What is Digg?469 Comments
- Minarchian, on 12/27/2007, -14/+262Yes...Even in a hostile environment Paul retains his stature, remains a Gentleman and keeps a cool head. That's what makes a great President, in my opinion.
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -9/+209Ganged up on by three hostile globalists and he dispatched them. You could feel the rage in those morons. There was a palpable tension and hostility. The constitution really pisses people with stiff hair off!
- xtrabiggg, on 12/27/2007, -12/+201It's interesting How Mr. Shuster and his echoing sidekick can criticise an author and a book they never read! And ANYONE who has read history knows that while many revered Lincoln, he was also one of the most REVILED Presidents as well! During the Civil War, there were draft riots in many major cities, as a protest to fighting what they called 'Lincoln's War', and the fact that the rich could buy their way out of the draft. (for you pop-cultuure freaks, refer to the movie 'Gangs of New York'. Apparently this crew never got past the reverential portrayal of Lincoln in their Third-grade history texts.
Moreover, Dr. Paul was not 'totally wrong' and a 'crackpot' as that mealy mouthed-leering know-it-all rudely said WHILE HE WAS TALKINGTO RON PAUL! Abraham Lincoln was a POLITICIAN. He DID say that if he could save the union by keeping slavery he would (something those two ad-hominem spouting talking heads refused to acknowledge). Lincoln also unilaterally took for himself dictatorial powers such as suspending Habeus Corpus as well as suspending many other First, Fourth and FIfth Amendment rights- all historical facts that the commentators apparently NEVER heard of!
As for Seymour Hirsch, who the one commentator said 'is only right about half the time', he has been and continues to be a mouthpiece for the neo-cons in the Bush administration. Not to mention Norman Podhoretz (and many other neo-cOn advisors to President Bush) who STILL ADVOCATE bombing and invading Iran- which both commentators were DEAD WRONG about- and they report and have DINNER with these people every day!. The interview started out intending to 'gotcha' Ron Paul as well as belittle and make fun of him, but the Shuster and crew were sorely outmatched intellectually and challenged factually. Amazingly, they still acted after the interview as if they had 'bested' Ron Paul. Shuster continually interrupted Dr. Paul in the middle of questions, refused to acknowledge or answer valid points and questions he himself was asked by Ron Paul, and was generally disrespectful and rude throughout the interview, with a condescending manner more befitting an English schoolmarm in a Monty Python movie than an anchor on a major network!
I GUARANTEE you'll never see Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, or new media darling 'Saint' Huckabee challenged the way Ron Paul is every day in the media. And there is FAR more ammunition in inconsistencies, flawed logic and flip-flopping on issues with ANY of the other candidates than you'll get with Ron Paul. Notice how even when a tough issue is broached with any other candidate, it is usually softballed, done in an almost reverential manner, and then any inconsistent answers are rarely challenged. I'd rather have a President who can think on his feet and actually READS history, than one who is ignorant or just makes things up.
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++ - NeoConned08, on 12/27/2007, -13/+180hahah OWNED!!! Ron Paul dropping truth bombs!!! The guy at the end looked SO incredulous when he was saying Ron Paul was wrong about Honest Abe hahaha!!! Did you see them bracing themselves each time Ron Paul answered their questions in a calm, honest fashion. You could literally see them cringing as he took their silly arguments and crushed them into powder.
- shadash, on 12/27/2007, -7/+169David Shuster is a blow hard know it all. You could hear it in his voice. What a prick.
- seks03, on 12/27/2007, -5/+139who was that idiot sitting next to David on the show? he brought nothing to the table accept his smart ass remarks
- 4Horsemen, on 12/27/2007, -11/+130It's becoming well known that Abe abused his power, much like Dubya has, ignoring Congress and waging war! No wonder the Neo-cons love Abe so much..
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -6/+108It was like a round table of junior high school social studies students with pinwheels in their eyes trying to get someone who actually reads entire books to understand about "honest abe" and how george washington chopped down a cherry tree. What tools.
- nydrak, on 12/27/2007, -7/+98More than just ignorant on Lincoln, he doesn't understand the purpose of declaring the guard in Iran a 'terrorist' organization. And Paul says Pakistan is blowing up, just hours before Bhutto was killed.
- malakite33, on 12/27/2007, -10/+99God, that was great. Ron Paul was really on his game this morning. What a ***** idiot Jacobs is. It's like watching a child arguing with an adult about how superman is real and going to save the world. These media nuts that everyone puts so much trust into are just numb minded idiots that know nothing about history. I'm with Glenn Beck, I could french kiss Ron Paul after seeing this.
