Genius .... and Boobus .....

[RLENT]

One has to feel a certain amount of empathy for someone like Dr. Paul, who must dutifully make themselves available to even the most intellectually shallow and sleazy of the self-important "talking-head" class of entertainment media ("You didn't - at the drop of a hat, foregoing prior commitments - interview with me .... how dare you ?")

The distaste is clearly evident ..... but one can hardly blame him:

Genius and Boobus

 

[muttly]

An excellent six minute interview and you pick out a minor disagreement about a scheduling matter as indisputable proof that Ron Paul is once again being mistreated by the media. Oh the humanity.

 

[RLENT]

An excellent six minute interview

I wouldn't describe it as excellent - but Dr. Paul did a good job getting his message out, while being interviewed by someone who has a history of being rabidly hostile towards him (.... perhaps a bit of an odd thing for someone who claims to agree with 95% of what Paul believes in and stands for ....)

Hannuty can no longer do that openly - simply because he's not so utterly clueless as to fail to understand how it makes him appear - so some stealth and concealment is called for. Don't be fooled by the apparent civility - Hannuty will be pulling out the long knives for Ron Paul whenever, and wherever, he can.

and you pick out a minor disagreement about a scheduling matter as indisputable proof that Ron Paul is once again being mistreated by the media. Oh the humanity.

Not quite there Dawg ... I was simply pointing to the sleazy tactics that Hannuty uses .... to spell it out:

Hannuty's comment about the interview that never occurred appears to be intended to imply that Paul was avoiding him - something I rather doubt, considering that Paul, could use the air time (as any candidate could) and given the fact that he would make mincemeat out of an intellectual dolt like Hannity on substance - provided of course that Hannuty could restrain himself long enough to quit interrupting anyone he interviews (if you watch Hannuty long enough - and it certainly doesn't take much - you'll see that actually listening and engaging someone ..... anyone ..... in a normal thoughtful conversation is often waaay out of his league)

It's somewhat surprising that he (Hannuty) was as restrained as he was (.... there's always hope I suppose .... )

Then Hannuty just can't resist the urge to mention that Paul's son Rand is on Air Force One with the President - an isolated factoid which, without any further context (which Hannuty fails to provide), has pretty much no meaning or relevance to either Dr. Paul, his political philosophy, or his campaign (which, theoretically, was what the interview ought to have been about) .... and is likely not be of much interest to anyone, other than some partisan hacks looking for a "gotcha moment". Pretty lame.

At best, it's moronic chatter intended for a particular segment of partisan simpletons in the viewing audience.

Hannity's "performances" have about as much intellectual value as a Roman circus ....

 

[paullud]

I'm rather surprised there isn't a tremendous amount of support for RP. It seems when we look at candidates today we are voting against the other guy because we don't find someone we can fully back. RP's beliefs line up with so much of what both sides believe not to mention his appeal should pickup most of the Independents and middle of the road Democrats and Republicans. I understand a lot of people don't like his foreign policy or his ideas of bringing home the troops to quickly but we really need to work on becoming a little more isolated to stop the outside influences from having such a large impact on us. I would like to see him say we will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until they are relatively stable as a matter of personal responsibility of our country but we are unlikely to agree with any candidate 100% of the time.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Tennesseahawk]

He is not a media darling. He is touted by the media and the Republicans as being a nut job. The Democrats are wise in keeping their nose out of this one, as the Republicans are doing the Dems' job of bashing the conservative.

Goldwater all over again. Thank God we slipped one in there with Reagan. You know Ron Paul would be similarly loved if he made it. He has charisma, and the way of talking common sense that Reagan did.

Agree, Rlent - Hannity is a dolt. Never particularly cared for the guy. Grew to apathy listening to him on Sirius. He's too much of a one-liner to me. "I heard that crap yesterday, and the day before, and last week, and the week before that, and..."

 

[muttly]

Hannity doesn't dislike Ron Paul. Like he said he agrees with him most of the time except mostly on foreign policy issues. I don't see the rabid hostility from Hannity towards Paul that you claim I just think your seeing something that just isn't there.. It's interesting that you seem to try to bring examples of mistreatment and hostility by the media,which almost always seems to be from conservatives or conservative media, yet the ones who harbor the true dislike of Mr Paul is from liberals and the liberal media. Don't be fooled though if Ron Paul gets kid glove treatment by these entities. There is a more sinester motive and that is to have Ron Paul be the media darling for them in hope that he will get the republican nomination so they can then try to completely thrash him as a kook.

