digg

Join DiggAbout

The Larry King clip that never happened watch!

youtube.com — Ron Paul on Larry King 1-3-08 (UNAIRED)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -13/+259I thought that was a great interview, Ron Paul got to explain his reasoning pretty well.
    • fyngyrz, on 01/03/2008, -66/+17He did. And he should be thankful if it didn't air; his stance on healthcare is completely wrong. The constitution starts - first sentence - by declaring the reason the document, which is specifically the constituting charter for the federal government (hence its name), is being created. That is for the welfare (in the patios of the day, that meant good fortune and prosperity) of the people, and for their posterity (which meant their children and the growth of their means and holdings.) When the constitution was written, "health care" meant they bled you and shut all your windows, then hoped you didn't die. It was a close cousin of astrology, and of course it didn't get a lot of play as a direct consequence. But we can still see the intent was clear from that first sentence. Today, your welfare, in exactly the same way it was meant in that sentence, is *directly* dependent upon how much, and of what quality, medical care you get, should disease or misfortune strike you or yours. The case for universal availability of healthcare is enormously strong -- and Paul is wrong here because of that. If a society can protect your right to speech, it should. And if it can save your life, it should do that, too. Letting citizens die is an obvious waste of resources. Insurance is an attempt to pool risk and direct funds to the needy in the pool. This is *exactly* the same concept as universal helthcare - taxes to spread the risk, payments to direct the collection to the needy. But insurance companies have conflicting interests: On the one hand, they want to maximize monetary gain for their investors - so they have motivation to reduce risk, which is really NOT what the consumer wants. The consumer wants the risk spread, which requires bringing your own risk into the pool. The insurance companies will deny entry if they can to anyone with elevated risk (so it cannot be spread) and they will deny payment if they can (which fails the distribution need.) The government should be involved as a non-profit distributor of need with no investor class; healthcare should remain a high tech, high price venue; we should all spread the risk so that everyone is covered.

      I am a huge fan of most of what RP stands for, but not this. He is dead wrong here.
      • MindStalker, on 01/03/2008, -2/+34Then lets amend the constitution! :)
        But serious if you follow the history of healthcare healthcare was at its best before HMOs because all could get it and those who couldn't afford it weren't sent away, and it was cheap for those who could afford it, very cheap in comparison to today. Government essentially created HMOs via tax breaks, and they have destroyed in individual culture of medicine as well as the availability to it for the poor.
        • Platina, on 01/03/2008, -26/+6He talks alot of *****. Just look at Norway. They are one of the richest countryes in the world, and they have been on the best country to live in list in 6 years, the UN says that. They have a list of the best countries in the world. And we are a socialdemocracy. So they have free health care. And many more things that are great.

          • scubasteve377, on 01/03/2008, -1/+32The also have less than 1.5% of the population of the US and a ridiculously lucrative export (Norway exports the third most oil of any country in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia) that gives them the second highest GDP per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy The US has a roughly 7.5 *thousand* percent larger population and exports paper dollars, military technology, and little else. To anyone with even a fundamental understanding of economics, it should be clear that you are comparing apples to oranges.
          • LLamaStar, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3lol fail.
          • MindStalker, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Yes, Norway's healthcare is great. Norway has a ton of social programs, all of which run efficiently and their government is loved by their people.
            The US has a ton of social programs all of which are run very poorly and their government is dispised by its people. If the US ran its other social programs efficiently I might think they can run healthcare well, but you have to look at our trackrecord. Do you REALLY trust the US federal government to do this properly? Seriously??
          • caferrell, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Anthropologists have reasoned that the largest group of humans that an individual will truly feel part of, to the extent that they will sacrifice for other's well being and not try to cheat the system is the tribe. In a tribe, which can be quite large, say up to a hundred thousand people, everyone speaks the same language, everyone is genetically related, they share the same religion, ethics, heroes and legends. It is a big family.
            Socialism works in the tribe. It always has.
            Socialism does not work in larger groups of people and the more diffuse the group is, the more state coercion will be needed to make the system work at all. The State infrastructure necessary to make the distribution of obligations and goods and services work will perforce create a new power elite.
            OK?
            Norway is very much a big tribe. Everyone is related, they share history, culture, everything. They will sacrifice for the rest, assured that others are doing the same. AND Norway is awash in cash. Ergo, their socialized health care works very well.

            However, modern America is made up of myriad groups that have nothing in common but geography. Diversity Baby! AND we are in the middle of a financial crisis where the government and most of the middle and lower classes are deeply in debt. The only way to distribute or redistribute obligations, goods and services would be through state coercion; people will not willingly sacrifice for others. Ergo a socialized medical system here will work about as well as things worked in the Soviet Union.
      • eris0xff, on 01/03/2008, -3/+29That's a lot of text in support of a position that is logically indefensible. You can't have a right by using violence to take something from someone else. It's as simple as that. Healthcare doesn't grow on trees. People spend years of their life getting a medical degree or many hours of their life paying for medical care. You don't have a right to someone else's money, life, time, or private property. If you're not allowed to do that by force to someone else without going to jail, how do you reason that a group of people (the government) can do it for you by proxy?

        Maybe you should instead consider ways to make health care more affordable by everyone. If you want the people that, by no fault of their own, can't get coverage to get health care -- thats called charity. I highly suggest you donate to a needy health care cause.


        I await your tightly constructed moral argument.

        Good luck.
        • dood, on 01/03/2008, -14/+2So your counter argument is basically: taxes are unconstitutional. Good luck with that.
        • nosecohn, on 01/03/2008, -10/+6Your argument is not so tightly constructed either.

          National defense doesn't grow on trees either. Nor does the fire department. They take time and money to provide. We all invest in the system so that our collective well-being is protected and nobody is denied coverage. The idea that we could have a similar system for health care, with similar goals, is not so far-fetched. You may disagree with extending the concept to that level, but the idea is not unreasonable.
          • williamdyer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9We spend more on killing machines than the rest of the world put together. And you think that is neccessary? We can go a long way toward Libertarianism before anything bad happens, and much good will happen on the way.
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -1/+19National defense is explicitly stated in the constitution. The police and fire department agencies are STATE responsibilities. If you want a national healthcare program, you should amend the constitution. Or you could go through your State and amend your state's constitution. Just don't force it on everyone in the country please.
          • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -5/+1"force it"?

            You clearly are either sitting in a mansion typing, or have never had anyone be ill in your family, in either case congratulations.

            In the real world, having a working health care system like we do in Canada is great. It's nice to know that should you be in a car accident, or fall ill that you can go to the hospital without worrying about a 400,000 dollar bill (that's 402,000 US by the way).

            Anyone who tries to scare you away from free, universal health care is only doing so because they are either working with the Insurance companies, who suck you dry and leave you sick and uncared for if they can get away with it, or is simply trying to keep all that tax money so they can give it in the form of a consult contract to their friends or themselves.

            They want to keep your money and hand it over to Haliburton in Dubai instead of fixing your daughter's broken leg. You pay for the health care yourself, slave.

            But... I hear it all the time on your CNN. Apparently, we're communists up here for having free universal healthcare. Ridiculous. We laugh and wonder how a population can be so hypnotized by their Kings and Queens to believe that having free health care makes you a communist.

          • Nosnevets02, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Actually, i'm a 23 year old bellman, who lives off tips. I buy my own insurance thank you very much. If someone is unwilling to take care of themselves and doesn't purchase health care for themselves, why should I care more about them than they actually care for themselves?
        • fyngyrz, on 01/03/2008, -8/+4The right of the government to take from the citizens by force - presumably for their benefit - is well established. They take money via taxes. They take property via eminent domain. They take time via imprisonment. They take time via the draft.

          Distribution of benefits to the general public, regardless of station or income, is also well established. You can still use the roads if you're poor. You are still protected by the armed forces if you're poor. You can still speak your mind if you are poor. All of these are the direct result of distribution of benefits to the general population after building the ability to do so by collecting treasure and so forth - by force, if you like, though I would point out it is constitutionally authorized force - from those who have it.

