Thursday, December 27, 2007
Ron Paul really puts his foot in his mouth on MSNBC
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul did a phone interview this morning on MSNBC to respond to being called a “crackpot” by correspondent David Shuster. This was in response to Ron Paul’s factually incorrect and totally asinine assertion that Abraham Lincoln “started” the Civil War. Ron Paul went on to claim that the hosts of the morning show had simply not read the right history books concerning the Civil War. He even went on to tell host Jack Jacobs that he was not “brave enough” to read the right American history books.
Not brave enough?
Jack Jacobs is a retired Army Colonel and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. He also holds three Bronze Stars, two Silver Stars, and two Purple Heart Medals.
Being that Ron Paul is a member of Congress, perhaps he has heard of the Congressional Medal of Honor. It’s the most revered and respected honor in the entire military. Not only is any recipient of the Medal of Honor brave, they are the epitome of bravery. If there is one thing a person who holds the Congressional Medal of Honor should never have to worry about is having their bravery called into question on national TV by a member of Congress. Even if that member of Congress is a whack-job.
When will Ron Paul’s followers realize their idol doesn’t deserve their unwaivering worship?
First Ron Paul said that Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War. Now he claims a distinguished war hero isn’t brave enough to read a certain history book. What will Ron Paul say next? Whatever it is, it’s sure to be entertaining.
Update: Video from Ron Paul’s interview is now up on YouTube, but the first part where he claims Col. Jack Jacobs is not brave enough to read a book that says Lincoln started the Civil War is missing from the video. I was able to find an audio only version that includes the statement by Ron Paul. It’s right about at the 6:40 mark.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Abraham Lincoln did start the civil war.
Ron Paul is a certified asshat.
“Abraham Lincoln did start the civil war.”
Mel Gibson said that Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world.
Listen, I think I see a compromise here.
Lincoln was secretly a Jew who started the Civil War. And he fucked his head bodyguard.
Was Abraham Lincoln Jewish? That would explain the very Old Testament like first name. That would also explain the stove pipe yamika he would often wear in private while playing with his dradle.
I’ve often wondered about that.
So winning the Medal of Honor makes everything you say true? What idiocy.
John wrote:
No, but it makes you exempt from ever having your bravery questioned. Speaking of idiocy, you don’t win the Medal of Honor. It’s not a lotto ticket or a basketball game. It’s a military award.
John, you’ve won the Asshat of the Thread Award (ATA.) Congratulations.
Foot in his mouth? For speaking well-documented historical fact?
Brave or no, medals or no, Mr. Jacobs clearly demonstrated he knows little of Abraham Lincoln’s vascillating position on the emancipation issue in the US during the mid 19th century.
From Wikipedia: “Before the American Civil War and even in the war’s early stages Lincoln said that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery where it already existed. … His position and the position of the Republican Party in 1860 was that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories, and thus all future states admitted to the Union would be free states.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery)
Although Col. Jacobs may have demonstrated bravery, it appears from comments during this interview like “I tell you what, you read Dilorenzo, we’ll read everybody else who says exactly the opposite.” Since Col. Jacobs does not identify even one author saying “exactly the opposite” this proves the man to be either consciously lying or a victim of what Asch called the conformity syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments)
Once again, another blog that does not try to look at the positions Ron Paul takes and offer a real critique of the positions offered. Just a bunch of feelings here. Well, after reading the many articles Ron Paul writes on each of the subjects in question, I can say for certain that his positions come from research, and not how he feels on the subject. How about you go to http://www.ronpaullibrary.org and offer a critique instead of crying on a blog. However, I may be on a blog that advocates the government babying the populace from cradle to grave, and in that case, I’m talking to a brick wall.
Stephen, I went to the site you linked to. Where on it can I read about his views on slavery and the Civil War?
Are those even something that you should be concerning yourself about? How about focusing on the issues at hand, or are you voting for a candidate based on his Lincoln stance? Don’t be obtuse.
Stephen, what’s Ron Paul’s position on long-shot Presidential candidates and the rabid internet loons who support him?
Not sure what you mean by that… But I guess you’re referring to me as a loon because I support him?
How’s this for a long shot:
1. 6 million dollars raised in a single day
2. Breaking every fund raising record ever
3. Polling 3rd in Iowa
4. More searches on the internet than any other Republican candidate… combined
5. Barry Goldwater junior endorses him
6. More donations from active military members than any other candidate… combined
7. The only candidate to be rising in the polls.
Once again, I challenge anyone here to read his positions and offer a good reasoned argument against. He is the only candidate who is a straight shooter. He lays it out for you to either agree or disagree, but he requires you to do research because his positions can’t be explained in 30 second bites as the other candidates’ positions.
