Ron Paul whooped ass on Hardball (video)

[MozoVote]

I think we saw a flash of the old 1988 Ron, there!

 

[nobody's_hero]

Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor the delivery of the message? It's become pretty easy for me to see how it could turn people off, so I don't really subscribe to the notion of "If they don't see it, forget 'em." I think you could easily sway these people if the campaign understood how they receive information.

Okay, but there's a difference between people who are open-minded and people who are just out to make Ron look bad—no matter what.

Don't let them fool you, Chris Matthews's audience knows in the back of their minds that Ron Paul could make sense to people if they ever listened to the doctor's reasoning, and they perceive that as a threat, so they have to twist and distort everything he says hoping that it drives away people who might get curious.

If they are open-minded, they'll find us. If they're close-minded, they'll just keep electing the same people over and over thinking that something will change.

When I made my comment, it was really frustration that time was running out. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt because I remember when I held neoconnish views (fortunately, I never voted, so my hands weren't too bloody), and I know a bit about what it takes to change views.

I also know that if someone absolutely doesn't want to change their mind, we're wasting our time with them.

 

[Bobster]

Oh my God, Paul put on his Chuck Norris face and totally backhanded Chris all over his own show. That was epic. The points were excellent and were articulated. Awesome.

 

[Gaddafi Duck]

Oh my God, Paul put on his Chuck Norris face and totally backhanded Chris all over his own show. That was epic. The points were excellent and were articulated. Awesome.

SMACK!

 

[brandon]

No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves.[/COLOR]"

This is going in my signature.

 

[sailingaway]

This is going in my signature.

Arggh. I copied it to put in mine, but the Patriot Act is up, what, next week? I'm keeping the picture/link until it can't do any more good.

 

[ARealConservative]

Matthews: "The idea of total freedom doesn't seem to work."

Could it be that Libertarians are naive about people's true nature and non-Libs are highly accurate in their realism/cynicism about Man...?

these responses are cop-outs.

I would immediately shout back to define his use of the term "works". 14 trillion in debt while we face constant threats of government shut down is an example of something that works? Obama and McCain suggesting suspending an election to race back and stave off economic collapse is a govenrment that works?

that was a softball.

 

[IBleedNavyAndOrange]

Good ending about it being a package deal. He needs to expand on that. I also like how he's starting to phrase the answers to questions about one extreme side of a freedom principle ("Heroin should be legal") with the less extreme side ("You should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to."). That should be expanded upon as well, and can be part of the "package" theory.

"When I argue for freedom, it is all too easy to take one extreme end of the spectrum and dismiss the argument outright because that extreme is unpleasant to deal with. If I argue that individuals should be free to do anything that doesn't hurt another individual, the easy extreme to pick is heroin. "So heroin should be legal?" It is all too easy then to shy away from the argument, but I believe that those extreme examples are simply a part of the package, and I will defend the extremes as well. That doesn't mean I believe that the extremes are good for humanity, but it does mean that I will defend that extreme just as fiercely. Just like we should not demonize lawyers who, honoring our justice system which believes that even the guilty deserve representation, decide to defend someone accused of even the most heinous crimes, we should not demonize people who, in defending liberty in general, decide to defend liberty for even the extreme cases. Defending a murderer in court that not mean you condone murder. It means that you understand that in order for our society to remain just and fair for all, even those who would be thought undeserving of that justice and fairness should receive it. Even heroin, although a dangerous drug that can ruin someone's life, should have a defender in the court of public opinion, because once we deem heroin to not deserve that justice and fairness, then it becomes all too easy to also deny less harmful and possible even some beneficial sustances that same benefit. I apply this principle across the board, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint is. We all agree that the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity committed against the world in general and the Jews in specific. Yet we didn't just shoot the nazis responsible on sight. We captured them, tried them in court, and then punished them for their actions. We can all agree that the terrorist attacks against the world over the last few decades and against the United States in specific were terrible. I argue that the ideal response is to capture those responsible and properly try them in our court system. This allows us to maintain our principled freedoms while punishing those responsible for their heinous actions. One of the possibly most divisive issues is that of racism. An ugly blight on our human condition, where we judge an individual not on merit but on preconceived and wholly unmerited notions, and where we treat those individuals as lesser, denying them our friendship and hospitality. However, to accept that we should all be free to socialize with whomever we want is to also accept that we are free to choose to not socialize with certain individuals. To accept that racism, no matter how ugly, no matter how small, will always have at least some place in our society. Racism, like heroin, like murderers, and like terrorists, is on one extreme side of the spectrum. But no matter how unpopular, and no matter how indefensible, trying to outlaw it will inevitably lead to restrictions on freedom on the other side of the spectrum. And no matter how hard we try, we just won't be able to successfully remove these unwanted elements from our society, no matter how many laws we come up with, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, and no matter how many freedoms we are willing to sacrifice.

All I will ask is that when these extremes come up in a discussion, to not assume that if I do not argue that these extremes can be removed from our society by law, that that automatically means I must be in favor of their existence. We can agree that we should always try to minimize the negative effect that these extremes have on our society, but we should do so in the understanding that we just have a differing opinion on how to best accomplish this."

^THIS^

+1 rep

 

[bb_dg]

It's been a long time since the last time Ron Paul gave me a boner.

 

[TastyWheat]

This is the fire I've been missing. Just like back in 2008 when he was going blow-for-blow with Huckabee on Iraq.