          It is a very small leap indeed to go from there to paying for medical care. I don't advocate making *any* changes to how medical care works. What I advocate is getting rid of insurance companies and the legal parasites that infect the system and putting the government in the role of pooling risk - just as it pools protection, civil rights, your day in court, etc. - and paying the check when you go to the doctor. Whatever the check is.

          The risk to the medical industry here is zero. The risk to insurance companies... well frankly, I don't give a damn. They can go work at McDonald's. There is no promise that any industry will remain viable forever.

        • gandhii, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1fyngyrz: The constitution is a specific contract between the government and the people it serves to allow it the ability to do very base necessary things such as border defense (ie military). The interstate system was originally a military project. The rest is up to the individual states and their constitutions and governments.
          These other uses of government may be well established, but it is highly debatable whether they are a good idea. Besides, the original intent of our constitution was to limit the federal government to only the things that only it could do. And leave the rest to other governments (state, county, city) and groups that don't have the risk of turning into totalitarian governments. Since you could always move and it is easier as an individual to have a say and affect on a smaller body.
      • fyngyrz, on 01/03/2008, -6/+6Right. HMO's are pathological. Insurance - pooled risk - is the right answer, and let the healthcare industry run free, competing for dollars, as per usual. It is the *insurance industry* (and also the legal industry) that need to be removed from the healthcare income stream. I suggest that the government be the agent for pooling the risk by collecting the funds, and that they be the payer to the healthcare industry - NOT the one who decides what or how much, just the one who writes the checks when you go to the doctor, be it for a checkup, eyeglasses, or major surgery. We're a rich country. We can easily afford to take care of everyone here. Some people are healthy and won't impact the pool. Some are not and will take disproportionate resources. That's the whole point. Those with the need will *always* take most from the pool. And those are PRECISELY the people who should. Tomorrow, it may be me or you.
        • aggieotis, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1You are ridiculously wrong here. Giving the government the paycheck and then letting the industry simply send a bill and have it paid is the wrong way to do things because the medical industry will want more money and charge more.

          This is already why medical care is so high. Because the government will only pay up to 30% of the cost of many procedures for those under Medicare or equivalent programs. What that means is that the industry then inflates the price 3x so that they can get the full cost of the procedure...unfortunately now everybody has to pay that cost. Then comes the HMOs and they negotiate a deal to where they get the same 'discount' (which is the real cost of the procedure) as the gov't got. Now if I come in sick without insurance I'm sacked because I now have to pay the FULL cost for the procedure and have no leverage whatsoever to get the procedure at the cost it should have been.

          This type of escalation is a huge chunk of why things cost more now. If it was completely no HMOs/private it'd be better. If it was completely capitalistic it'd be better. But this hybrid system is the worst of both worlds and we're all paying dearly for it.
      • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -1/+16You are WRONG about the constitution, fyngyrz.

        That first line you speak of is in the preamble and it is asserting the reason for creating the constitution. When you look at the *body* of the constitution, what do you find? A set of relatively narrowly defined powers and a tenth amendment that strictly limits the government TO those powers.

        In other words, the framers of the constitution sought to promote the general welfare *by limiting the involvement of the federal government in our lives*. If you read the constitution as it was in fact written, there is absolutly no excuse for believing that crap like health care and social security is actually legal.

        The very existence of the tenth amendment demonstrates that indeed, the power of the federal government is limited. As such it may only act to promote welfare *within those limits*. Since no piece of the constitution authorizes the government to dispense money or supply services for medical care, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO SO. Moreover, it was the belief of the framers that these limitations were the best way to promote welfare. Governmental involvement is unnecessary and thus not allowed.

        You are simply wrong. It is not the government's job to save the lives of people. It is MY job to care for and "save" those people I wish to and am capable of helping. *That* is society... equating society with government is a travesty. Government is imposed on and interferes with society and the constitution is designed to limit that interference.
        • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1It's forbidden to torture people in the constitution, or have the military spy on the people of the US. Guantanamo and NSA anyone?

          Ammend the ***** thing, as your President once said "Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a peice of paper"
      • cholland, on 01/03/2008, -3/+19I agree that everyone should have their health needs taken care of, but you are WRONG in assuming that the only way to provide care for the needy is to enforce that care through the federal government. Communities need to deal with their disadvantaged citizens on a local level. People who are driven, such as yourself, can make so much of a difference if they commit to the cause and get proactive through private charities and organizations.

        Putting the responsibility of health care in the government's hands may seem to solve the problem, but in fact, it will only give power where it does not belong. The people who are supposed to be cared for would be neglected because the health care decisions would soon yield only to the interests of the lobbyists and drug companies.

        Ron Paul's message is all about RESPONSIBILITY. This not only means that the government should be responsible with the money it does have, it means that each citizen is going to have to be responsible with the money that they have. We should all feel the burden of our consciences when we realized that Uncle Sam is no longer in the business of holding every body's hand through life in case they fall. We should all work harder and give more to the charities that are making a difference and helping the causes we feel passionate about.

        You will probably argue that people aren't innately good, and most people will choose not to help. But, you have shown yourself to be passionate about health care in a way that could change peoples minds. Ron Paul's philosophy is about freedom and empowerment. You should become active to create the help you want available for people.

        The US government was never intended to make the world FAIR, and as much as it may pain us all to realize, there will NEVER be a way for EVERYONE to have EVERYTHING.

        Sorry.
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6Now if only we could get this idea across to everyone in our country!
        • fyngyrz, on 01/03/2008, -8/+4The problem with Paul's approach is that some people do not have money, and cannot afford care, or insurance (under the current model.) This simple truth is the fatal flaw in Paul's, and your, reasoning. I do not accept that the poor bastard under the bridge cannot receive care because he is jobless. Generally speaking, compassionate people won't accept such things, and that is why healthcare is such a hot issue right now.

          You know, when I was a kid - I'm 51 now - a doctor visit was $5. I very well remember my mother giving me a $5 bill to cover my checkup. A couple of years later, I was sweeping floors at a restaurant for $2.50/hour. Today, if I were to go sweep at McDonald's, I'd make - maybe - $6, $7 an hour. Let's call it $10, just to be all crazy optimistic. So wages have risen 4x at the bottom of the heap. But a doctor visit (here, in rural Montana) is now $90. Wages are up 4x (not really, but remember, we're optimists here) and a doctor visit is up from $5 to $90, or about 18x. This leaves out the incredible costs of cancer treatment, which almost no one can afford.

          I'm telling you, there is a basic reality here that those who want to leave the cost of healthcare in the individual's hands are simply glossing over, and I suspect this is out of sheer selfishness. If we *don't* get universal healthcare, then a lot of people are going to suffer. A great deal. I'm just not able to get behind that.
        • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -5/+6Fyngyrz, it is a personal choice to work at a McDonalds. If that individual chose not to get an education, not take out loans for college and not invest in himself and his future, why the hell should I have to pay all my own bills, plus help him?

          Hell, Red Robin, Chili's, and all those other ***** places offer health care coverage, if he can't get a job somewhere like that, that is his own god damn problem.
          • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1You wouldn't have to pay all your own bills, plus help him. The money is already there, it's just being misspent by your government. We're taxed up here about as much as you are in the States but somehow I can walk into the doctor or hospital and as long as I bring my health card I don't even need a wallet.
          • Nosnevets02, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Um, paying taxes to support a nationwide health care program is BOTH paying my own bills, as well as his medical bills. I like to be able to pick and choose who I pay for my health care so I encourage competition within the health care market. And competition always drives down prices.
        • spudhead, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1"Communities need to deal with their disadvantaged citizens on a local level. People who are driven, such as yourself, can make so much of a difference if they commit to the cause and get proactive through private charities and organizations."

          That's an interesting perspective. Health Care Corporations are one of the largest lobbyists on a national scale and have received protection under the national HMO umbrella. You somehow think this is going to be resolved on a local level through charity? I don't even believe that you believe what you're saying.
      • darkcooger, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6You're referring to the Preamble, which does not itself say anything about the government but rather lays out the goals of the Constitution itself. The phrase, "promote the general welfare" has been used to assign all sorts of responsibilities to the government that it is never actually given. The idea is that the acts of ratifying the Constitution and establishing the government it defined would, by itself, promote the welfare of the people, not that the government has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, which, by the way, is not defined by the quality or quantity of health care those people receive.

