"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's not only words to live by, but it makes for cost effective, efficient, moral and ethical foreign policy.
Ron Paul. The Nursing Home Walkaway.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's not only words to live by, but it makes for cost effective, efficient, moral and ethical foreign policy.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm guessing that given the "like" he gave ya, ya might need to expand on what you meant.
This post isn't a personal attack on Ron Paul. I was listening to Mike Church this morning about this interview. He is definately a supporter of Paul,but thinks the interview didn't come off as good as it should. He basically thinks he should have a news conference to get this topic out of the way. This was the best video I could find that was to the point.
Ron Paul: People Call Me Racist Because My 'Policies Are Winning' | Video Cafe
Ron Paul: People Call Me Racist Because My 'Policies Are Winning' | Video Cafe
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I didn't watch it - saw it a few days ago ... looks pretty much like that one I seen from a different CNN guy yesterday or this mornin' ... posted that one in another thread earlier
Oh Muttly my good man,
Mr. Church (who I like very much, as one of the sane voices on talk radio) fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the game that is being played.
You see, the game being played is politics as ideological bloodsport ....
There will never be any "getting it out of the way" ..... as long as Dr. Paul has enemies who are willing to stoop to this level .... and the media is willing to play ....
It might be put away in the closet for a time ..... and saved for another day, to be pulled out later for further use when needed ..... (not likely given Dr. Paul's age)
Afterall, that was where it came from this time - out of the closet (an irony to be sure considering that it was Jamie "let's-have-gay brigades-in-the-military-so-we-can-prove-they're-not-effeminate" Kirkcik, that did the original hit piece
)Did you read the either of the writeups I posted about this ? Both written by Justin Raimondo, one I quoted in it's entirety, and one I linked to I believe.
You do understand how difficult it can be to prove a negative right ?:
Jill: I had an affair with Muttly
Muttly: No, I never had an affair with Jill
Jane: I had an affair with Muttly too
Muttly: No - that's not true - never with Jill, and I don't even know who this other Jane is
Press: Can you tell us _______ (fill in the blank with whatever leading question that seems to imply something that you prefer)
And on and on and on it goes ....
The dude's runnin' for prez .... on the campaign trail .... flyin' allover ..... talkin' to folks, speechifyin' and all ...... and he's 76 years old (and a tough old buzzard) .... probably was just tired.
Maybe Church should go back and watch the interview Dr. Paul that with Wolf Biltzer did in '07 ..... I hear it got some great reviews ......
(Do you get the point ? If it seems unclear, let me know - I'll elaborate.)
Last edited:
I just heard bits and pieces of Church's show because was out of my vehicle. He probably thinks ok have a press conference address it ONE time with questions and then say he won't talk about it ever again. Instead you have a person interviewing him and asking him pertinent questions and then drift over into newsletters each time. It's a slow,drip,drip. I think from what I read I pretty much understand what happened. Again I think he didn't write the newsletters, but believe he knows who did. Only say that because it would be incredulous for someone to learn that certain unacceptable things were unknowlingly published in your name and not seek out who wrote them. The only thing he has to prove is he didn't write them. He does that by having whoever did write them fess up. He probably doesn't want to because it might ruin that persons career or life so he continues to take the hit for it. Maybe check out Church's show tomorrow. It's his last for the year. He might talk about it again.
Did Ron Paul walkaway in the middle of an interview on CNN today? Gloria Borger was asking about those pesky newsletters and Paul became aggravated.
Newser | Headline News Summaries, World News, and Breaking News
Newser | Headline News Summaries, World News, and Breaking News
Yep - he sure did. Acting like that just adds fuel to the fire.
Ron Paul Suddenly Doesn't Want to Talk to Reporters About His Racist Newsletters - Yahoo! News
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/
Ron Paul Suddenly Doesn't Want to Talk to Reporters About His Racist Newsletters - Yahoo! News
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/
Last edited:
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Well in the words of the PAUL suporters in here by the very fact that ron paul could not handle the tough questions in an interview Shows he can not hadle the job as president.If this is how he is going to handle these questions his rise in the polls will be very short lived.
