like Rand.

Really? Hmmm. I didn't think it was too bad...

 

[Oddone]

Even if Ron Paul doesn't win this year, 2008 and 2012 will have cleared the way for Rand Paul. With his fathers support he would steam roll into the White House. I hope Ron Paul wins this time around though. I agree that Ron does need to pickup on the speaking, but no matter how he sounds I always love his points. A first time listener to him may not get the point though their first go around.

 

[mport1]

Really? Hmmm. I didn't think it was too bad...

Maybe its just me. I almost wanted to turn it off because I was getting so annoyed/frustrated.

 

[Verrater]

Awful interview. He rambles and stumbles through every answer. He consistently jumps from point to point without making connections for the listener. He leaves out words that are needed for clarification. He goes on for 3 minutes on the last question! Why has he not hired a speech coach or gotten better at this buy now? I love the guy, but man he would be so much better if he could speak like Rand.

Couldn't disagree more.
I thought he look top form compared to the debate.

 

[lucky_bg]

Couldn't disagree more.
I thought he look top form compared to the debate.

+rep

 

[Imaginos]

Great interview!
To give credit where it's due, Piers Morgan was fair.
He misunderstood Ron's position on gay marriage but other than that he at least gave Dr. Paul enough time to explain his positions.
That is fair and honest journalism so I can respect that although he's a uber left guy.

 

[speciallyblend]

+rep

haha ,your avatar surprised you didnt over lap the corn dog pic and make animation!!! made for a good laugh this morning!

 

[Krugerrand]

Dr. Paul pointed out the legal inconsistency that has bothered me for a while: abortion is legal, so it's legal for a doctor and the mother to kill an unborn child, but if you punch a woman in the stomach and kill her child, you go to prison for murder. The whole validity of the baby's life rests upon the mother's desire: if she wants the baby, it's a human life, if she doesn't want it, it isn't a human life.

Even the mother's desire is not enough. The whole validity of the baby's life rests upon if the Abortion Industrial Complex got paid.

There was a case not all that long ago when a young woman asked her boyfriend to help her kill her unborn twins. Tragically the children died. Her boyfriend ended up in prison for murder.

A 19-year-old accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder.
...
Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who caused the miscarriage.
...
Texas law defines an embryo or fetus as an "individual" and allows criminal prosecution or civil action for a preventable injury or death of a fetus. The law exempts health care providers who perform a legal medical procedure, such as an abortion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158783,00.html#ixzz1VC8KmBTI

 

[specsaregood]

Even the mother's desire is not enough. The whole validity of the baby's life rests upon if the Abortion Industrial Complex got paid.

There was a case not all that long ago when a young woman asked her boyfriend to help her kill her unborn twins. Tragically the children died. Her boyfriend ended up in prison for murder.

Thanks for that, I had not heard about it. Of course, many on the pro-abortion side will just argue that is why we need to guarantee free govt-paid abortions to all. Just like they do in Israel.

 

[RKoho]

I have to agree with the earlier poster, I think this was a bad interview. Piers Morgan was fair, that is true. But Ron Paul rambled on too long and could of been more organized in his thoughts. But that wasn't my chief concern.

I'm worried about his new abortion stance. It'll help him with Iowa, but arguing so strongly against abortion may hurt him elsewhere. I liked his abortion argument when it was based on the constitution and federalism. I'm not too fond of his morality argument. Does anyone know why he changed his stance? Maybe an advisor got him to do it for Iowa? I suppose he can still say in future debates that even though he is against abortion the constitution doesn't permit the federal government to ban it anyway. But then someone said he signed a pledge to ban abortion on the federal level. What's going on?

 

[specsaregood]

I have to agree with the earlier poster, I think this was a bad interview. Piers Morgan was fair, that is true. But Ron Paul rambled on too long and could of been more organized in his thoughts. But that wasn't my chief concern.

I'm worried about his new abortion stance. It'll help him with Iowa, but arguing so strongly against abortion may hurt him elsewhere. I liked his abortion argument when it was based on the constitution and federalism. I'm not too fond of his morality argument. Does anyone know why he changed his stance? Maybe an advisor got him to do it for Iowa? I suppose he can still say in future debates that even though he is against abortion the constitution doesn't permit the federal government to ban it anyway. But then someone said he signed a pledge to ban abortion on the federal level. What's going on?

He didn't change his stance.

 

[RKoho]

Your reply didn't really get to my questions. It does seem like he changed his stance. He used to argue that the federal government had nothing to do with abortion because it was a private matter, and if anything, should be allocated to the states. Now he signed a pledge that ask for the advancement of pro life abortion legislation by the president.

I expected an answer like this from him:
"Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain also has declined to sign the pledge. Cain said in a statement that the pledge takes too robust a view of presidential powers by calling on the president to "advance" pro-life legislation rather than Congress."


Still, I read the pledge. It's consistent with his views. Thankfully! I was worried. It mostly deals from removing federal pro choice legislation. That's good. Because he can still argue the only reason he signed the pledge was to remove federal involvement in abortion matters and leave it to the states. I wish he made that more evident in the interview though. Any liberals watching it would of thought he was aiming to ban abortion on the federal level and that would cost us in the future.

 

[specsaregood]

Your reply didn't really get to my questions. It does seem like he changed his stance.

Still, I read the pledge. It's consistent with his views. Thankfully! I was worried. It mostly deals from removing federal pro choice legislation. That's good. Because he can still argue the only reason he signed the pledge was to remove federal involvement in abortion matters and leave it to the states. I wish he made that more evident in the interview though. Any liberals watching it would of thought he was aiming to ban abortion on the federal level and that would cost us in the future.

So you are saying, he didn't change his stance. Welcome to the site.