        Further, I would contest your position that society has an obligation to the individual when you say, "if it can save your life, it should." My view is more akin to, "if it can save your life and does, that's fine, but if it does not, oh well." You are responsible for your own well-being, not society. This is where the whole "individual liberty" thing really comes in, because to have real individual liberty, you must first have real individuals, not just a society to which people belong.
      • phoobaar, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6Read up on negative versus positive rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive ...

        Negative rights exist by virtue of the fact that you exist; positive rights are just privileges, renamed by socialists.
      • spooky47, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6The Constitution Society website can provide you with a correct interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause. A couple of examples. First from a Federalist:

        " I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."
        - James Madison

        "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
        - James Madison

        ...and an Anti-Federalist:

        "[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others."
        --Thomas Jefferson

        "Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action."
        -- Thomas Jefferson

        “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
        --Thomas Jefferson
    • MaximusPryme, on 01/03/2008, -0/+11If the government has to insure people because it will save lives, then should we ban guns because it will save lives? I do not believe that the government's role is to protect lives before they are lost.
      While some insurance companies will do what you say; nothing will stop someone from starting a new insurance company and find a way to maximize the profits from higher risk consumers.
    • JettaMan, on 01/03/2008, -0/+32Why film an interview and then not air it? I heard ABC pulled the same shennannigans on John Stossell's interview with RP.
    • Rubiksphere, on 01/03/2008, -19/+1I'm sorry, but I've yet to see how Ron Paul is going to do anything for this country. How the hell is taking our bases off of foreign soul going to make up for the billions made through taxes? I admit, I hate taxes too, but having no tax isn't going to make things better. How are we going to fund our army? Our roads? Our schools? We can't fund the worlds largest nation with an economy that has become service oriented.
      • eris0xff, on 01/03/2008, -1/+12Lets see, taking all of the cash that is being spent in foreign countries and spending in the United States would help a whole lot. What else? Wiithout an income tax, the overhead for doing business in the US would drop drastically and attract a lot businesses here and put the economy on overdrive. Take a course in economics. Putting the money back into the citizens pockets so they can spend it more wisely than government bureaucrats would help the country enormously (unless you believe that people can't be trusted with their own money -- then how can you trust bureaucrats). This should also reduce stress on those citizens, decrease their need for health care and increase their savings rates.
        Oh, and the final reason is that those 700+ bases cost money. Lots and lots of it. Billions in fact.
        • grinchdec23, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Well stated
        • ChileanGoD, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1The more money people have in their pockets the higher the prices of things get and you end up getting the same quality of life. I could take for example silicon valley, the cost of life is very high there, why?... because people on average have more revenue. The same applies to what's happening in Calgary, the renting prices are going up very fast because the town is flooded by new revenues from the oil sands. Not to mention that people will get even more debt because as revenues goes up so is your power to loan money and eventually the banks sucks up that extra money people make in interests... Yep... Capitalism has his way to get you one way or the other. But.. u know.. you are free to choose. Horray for market economy.
          • hypertension, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2As a former Californian, I can tell you that the cost of life in Silicon Valley is so high mostly because of "open space" laws that prevent and limit housing development. If there were more low-cost, high-rise apartment complexes there, that would reduce the demand and therefore, the price.

            ... of course, the residents there would prefer to have strokes before they'd let THAT happen.
    • mm911, on 01/03/2008, -16/+5Sure any interview when you're being interviewed by a corpse who doesn't ask follow up questions and doesn't press you on your lack of realistic ideas. See Ron Paul on Meet the Press for a real interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

      I agree with many Ron Paul supporters who see the need for a candidate who thinks outside the box. The problem is Paul has all these grand ideas like eliminating the IRS, but no actual plans to carry them out. "How do we eliminate the $1 TRILLION brought in by the IRS, Dr. Paul?" "Well hopefully we won't have to." HOPEFULLY?! How do you make the government $1 trillion smaller?! "Bring the troops home." How many troops are overseas, Dr. Paul? "I don't know, a lot." The man simply doesn't live in reality and cannot be elected.
      • grinchdec23, on 01/04/2008, -2/+5Noone knows how many troops are overseas , god man find a real argument, or admit you cant.
      • bolognium, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3he's not saying "hopefully we won't have to eliminate the 1 trillion brought in by the IRS" he's saying "hopefully we don't have to replace that income lost from the IRS".. there's a big difference there.

        but I don't think you have a bad argument - it's really up to congress to make these things like that happen... just like his stance on abortion - to take it out of the federal laws.. congress has to make it happen.

        the only thing he can actually do as president is get the troops home, reducing that huge cost - of both money and international respect for us... which I don't think obama will do.. and of course, the other republicans will do the opposite.
    • 8secretlove, on 01/04/2008, -1/+7Tell Larry how you feel about it. I think he's doing it for the ratings and because he already has confirmation that Ron Paul will surprise in Iowa. So airing this show will potentially break all his previous ratings. Here's the link - http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Tell_CNN_Lar ...
    • WTC7WasPulled, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3If Ron Paul would've stumbled and said something stupid CNN would've plastered it all over the news over and over. But instead Ron Paul just spoke truth about everything and had a perfect interview! The CIA said don't let that air, instead put that Avon lady on for an hour of ***** talk. They didn't want too much face time for Paul before Iowa.
      • SwingCorey, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Thank you, conspiracy-boy. I didn't realize the CIA was stopping CNN from airing things it doesn't want known. The proof is that CNN never pokes holes in government policies... O_o
    • redwards, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1It's a POLL:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22502602/?GT1=10755

      kill.
  • dthomasdigital, on 01/03/2008, -10/+229Is this true, why did it not air?
    • MindStalker, on 01/03/2008, -3/+49why? shrugs they might air it. But it was pre-recorded yesterday (before the 9:00 show) and they had Suzy Ormann on the entire show yesterday and never showed this clip. They might show it tomorrow, but I doubt it.
    • hellyes, on 01/03/2008, -3/+75No, it didn't air. They decided to have a full hour with Suze Ormon instead.
      • Neiby, on 01/03/2008, -0/+29Well, really, what's more important right now than Suze Orman?
        • gyrfalcon, on 01/03/2008, -3/+57Suze who?
        • grinchdec23, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6Larry asked her about Pauls stance on the Federal Reserve,, she looked disgusted and bashed the notion as insane...i think she knows many of her economic teachings would be nothing without this ***** up system.
      • timisondigglol, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8Thats BS. Its one thing to cut a full interview and its another thing to let Suze Orman give out poor financial advice.
      • m0n0kr0m3, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Doesn't Orman have her own show? What could she say on Larry King that she couldn't say there??? wtf????
    • davidg11, on 01/03/2008, -30/+6That's not Larry King! PHOTOSHOPPED!
      Heh..
    • Neiby, on 01/03/2008, -6/+82If this didn't air and it was just filmed recently, how (and why) is it on YouTube already?
      • Neiby, on 01/03/2008, -4/+57Goddamn, some of you people are idiots. Why would you digg down a simple freaking question? This is a reasonable question to ask. If it didn't air then the people who created it are the only people who had copies of it. One of them must have posted it to YouTube. Why would they do that?
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/03/2008, -5/+44Perhaps there is a Ron Paul fan amongst them.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 01/03/2008, -13/+16Unfortunately, there are A LOT of idiots on here. A lot of people think if you praise RP then you must be a reasonable intelligent person, and if you do anything but chant RON PAUL 08 then you are satan. I hate sharing beliefs with morons.
        • HugoNaught, on 01/03/2008, -0/+45Its on CNNs website but they didn't air it on television.
        • Biznack, on 01/04/2008, -2/+6@dumpyhumpy
          I'm not too bothered by the fact that many people of all classes support ron paul. I support him, I don't necessarily share anything else in common with others who do, but that does not make me in the least upset.
    • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -49/+11because no one would have cared?
    • TripleAStacked, on 01/03/2008, -3/+14i thought he got bumped for Paris Hilton?
      • janeuner, on 01/03/2008, -2/+9That was Michael Moore
        • DAaaMan64, on 01/03/2008, -3/+10I just spent the time to read two sentences about people I don't care about, damn.
        • userperson, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1at least he has his priorities correct there. Paris Hilton is more important than Micheal Moore.
          Paris Hilton makes me laugh.
          Michael Moore makes me laugh too, but I think more people take him seriously, which isn't funny.
    • mal1964, on 01/03/2008, -20/+3its on kings web site, http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
      but i bet the poster knew that, and spamed this anyway.
      • schroeder, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2It never AIRED. First ABC now CNN only posting in depth interviews with Ron Paul on the internet where he's pretty well known already instead of the airwaves where more voters could learn about him.
    • mal1964, on 01/03/2008, -21/+1WHY ! bab abba bba babab ababab abbab abbababababbabababbaba !@#$ @##$ @#$%^ #$%^ #$%% oh it did ok never mind
      • Brad324, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3*hits mal on the head with an iron*
        • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Look at what you are replying to and say to yourself, what would hitting him in the head with a iron do anyway ?
          • Brad324, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1release your demons. It's basic math.
          • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1So is matching my socks, and even though they're all white i went without any today.
    • Ranvier, on 01/03/2008, -17/+0Maybe it didn't air because of he made numerous references to a now dead Bhutto?
      • Khendroc, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1That really shouldn't matter. He mentioned her briefly while explaining the ***** we doin in Pakistan.
    • mal1964, on 01/03/2008, -4/+1Ron Paul's web site never had it on his scheduled no nothing anywhere . maybe he knew it wasn't going to live and forgot to tell you.
      • EzraT1, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Actually It was on his website...
        • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1link please
        • Pebcak, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2It was on the web site, I saw it, but they took it down later.
          • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1took what down? I'm not being a smart ass but would like more detail
          • gypsynuke, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3There's a list of appearances on the left. For a couple hours yesterday one of those appearances was the Larry King show, then it disappeared.
          • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1TY
    • TrikkyMakk, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2I would guess that it shows that it was filmed before Bhutto was killed. Maybe not, just my first guess. Second guess would be because Larry King is main stream media and MSM is slowly learning to evolve its game. Never know.
      • grinchdec23, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Indeed, it does seem like the interview was done before Bhutto's death...
    • funkyjunk3, on 01/03/2008, -3/+6It is meant to be a "web exclusive". Many places do web exclusives on different topics.
      • tracker198x, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4why waste dr. paul's VALUABLE time for a "web exclusive" when his campaign OBVIOUSLY thought it was going to be aired on television, dr. paul thought so as well. he doesnt need anymore web exposure and a web interview is not a good use of his time, i know he wouldnt have done it if he thought it was that. this is just cnn's way of copping out. everyone should complain.