Befor you start saying this is just an personal attack on paul get over it already.This is something the man is going to have to deal with plain and simple.The way he handled this interview it will not matter what the full letters say.Nevermind the fact that Paul no doubt has copys of these letters available to him so why refuse to talk about them or say his words were taken out of context.Why not just release them.Now befor any of you say this is to a personal attack.If it were any other republican running would you take him at his word or demand that he answer these questions.No need to answer we all know the answer already.After all it is said in here that Paul is the only one with any morals.
If some of you can judge NEWT on the fact that he cheated on his wife and use that against him then PAUL IS FAIR GAME when it comes to how he feels about race.
Befor you start saying this is just an personal attack on paul get over it already.This is something the man is going to have to deal with plain and simple.The way he handled this interview it will not matter what the full letters say.Nevermind the fact that Paul no doubt has copys of these letters available to him so why refuse to talk about them or say his words were taken out of context.Why not just release them.Now befor any of you say this is to a personal attack.If it were any other republican running would you take him at his word or demand that he answer these questions.No need to answer we all know the answer already.After all it is said in here that Paul is the only one with any morals.
If some of you can judge NEWT on the fact that he cheated on his wife and use that against him then PAUL IS FAIR GAME when it comes to how he feels about race.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, yeah .... old news, I watched it earlier yesterday ..... and yes, he certainly did walk, as he should have
BTW, wouldn't you have .... if someone kept asking you a question over and over and over again that you had already answered .... repeatedly ...?
In fact, now that you mention it, that's a question that he had answered previously and repeatedly to the very same network back in '07 or '08 during that campaign ?
Same questions, same answers ....
How long ya think that they'll keep that up ?
Will Gloria Borger ever make the "do same thing, expect different result" connection?
BTW, did you notice how the footage was manipulated (edited) ?
Should be fairly obvious ..... big flash ... right in the middle ?
What did they leave out ... and why ?
And how long was the segment that they cut out ?
BTW the way, not fixing the defect before putting it up on the 'net makes 'em look even more like unprofessional hacks (since it is very easy to do) - very distracting to the viewer - and a very bad thing to do when you are trying to achieve "suspension of disbelief"
Aggravated you say ? ......... Nooooooooo ...... not that !!!
Oh the sheer horror !
That a human being should react with an appropriate human emotion for the circumstance ... tsk ... tsk ... tsk ...
Whatever has the world come to ? What shall we ever do ?
I guess we just better toss in the towel right now.
And I'm sure this must somehow mean (although it escapes me at the moment
) this means he's a really bad person .... Certainly this type of human sin is at least equivalent to having repeated extra-martial affairs and cheating repeatedly on one's wife ..... oops, sorry ... my mistake ..... I meant wives
Gentleman, you are desperately grasping at straws .... please, please do continue ... the entertainment value is priceless ...
BTW, I did mention that the Tea Party Anniversary Moneybomb ticker is now at $ 4.356 million .... and continuing to climb ?
Maybe now that Bob Vanderplaats has anointed the lowest polling candidate in Iowa as savior of the Party (one that certainly has a really solid appeal to bring out that Democratic/Independent cross-over vote in the general), maybe Rockin' Rick Santorum can get a little traction and raise some coin ...
By the way, I actually kinda like Rick .... seems like a nice solid family guy ..... other than the fact he seems kinda serious most of the time ..... well that, and that whole Pro-Life, For Death™ thing ....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oooooowoo ..... The Turkey RealityDistortion Field™ live from The USS Mayflower™
More like whizzing on the dying embers of a campfire
I suspect that for someone that doesn't have a dog in the fight quite yet, they might find it quite as "thrilling" as you do ....
.... tingle .... tingle ....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL ..... he did handle them .... and then left
He's a busy man and doesn't have time to mess around with those that are just gonna waste his.
Actually, his rises in the polls has been very long-lived.
In fact, he's the only candidate who has risen in the polls and had no erosion in his support
... something that has been commented on repeatedly in the media, just in case you haven't been paying attention.But hey, you tell 'em there bubster - I'm sure you'll straighten them all out .... Rassmussen will probably be calling ya any minute now for a pronouncement ....
Dealt with, asked, answered, not gonna play that game ....
Just a distraction.
Oh yes ..... utterly devastating .....
He didn't refuse to talk about them - he just refused to talk about them endlessly ....
The interviewer asked questions .... Dr. Paul answered them .... and the interviewer didn't like answers she got ... so she decided to continuing asking to see if the answer would change.
I think that's actually the definition of stupid.