So you really think Ron Paul is going to win the election?
I wasn’t calling you a loon earlier.
But now I’m not so sure. I guess it all depends on your answer to my question.
Stephen Gunter wrote:
I promise you Stephen that as soon as the other candidates weigh in on the Civil War or the proper way to free the slaves, I will be all over it.
When you first posted the link to the Ron Paul library, I was fairly certain it was going to take me to a meatspin page. Not that I am complaining. I have a hankering for some more of Ron Paul’s opinion on the best way to free the slaves and the warmongering ways of Abe Lincoln.
Polling 3rd in Iowa? Wow, imagine if he could do that in 49 other states. He would be right up there with whoever came in 3rd place for the GOP nomination in 2004.
Whoever that was.
Yes Rick, polling third among the people named “Likely voters.” These include the folks who voted in the primary in the last election cycle. Only 6.6% of registered Republicans bothered to show up last time. Most of Ron Paul’s support is from people like me who believed that American politics had become so corrupted that there was no hope. I did not vote in the primary last cycle because I was voting for Michael Perutka of the Constitution Party. So, taking into consideration the fact that he is polling so high amongst the die-hard Neo-conservatives alone makes me shiver with excitement. Add to these numbers the disenfranchised and you’ll see why I’m so happy
So yeah, if Ron Paul can poll 3rd in all states, it would be a huge victory.
Stephen Gunter wrote:
But people in Iowa don’t vote in a primary. They caucus. If they “voted” in a “primary” the last election cycle, they weren’t doing it in Iowa.
Don’t let that stop you from shivering. With excitement.
Either way, in a caucus or a primary, it’s the Delegates that matter. Semantics, you know? So call it what you want, but the facts still remain.
No, Stephen. It’s not a matter of semantics. Don’t be obtuse. If you read somewhere that Ron Paul is running 3rd in Iowa among the people that voted in the last Iowa primary, you are reading something not to be trusted. It’s as kooky as Ron Paul’s assertion that Lincoln started the Civil War. Iowa doesn’t have a primary. They have a caucus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvUhofcs4Cs
Read that somewhere? Kooky? You sure you don’t want to retract that? I mean, this is just one source… But I did make sure that it wasn’t just some random source saying it. I think you should check your facts, my friend
Stephen, I watched the above clip and it didn’t say that Ron Paul was 3rd among people that VOTED in the last Iowa PRIMARY. Once again, people in Iowa don’t vote in primaries. They caucus.
ariana wrote:
No, for questioning the bravery of a man he has no business questioning the bravery off. And for what? For refusing to read an alternate history book written by a non-historian that contradicts every credited historian on the subject of the Civil War.
It’s not just one book that was written. There are a lot of historians who take this point of view. Besides, it’s a moot point and you look desperate. You have no arguments against anything he stands for, so you have to use stupid things such as how you have a disagreement with how he sees history having been played out to get upset about. It’s like you’re throwing a temper tantrum.
It’s the book written by a non-historian that Doctor Paul claimed told the real story about Lincoln starting the Civil War. Are there any other books written by actual historians that tell the story of Lincoln starting the Civil War so he get rid of the original intent of the republic? Can you show me one historian that even says Lincoln started the Civil War?
I haven’t argued against anything Doctor Paul stands for? Read this.
You think I’m throwing a temper tantrum? Just because I don’t “shiver with excitement” over Doctor Paul like you claim to do and instead laugh at everything his campaign represents doesn’t mean I’m throwing a tantrum. Far from it. I find him to be highly entertaining. I dread the day he and his campaign are swept aside by the real candidates. Things will be a lot more boring.
Even if I believed in every single thing that Ron Paul believes in, I still would not vote for him.
1)It would be throwing your vote out the window. He truly doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
2)He really comes off as a total loon. Don’t you all see that? Can’t you see how ridiculous he looks next to real candidates? Sure, most of the others are slimy, but they aren’t crazy.
Libertarianism is like Communism. They both look great on paper, but because human nature is what it is, neither will work in the end.
1) Ron Paul wasn’t speaking of Jacobs’ PHYSICAL or PSYCHOLOGICAL BRAVERY, but rather his INTELLECTUAL BRAVERY. Medals of honor are no measurement of INTELLECTUAL BRAVERY. In this metric, the author of the current Paul-smear would be considered a boot-licking, statist coward.