        http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?73
        • mal1964, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Just what we don't need running the Country!, a President that just Assumes (" thought ") things and doesn't get the facts!
    • tracker198x, on 01/04/2008, -7/+13CNN Just put up the Ron Paul interview as a "Web Exclusive" which means they may not ever air it on television. This would have given Dr. Paul a good boost before the Iowa caucus with senior citizens, he doesn't need more web exposure he needs more TV exposure.

      It can be found in a very small link on: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

      Why don't we all email Larry and tell him what we think about not airing this on TV -

      http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?73

      REPOST THIS! LETS GO VIRAL
    • tduff, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2I think they didn't air it because it wasn't a very good interview. Larry King started off pretty slow and asked some pretty crappy questions towards the beginning. It just didn't make the cut.
    • durangotang, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3Could possibly be the fact that Larry King is not only mainstream, but a zionist who places the interest of Israel above the United States. I remember him, in a video with Bill Clinton I believe, referring to Israel as "his country." Funny how he lives and makes all his money here in the United States. And of course Ron Paul would cut off Israeli aid.

      The amount that hard working non-Jewish Americans have paid to Israel with our tax money via loans that have never been repaid or direct aid is so startlingly high it makes me sick. Think over $1 trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. And Israel has only been in existence since 1948.

      I wish that Larry King and all the other Israeli firsters would move there and quit steering media and lobbying policy here in the U.S. It makes me sick to think that my hard working grandparents and parents have worked and been taxed to pay for this for so long. And I am sick of paying for these parasites now.

      Here's a good read:
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.htm ...
    • hlcno, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I've noticed a lot of main stream media shows doing Ron Paul mentions on air or Ron Paul interviews that go only online. I think they see how much traffic they get from him and just do it to get more traffic. Kinda lame, but whatever
  • ajpalmieri, on 01/03/2008, -10/+188Why are they interviewing him outside? It is obviously cold, you can see Ron Paul's breath.
    • chrysb, on 01/03/2008, -12/+127It goes to show Ron Paul does not need warm and cushy living. He's a man.
      • RPRocks, on 01/03/2008, -6/+37Yeah... Dr. Paul and his supporters aren't afraid of a little cold weather. That's why the Old Media will be shocked at how many patriots trudge through the snow to caucus for him tonight. SHOCK AND AWE BABY!!!
        • reaganluver, on 01/03/2008, -6/+14I don't think we should take "shock and awe": as a catch phrase. sounds too bushish lol

          Stop the ***** rp08
        • Hazardc, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1and that sounds a lot like a failed rally cry at democrat conventions in 04

          hey, i only know this because i was there. and im sure i have my "no more *****" bumper sticker somewhere.
      • urby86, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1He's 40!
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 01/03/2008, -8/+91Probably trying to make him uncomfortable. HA! Ron Paul could give a top notch interview while fighting a sabertooth tiger on stilts and listening to David Hasselhoff's "Jump In My Car".
      • stefyblueyes, on 01/03/2008, -1/+24I don't know of anyone who could live through Hasselhoff's singing.
        • reaganluver, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9kitt would drive itself off a bridge even
        • Rotzooi, on 01/03/2008, -0/+16The Germans.
          • rspeed, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4I seem to recall Norm MacDonald having a theory about that.
      • Insolent, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4http://www.ronpaulfacts.com/
        Not my website, but its about time we present the real facts, not fraudulent ones about Chuck Norris.
      • Hazardc, on 01/03/2008, -3/+1Unless he was on meet the press...

        /i have a rp sign in my front yard, well again because the first one was stolen... but that interview sucked and it wasnt anyones fault but his own,.... i think he was just tired
    • dreicher, on 01/03/2008, -9/+195It's not cold outside...that's Ron Paul using his "Super Icy Breath" to turn back global warming!
      • j.carcinogen, on 01/03/2008, -4/+17lol, thanks for the laugh.
      • Nodaki, on 01/03/2008, -2/+9I laughed too, good stuff.
      • Supurcell, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3I also laughed. Can People digg my comment too?

        Naw, forget it. Digg me down. I added nothing to the conversation, unlike the two guys above me.
      • kubedawg, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul is the new Chuck Norris. Thank god someone replaced that bible thumpin bastard...
    • Tenlow, on 01/03/2008, -3/+22It's because hell froze over
    • jordanau, on 01/03/2008, -5/+37The MSM is trying to kill him with Pneumonia.
      • danconia, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4But Ron's such a nice and honest guy that even snow warms up to him =)
    • georgemason01, on 01/03/2008, -3/+40Ron Paul doesn't get cold, cold gets Ron Paul.
      • purepremiumpulp, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Ok particle man
      • SQLserver, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Victory!
        Chuck Norris has chosen the side of the Christian Fascists, so we can convert all his old joke to Ron Paul jokes.
        Yes!
    • d0onut, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2That's just Ron Paul's dragon breath.

      Yeah, he's that awesome.
  • HugoNaught, on 01/03/2008, -10/+146This is a must see and I hope people pressure the network to air it. Its a real shame it wasn't shown before the Iowa Caucus.
    • Trillion08, on 01/03/2008, -3/+18This is a MUST MUST MUST see! He hits it dead on when he starts talking about whether people have a right to healthcare, etc, and then about the housing bubble created by the govt wanting to give everyone a home (people left and right now are LOSING their homes!). People have a RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness!
      • MeatyVitamin, on 01/03/2008, -6/+5He doesn't just "talk about whether people have a right to healthcare". He says flat out that healthcare is out of the question and that people will miraculously heal the poor if only the government didn't take so much of their money. Sorry Mr. Paul, but I don't agree with you.
        • waynetheman, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6You're right... instead, we should trust corrupt politicians to take our money and cheerfully use it to miraculously heal the poor like they do in Cuba, Canada and the UK.
        • vbullinger, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Here, here, Waynetheman! Also, I'd like to know how people can rationalize free health care when our economy is in shambles. How in the world are we going to pay for that? We owe $9 trillion! That's 20% of our entire economy! Debt!