- flavioribeiro, on 12/27/2007, -7/+86It aggravates me to no end when someone keeps arrogantly laughing during an interview. It's always the side that doesn't know what to say.
Ron Paul was not only correct historically, but was right to point out the question's absurdity. With all the wars going on, the interviewers would rather discuss the Civil War -- which, by the way, they are NOT qualified to discuss.
I just hope the Americans watching were able to see those 3 journalists for the whores they are. - grunk, on 12/27/2007, -3/+79Col. Jacobs takes both sides of the argument, I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p3dSqwgKZw - duffomelia, on 04/03/2009, -5/+75It seems that Jacobs and Shuster are ignorant of the history of Abe Lincoln. Pretty annoying to watch.
- rocket777, on 12/27/2007, -3/+71Who was the jerk that tried to put the words "Crackpot" in the other newscaster's mouth. Not only is he not brave enough to read the "Real Lincoln" as Dr. Paul challenged, he is apparently too chicken to smear Dr. Paul on his own, but attempts to do it through the back door. Now that's what I call a crackpot reporter.
- stephbangm, on 12/27/2007, -7/+73If the majority of Ron Paul supporters actually vote in the Primaries, we would most likely win. Even if only 5-10% of the public support Ron Paul like the official polls say, only about 5-10% of the population vote in the Republican Primary! That's why it's critical that we have to work hard right now. Just a few people could make or break this election!
- bigsid920, on 12/27/2007, -2/+66That's Jack Jacobs. He's a warmongering discredited Neocon loon. Watch crazy Jack call for the bombing or Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p3dSqwgKZw - stealthc, on 12/27/2007, -5/+68These people in the clip never took Paul seriously. They acted like they were interviewing Bozo the Clown. Little do they know that in the age of the Internet, they're going to get fact-checked and people are going to find out Ron Paul is resoundingly correct on history and current affairs, and these TV goons are little more than overpaid sock puppets for their employers.
Look, if they get an avalanche of email every time they mention Paul's name, his real poll numbers aren't just 7%. Either the methodology is wrong or someone is tampering with the results. Whatever the case, it is unavoidably obvious just how popular this guy is. Lots of these neocon commentators have voting children who support Paul. His signs are in front yards everywhere. It's inescapable. I don't understand why showings of popular support such as campaign contributions, straw poll votes, mainstream tamper-proof polls like the FOX and MSNBC post-debate polls, word-of-mouth, letters to editors, search popularity and blog presence all suddenly become meaningless just because it's Ron Paul. - Napoleone, on 12/27/2007, -2/+60He also said Iran had no nukes, months before the NIE that proved him right. He said Israel would annihilate Iran in a war, and a study verifying the same comes out two days later. He opposed an Iraq war, because they posed no threat. He was right.
When are people going to start seeing that this man is well learned in history and foreign politics, and none of it is ideology? - KingCook, on 12/27/2007, -6/+64Man Ron Paul really has his age going for him, he must have read and investigated a lot I don't think George Bush got all that far past comic books ! I mean COME ON just try to take a look at
what IS important: look at everybody's history and resume. This guy is consistent has got a lot of heart going for him and the freedom and personal liberty this is what he stands for and is what a lot of we can agree on. WE NEED TO STOP TREATING CORPORATIONS AS PEOPLE because the current system is CORRUPT and needs an UPDATE/REINSTALL (and to undo some features, uninstall some software added to this system because it is getting outdated and bloated!)
A lot of the candidates have sold their soul already. Think family I don't know about the other candidates but : Ron Paul has a huge family and has had a wonderful life and will be focusing on his legacy! He would not be the type to accept bribes I mean look at Rudy his life is a mess. There is plenty of evidence. He did not take the smartest decissions but he IS a smartmouth.
He always is a gentleman even when others are trying to smear him paint him as a certain type of person. This selling *the candidates* is difficult with someone who actually does know his history. He is always willing to elaborate and is awaking my (and a lot of other's interest in politics.
(And if I had to pick a democrat it would be Kuccinich who I would love to see get media attention too!)
Ron Paul Fan PS. I found this video one of the best He SCHOOLED David who was being very cocky. - inactive, on 12/27/2007, -3/+57Lincoln freed the slaves a year and a half after the war started. Even then they were only to be freed in States that had seceded and only if those States didn't return to the Union in the next six months.
How can Col. Jacobs and so many lying historians try to change the truth about Lincoln and the war. If the war had been about slavery it would have BEGUN with the Emancipation Proclamation and that proclamation would have applied to all slaves in all States.