 

[cheri1122]

The fact that the interviewer gets more attention and comments than the candidate says a lot about the abysmal state of politics today, IMO.
I like Dr Paul better than any candidate I've seen in a very long time - he'd stand out even if his competition weren't the nutcases and retreads they clearly are.

 

[muttly]

The fact that the interviewer gets more attention and comments than the candidate says a lot about the abysmal state of politics today, IMO.
I like Dr Paul better than any candidate I've seen in a very long time - he'd stand out even if his competition weren't the nutcases and retreads they clearly are.

Here is the thing. I like Ron Paul. I see a problem though when many of his followers claim that he and only he has the correct views and everyone else running is a complete moron. See how far that gets you.

 

[cheri1122]

Here is the thing. I like Ron Paul. I see a problem though when many of his followers claim that he and only he has the correct views and everyone else running is a complete moron. See how far that gets you.

Of the Repubs currently running, he is the only one whose views are correct, IMO.
Bachmann is a fruitcake, Perry is a slimy hypocritical politician like we've seen too many of already, and not even a country that elected a black Democrat President can seriously consider electing a man named after a potholder.

 

[AMonger]

...Don't be fooled by the apparent civility - Hannuty will be pulling out the long knives for Ron Paul whenever, and wherever, he can.

Whenever the word goes out from RNC HQ, the knives come out, yes.

I was reading a piece a few weeks ago, written by a radio insider familiar with talk radio, who knew one of Rush Limbaugh's subs. The sub was taking calls and such, and Bo Snerdly told him over the intercom that it was time to attack Dr. Paul. I forget the words he used, but it sounded like there was an unofficial quota they had for these attacks. I'm not saying it's an RNC quota, but Rush clearly expects his subs to toe the line and attack Dr. Paul regularly.

Paul, could use the air time (as any candidate could) and given the fact that he would make mincemeat out of an intellectual dolt like Hannity on substance - ...

**** straight. I find it amusing to watch debate segments in which Dr. Paul lays out the truth in a way that can't be refuted, and his opponents have nothing to say in return and so they just stand there, dumbfounded.

Debating is Dr. Paul's best tactic for defeating the Kenyan commie. If by some miracle, all his opponents are killed in a series of events including plane crashes/escaped tigers/being hit by blimps etc., and the GOP doesn't choose to concede the election rather than nominate Dr. Paul and risk him upsetting the applecart, Dr. Paul should push for as many debates as possible. Every debate would result in a few more percent switching over to Dr. Paul. Even a liar as expert as Karl Marx Jr. can't withstand that much truth.

We have two choices this time: Dr.Paul, or more of the same from anyone else running. More of the same, we don't need.

 

[muttly]

Of the Repubs currently running, he is the only one whose views are correct, IMO.
Bachmann is a fruitcake, Perry is a slimy hypocritical politician like we've seen too many of already, and not even a country that elected a black Democrat President can seriously consider electing a man named after a potholder.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[cheri1122]

Thanks for proving my point.

You're quite welcome.
I'm feeling generous, because it's been such a long time since there was even ONE presidential candidate who wasn't either a moron [that would be Bachmann] or just more of the same [type/philosophy] that got the US into the sorry mess we're in [that'd be the rest of them.]
I can't even remember the last time I could vote for someone, rather than the lesser of two evils.

 

[RLENT]

Hannity doesn't dislike Ron Paul.

Good Lord man ..... what planet are you on ?

Like he said he agrees with him most of the time except mostly on foreign policy issues.

Right ..... and you figure 'cause Hannity said it, he really, really means it ....

Spend some time around the media ..... or in DC .....

I don't see the rabid hostility from Hannity towards Paul that you claim I just think your seeing something that just isn't there..

And I think you are functionally blind on the matter ....

FWIW, it is often couched ..... covert ....

Question as to your bias: where do you come down with respect to foreign policy - more towards Hannity .... or Ron Paul ?

If you answered Hannity, then what motivates him and colors his views of Ron Paul are probably what motivates you in a similar manner.

It's interesting that you seem to try to bring examples of mistreatment and hostility by the media, which almost always seems to be from conservatives or conservative media, yet the ones who harbor the true dislike of Mr Paul is from liberals and the liberal media.