          I'd like free healthcare, but it's something to think about in the distant future. AFTER Ron Paul fixes the economy.
  • RPRocks, on 01/03/2008, -34/+336Now we know why it didn't get aired. Ron Paul was to impressive! My god... how can anybody not vote for the kind of logic and reason that comes out of this mans mouth every time he opens it? WAKE UP!!!
    • cusoman, on 01/03/2008, -26/+49Ugh, seriously... stop saying "wake up". We get the point.
      • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -7/+27have you woken up yet? are you fully aware? are your sense tingling? how about your spidey sense?! DAMMIT MAN YOU NEED TO WAKE UP AND.... um... register republican... and vote for RP08... just be awake when you do it...
      • darkcooger, on 01/03/2008, -9/+4Agreed. And I'm annoyed with my fellow RP-supporters calling everyone else "sheep." Wake up, sheep! Baaaah...
    • Takuza, on 01/03/2008, -61/+23Logic? Reason? The man doesn't believe in evolution.
      • genericshell, on 01/03/2008, -7/+32He also believes in Jesus and an omnipotent bipolar patient in the sky. This does not invalidate his thoroughly rational approach to government.
        • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -31/+3it does when he talks about dismantling the department of education
          • hollowex, on 01/03/2008, -0/+29The department is broken. It's been broken since inception.
          • trutek, on 01/03/2008, -0/+14what has the dept of education ever done for you?
          • darkcooger, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6If he dismantles the Department of Education, then his personal view on evolution will have absolutely no effect on what gets taught in schools. Shouldn't you be happy about that?
        • gyrfalcon, on 01/03/2008, -2/+10I would say Ron Paul "believes in evolution" from a scientific standpoint. He doesn't believe in it as a all encompassing FACT.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 01/03/2008, -4/+15It wouldn't bother me if he believed in little green men in outer space, and that we are all descended from them. I will still vote for him.
      • hypertension, on 01/03/2008, -4/+5He's a medical doctor, which means he's had more scientific-based training than most people probably ever have.

        Furthermore, as a obgyn, he's seen way more vagina than you ever, ever will!
      • MetalHead73, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3for the last time, does it even matter?!?!?

        for god sakes.
      • israelanderson, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4That's right, he follows the evidence where it leads instead of twisting it to fit into a religion like evolution.
    • foreplay, on 01/03/2008, -37/+4Logic ? reason ?
      He seems to think not providing people health care as a right will help the less fortunate because there will be less of them is he insinuating they will die off first. A sort of poor person natural selection. He seems to think if he pulls America out of every country he will save so much money that he can abolish income tax and the IRS. WHY ? what kinda logic is that. why not use the 1 trillion dollars that the IRS collects to fund health care and a decent education for every American instead of just getting rid of it. I know not paying income tax seems great in the short term but i wonder how well that would work in the long term for America.

      • BahJayJay, on 01/03/2008, -0/+17i think you have it backwards sir. He is not insinuating they will "die off" he is insinuating they will and we will have enough money from not having to pay income tax to take care of ourselves. ***** the government taking away our money, because they know how to spend it best. By simple logic you should be able to conclude that you are better able to choose what kind of health care you need than the government is able to choose for you, simply due to you knowing your own body and needs. It's ridiculous to say that they could do it more efficiently. the same with education and every other government micromanaging wasteful bloated ***** department we have out there. its the long term that not paying income tax seems good in to me, not the short term.
        • foreplay, on 01/03/2008, -5/+2yes as a trained medical professional unlike the vast majority of Americans i know my body best and know how i should be treated and exactly which insurance is best. For the many Americans who cant get health care, are too stupid to actually pay for it or plain cant afford it your gonna end up exactly where you are now. the sudden increase of disposable income will cause inflation and your back to where you are now within a few years. saying but they don't have to pay income tax so they can afford insurance now is just plain stupid.

          why wouldn't a national health care system be better for everyone. look at the figures and you will see countries with national health services spend less per person than America and have a better health care system for the vast majority. don't mean to point out flaws in your logic but just shouting the government is rubbish and so bloated and is terrible and not efficient and eats babies inst exactly an argument its more of an opinion. show me some nice facts and then we will talk.

          http://americanhealthcarereform.org/html/france_s_ ...

          • BahJayJay, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Well, it'd be nice if figures from other countries had anything to do with American health considering we are one of the least healthy nations in existence. And the very reason our medical costs are so astronomical is from something like, 5% of people who go to the doctor, who are recurringly unhealthy. And no I don't believe I should have to pay for them. Thanks but try again later captain socialism.
      • Neiby, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9Holy cow. Are you being purposefully obtuse? There will be fewer poor people because the economy would flourish under those sorts of policies. Sure, it means those "evil" rich people will get richer, but it would also me hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Are you so entrenched in class warfare that you would deny people those jobs if it meant that you could stick it to the man every April 15th?
        • foreplay, on 01/03/2008, -6/+1I do have to admit i was being a tad facetious at the prospect of him letting people die off but the point i was making is valid. writing off trillions of dollars that can actually be used to help the American people is a plain stupid idea. people can actually afford to pay this and using it to educate, treat and feed every American would be a worthwhile goal but avarice is the driving force behind America let us not forget.

          • waynetheman, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4No, avarice is the driving force behind those who want to control America. Like all the politicians trying to promise you free health care (hey, look! It's something for nothing!)
      • tman84, on 01/03/2008, -2/+8i haven't been sick in 8 years, i pay private cheap healthcare. i workout, eat healthy, get a good nights sleep and all that good stuff. why should more of my hard earned money go to some unhealthy mcdonalds eating crackhead so he can stand in line at the government healthcare center to get his stomach pumped for the 15th time?
        • foreplay, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4What an amazingly kind hearted person you are. Yes the system is open to abuse as it is in many countries that use it. Should we focus only on them instead of the people it actually does help on a constant basis. since we are pretending that crack heads who eat at McDonald's use it all the time let us imagine something else.
          Lets pretend there is a 27 year old male digg user who seems to get a bit excited about Ron Paul stories. Now he exercises regularly, eats healthy doesn't smoke and sleeps 7 hours a night religiously. He does seem a tad boring, anyway he starts feeling rather bad when working out and goes to the doctors. He find out he has a heart defect, sorry pal. now this goes one of two ways at the minute. either your cheap healthcare covers the costs while your not working or they duck out on the bill and leave you high and dry or maybe a bit of both and this leaves you neck deep in debt.

          wouldn't a system you have paid into that covers all of this stuff and is open to everyone that has contributed no matter what the condition, medication or wallet size be a nice safety net.
      • HugoNaught, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5I just want to add one more thing to the reasoned responses above: Federal government only adds more layers of admistration and bureaucracy to anything it touches. So how is education better off when in order to educate a child locally they take money, send to the feds, take a chunk out for all the administration and then redistribute it back with a bunch of rules attached to it. Doesn't it make sense to keep the money and decision making local where parents can have an influence in the process?
        • foreplay, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2forgive me for being a bit rusty on the way education works in the states as im not a native but how exactly does what Ron Paul is suggesting keep the money local.
          • waynetheman, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3His philosophy is that education should be locally controlled, and he would be very likely to push that mindset through the executive branch of the Federal government. With the elimination of the federal Department of Education, and a cutting of the taxes that fund it, then there would be fewer dollars extracted from each citizen to use toward a national education plan... more would be available for local plans (since you can only tax people so much before, well, bad things happen.)
      • MetalHead73, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1I pay enough taxes, unless universal health care is FREE. I'm FINE with our Health Care system.
        • jjmckay, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Just FYI, Ron Paul is advocating change in the current health care system. Specifically he is advocating a change to the FDA which enforces drug monopolies and their price gouging. That isn't his entire health care plan though. Ron Paul would indeed change the current system to be much more competitive and open.
      • scubasteve377, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Aside from the economic incentives being completely backwards (it punishes success and rewards failure), the income tax also is an incredibly inefficient way to raise revenue. Firstly, it is estimated that a third of the total income in America goes untaxed in what is known as the 'underground economy'. This means that a higher burden is placed on the remaining two thirds. According to the Grace Commission report http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html , half of taxes from the total income taxed is used to fund the IRS. That's right, half of what you pay in income tax goes toward funding the collection of the other half. Most people (including you, apparently) believe that revenue from the income tax is used to pay for national defense, highways and social services, but according to the Grace Commission, the remaining half, instead, goes towards our national debt to the Federal Reserve. This means that the whole system, the IRS, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve, is in place to fund itself.