The war was about Federal power. Lincoln was the worst violator of Americans' rights in the history of the country. If he had wanted to free the slaves, he could have worked to purchase them from every slave owner and then emancipate every human being in the country giving them full citizenship. It would have cost 1% of the cost of the Civil War and wouldn't have killed anyone. - dizilbdog, on 12/27/2007, -6/+56You know Dr. Ron Paul may actually be too smart to be President. It seems these news shows all want to destroy or humiliate a candidate, but Ron Paul is too smart to fall for that crap. I wonder what the United States would be like with a smart President who knows about History and Economics, and Peace,..... The world May Never know...... Though i'm still Voting for Ron Paul
- Napoleone, on 12/27/2007, -5/+55Shuster gets a history lesson then he's reduced to talking about Paris Hilton. What a hack.
- mcsenget, on 12/27/2007, -2/+50that ***** guy annoyed me with his final jab after Ron Paul hung up. "He's totally wrong on Lincoln."
Where the ***** is Joe or Tucker when you need them? - winfield31, on 12/27/2007, -7/+54Seriously folks, what is it going to take to get the general public to realize that out of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who has such an in depth understanding of history, economics, and foreign policy.
I'm worried that the same people who re-elected Bush are going to make the same mistakes again and vote for someone like Romney, Rudy, or McCain. We need to vote for Ron Paul so we can have a competent, well educated, and most importantly well respected leader for our country. We need to prove to the rest of the world that we are not all idiots who just keep electing the same old Washington cookie cutter candidates....show the world that we know a smart capable leader when we see one. For the first time Ill be able to be proud of the vote that I cast in a Presidential election, and in turn I know that will return the US to a country that the world looks up to, instead of looks down upon. - bigsid920, on 12/27/2007, -3/+48Jacobs is a discredited Neocon loon. Don't believe a word he says.
- SLuM, on 12/27/2007, -4/+49Paulaholic? Wow what a crazy and stupid bitch. I don't support Paul, in fact I don't really like him at all but these guys got their asses handed to them by the doctor.
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -7/+51Even on the phone, he is Presidential!
He handled that beautifully. Nice that MSNBC took a few moments to try and endorse my highschool history text book. Needless to say the truth always makes more sense and is much more interesting.
Thanks again Dr. Paul for keepin' it real.
On a side note. I find it interesting that when the commentators talk, the camera is fixed on them. When Dr. Paul speaks, the camera pans around the room like a burst balloon. Almost like an attempt to distract from what Dr. Paul is saying. Maybe i've had too much coffee. - FlaviusAetius, on 12/27/2007, -7/+49Can anyone tell me who that other guy was with Shuster? I've seen him, but can't think of his name.
I love these clown circuses. Every time they try to get over on Paul they come off looking stupid and ignorant as hell. - stephbangm, on 12/27/2007, -7/+49Those pundits got owned! Now let's own the GOP conventions by becoming delegates! We have to become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination; As delegates, we'll be picking the GOP nominee just like the electors in the electoral college pick the President; Delegates determine and decide who the GOP nominee is---it's that critical!
Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President
http://delegate.notlong.com
^
Approved by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee: Jeff Greenspan, Regional Coordinator
. - Minarchian, on 12/27/2007, -6/+42You still have a hard time with comprehension, don't you?
It was a rebuttal to the guy saying that government has a place taking care of the People. He said if that is the case then maybe the Government should force him to go on a diet. - stealthc, on 12/27/2007, -6/+42Most importantly on this Civil War debate, if you're going to call Fort Sumter the starting battle, then the Union was unquestionably the aggressor. When the southern states seceded, most presumed this was legal for them to do. The Constitutional USA was designed as a group of sovereign States who pooled resources and sovereignty in certain areas to make life and defense easier. That's why they're STATES and not PROVINCES. They could leave any time. Or so they thought. Lincoln's prosecution of this war turned that concept upside down. Instead of the people and states being in charge of the feds, the feds were claiming to be at the top of the pyramid.
South Carolina seceded from the Union, yet soldiers loyal to the Union persisted in occupying the South Carolinian Fort Sumter. Since it was no longer Union jurisdiction, they would be trespassers if they did not leave, and they were given ample warning. The first shots were fired by Confederates, but the first act of aggression was Northern. - MWeather, on 12/27/2007, -2/+38Lincoln never freed the northern slaves. That was done via constitutional amendment after he was dead. You know, the proper way.
- shadash, on 12/27/2007, -5/+40I agree with you 100% on this one.