They weren't his words - they written by some ghostwriter or writers.
BTW, has it ever occurred to you that merely assuming things on a "no doubt" sorta basis may not be the best course of action ?
Given that he didn't write them himself, and that he totally rejects the stuff in them, why would you ever think that would have kept them, assuming that he ever had possession of them in the first place ?
Further, IIRC, and as I understand it, when these were written (by someone else), Dr. Paul was out of Congress, in full-time medical practice (he's an OB-GYN), was very busy raising his large family (5 kids), and only owned a minority interest (10% I believe) in the firm that produced them.
I think you said this part already ...
Dude,
I know that this is very, very difficult to understand since it a highly complex thing but he did actually answer the question
He's done so ..... dozens .... if not hundreds of times.
Just because one doesn't like the answer does not mean you necessarily get to have another different one .... just cause ya want one ...
Asked and answered.
Sure he is ... but here's the thing: if you actually seeking to fairly judge his record on race, then you'd have to avail yourself of his record over his life and career in regard to that issue - not only this stuff, which he didn't even write apparently.
If you're not willing to do that, then you can make no claim that you are trying to honestly judge the man - at that point it becomes solely an attack.
The words of the Amonger might be applicable here:
"There's a difference between scrutiny and attacks. Marginilization has eliminated most legitimate scrutiny so far, leaving only attacks."
Last edited:
Careful.... I'm just sayin. You two may need to get a room.Oooooowoo ..... The Turkey RealityDistortion Field™ live from The USS Mayflower™
More like whizzing on the dying embers of a campfire
I suspect that for someone that doesn't have a dog in the fight quite yet, they might find it quite as "thrilling" as you do ....
.... tingle .... tingle ....
Things are what they are. Paul has repudiated and disavowed the whole newsletter controversy long ago. To bring them up again now as if they are suddenly current news (it's not like the newsletters came out last week), either because "journalists" haven't bothered to do their research or weren't paying attention all along, or it's lame politics as usual, doesn't mean Paul has to play along. There's nothing wrong with portraying someone, Paul included, in a negative light, or a positive light, as long as it's the the light of truth and honesty.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
We're feelin' the love ....Careful.... I'm just sayin. You two may need to get a room.
Precisely.
There's absolutely nothing with it provided it's done in the light of truth and honesty as you say - my objection was the characterization of throwing "fuel on the fire" ...
The Pilgrim and I simply disagree on that.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Careful.... I'm just sayin. You two may need to get a room.
Things are what they are. Paul has repudiated and disavowed the whole newsletter controversy long ago. To bring them up again now as if they are suddenly current news (it's not like the newsletters came out last week), either because "journalists" haven't bothered to do their research or weren't paying attention all along, or it's lame politics as usual, doesn't mean Paul has to play along. There's nothing wrong with portraying someone, Paul included, in a negative light, or a positive light, as long as it's the the light of truth and honesty.
See there trutle that is where you are wrong.Paul does have to play along if he realy wants any chance of getting past this and you know it.Just as paul has stepped up the personal attacks against Newt and blasted him for shopping at tiffanys and and how Newt could get a special line of credit.Like where the guy shops whit his own money is relevant to being president.
Again when paul was first asked about the news letters he said HIS WORDS WERE BEING TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.Then he changes his story.You see this is why the press is going to hammer him.Never mind the fact that Paul really never has had to deal with the letters on a national level.Its sad really.Newt or Cain,Romeny,Or any of them have to repeatedly answer quesions that have no bearing on them being president yet Paul is asked a few times and his supporters start CRYING about personal attacks and HONESTY.
you see the difference between Newt and Paul is When asked about his past Newt says he welcomes the questions and he wants the chance to answer them so the people can decide.When Paul is asked he throws a temper tantrum takes off his mic storms off set like a two year old being told no.Like it or not Paul will answer the questions or he will be out of the race and washington in no time and you all know it.This is washington and this is Politics in the big leagues not just one district in texas.Paul will play the game or he will be out.Sadly it will not matter if paul is telling the truth or no.What will matter is how th deals with it.What will matter even more is which side potrays their story to be more truthful.Storming out of interviews is not potraying you are telling the truth to millions of voters.
Perhaps the funnist thing from the paul camp is Paul calling Newt a career politician,This coming from the man who has been in washington for over 30 years.Also find it funny how Paul has a top former BUSH AD MAN in his camp.Talk about ESTABLISHMENT.