        "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." - The Grace Commission Report
    • citizen782, on 01/03/2008, -31/+3Yes, Ron Paul does indeed ***** gold. And eats cancer, and has a 12" *****, will make the whole world rich as he single handedly engineers the colonization of the moon and mars. Who's the man? Oh ya, that's right... Ron Paul's the man!

      All that and he still won't be the next leader of the free world. Boo hoo.
    • lucciinthesky, on 01/03/2008, -11/+2I'm pretty sure this guy was being satirical. I'm glad it got dugg up so high if he was being satirical, though.

      However, if he wasn't joking.... :takes off glasses: my god.
    • dm33, on 01/03/2008, -20/+6He doesn't "accept" evolution, he doesn't "accept" global warming. We've had 8 years of a president ignoring reality, we don't need another one. Folks can get so blinded by an anti-war message they lose sight of Ron Paul ignoring scientific reality. He doesn't even believe in the seperation of church and state.
      No thanks. I supported him until this week. I donated for the 1st time ever, I even volunteered for the campaign, but I can't tolerate him ignoring reality. He really does have a christian fundamentalist viewpoint who happens to be anti-war.
      • GrubFisher, on 01/03/2008, -3/+4When did evolution and global warming become matters of faith? Last I checked, they're supposed to be science.
      • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Ignorant of seemingly overwhelming evidence or not, there is absolutely no harm a person could do in not believing in evolution. Take into account, also, that Ron Paul doesn't believe that the federal government should have any control over education whatsoever, and this whole thing becomes absolutely irrelevant and about the poorest reason for whether or not to vote for someone I have ever heard.

        Ron Paul may be wrong about evolution, but he was right about Iraq, he was right about the PATRIOT Act, he is right about foreign policy, he is right about monetary policy, and he is right about the economy. He is right on all of these issues that, unlike evolution, are actually relevant to the presidency. There is not one other presidential candidate that this can be said about.

        Somehow, I doubt that you are anything more than a shill, since I find it hard to believe that someone who has researched Ron Paul and been involved in his campaign, would be completely deterred by something so utterly inconsequential. In the off chance you are not full of *****, seriously, the theory of evolution? Can we get a little perspective here?
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -19/+4It's easy not to vote for him... he doesn't understand currency and is dead-wrong on foreigner policy. Since the President is both Commander-in-Chief and head diplomat, the later makes him completely unsuitable for the office.

      It's great having a constitutionalist in congress... he needs to stay there. He can work to defend the constitution but not do any actual harm to monetary or foreign policy.
      • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -0/+7Do you know anything whatsoever about monetary policy? Our CURRENT monetary policy is causing this steep decline in the value of the dollar because we are printing money out of THIN AIR to fund our grossly over sized federal government.

        I just hope you're trolling.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -4/+2Money *should* come from thin air. It represents the goods and services at large in the economy. We need to have enough "printed" money to allow for the quick and liquid trade of all those goods and services. The Fed does a very good job if judging the damand and meeting it without exceeding it. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. Yes, we are increasing the supply of money. Why? Because the *demand* is growing. When supply rises to match rising demand, *value* remains static.

          Also, it is a grave error to associate state debt with the value of currency. Keep some things in mind. When government borrows, it *spends*. That money is going towards goods and services just like all other currency. In other words, the government has a demand and it is appropriate to create currency to meet it. This does not create a loss of currency value. Whether or not the government is wise to go into debt is *completely* unrelated to the issue of currency policy. Debt is fine if you need to accomplish something and have prospects of being able to pay the debt off. Debt is bad if you're just wasting the money or borrow more than you have a hope of ever paying off. But even "bad debt" does not have any *logical* relationship to the value of the US dollar.

          Of course, exchange rates don't have much to do with logic. They are influenced in large part by irrational thought such as exemplified by Paul and also simple emotional bias.

          Which brings us to what is happening to the dollar today. The dollar is in fact *stable*. You will see statement's like this. "Since 2000 (or 2001), the US dollar has lost 40% of it's value against other currencies" or that during the same time the consumer price index has risen by 15%.

          Okay, that is true. But what does it *mean*? I'll address the foreign exchange first because it's simple and I've already touched on it. Exchange rates resemble the prices of comic books and baseball cards a lot more closely than any logical or objective value system. The fact of the matter is, the Euro (for example) is vastly over-valued in relation to the dollar (and by extension to many other currencies)... the cost of living in Europe is ruinously high as a result.

          As for the rise in the cost of living... well, sometimes costs genuinely rise. A rise in cost does NOT imply a loss of value in currency. The fact is, the world-wide demand for oil is surging, production is flat and the future does not offer much opportunity to grow the supply. Therefor, the law of supply and demand forces prices up. And since oil is pretty much the basis of our entire economy, ALL prices rise. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Life is more expensive *not* because our currency is loosing value... it's more expensive because we base so much of it on a single finite commodity.
          • waynetheman, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Money should come from thin air?

            Please, get some real-world views and some real historical knowledge concerning economics before commenting again on money. Because if you think the Federal Reserve does a "very good job" with money, and that the U.S. dollar is stable, then you have no clue.

            But hey, tell ya what. Instead of us arguing and fighting over the reins of power to foist our preferred monetary systems onto each other, how about we just let a free market exist in money? That way, people can voluntarily choose what to use and accept as money, and the best money can democratically become the most popular.

            Would that be acceptable? Or do you insist on forcing people to use your money from thin air?
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2If you aren't going to describe the substance of what I'm wrong on but instead merely assert that I have no "clue", what the hell is the use of your post? I layed out my position at length and you come back at me with nothing. That's sad.
    • frederoil, on 01/04/2008, -9/+2Ron Paul is a complete tool. Most who support him have no idea what the hell they are supporting anyway. This whole "privatize everything" is complete *****. The rich get richer. The poor get manipulated by the rich. The uneducated fall further and further behind.. all in the name of the free market. It's a disgrace, it's foolish, and the only people in favor of it are those who will profit handsomely off of it.
      • jjmckay, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4The failings that you point out are a product of our corporatism. Corporatism, FYI, is a partnership between government and the corporations. This is how our system works here. What do you think the feds do with a 2 TRILLION dollar budget? (1 or 2 trillion, i forget now) They redistribute much wealth to rich corporations. If the poor are getting poorer its because of the current system that Ron Paul wants to change.
        • Neiby, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Precisely, and corporatism capitalism.
    • Lanie, on 01/04/2008, -5/+5You know, I thought Ron Paul had some really great ideas, and I was strongly considering voting for him, so I went to his web site to check out his stances on other issues. He's anti-abortion and wants to make a constitutional law defining life as beginning at conception. He would force every woman to keep a baby regardless of health risks or if the woman has been raped. I know Digg is mostly full of men who may not feel as strongly on this issue, but it's extremely important to have the right to choose whether or not you want to bring a life into this world.
      • rxbudian, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3his stance on abortion is to shift the issue to the states, let the states decide whether it will allow abortion or not. Same goes with Gay Marriage and Medical Marijuana
      • SwingCorey, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3His stance against abortion comes from having been a doctor all those years. He loves life and believes in the Declaration of Independence's words, "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He believes that, as the Preamble says, "to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY" (not just those members of our posterity that are convenient for us).
    • seeyounorth, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Logic and Reason?? Oh, you mean except for the part where he doesn't think Evolution is valid. And he doesn't respect a woman's right to choose whether or not to get an abortion. I don't mind all the Ron Paul talk out there these days but its just wrong to throw logic and reason in the mix with short comings such as these.
      • Clearfire18, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2He believes in evolution, don't swallow up whatever garbage hit piece you see. As a Christian he believes evolution is gods own doing. But does it even freaking matter if he believes in it or not?!!
        Ron Paul's stance on abortion is to let states decide, do your some research before spewing crap. He is personally against it, as he was a doctor who delivered babies.....
        "Short comings" my arse.
  • thewump, on 01/03/2008, -7/+165If that had aired it could have been great for him in Iowa. Makes you think, doesn't it?
    • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -22/+6yes this one interview will have saved him... 4th place to 1st... its a shame really...
    • citizen782, on 01/03/2008, -15/+6Absolutely. It's a conspiracy. CNN is out to make sure Ron Paul does not look good. That would have bad ramifications for them and Larry. CNN wants to end the free market and stifle the constitution. More government, freedom for illegal aliens, and expansion of the holy wars will do nothing to hurt their agenda which is a larger viewer base through global catastrophe. The only one who can insure this is Hillary?

