CNN debate :: a question loaded with cheap shots at ron paul
tags:
Stumble Thisfrom the cnn/youtube debate on 28th Nov.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
ron paul,cnn CNN debate :: a question loaded with cheap shots at ron paul
Comments  playlists with this video Save America.. by firedoggod
• Election08 - Debates by joedirt
• How is Ron Paul So Far Behind? by Arsenault185
who voted for this video 8727
- Grimm
- siftbot
x46who has this post bookmarked deedub81
- Grimm
- firedoggod
CNN Debate :: A Question Loaded With Cheap Shots At Ron Paul Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(141 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        | ||||||||||||||
I disagree with the title, though, because I don't think the guy asking the question meant it to be a slam on RP. I think he was really requesting Ron Paul to run as an independent, because most people still do not think he has a shot, and, to that end, I think the guy was trying to be a pragmatist. Damn, I really hope he does get the nomination. Another great video, Johnald_Chaffinch. You've receive yet another well deserved upvote from me!
(this is the guys website - http://www.my-america.biz/index.html)
Ron Paul handles it quite well. Though we all know the system is rigged against him. He'd need a huge clear majority, and even then, he'd need to make sure Diebold didn't fudge the election numbers in someone else's favor.
Johnald_Chaffinch.. that webpage you linked needs a serious design overhaul. Its painful to look at and navigate. Hopefully the owner fixes it, as its doubtful anyone will pay any serious attention. I also hope they purposefully mispelled Tyranny as Teariny.
I'm all for people making political pages such as that, but effective page design is extremely important. A good example.... A clean-cut guy in a suit approaches you with a question.. A greasy unwashed burlap sack wearing person walks up to you with a question. Which are you most likely to cringe and walk away from without hearing a word? Its all about first impressions, ease of access/use, then comes quality of content.
i'm not going to look at it, i just thought you might find it interesting to know who the guy is.
So I have to ask myself...if they know he has been asked the question 20 different times already and answered it the same way each time...why do they insist on asking it again and again? I think it's because they want to plant the words "isolationist" and "independent/third party" (aka not a Republican) in peoples minds when they think of Ron Paul.
i'm surprised we can even see through their propaganda, they are experts at it after all.
Also even if it was a planted question still not sure how it was a cheap shot at Ron.
* it being planted in the first place
* "we both know the republican party's not going to give you the nomination"
* "you're crazy like a fox"
* "use the exposure to propel yourself into an independent run" (making him appear outcast thus not seeming like a realistic voting option)
* "are you going to let america down?"
it's all in the wording, chosen by media-propaganda experts. many unthinking sheeple will be swayed just by the question itself. dr.paul will have expected it though, almost turned it around.
Today I see it for what it is: first, on the technology front it's just one company (youtube/goog) getting advertisement in exchange of service by another corp (cnn/timewarner). It's NOT avant garde or anything, just a different take on the 'question from the audience' concept, and ultimately just a marketing exercise.
Second, in terms of the debate itself, you should spend time reading the responses/comments posted on youtube. Indeed it turns out a lot of the questions asked to the republicans were asked by democrat supporters including a gay campaign helper for Hillary Clinton. Hardly the 'people of the street' they were supposed to represent.
To me, as someone who doesn't live in the US and ultimately doesn't care who wins what, it was really evident that most of the questions were bogus and/or carefully selected then edited by the CNN staff. The democrats got 2 or 3 tough questions reserved to dead-end candidates that won't win anyway, while the republican got hammered with a mix of loaded questions and comments from cliche rednecks that gave them a bad image. The 'gun owner' one for example was so contrived and cliche I actually laughed out loud watching it.
I hope the american public doesn't fall for that.
it would seem big-media corporations are pushing for obama or clinton - it must suit the fat cats agendas. they'll want the Clintons back in, the people behind the scenes will want to retain their position after all. obama seems like he's saying what he's told too, i wonder if the elites even have a preference of those top two or perhaps it doesn't matter for them either way - both just actors.
It's a passive-aggressive attack that helps plant doubt of his viability as a winning candidate in the mind of the viewer. That is why it is a cheap shot.
Ron Paul seems like a guy to get in there and shake things up, fixing all the problems of our current bloated military industrial complex, misguided, uneducated government. But I encourage anybody to do a little research before they start supporting this guy. He is crazy. Go ahead and do some research on why he is supported by Stormfront. His thoughts on separation of church and state. What returning to the gold standard would do to the economy. Check out the Ron Paul survival report for some really great stuff about his views on other races.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - GUY YOU WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=388512
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (4th paragrpah for the lazy)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
Edit: Ohhh heres another good one about social security
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007597.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4QbJ3phEYs
Or a nice summary of all his crazy:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5000274#post5000274
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU SUPPORT HIM FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
Oh, and Wakey...post some links from non-fringe sites...and the second link you posted about his "War on Religion" written by himself isn't as scary as you're making it out to be.
The guy doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, but you're arguments, while laughable, would be more credible if it didn't come from conspiracy nutjob websites. I'm not going to rebut something from these boneheaded sites. Come on. It's like me pointing to a bunch of Bigfoot sites that show all kinds of official documents and then dare you to rebut Bigfoots existence. Would you really take the time to write an intelligent rebuttal over something so laughable? Of course not. It's the case here with your "research".
Oh, and what a great post that you're supporting Obama because he's "not Ron Paul". I see. So you're also supporting everyone else out there because they're "not Ron Paul", right?
>>>>looking to see what vids wake has posted......
1 each tetris video
Looking forward to seeing your thought-provoking vids in the future!
The first site is a major white power group, that is firmly supporting Ron Paul, that doesn't raise any flags?
The second site is PRO Ron Paul, and is just an archives of his blogs. As for not scary, if you don't find
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
at least a little scary, well then thats on you.
The next site is an archive of the Ron Paul Report. The only rebuttal I have seen for this is his claim that he had them ghost written, yet he is still responsible for what is published in them. He also hasn't come out against many of the blatantly racist quotes published UNDER HIS NAME.
The next site isn't super popular, but if you had bothered to read it, you would see that its mostly pulling from an article in the Washington Post, very fringe.
The last in a You Tube video showing all of the money Ron Paul has invested in gold and gold production.
The last is an extremely well constructed post, backing up everything with links to either Ron Pauls official site, or thomas.loc.gov. Again, very fringe.
So I don't really understand what you are getting at? Are you saying he did not say the quotes that are being attributed to him? Or that he did not try to pass the legislation being credited to him? I think its pretty clear you especially did not look at the last link and how well researched it is. But hey keep on rocking the free world.
-----
"Way to support the CFR while injecting your race card, wake."
I don't know what that means, but going by your user name you are probably in favor of Ron Paul, and once again have failed to post anything resembling a rebuttal to Ron Pauls actual policy.