Tonite Ron Paul's Inflection Point?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
O'Rielly says "We don't have time for a history lesson"...lol

Let's not start getting a bunch of silly facts involved in this discussion. Just stick to the ridiculous "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but in these kinds of TV argument sessions, you need to have an answer handy that simultaneously answers the unfair question and makes the other guy look like a jerk for asking it. Millions of vaguely-interested Fox viewers just had their "Ron who?" impressions reinforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely why this country's going down.

People need an answer from a man who's running for the most powerful station in this country, and they need it before their pop tarts burn in the oven.

The only real solution to this problem is to have Jon Stewart run for president, lay the quick smack down on O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, and then surround himself with a cabinet that has a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]


That, or we just give the state the finger and all become anarchists. Are you with me?

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hit youtube

could have been worse, would have been better if they would have talked domestic policy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hYtgcZ9_61M

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit disappointed -- not a very inspired performance. He didn't exactly confront the point about "Iran's official, stated policy." He tried to make his own points, but of course those don't fit easily into a dramatic, five second sound bite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, pretty much a non-event. By my score in direct, discrete answers 2 were debatable, one was a non-answer, one he tried to avoid answering and when he was pressed to ("Dont you fear Iran") he softened his position from a solid "no" to a "yes I worry about them.

In longer discussions he has his facts wrong about when Iran will likely have nuclear capabilities, he gives the same bad answer he gave in the debate about the cold war, not understanding the difference between MAD of states vs. nukes in the hands of terrorists. Then he slips back into blowback as the sole cause of terrorism (despite the very clear message from OBL that it isnt the sole cause), and slips into the Dem line that we "let OBL go" in Afghanistan.

No knockouts on either side, in a 10 point must system the decision goes to BO, 99-96 for 10 rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Bill-O has a point about the difference between MAD nuclear situations and small nation/potential terrorist possession of nuclear weapons. Whether or not our policies are exacerbating or assuaging the threat to our security that stems from this issue is another question, but I think Bill is right that they aren't analogous issues. Ron Paul could have done better in that segment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would think that if Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrant that We Only Lose One City and You are Assured Destruction would be at least as effective.

Countries like Iran and N. Korea do not want a nuclear weapon so they can hand it to some terrorist, and have the glory of seeing a US city destroyed just before their entire country is vaporized. They want nuclear weapons because it is the only way they can be assured that we won't invade them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't be watching til 11. Can't wait.

I think you're putting a little too much emphasis on tonight, but any MSM exposure that makes him look good is a good thing, and O'Reilly for a Republican primary is pretty much the spotlight. So I would agree that I think him coming off good is real important.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since when is cable infotainment "MSM"?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many more people would need to watch this show before you would consider it "mainstream"? What media IS mainstream if the most popular show on the most popular cable news channel isn't?

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hit youtube

could have been worse, would have been better if they would have talked domestic policy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hYtgcZ9_61M

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit disappointed -- not a very inspired performance. He didn't exactly confront the point about "Iran's official, stated policy." He tried to make his own points, but of course those don't fit easily into a dramatic, five second sound bite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, pretty much a non-event. By my score in direct, discrete answers 2 were debatable, one was a non-answer, one he tried to avoid answering and when he was pressed to ("Dont you fear Iran") he softened his position from a solid "no" to a "yes I worry about them.

In longer discussions he has his facts wrong about when Iran will likely have nuclear capabilities, he gives the same bad answer he gave in the debate about the cold war, not understanding the difference between MAD of states vs. nukes in the hands of terrorists. Then he slips back into blowback as the sole cause of terrorism (despite the very clear message from OBL that it isnt the sole cause), and slips into the Dem line that we "let OBL go" in Afghanistan.

No knockouts on either side, in a 10 point must system the decision goes to BO, 99-96 for 10 rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Bill-O has a point about the difference between MAD nuclear situations and small nation/potential terrorist possession of nuclear weapons. Whether or not our policies are exacerbating or assuaging the threat to our security that stems from this issue is another question, but I think Bill is right that they aren't analogous issues. Ron Paul could have done better in that segment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would think that if Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrant that We Only Lose One City and You are Assured Destruction would be at least as effective.