      I am super sick of Ron Paul ass hats.
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -10/+2thewump, I'd like you to think about something. How do you think his message actually plays to the general populace that will eventually be voting in the general election? I'll tell you... they are going to just laugh at him. Never forget, all the crappy, unconstitutional social programs we have today exist because a vast majority of people *want* them. No constitutionalist will EVER win a national election... in fact, if someone like Paul were to ever win a major party's nomination (itself pretty much impossible), he would march his way towards being beaten in the largest landslide in the history of the country.

      "The people" simply want more... a hell of a lot more... from government than the constitution allows. And they get their way because ultimately, the constitution has no power to defend itself and no one who swears to do so has any intent to keep that promise.

      Even Ron Paul has let slip that the real reason he's in favor of state's rights is because he believe there's a better chance of imposing his moralistic agenda at a more local level.
    • samthurston, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul is a smart guy, but there's a big hole in his logic here: we have to protect people's right to life, but they don't have a right to medical care. The healthcare problem today is not caused by government intervention, it's caused by the "free markets" he praises. Removing social welfare programs isn't going to cause more prosperity like he talks about... most of the truly poor pay nearly zero income tax right now. Our foreign policy isn't what caused most of our middle-class jobs to move to mexico and india, but again these "free markets" have moved that way.

      A Ron Paul presidency would be a human disaster on an apocalyptic scale.
      • bullhead2007, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1There's not a "free market" for much of anything, and especially not when it comes to health care. Government subsidation and regulation of the healthcare industry are the primary reasons why it's so expensive, and directly responsible for shady practices by HMOs and insurance companies.

        "Free markets" didn't cause our jobs to go over seas either. That's thanks to NAFTA and WTO. And while the propaganda says that they are free trading agreements, it's just a charade. Those 2 organizations favor big corporations and kill small business and true free markets. They subsidize and lower taxes for corporations who move workers outside of this country.

        As for your comment about Ron Paul as a president being a human disaster, I'd like to know what you base that on since everything else you said was ignorant at best.
  • cerlpbr, on 01/03/2008, -7/+108Can somebody compile CNN email list to send complaints, preferably a long one.
  • eris0xff, on 01/03/2008, -10/+122This was supposed to have aired last night. My guess is that they thought it might positively sway the Iowa caucus to Paul. Cowards.
    • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -7/+9They didn't air this footage because they were trying to distract Dr Paul... they put him in the cold weather to break him, but did he break? NO... why? because Ron Paul delivers his best speeches in the face of adversity!!!!! What other man dares to speak when he KNOW no one is really going to watch?!
    • Myonosken, on 01/03/2008, -2/+6Do you people really believe fools like this muppet (witebuddha).

      The guy is a good politician, but use common sense please. It was a web exclusive clip. No conspiracy.
  • faxxy, on 01/03/2008, -9/+68If this NEVER gets air time, We The People need to call on the MSM on this BS. Mega-blowback for shortchanging us.

    Polls Insulting Our Intelligence?

    http://PollsPolls.com

    The heavy reliance on pre-election, landline, contrived polls by olde media has been damaging to the democratic process, treating the whole process like a horse race.

    Imagine what would happen if there were no pre-election polls? Rather than having a small group of people attempting to sway public opinion, we have much a more level playing field. Let the people decide, not the media.

    "The 'scientific' polls are the final illusion standing between the American people and the new reality." -Zydeco
    • SpikeLee, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Really, the whole process is a joke. The electoral college and the fact that New Hampshire and Iowa have the more of a say than other states.
      • amiches, on 01/04/2008, -3/+0Ron Paul supporters digging up a guy who advocates getting rid of the electoral college? Minor miracles happen daily.
    • monkeypill, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2While we're at it, how about doing away with exit polling as well ? Just another tactic to keep voters home.
    • Brad324, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2The worst part is, there`s nothing scientific about the polls they're doing on "likely voters." Here's how to make them more scientific:
      1. Randomize the order of the candidates.
      2. Actually accept answers you don't like
      3. Don't just poll people that voted in the last primary.
      • amiches, on 01/04/2008, -2/+0Uh, responsible pollsters do all of those things. But, continue your delusions, every minute you retards spend in your mothers basement is one less minute you're spending in real-life support of Grand Wizard Ron Paul
    • KRNpro, on 01/04/2008, -1/+0***** YOU FRANK!
  • hyperfocus, on 01/03/2008, -5/+86URL for Larry King show questions:
    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?75
  • rabidmonkey1, on 01/03/2008, -4/+53Tell Larry what you think - http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?73
    • barnsaton, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the link. And remember, be polite in these. If we flood them with rude comments then they're only less likely to listen to us or to give Paul any air-time.
  • hyperfocus, on 01/03/2008, -9/+46URL for Larry King show questions:
    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?75
  • kemp34, on 01/03/2008, -3/+38Why would they not show this? Really weak.
    • gyrfalcon, on 01/03/2008, -6/+3If you don't want to believe in all the conspiracy theories:

      They might not have aired it because the interview was done in a fairly crappy way. Ron Paul is outside in the cold, and the audio/delay was pretty bad.
      • BabaRamDass, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9Being outside in the cold is not a very good reason. As for the delay, that's what post-production editing is for.
  • johnb321, on 01/03/2008, -4/+34Great interview. They need to air this. America must understand this message.
  • ngross, on 01/03/2008, -6/+43Get that poor man out of the cold!! He's got a big job ahead of him, lets try to keep him healthy!!
    • cashman57, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Actually he is the healthiest of the GOP candidates most of them drank away their livers and sit on their asses.
  • bill1233, on 01/03/2008, -3/+58Wow I thought all the mainstream media conspiracy talk was silly but things like this makes you wonder. Why would they NOT AIR this cool video and instead spend an entire hour chatting with Suze Orman?

    Go Ron Paul!
    • elleanee, on 01/03/2008, -0/+8Because she's a noodlebrain and that's what they take the American people for!
    • gyrfalcon, on 01/03/2008, -4/+2They might not have aired it because the interview was done in a fairly crappy way. Ron Paul is outside in the cold, and the audio/delay was pretty bad.
    • Nosnevets02, on 01/03/2008, -0/+11As a financial expert you would have thought she would have been interested in discussing economic policy with the only candidate interested in it. But she said she liked Hillary and Guiliani, so obviously she's not that much of a financial expert, lol.
      • seedofc, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I think she liked Obama, not Hillary (if I remember correctly)
  • swwinters, on 01/03/2008, -2/+32Classic RP!
    • kcdstudios, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I fall in love with him every time.
  • phatphing, on 01/03/2008, -2/+87It's despicable for CNN and Larry King to take up Dr Paul's valuable time on the night before the Iowa caucus and not air the piece! Absolutely despicable!
    I sent Larry King my hate mail, and everyone who feels the same way should do so too.
    • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -6/+6"Larry King,
      I, a Ron Paul supporter, am appalled that you wouldn't run your own segment with Ron Paul last night. Why wouldn't you want to push my political canadite into the limelight when all he does is speak the truth?! WAKE UP Larry King!!!... wake up... How DARE you run a TV show how you want... When the Rloveution comes you will be the first against the wall.