2) Ron Paul never said that Abe Lincoln fought the Civil War TO END SLAVERY; someone else implied that in a question, and so Paul responded to it, giving the questioner the benefit of the doubt in that context — one of the innumerable contexts absent in such bald-faced and fallacious smears as the current one and the ones undertaken by MSNBC.
3) Ron Paul said that Abe Lincoln WAGED War to get rid of the original intent of the Republic; he didn’t say that Abe STARTED the Civil War to END SLAVERY.
The author of the current Paul-smear is just another easily exposed and self-defeating hack — a disinforming, state-suckling fraud of a pundit indeed.
Not even a nice try… NEXT!
If Ron Paul was questioning Jack Jacobs’ “intellectual” bravery, why didn’t he just say that? How are those of us without the aid of a tin foil hat and a magical Doctor Paul decoder ring supposed to do?
Ron Paul’s followers whine that he doesn’t get enough attention from the mainstream media. When he does, it blows up in their face. He goes on MEET THE PRESS and makes an absolute ass out of himself. That won’t be the last time he slips up like that. You would have thought he would have learned his lesson. Instead, he goes on MSNBC and tells a recipiant of the Congressional Medal of Honor that he isn’t brave because he refused to read an alternate history book written by a non-historian.
It would be sad if it wasn’t so darn entertaining.
“If Ron Paul was questioning Jack Jacobs’ ‘intellectual’ bravery, why didn’t he just say that? How are those of us without the aid of a tin foil hat and a magical Doctor Paul decoder ring supposed to do?”
You need none of that — just a recognition of the OBVIOUS FACT that Ron Paul’s remark was made in the CONTEXT of reading history, as opposed to rescuing fellow soldiers. Then again, state-suckling pundits and other smear-frauds aren’t too bothered by context; they’re quite the enemy thereof.
“Ron Paul’s followers whine that he doesn’t get enough attention from the mainstream media. When he does, it blows up in their face.”
Oh yeah. Poll numbers constantly rising while others’ fall, fund-raising skyrocketing while the others’ fall, and domination of online polls and straw polls. Yeah. Blowing up in whose face? Yeah. Oops!
“He goes on MEET THE PRESS and makes an absolute ass out of himself.”
Nope. He responds honestly and accurately to irrelevant, out-of-context, prybar questioning. And tyrant-worshiping frauds and other state-sucklers can’t handle the truth and don’t bother to debate the merits; so they distort his positions and label him a crackpot. Such are the self-defeating tactics of the inferior party in the debate. You’re getting desperate now, resorting to attacking his supporters again; which means you’re losing on the merits — again.
“That won’t be the last time he slips up like that. You would have thought he would have learned his lesson. Instead, he goes on MSNBC and tells a recipiant of the Congressional Medal of Honor that he isn’t brave because he refused to read an alternate history book written by a non-historian.”
So, do you dispute the findings of this “non-historian”? Or do you simply need labels like “non-historian” to prove your implied fallacy that says an economist has no say in the history of the Civil War — or that a “non-historian” doesn’t know how to reference sources on the subject? If so, then you should read history books from ALL sides on this matter — even alternate [sic] ones; you’ll find that economists and other “non-historians” carry very much weight in the discussion of the bases for waging the Civil War.
And it’s not like Jacobs didn’t draw first blood, the way he insulted Paul’s sense of history. (Notice how insecure Jacobs was; he couldn’t finish the remark without reaching for his cup o’ joe halfway through. Then once Paul called him out, he couldn’t summon the courage to call Paul a crackpot; he had to ask Shuster if he’d called him one earlier. Yeah, that’s true bravery — nerves of steel. He was insulting Paul through a cup of coffee and the show host because he was not brave enough to confront him openly and on the merits. It’s intellectual cowardice AND personal cowardice, and Paul rightly called him on the former in response to the cowardly insult.)
Your fallacy implies that in order to be a credible voice in US history, one must major in “historianism.”
That must be the same reason why anti-Paulers throw out the US Constitution as irrelevant: because it wasn’t written by a bunch of guys specialized in “constitutionalism.”
“It would be sad if it wasn’t so darn entertaining.”
On the contrary: I, personally, have been quite entertained at the sad level of discussion here (or vice versa); so it’s not either/or, really.
Next!
(The floor is still open to anyone who cares to address the merits as opposed to attacking the man and his supporters.)