Sorry - but that's a strawman of your own construction. Fact is he hated equally by any "establishment" types - be they liberal or conservative - because he threatens both. But to address your statement above further:

First off, it's conservatives that really ought to have the guy's back, considering who he is and his record fighting for the right stuff for the last 30 or whatever years .....

Instead what do we see ?: the mainstream "establishment" (neo)conservatives absolutely hate the guy, portray him as a goofball (and worse), and just disrespect him utterly.

The fact is you have to look no further than right here in our own little microcosm - EO - to see how true it is: some of the very people who appear to be trying to portray themselves as bastions of conservatism (I would say neoconservatism) have attacked this guy, in ways that in my estimation, are entirely unfair. I could name the names - but I won't as it's largely unnecessary: they know who they are, and so does anyone else that is paying the least bit of attention.

Someone on here once admonished me about respecting my elders ...... same ought to go for Dr. Paul.

In my estimation, he is someone that ought to be viewed as a national treasure ..... for a whole lot of reasons, which I won't enumerate right now.

Sad to have to say it, but public servants of his caliber and integrity that are willing to run for high office are rare indeed ....

Don't be fooled though if Ron Paul gets kid glove treatment by these entities.

First off, I don't think that he is ..... if you care to provide any examples of "liberal media" that is having a Ron Paul Lovefest, I'm all ears.

Mathews ? .... Maddow ? ..... Ed Whats-his-name ?

Somebody on CNN ?

Name 'em if ya got 'em ..... otherwise .....

Secondly: don't worry I ain't .....

There is a more sinester motive and that is to have Ron Paul be the media darling for them in hope that he will get the republican nomination so they can then try to completely thrash him as a kook.

Oh lord .....

Don't kid yourself - Ron Paul is probably the last person that anyone in "the establishment" - on either side of the aisle - wants to see as a nominee ...

Do you even understand why that is ?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Preach it, brother!

 

[muttly]

You're quite welcome.
I'm feeling generous, because it's been such a long time since there was even ONE presidential candidate who wasn't either a moron [that would be Bachmann] or just more of the same [type/philosophy] that got the US into the sorry mess we're in [that'd be the rest of them.]
I can't even remember the last time I could vote for someone, rather than the lesser of two evils.

Really lame that you call Bachmann a moron. Totally unfounded.

 

[RLENT]

Really lame that you call Bachmann a moron. Totally unfounded.

..... well ..... maybe not ..... totally unfounded ....:

Bachmann Is a Lunatic

which refers to:

Bachmann warns of Hezbollah ‘missile sites’ in Cuba

.... whackadoodle ....

 

[muttly]

..... well ..... maybe not ..... totally unfounded ....:

Bachmann Is a Lunatic

which refers to:

Bachmann warns of Hezbollah ‘missile sites’ in Cuba

.... whackadoodle ....

cmon now practice what you preach and respect your elders.

 

[RLENT]

cmon now practice what you preach and respect your elders.

MB is not that much older than me ........ close enough to be my peer, rather than my elder

 

[cheri1122]

Really lame that you call Bachmann a moron. Totally unfounded.

You can think it lame if you wish, but unfounded it is not. Personally, just the fact that she believes that sexual orientation can be changed by means of prayer is all I need to know - that's wishful thinking, not rational thought.
If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of other examples of her unfitness for office, with hypocrisy and lack of knowledge & preparedness chief among them. Only a moron would run for president on her qualifications, IMO. [And too many usually do.]

 

[dieseldiva]

You can think it lame if you wish, but unfounded it is not. Personally, just the fact that she believes that sexual orientation can be changed by means of prayer is all I need to know - that's wishful thinking, not rational thought.
If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of other examples of her unfitness for office, with hypocrisy and lack of knowledge & preparedness chief among them. Only a moron would run for president on her qualifications, IMO. [And too many usually do.]

Come on now Cheri, why are you so quick to call Bachmann a moron for the things that she believes? I didn't hear you or anyone else making such comments about Obama's choice of church.....one that is steeped in Black Liberation Theology which has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, nor does "collective salvation", he believes in that too.

If it's the gaffes, she's made no more or no less than the big O but still, only the conservatives report on them, the rest of the MSM gives him a pass.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all in her corner but it seems that she falls into the same category as Palin in that it's open season on conservative women.

I believe a true Christian would believe that God can do all things and that would include change ones heart to work toward changing their homosexuality. Now, you can make fun of that and call me an ignorant moron but anything short of believing that God can do all would not be true Christianity....IMHO