      Signed,
      phatphing"
      • prowlerjm, on 01/03/2008, -1/+0Too bad he doesn't even use computers. I wouldn't be surprised if his email gets read by some unpaid intern, where it then gets thrown away, unless its regarding the MSM's "top tier" candidates.
      • SlimFastForYou, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Supporters saying "Wake Up" and "Sheep" never bothered me too much. But "Rlovution" is a bit overboard.. seriously way more off the deep-end than UFOs or NWO conspiracy theories. I dislike it just like I dislike the term "Paulites" (usually it's the media who use this term). If Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad with a cross-like shelf contained subliminal suggestions, I would say "Rloveution" does as well. (Though then again I don't think that is official Ron Paul campaign art but rather something a supporter came up with). But to the credit of the "rloveution" I think Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate running and plan to vote for him in my state's primary.
    • crunshii, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Dont worry phatphing, I did as well.

      I sent Larry and CNN a very disgusted email on this ***** as how BIASED the media is FORCING US to vote for the other candidates where they DO NOT Compare to even 1/4 of what RON PAUL Stands for... EVERYONE SPAM CNN Into showing this clip PLEASE!!!
      • muckemuck, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3ahhh... or ask them nicely so they don't say "Ron Paul supporters = fanatical nutjobs"
    • MaximusPryme, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2Well, I have a copy of a the Encyclopedia Galactica from the future and it says here that, "Larry King was a mindless jerk who was the first against the wall when the rEVOLution happened."
  • iPissExcellence, on 01/03/2008, -2/+42How can it not be on air when it says 'live'? Is Larry King Live not really live?
    If this was a stupid question, you're welcome to bury me, but please answer the stupid question also.
    • elleanee, on 01/03/2008, -2/+16It's a live interview, but a taped show. Typical MSM lies!
      • witebuddha, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2err... isn't it a live show with a taped interview? didn't they say they taped the ron paul clip but never aired it on the show?
    • Cossa, on 01/03/2008, -3/+8It's the same kind of "Live" as Saturday Night "Live". Pre-taped but otherwise one-cut, with little editing of content. Oh, and Larry King is a jackass.
      • iPirate, on 01/03/2008, -0/+7Actually... SNL is broadcast live on the East Coast (besides the prerecorded skits of course).
        • gyrfalcon, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2SNL is probably not LIVE TV in the true sense of the word... I'm sure they have a delay or wait an hour or two to air it.
        • toolsdrummer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2no, there's a 7 second delay (since the janet jackson thing). but other than that, it's live. my dad works on the show. iPirate is right, it's live except for the pre-taped things like digital shorts and fake commercials.
    • toekneebullard, on 01/03/2008, -0/+38I always thought the "Live" in the corner was a health condition update for Larry King.
      • kcdstudios, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6you comment is unseen brilliance, but i seen it.
      • henrikakselsen, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3That may very well be the funniest comment I've ever seen on Digg! Join the Daily Show, man!
      • iamnerp, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2epic lulz.
  • blakmira, on 01/03/2008, -8/+81One word: Brilliant!
    Ron Paul is a genius.
    I'm writing to Larry King to air this.
    P.S. Caught a couple of minutes of Suze Orman while channel flipping -- Larry King asked her what presidential candidate she thought would help the economy the most, she said "Oh, I'm sure they all want to help the economy! What president wouldn't??" duhhhh Go back to your mansion bubble, Suze....
    RON PAUL should have been on instead of this "financial wizard" airhead"!!!!
    • Marijuana, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1It pisses me off they didn't air this great interview. It's almost surreal that this day in age CNN chooses to care more about suze orman than a presidential candidate.
  • dreicher, on 01/03/2008, -6/+185Granted, I'm only in my early 30's, but I've never heard a politician willing to take on ANY question and able to make sense of his position. The intelligence it takes to be able to cull information from 200+ years of history, put it in context and deliver a thoughtful and articulate response to every question is simply awe-inspiring.
    I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Paul believes, but I will admit more and more regularly I find myself questions "Why don't I agree with him on this or that?" because on the occassions that I do agree with his stance I feel as though he has presented in a way I would if I was much, much smarter than I am.
    I do hope this video will see the light of day, either through CNN broadcast or by going "viral" on the web.
    I've followed candidates in the past and after hearing their stump speech 2-3x, I could probably get up and finish it for them. Same talking points, same lame jokes and one-liners ad nauseum. But with Dr. Paul, I'm always pleasantly surprised to hear something new and fresh because he's not afraid to go outside his "comfort zone" and speak to any issue. Say what you want about the man's beliefs, but you can hardly deny he is an impressive mind.
    • juankovo, on 01/04/2008, -8/+4In five minutes, Ron Paul could probably convince me that the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. And then I'd go around my neighborhood trying to convince people he was right, and start a Meetup group to hook up with other flat earth cheezers.
      • lazlonger, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3Ron Paul wouldn't do that. Lots of others might though....keep looking....and don't vote.
  • EvanVolm, on 01/03/2008, -29/+13It may not have aired because of the audio problems. You can hear a lot of people talking in the background while Paul speaks(whether that's where Paul is or at the studio who knows). Don't be so quick to scream "Bias!".
    • RIMberry, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6Yeah like that's hard to dub out...
    • cusoman, on 01/03/2008, -0/+7Remember the last debate and the interviews they did with each candidate on the floor afterwards? There was a ton of sound in the background.... that's not a likely excuse.
    • rosullivan, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4That's got to be the single-most lame excuse I've ever heard for not airing an interview with a presidential candidate.
    • crunshii, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4thats probably CNN's WEAK excuse... and not only that, last couple of RON PAUL interviews have had some sort of inside noise going on.

      THAT IS NO EXCUSE TO NOT AIR THIS BEFORE THE IOWA CAUCUS. sorry pisses me off how the Media finds weak excuses not to air the ***** they should
  • sHockz, on 01/03/2008, -40/+12time to turn on the ron paul spam machine....
    ::chug chug chug::
    'After 10 minutes this video now has: 43750273450927345890327450928347509237852037452037 views'
    Oops, forgot to turn the spam machine on...ok, now its ready.
    • Voldon, on 01/03/2008, -3/+3Idiots downvoting him he is trying to get across that ITS NOT SPAM VIEW COUNTS it is real people

      but no woossshhh straight over you re heads.
      • ryptide, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3What are you re heads? I've never heard of them.
        • bittwist, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Interwebs speak does not have to be proper. He point was easy to comprehend.
  • elleanee, on 01/03/2008, -6/+66It's truly frightening to see what MSM is doing to the American people AND has been doing for quite some time. They decide who's going to be President for us. These Presidential puppets have sold our rights down the toilet and the strings keep getting pulled tighter. We must get out of our chairs and get involved in making the changes necessary to take back our country.

    Ron Paul and Dennis K (also Mike Gravel) are the only ones telling us EXACTLY like it is and who will help us return this country to the people, to whom it rightfully belongs.
  • ThomasPaine23, on 01/03/2008, -1/+19watch and learn : http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/spin.php
    The movie above is made from raw satellite feeds (stuff you dont see on tv)
    It was really interesting to learn the president was using the DOD to tap into these feeds as well.
    • RonaldLewis, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5Thanks for sharing this link. The elephant has always been in the living room -- Few people choose to acknowledge it.
    • sixdust, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1This is very interesting. Anymore documentaries or info about doing this stuff with satellites?
    • iPissExcellence, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I watched the whole thing. great link! man, that Larry King is an *****.
  • goneresistance, on 01/03/2008, -25/+26Ron Paul is the next President of the United States. You can feel the excitement building around him. This campaign is going to sweep through the primaries like a tidal wave.

    "I, Ronald Earnest Paul, do solemnly swear...." I can hardly wait to see the inauguration!!!
    • MeatyVitamin, on 01/03/2008, -8/+3I, Ronald Earnest Paul, and my army of RONBOTS, do solemnly swear..."
    • amiches, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3God, you're creepy
    • Vigilo, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Why is he creepy? Pure attack anti-ronpaul botter well i challenge both of you stooges and say i think he has a chance and so does Saxo bank read it and weep
      http://ireland4ronpaul.blogspot.co