Who unironically uses the phrase "liberal media" in 2011?

JudgeItoBox: Who unironically uses the phrase "liberal media" in 2011?

People who are really out of touch with reality? (Read: The Current Republican Party.)

drkdstryer: JudgeItoBox: Who unironically uses the phrase "liberal media" in 2011?

No one.

Now it's controlled by the Jews.

Your interview was edited, my ghostwritten racist newsletters are invalid.

St_Francis_P: That's kind of unfair, using his own words against him, don't you think?

They weren't his words if you want to pedantic you daft partisan shill. Newsletter was his in name only, he did not write nor edit it at the time.

Yes, he should apologize that his name was attached, but saying they are his words is beyond dumb.

JudgeItoBox: Who unironically uses the phrase "liberal media" in 2011?

My favorite is people who say these two things in the same breath:

"OMG Liberal media rules the world and is out to get us!!!"

"Fox News #1 in everything! DURRRRRR!"

MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: That's kind of unfair, using his own words against him, don't you think?

They weren't his words if you want to pedantic you daft partisan shill. Newsletter was his in name only, he did not write nor edit it at the time.

Yes, he should apologize that his name was attached, but saying they are his words is beyond dumb.

That's the thing that gets me. Let's say that he had no involvement in the vile racist stuff he said.

Why on earth would he still put his name on a newsletter without even taking the time to look at it?

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: That's kind of unfair, using his own words against him, don't you think?

They weren't his words if you want to pedantic you daft partisan shill. Newsletter was his in name only, he did not write nor edit it at the time.

Yes, he should apologize that his name was attached, but saying they are his words is beyond dumb.

That's the thing that gets me. Let's say that he had no involvement in the vile racist stuff he that was said.

Why on earth would he still put his name on a newsletter without even taking the time to look at it?

Sorry about that

/FTFM

Mike_LowELL: Anyone else find it funny that the second Ron Paul rocks everyone's socks, the liberal media starts attacking him?

I am ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHED that a frontrunner for election to the nation's highest office would face increased media scrutiny. Farking inexcusable.

Oh for fark's sake.

Both sides - BOTH SIDES - SHUT THE FARK UP

Turning politics into an us-or-them ratings-grab HURTS HUMANITY

STOP HURTING HUMANITY FOR PROFIT YOU GODDAMN WINDBAGS

I agree w/ subby. Ron Paul is a cantankerous racist.

dahmers love zombie: From the RON PAUL screed under the vid:

Propagandist Borger ended the interview with an outrageous insinuation and lie: "Some of this stuff was very incendiary, you know... saying that in 1993 the Israelis were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center". The newsletters, politically incorrect as they might have been, NEVER made such a claim.

Um, well...

"Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."
--Ron Paul Survival Report

So he "never made such a claim", he simply did the GlennBeckian "I'm just asking questions here" kind of thing.

I'll give TFA the benefit of the doubt that they edited the interview poorly.

But let us be realistic about what Paul has REALLY said:

1. "Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The 'poor' lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) - and then complained about slow service." -Report on LA riots, June 1992

2. "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)" -Direct mail ad promoting Paul's newsletters, written from Paul's perspective, 1993

3. "It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation." -'The Disappearing White Majority,' January 1993

4. "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came o ...

In Ron's defense (as I think he would post
1 - Oh yea well your a , your a chicken head
2. - As a physician I have seen allot of dicks and you sir are one
3 - Yea thats right like attracts like, white attracts white, guys attract guys, girls attract girls OH WAIT WAIT Stop the camera
4 - See number 3
5 - Was a guy named Eddie, you can look it up
6 - Done it twice not it works, or you can just throw a rat on him
7 - Come on did I really say that???? Naaah couldn't be
8 - I have them available with my portrait on them for only $19.95, buy now and I will double the offer just pay P & H
9 - Yes it is True George Washington love little boys and girls and whiskey and has his name on the $1 bill, (See #8)
10 - Bobby Fisher yep see it there, Exchange one b for and O and what do you have? BOOBY Fisher. let that take your mind someplace

That's a fine demonstration of personal responsibility...farking flaky little weasel.

In other words, he is bound to win the Virginia primary ballot!

nakedcritic: Oh for fark's sake.

Both sides - BOTH SIDES - SHUT THE FARK UP

Turning politics into an us-or-them ratings-grab HURTS HUMANITY

STOP HURTING HUMANITY FOR PROFIT YOU GODDAMN WINDBAGS

Both sides are bad, you say? Is there a recommendation that you have, perchance?

badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

You need to learn what the word lie means.

BSABSVR: badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

You need to learn what the word lie means.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the defense on why RON PAUL was so ignorant to not even review the content in his newsletters before putting his name on it. Unless he really knew about the content and is now just pretending to not know about it. ;)

Link

nakedcritic: Oh for fark's sake.

Both sides - BOTH SIDES - SHUT THE FARK UP

Turning politics into an us-or-them ratings-grab HURTS HUMANITY

STOP HURTING HUMANITY FOR PROFIT YOU GODDAMN WINDBAGS

Is that you Jon Stewart?