Countries like Iran and N. Korea do not want a nuclear weapon so they can hand it to some terrorist, and have the glory of seeing a US city destroyed just before their entire country is vaporized. They want nuclear weapons because it is the only way they can be assured that we won't invade them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that it's not as big a deal as fear-mongers make it out to be. I was just saying that it is a distinct situation from the Cold War and I think RP could make his point better if he addressed the issue directly rather than by an analogy which isn't all that good (in a sound-bite environment at least).

[ChoicestHops]

[ QUOTE ]
Then he slips back into blowback as the sole cause of terrorism (despite the very clear message from OBL that it isnt the sole cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say that blowback is the main cause did he? He said that the concept of blowback is in effect here since we are in the Arabian Peninsula and think nothing will come out of it. The reasons we were attacked were support for Israel, military occupation in holy land, and aggression against Iraqis. Ron Paul and Kucinich are the only ones who will admit that if we change our foreign policy we could very well stop the cause of terrorism against us.

[surftheiop]

Granted the average american probaly wouldnt realize the cold war analogy might be slightly faulty unless they really thought about it. (Not saying this justifies the analogy, just saying i doubt many will see its faults)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill-o, and other neocons, keep saying that if we discontinue our occupation in Iraq, Iran will seek nuclear weapons to kill us and Isreal. I don't understand why Iran cannot do this now. How is the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq preventing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another base of operations in the ME is threatening to Iran, to start with. Also, abandoning Iraq before they can handle their own security creates a the opportunity for safe haven for terrorists to do Iran's work by proxy, just as they use Hezbollah and Hamas. Shiite control of Iraqs oil reserves also increases Irans power immensely.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
O'Rielly says "We don't have time for a history lesson"...lol

Let's not start getting a bunch of silly facts involved in this discussion. Just stick to the ridiculous "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" questions.

He was really digging hard for that "I'm not afraid of Iran" quote. Which will come in real handy for the neocons if they can just find a way to get Iran to attack something. Of course, waiting on Iran is hardly necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a 6 minute interview where RP was headed toward wasting a minute of it on history everybody knows. He basically stipulated to RPs version of history in order to get a responsive answer.

He also got the "Im not afraid of Iran" quote first, and he continued to dig, and finally got him to soften that position.

[Bump_Bailey]

He also got the "Im not afraid of Iran" quote first, and he continued to dig, and finally got him to soften that position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why exactly should we (Americans) fear Iran?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hit youtube

could have been worse, would have been better if they would have talked domestic policy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hYtgcZ9_61M

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit disappointed -- not a very inspired performance. He didn't exactly confront the point about "Iran's official, stated policy." He tried to make his own points, but of course those don't fit easily into a dramatic, five second sound bite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, pretty much a non-event. By my score in direct, discrete answers 2 were debatable, one was a non-answer, one he tried to avoid answering and when he was pressed to ("Dont you fear Iran") he softened his position from a solid "no" to a "yes I worry about them.

In longer discussions he has his facts wrong about when Iran will likely have nuclear capabilities, he gives the same bad answer he gave in the debate about the cold war, not understanding the difference between MAD of states vs. nukes in the hands of terrorists. Then he slips back into blowback as the sole cause of terrorism (despite the very clear message from OBL that it isnt the sole cause), and slips into the Dem line that we "let OBL go" in Afghanistan.

No knockouts on either side, in a 10 point must system the decision goes to BO, 99-96 for 10 rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Bill-O has a point about the difference between MAD nuclear situations and small nation/potential terrorist possession of nuclear weapons. Whether or not our policies are exacerbating or assuaging the threat to our security that stems from this issue is another question, but I think Bill is right that they aren't analogous issues. Ron Paul could have done better in that segment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would think that if Mutually Assured Destruction was an effective deterrant that We Only Lose One City and You are Assured Destruction would be at least as effective. <font color="red"> And what city do you destroy when a terrorist with no avowed national affiliation sets off a dirty bomb in Chicago? </font>

Countries like Iran and N. Korea do not want a nuclear weapon so they can hand it to some terrorist, and have the glory of seeing a US city destroyed just before their entire country is vaporized. <font color="red">you assume they are all rational to start with. In the case of Iran and NK, they arent. Second your assumption that they wouldnt love to see a city in a different country leveled in retaliation for a bomb they sponsored has not support and makes no sense. </font> They want nuclear weapons because it is the only way they can be assured that we won't invade them.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> if we wanted to invade them we would have done it long ago. Weve had numerous opportunities </font>