You see Paul really screwed up in that interview.He admits to reading some of the news letters.Then goes on to say he never read them in that same interview. yet he allowed them to be published.Again he will answer the questions many many many many many times more.
The fact that he's previously repudiated and disavowed them doesn't make the problem go away because he's not giving straight answers. He's said he takes responsibility for them, and with that action comes dealing with the consequences; the press along with his opponents are not going to let up on this. If Paul wants to make this problem go away, he needs to produce the newsletters. He also needs to come clean on whether or not he knew what was being written under his name and who the authors were. The sharks are smelling blood in the water with this deal, and if he continues to rise in the polls it's only a matter of time before we start seeing TV ads with all those newsletter quotes. In fact, it's surprising we haven't seen them already in Iowa, considering what's happened to Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich after their polling successes.Careful.... I'm just sayin. You two may need to get a room.
Things are what they are. Paul has repudiated and disavowed the whole newsletter controversy long ago. To bring them up again now as if they are suddenly current news (it's not like the newsletters came out last week), either because "journalists" haven't bothered to do their research or weren't paying attention all along, or it's lame politics as usual, doesn't mean Paul has to play along. There's nothing wrong with portraying someone, Paul included, in a negative light, or a positive light, as long as it's the the light of truth and honesty.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
I think within days we will start seeing them.He gave them the perfect wepon when asked if he read them he said not all the time then says he never seen them till ten years later in the same interview.Then acted like a toddler who just got told no.
The answer he isn't being straight with IMO is saying he doesn't know who wrote them. He probably doesn't want to out a former or current friend/associate and cause considerable distress for that person. That won't stop Obama and his minions from using every angle of this story to pillar Paul. Remember the blatant misquotes that they used from Rush Limbaugh and linked them to John McCain to make him appear racist towards mexicans. This is just a small example.
From the Fact Check Desk: Obama’s New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo - ABC News
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Clearly, this is an issue that is just utterly devastating to Dr. Paul .... jus' horrid, I tell ya .... even if the only place that is true is in the deluded minds of the Neoconmunitas™ (which of course, are our target audience ):
New CNN/ORC Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites
Gee, I wonder who is the least popular ?
.... Leroy ! ..... yer mama is callin' ya ..... git home on now ....
So much for the “racist” smear .... and, as Dr Paul's message gets out, good luck with pulling much, if any, of that non-white crossover vote .....
):New CNN/ORC Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites
Gee, I wonder who is the least popular ?
.... Leroy ! ..... yer mama is callin' ya ..... git home on now ....
So much for the “racist” smear .... and, as Dr Paul's message gets out, good luck with pulling much, if any, of that non-white crossover vote .....
Last edited:
Jefferson3000
Expert Expediter
I saw that interview on CNN. Did anyone notice how Gloria Borger was basically apologizing for asking that same question over and over again as if it were her responsibility to ask over and over? IMO, it was a dumb interview and she knew she had crossed the line and was attempting to save face.
Just saw a great discussion on Ron Paul's foreign policy.
How Ron Paul Would Defend America - YouTube
Just saw a great discussion on Ron Paul's foreign policy.
How Ron Paul Would Defend America - YouTube
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yes indeed
Yup, exactly - and that's very thing that delegitimizes her and the issue in the viewer's mind.
She's tryin' just a leeetle bit toooo hard ....
I actually can't believe they decided to air it. Glad they did though
Cool .... I hadn't seen that - thanks for linking it - good stuff
The thing is, the philosophical premises that back up Dr. Paul's foreign position are worthy of a full and honest intellectual debate (sans hysteria) - the American people deserve no less.
I believe the reason that some don't wish to engage in it, is because they understand that, barring keeping the American people in a continuous state of irrational fear (where logical reasoning can go by the wayside), it is a losing proposition for them. Hence the effort to shout down anyone expressing something other than "conventional wisdom"
BTW, just saw Geraldo Rivera hand the morning crew on Fox and Friends their heads, by coming out supporting Dr. Paul's foreign policy position in terms of Iraq, in light of the recent developments. Doucy, Huddy, and Kilmeade looked just positively stunned and shocked ..... some pretty long, serious faces ..... I thought Kilmeade's head might explode.
Pretty funny .... watching "groupthink" on display.