- Sisboombah, on 12/27/2007, -3/+37I think the chick was pretty fair. So only 2 globalists, one of whom is too smug for his own good
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -2/+34Nice work grunk, thank you. Shame on MSNBC for allowing this Jacobs person to scoff at Dr. Paul for saying exactly the same thing that Col. Jacobs has said on the very same program! How stupid do they think we are?
- Napoleone, on 12/27/2007, -2/+34It's telling that Lincoln freed Southern slaves DURING the war, but freed Northern slaves only AFTER the war. He wanted to create chaos in the South by releasing them, and he found himself obligated to do the same in the North, lest he be called a hypocrite.
- stealthc, on 12/27/2007, -4/+35Thank you for using the word "seceded" and spelling it properly. That moron on TV used the word "succeeded" which is what most people do. It is the mark of someone who doesn't understand the definitions of the words they use.
- don1one, on 12/27/2007, -3/+33The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I'm impressed. At first I followed him because Guiliani didn't like him, then because I liked his foreign policy, then I started listening to how well thought out his domestic policy is.
Like still waters, Ron Paul runs deep and is a very smart man. Kind of like Clinton without the obsessions. - Berkana, on 12/27/2007, -3/+33Notice also that the best they can do is nit-pick Ron Paul about stupid things like wars long gone and individual campaign donors. It would be a shame if he didn't get the nomination.
As for Iran, didn't Bush gear up to attack Iran by moving our naval fleet to the Persian Gulf even AFTER he first hear about the NIE (though he denies he heard it until recently)? Ron Paul was spot on. I'm a bit surprised he didn't bring this point up. - thewump, on 12/27/2007, -2/+32Morning Joe isn't Morning Joe with out Joe.
- macman2k, on 12/27/2007, -2/+31I would tend to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt. When ever he is given time to elaborate he can dive into these more subtle issues, but the media cannot even let him establish some facts. If the media cannot handle or acknowledge simple quotes then or any reasoning beyond that of a 3rd grader then you cannot expect them to discuss these kinds of subtle details.
Ron Paul is clearly citing books that have a very deep understanding of Lincoln and so I would venture that Ron Paul is well aware of all angles. Unlike everyone else in this race, Ron Paul is not willfully ignorant. - arplayer2k, on 12/27/2007, -2/+31News is a ***** joke nowadays. These guys don't even pretend to be objective. It is like you are in high school, arguing with a jock who is calling you names and you are using logic. *Sigh*
- rootnik, on 12/27/2007, -2/+30She had a look on her face the whole time that said... "Joe is going to be pissed when he sees this".
- IkeMavent, on 12/27/2007, -3/+31He doesn't want to get rid of public schooling, he wants to get rid of the federal control of public schools, and return the power to the states. Just as it should be according to the constitution
- thejwac, on 12/27/2007, -8/+35Hmmm...that link doesn't work. Is that because the quotes are *****?
- SiNN4R, on 12/27/2007, -4/+30But.. but.. he suspended habeas corpus in order to defend our freedoms!
- Berkana, on 12/27/2007, -9/+35People forget their history. Ron Paul was right though; there were actually abolitionists who wanted the northern states to secede from the Union because slavery was tolerated.
Lincoln walked a fine line; from what I gathered in reading various biographies of him, a lot of the well known quotes of Lincoln being ambivalent about ending slavery were made out of necessity to placate a white public that had strong attitudes about the issue, whereas in private, he detested slavery and intended to end it. Lincoln would never have made it as far as he did if he were publicly gung-ho about abolition of slavery. While wanting the abolitionists to know that he was against slavery and trying to keep it secret from the south, he failed to keep rumors about his personal anti-slavery views from reaching the south, and that's why in spite of his public statements, the south seceded out of fear that he would bring an end to the foundation of the southern economy. I wish Ron Paul would have acknowledged this point, but in light of his remarks, I'm not sure he is looking beyond the face value of Lincoln's public remarks intended to placate the south. - bishop12345, on 12/27/2007, -5/+31Ron Paul would not end public education, he would remove the federal govt involvment, allowing the states to handle it. He supports home schooling, and giving it a level playing field. A tiny amount of the public schools funding is from the fed, and the "every child left behind" program just provides bonuses for teachers who prep their kids for the tests. I dont agree with everything ron paul does, but he is by far the best candidate, and he will have my vote in the primaries.
- darkened, on 12/27/2007, -1/+27I'm registered republican in PA. I hope to be part of PA going republican this coming year with Ron Paul!
- Napoleone, on 12/27/2007, -2/+28Shuster likes his pennies and five dollar bills, and will not stand for anyone bringing forth the truth about his false idol.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 469 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is