Skip to comments.Ron Paul Caller Slips Through. (Another Dumb Liberal Who Thinks She Can Fool Rush)
Posted on 01/09/2012 1:12:37 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Portland, Oregon, this is Sarah. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.
RUSH: Sarah, hello? Testing, one, two, three.
RUSH: Are you there?
RUSH: This is not Sarah. Let's move on to somebody --
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
RUSH: Oh, you are Sarah?
RUSH: What were you doing?
CALLER: I'm sorry, I was on the phone -- on my cell phone with my son. But okay I'm off the phone with him, and, um, I'm with you.
RUSH: Well, how do you know I was trying to get to you if you're on the phone with your son?
CALLER: Well, because I had the other phone up to my ear, too, but it was a little bit further away from my ear.
RUSH: Oh, so you're using two phones at the same time.
CALLER: Well... (laughing) Yeah, pretty nifty.
RUSH: That's how important your son is to you. Okay, I appreciate that.
CALLER: Yeah, he is. And he's a Rush Baby, 25.
RUSH: Well, I totally understand that, too.
CALLER: I gotta tell you, we disagree with you on a lot of things.
RUSH: You and your son?
CALLER: Pardon me?
RUSH: You and your son disagree with me?
CALLER: And, you know, Rush, I want to bring this to your attention right off the bat.
CALLER: You know, he was with some friends, uh, this weekend watching a game, and um, they -- one of the guys asked him about -- started to ask him about what he thought of Ron Paul.
CALLER: And my son goes, "Oh, no, not this again," and then what it turned out was all of them are supporting him. Some have left the Democrat Party --
CALLER: -- and they're in the Republican Party now, and I'm just... I'm bringing this to the attention of you and whoever else wants to pay attention to it, because this is serious. You know, we believe and seriously believe that he is the only one who's proposing real cuts.
CALLER: And not wanting to start another war does not make him an isolationist. He's the one who -- who believes in free trade, and, you know, all the other candidates, I'm sorry to say, whether it's Newt or Mitt --
CALLER: -- and I know you're right about Mitt, they want him to go up against Obama, 'cause they know he won't win. But neither will any of those other guys.
RUSH: Including Ron Paul.
CALLER: -- and if one of them does win --
RUSH: Jeez. I mean, of all the people on our side --
RUSH: -- who have the least chance.
CALLER: Well, that's where you're wrong.
RUSH: Uh, no.
CALLER: There are Democrats who like him, there are independents who like him, and there are Republicans. You can't say that about any other candidate.
RUSH: Uh, he doesn't have enough Republicans to secure victory.
CALLER: Well, that's because people like you keep saying ridiculous things about him that aren't true!
CALLER: Oh, like calling him an isolationist.
RUSH: I don't think I ever have called him an isolationist. I think you're reading from a script. I've never called him an isolation -- let me ask you a question.
CALLER: Yes, you have!
RUSH: No, I haven't.
CALLER: Yes, you have.
RUSH: I don't say that. The word is not at the forefront of my lexicon.
RUSH: I don't use it because it doesn't say enough.
CALLER: Well, you say other things about him that aren't true.
RUSH: Like what?
RUSH: Do you think 9/11 was America's fault? Ron Paul does.
CALLER: No, he's not saying that!
RUSH: Yes, he does. You know what? I understand what he's talking about. When I first heard that, I felt the same way you did. I got that knee-jerk reaction.
RUSH: It's not knee-jerk.
CALLER: We are so mixed up with the Middle East everywhere over there --
CALLER: -- and that is what he's talking about. People -- how would you like -- (crosstalk)
RUSH: Do you think the Iranians...?
CALLER: How would you like it if --
RUSH: Do you think the Iranians should get a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against us?
CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?
RUSH: Well, you know --
CALLER: You wouldn't like it. We would not like it!
RUSH: Well, a country isn't, but an idea is -- and Ron Paul doesn't think it's a problem.
CALLER: Doesn't think what's a problem?
RUSH: The idea that is trying to wipe us out.
CALLER: That's not true at all.
RUSH: Militant Islam. He's content for them to get nuclear weapons!
CALLER: No. See, there you go.
RUSH: I'm just telling you what he's says!
CALLER: You're saying things that are not true. All this is on his website.
RUSH: I'm just telling you what he says!
