Write Review
1,979,993 Total Reviews 3,645 New Reviews
10,795 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Video : Ron Paul cuts off ANOTHER interview
Priapus53 4627 reads
posted

Man-----what a Libertarian mangina ( quite an oxymoron ) :

Related Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/cnn-dana-bash-ron-paul-jesse-benton_n_1196295....

HeywoodYaNotSquirtinMyEye1668 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
JLWest2255 reads

If he is running then he owes it to the public to take the interviews. We should not be limited to his web site for his caned message.

If he dosn't want take the interviews, get out of the fucking race and quite wasting peoples time.

ReplyQuoteReport
Chowder I Cant Hear You1597 reads

He was extremely patient and polite as long as her questions were sensible.

Then she starts asking about some alledged lady who got butthurt over not being able to shake his hand. Really???

The dude is running for POTUS and she wants him to answer for some butthurt broad?

Boxer or briefs?

Who is wasting who's time?

ReplyQuoteReport
JLWest1353 reads

He was there, he took the interview.

There are maybe 100 ways he could have replied to the question to put the lady in her place.

How about:

"I can't shake everyones hand I see. Is there a question that is policy related or are we donw to title tattle?"

Come on, your in the public eye, as a matter he ask's for it. So show your smarts not you rudeness.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461540 reads

One person in a crowd gets offended when she can't shake the guy's hand?  Please.  Makes me think Bash had an agenda.  Having said that, he would have been served much better by laughing it off for the stupid question it was.

ReplyQuoteReport
PitchingWedge2330 reads

All candidates get hit with stupid "gotcha" questions.  The negative feelings that Dr. Paul left with others by handling it in this matter will outweigh his perfect right to do what he did.

This guy has peaked and his un will be over soon. Unless he decides to fuck everything up and waste his money as a third party candidate.

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow806 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
PitchingWedge2005 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow2089 reads



ReplyQuoteReport
PitchingWedge1228 reads

I don't think voters in Kentucky or Senators in Washington will give a rat's ass about who Rand Paul's dad is beyond the year 2012.

ReplyQuoteReport
Timbow1260 reads

Posted By: PitchingWedge
I don't think voters in Kentucky or Senators in Washington will give a rat's ass about who Rand Paul's dad is beyond the year 2012.

-- Modified on 1/11/2012 2:11:45 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
PitchingWedge1521 reads

How else will a Senator from Kentucky get in the spotlight?

ReplyQuoteReport
joleneineugene1208 reads

He does not OWE us an interview. It makes sense to us that he would take one, but no candidate OWES us any interview at any time. Once a candidate is actually POTUS, then he'll "owe" us interviews now and then, just to keep the rest of us up-to-date on the changes happening in the US. Say what you will about Paul's canned (not taking a cane to anyone, thank you) message, we know what he stands for without an interview that simply reiterates it.

Saying he OWES us an interview is like saying that any big-name actor / actress / sports figure OWES us interviews too. No, they don't any more than a political candidate does. It's smart business to do them, but we aren't OWED interviews.

ReplyQuoteReport
JLWest2062 reads

By tradition, by his declaration to run. This isn't something new in politics. It goes back to the very beginning. George Washington was the  only POTUS who didn't campaign, but he did give interviews. Yes I know about TR and "Bull Moose", but he still campaigned.

You stated in part:

"is like saying that any big-name actor / actress / sports figure OWES us interviews too. No, they don't any more than a political candidate does."

A "big-name actor / actress / sports figure" isn't running for the POTUS. It's a little different. In politics we only get "small time actor/actress" and none of them are sports, at least not good sports.

But if they elect to run, they are required to campaigned and that involves interviews. As I said he accepted the interview and by blowing it off, no matter what the question he showed just how small he can be.

In a  more conservative  time a question was asked of Marilyn Monroe; "What she wore to bed?"

She stated;

"Why Channel #5 of course.

Ron Paul regardless of his views has proven time and time again to be a fucking chump. The press bates him and he suckers for it everytime.

ReplyQuoteReport
GaGamblerssmarterbrother2030 reads

When running for an elected office, you are in effect "applying for a job", and while technically you can tell your interviewer to go fuck himself and refuse to answer his questions, but your chances of landing that job go out the window by doing so.

ReplyQuoteReport
joleneineugene1166 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
h8drama1064 reads

Pay more attention to your own sources. Even HuffPo later acknowledged the first CNN interview was a SETUP with unethical edits thus giving the impression of a Paul storming off when actually untrue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-cnn-interview-cnn-edit-unfairly_n_1171462.html

In this latest example (from CNN again mind you) can hardly be classified as Ron Paul being guilty in giving CNN short shrift as CNN never even bothered to air their own footage. The linked video was captured by a Paul supporter. CNN was clearly too embarrassed to participate themselves. It could be argued that in the end, it was CNN that pulled the plug.

I’m no Ron Paul supporter and he did himself no favors here but your hopeful SECOND gotcha moment FAILS on all counts.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!