JESUS CHRIST! HOW FUCKING LONG IS THAT LAST COMMENT?
Listen, asshat, there is no such thing as intellectual bravery. You made that up.
Opps is right. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Survey came out today. It showed that that when Republican caucus goers were asked who they would vote for if the election was held today, Doctor Paul came in at 2%. That’s the same level of support he got in September. If Ron Paul’s numbers are constantly rising like you say, I would have expected that number to, I don’t know, actually rise.
I think it’s safe to say that the more Americans find out about Ron Paul and his ludicrous positions, the more his campaign becomes nothing more then a joke. Not that I ever thought he was serious about being our President.
“JESUS CHRIST! HOW FUCKING LONG IS THAT LAST COMMENT?”
Translation: “I have nothing to say.”
“Listen, asshat, there is no such thing as intellectual bravery. You made that up.”
Don’t let the forest of facts get in the way of your sapling of semantics on my account. And don’t feel too bad about yourself. Heck, I might’ve said the same thing you just did, if I was in your shoes — if I was lost for a rational counterpoint and facing total defeat while clinging to an indefensible position, that is.
PS: There’s no such thing as “asshat”; you’re just projecting yourself.
Regards.
Commenting on a blog, taking people to task for their supposed lack of intellectual or rhetorical muscle, arguing semantics and cramming your comments with pretentious metaphors and high-minded talk to make yourself sound like something other than a loyal acolyte for Ron Paul’s vain candidacy . . . Pardon an observation, Dan, but you’re sort of a dick.
Yes, I’m so lost for a “rational” counterpoint to your insane arguments.
I was always told never to argue with retards.
And:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass-hat
What’s there to debate? That Lincoln started the Civil War? That someone who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for bravery on the battlefield can have his bravery questioned because he refuses to read an alternate history book written by a non-historian?
I’m not attacking Ron Paul supporters. I’m making fun of them. Making fun is not attacking. And don’t complain about being made fun of when you insist on using phrases such as “tyrant-worshiping frauds” or “state-sucklers. Who talks like that? I don’t think I’ve used the word “suckle” or any derivative of the word my entire life.
“Opps is right. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Survey came out today. It showed that that when Republican caucus goers were asked who they would vote for if the election was held today, Doctor Paul came in at 2%. That’s the same level of support he got in September. If Ron Paul’s numbers are constantly rising like you say, I would have expected that number to, I don’t know, actually rise.”
Well, thanks for at least attempting to dispute something, feebly as you did. You cite a poll where Paul’s number went neither up nor down. Nice. Never mind all the ones that show him rising, like this one, this one, or this one, for starters. Oops indeed².
“I think it’s safe to say that the more Americans find out about Ron Paul and his ludicrous positions, the more his campaign becomes nothing more then a joke. Not that I ever thought he was serious about being our President.”
That’s nice bit of reality inversion, but it still translates into: “I have nothing to say.” Thanks for playing though. Come on back if ever want to actually put up a challenge based on the merits.
The Los Angeles Times/Bloomburg Survey I referred to yesterday was released yesterday. It is the most recent poll to come out. In comparison, the first poll you referred to, the CNN/WMUR poll came out November 19. If you follow national politics, the LA Times/Bloomburg poll was getting all the attention yesterday. I felt it was the most relevant.
Nothing would make me happier then if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination. Not only would it ensure a Democratic president in the White House for at least the next four years, it would turn the 2008 Presidential election into hilarious entertainment. Who knows how long the WGA strike is going to last. We need entertaining programs to watch on TV. Doctor Paul’s MEET THE PRESS interview was one of the most entertaining things I’ve seen on my TV in a very long time. I want to be able to see more of that.
I would actually watch the 2008 Republican National Convention if Doctor Paul was going to get the nomination. Who knows what Doctor Paul would do or say. He might once again say that Ronald Reagan was a “total failure” or that Huckabee is a fascist. Being that you are a Ron Paul supporter, you probably don’t follow politics. Ronald Reagan is an icon to most Republicans. He’s kind of really important to most Republicans. You know what a Republican is, right Dan?
You never know what the man is going to say. That’s what makes him so entertaining. He goes out of his way to say wacky, kooky stuff. Who else goes on MEET THE PRESS and talks about slavery and criticizes the way they were freed because it didn’t compensate the slave owners? Ron Paul is comedy gold!
[...] him. Why is Doctor Paul constantly questioning everyone’s bravery? First a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and now a cable news [...]