CALLER: Do you know what my friend from Cuba says? That when that Patriot Act was passed --
RUSH: All right.
CALLER: -- I was for that, and he said, "No, that is not good," and he from Cuba --
RUSH: Now you're gonna quote "a friend" --
CALLER: -- and I think he understands what's going on here.
RUSH: -- in Cuba.
CALLER: We're losing our civil liberties, and nobody seems to understand that except Ron Paul.
RUSH: Come on. You're not a listener.
CALLER: Ron Paul!
RUSH: Your son's not a Rush Baby. You're a liberal Democrat. You want Paul. You're trying to sabotage us.
RUSH: By the way, who is attacking Iran, anyway? The caller said, "Hey, if you're Iran and you were being attacked, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon?" In fact, Ron Paul has said -- it was a quote -- Ron Paul has said, "If I were an Iranian, Id like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them. (Israel)" I don't know who's attacking Iran. But I do know that Ron Paul has suggested that we deserved it on 9/11, that we brought it on ourselves by supporting Israel and meddling in those people's lives over there. We brought it on. We gotta understand it. We're responsible for this stuff.
Anyway, how you doing, folks? Great to have you here as we kick off brand-new week of broadcast excellence.
Snerdley is apologizing for that call. It's a ten-dollar fine. I'm gonna start instituting financial fines on you. You've been doing this 23 years, you ought to be able to spot these people from a larger, longer distance now, farther distance. What did she say? (talking) hm-hm. Okay. Snerdley says the way he got snookered here was that she said to him that she wanted to ask me who I thought the best candidate to beat Obama was. And Snerdley, of course, is oriented toward all callers making the host look good so he, using that rubric said, "Well, you know, Rush might grand slam with this," okay, hang on, and puts her on hold. And then she immediately gets on the phone with her supposed Rush Baby son and, "Okay, I'm in, I'm in, I'm in, now what do I do?" That's what was going on out there while she was on hold.
But, anyway, I think Ron Paul ought to run for president of Iran. I think he ought to just enter the fray over there, make his case to the mullahs and say, "Look, I can do a better job than Ahmadinejad's doing for you."
I did not know anyone still took Rush seriously.
George Soros is noted as having a specific organizing method that he uses in every country that he moves into. Soros goes for the youth vote by sending organizers in to campaign for legalization of drugs, abortion and cultural disruption. He tries to convince the young voters that the older generation is simply out of touch, too restrictive and simply want to burden the younger generation with their OLD ideas. He convinces the young people that the older establishment view is to keep everything for themselves and just generally oppress the young.
It sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s foreign policy pretty well matches up with George Soros’ also.
So, how could it be that a self described Libertarian could hold the same ideas and values as a world socialist?
Just the very small minority who have not been swept up in the Ron Paul cult. That's not many so you can ignore them.
Oh yes, Ron Paul would make a great supporter for Hezbollah and Iran. They should be left alone so that they can FOMENT EVIL REVOLUTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, DESTABILIZE IRAQ and WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP.
Yeah, Ron Paul is the Best Baghdad Bob for that.
I did not know anyone still took Rush seriously.
I find myself listening to Andrew Wilkow during the same time slot. however today, I did listen to this caller. I thought rush was a little slow figuring this one out.
Hannity is another I don’t listen to anymore. I listen to Tom Sullivan.
It is probably the most listened to radio talk show in America because it focuses on conservatism. That is a concept unfamiliar to people like Ron Paul and his cult, regardless of their trying to abduct the term for his brand of kookiness.
Democrat “Operation Chaos”?
Hope that woman tries that again but with Mark Levin. LOL
The caller was just a typical paulbot.
It made zero difference to her that Paul has said what he has said, and there are tons of written evidence, miles of video verifying said word....just the “yea but it’s all out of context, or he never really said it or you just don’t understand”.
I was laughing AT her.
He is one of the very best minds in conservative talk radio, and is very compelling stylistically. He is my favorite and deserves to be the host who is acknowledged as the most important of them all.
I will be voting for Ron Paul tomorrow simply because he seems to have the best chance to cut into Romney’s margin of victory. I encourage all other NH voters to do the same.
Very nice response, and so true.
They're coming To Take Me Away
You should expand your selection of reading materials.
Do you think only kooks want a formal declaration of war from Congress before bombing another country?
Thanks. I was thinking the same of you response in post 14.
Probably not, but only kooks and left wing nuts want to gut the US military, praise traitors, allow terrorists to get nukes, blame the US for 9/11, think there was “glee” in the Bush White House following 9/11, close all foreign US military bases, and trash the “provide for the common defense” phrase in the US Constitution.
Well I am inclined to agree with you here, obeying our Constitution is a very radical idea these days and yes neither Democrats or Republicans do that anymore. Maybe we should give the Constitution and personal liberty a try?
Wow you got your talking point lies down pat, nice job of mis characterizing just about everything Paul has ever said. You make a very fine slave, I bet your masters are proud of you.
But do you think a President should ask congress for a formal declaration of war before bombing another country like Iran or Libya?
Facts are stubborn things. You need to study up on Ron Paul. The only way he can keep support are from those who only spew out his one-line talking points and childish accusations.
The surrender monkey is an epic fail.
Sober up and smell the reality.
No. Do you believe a candidate should be elected to the office of President who want to gut the US military, praise traitors, allow terrorists to get nukes, blame the US for 9/11, think there was glee in the Bush White House following 9/11, close all foreign US military bases, and trash the provide for the common defense phrase in the US Constitution.
“I did not know anyone still took Rush seriously”
Who should be take seriously?
Ron Paul has as much in common with the Constitution as Fred Phelps has with the Bible.
Talk about cutting your PP off to spite your nads.
Hey, J. the evidence for everything Proud has said Paul has said has been posted dozens of times on FR. Do you needed it posted again?
Dec 9, 2011, Ron Paul said:
Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,
I’m not going to vote for Paul.
But do you think a President should ask Congress for a formal declaration of war before bombing another country like Iran or Libya?
You said No. On this question I side with Paul. Enforcing UN resolutions does not cut it for me.
Bong Resin gums up the brain...
This really is a good highlight of one of the fundamental flaws of Paultardology. We are looking for a Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, not an Aristotelian philosopher who will play moral equivalency games. The question should be simple, what is in our interest, period. Paul and his cam playing these games like 'well what if you were Iran, wouldn't you want one..yadda, yadda' is just philosophical coffee-shop talk.
No, no he lets ‘em babble for a while and then let’s em have it
He does this on every thread. Just another Paul sheep going baaa baaaa baaaa with talking points, ignoring everything that was said before... baaaa you hate freedom.. baaaa Paul wrote the Constitution... baaaa if you don’t love Alex Jones you are a slave... baaaa I win the debate.
Who decides what is in our interest ?
Our Founders said we only go to war with a Congressional Declaration.
I said no because I believe, depending on the circumstances, an engagement authorized by Congress is sufficient. In other actions, quick or secret action needs to be taken.
1. That's why we have elections to vote for those who have those values, not to play moral equivalency games.
2. I see you subscribe to Paul's edited version of the Constitution. Congress can call for the use of military force for more than just a formal declaration of war. Article 1, Section 8 gives three ways military force can be used. 1. Is, of course, a formal declaration of war. 2. Is suppressing insurrections and rebellions. 3. Is punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations.
Paul constantly says Iraq and Afghanistan are 'Unconstitutional' because they only have an 'authorization to use force' versus a 'declaration of war' (funny considering he voted yes for the Afghanistan conflict). However, both of those fall under instance 3 stated above. As the conflicts are greater than a nation versus nation battle and the reasons (using Iraq for example) fall under offenses against the laws of nations such as breaching peace treaties, attempted assassination of a former president, firing on our aircraft, funding terrorist and criminal elements, etc- the Authorization to Use Force is a Constitutional use of the military in that manner and it did go through Congress as required.
“I said no because I believe, depending on the circumstances, an engagement authorized by Congress is sufficient”
I wonder where in Paul’s Constitution does it authorize him to assign an unelected committee to oversee the gutting of the military? (using George Soros’ people too..)
See #44, the Constitution gives Congress the power to use the military for more than just a ‘formal declaration of war’.
The authorization to use force was also legal under Article 1 Section 8 (and if not, then Paul has some explaining to do as he voted for it w/ Afghanistan).
The democrats couldn't get to the mike fast enough to give Bush the go ahead. That lasted for a couple of weeks before they said " This war is lost" jackass Reid democrat...