Mrtraveler01's newsletter: I am a complete doody-head and I kick puppies.

Why on earth would he still put his name on a newsletter without even taking the time to look at it?

Consider it may be for reasons along the same approximate lines as to why you've put your name to your own newsletter quoted at the top.

Not saying that's how it happened, exactly, but it's not unheard of for someone's name to wind up on some release that they didn't necessarily read or approve of.

badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

He made money off it and allowed it to happen. Libertarians always pretend that people/business who associate or allow racist ideals will be shamed by the general public to do the right thing or be driven out if businees. And now that exact is what happening you people are decrying it unfair. It seems extremely hypocritical.

MooseUpNorth: Mrtraveler01's newsletter: I am a complete doody-head and I kick puppies.

Why on earth would he still put his name on a newsletter without even taking the time to look at it?

Consider it may be for reasons along the same approximate lines as to why you've put your name to your own newsletter quoted at the top.

Not saying that's how it happened, exactly, but it's not unheard of for someone's name to wind up on some release that they didn't necessarily read or approve of.

Although as I pointed out in the link, he addressed the contents of his newsletter and admitted he was responsible for them...in 1996.

But you raise a fair point, doubt that's how it went down though.

You guys, RON PAUL has said he doesn't believe in the stuff that went out under his name and made him a millionaire. It is incumbent on us all to drop the discussion at this exact point an to go no further.

badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

You need to learn what the word lie means.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the defense on why RON PAUL was so ignorant to not even review the content in his newsletters before putting his name on it. Unless he really knew about the content and is now just pretending to not know about it. ;)

Link

He says he didn't write it or approve the message in the newsletters. Similar to a political ad put out that the candidate doesn't approve of even though it has his name on it.

Originally he did not say this however. He originally defended these positions and said nothing about them not being his. Only later when he realized this made him look bad did his story change.

badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

You need to learn what the word lie means.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the defense on why RON PAUL was so ignorant to not even review the content in his newsletters before putting his name on it. Unless he really knew about the content and is now just pretending to not know about it. ;)

Link

He says he didn't write it or approve the message in the newsletters. Similar to a political ad put out that the candidate doesn't approve of even though it has his name on it.

Yet he took the money and refuses to say who wrote under his name. That's not disavowing.

For the record, though it is widely assumed within the libertarian movement that it was Lew Rockwell, he has denied it as well.

Should we just at this point throw up our hands and declare this an unknowable mystery?

badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: BSABSVR: badhatharry: Ron Paul has disavowed the offensive remarks in the newsletter. It's apparently now ok for a "legitimate" news source to blatantly lie and fake the news as long it damages someone whose ideas they disagree with.

You need to learn what the word lie means.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the defense on why RON PAUL was so ignorant to not even review the content in his newsletters before putting his name on it. Unless he really knew about the content and is now just pretending to not know about it. ;)

Link

He says he didn't write it or approve the message in the newsletters.

He knew about them in 1996 and defended them.

The Dallas Morning News May 22, 1996

WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."

An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."

Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House.

An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles "Lefty" ! Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election. Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics.

"Many of his views are out on the fringe," Mr. Morris said. "But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves."

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.

Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be ! included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."

No one answered calls to the Heritage Front, which lists only a hotline connected to a tape-recorded message in the Toronto telephone directory.

Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, urged Dr. Paul to apologize for his comments about blacks and asked Republicans to denounce their nominee.

"We need someone who can represent all the constituents of Texas, not someone who is negative or engages in stereotypes," Mr. Bledsoe said. "Someone who holds those views signals or indicates an inability to represent all constituents without regard to race, creed or color."

About 11 percent of the population in the 14th District, stretching from near Austin to the Gulf Coast, is black.

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid

misrepresentation.

Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.

"If someone challenges your character and takes the

interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report

See guys how libertarianism will work?

When a company does something wrong they will just blame subordinates and never be held responsible by the public just like Ron Paul.

It's ironic the guy who talks about leaders being responsible for their businesses dealing is now saying he can't be held responsible for the actions of his own small newsletter.

His own argument is one that shows libertarian doesn't work!

Spin: Ron Paul only left because the interview was over.
Reality: Ron Paul threw a fit and ended the interview because of uncomfortable questions. Whether it happened after 2 minutes or 6 minutes is irrelevant. The interview ended because he had a tantrum.

Try again, Paultards.

Badhatharry would be the worst police detective ever.

BHH: Did you kill your wife? After all, you had a gun on you that had one shot fired, a bullet that ballistically matched was found in your wife's skull. In addition, you told friends that "the twat ball and chain" was not going to be an issue any more, and you just took out a large life insurance policy on her.

Suspect: nope. I abhor violence and disavow any negative treatment of my wife.

BHH: Well, I'm stumped. Not since Jack the ripper has a case been so stymied.

BSABSVR: Badhatharry would be the worst police detective ever.

BHH: Did you kill your wife? After all, you had a gun on you that had one shot fired, a bullet that ballistically matched was found in your wife's skull. In addition, you told friends that "the twat ball and chain" was not going to be an issue any more, and you just took out a large life insurance policy on her.

Suspect: nope. I abhor violence and disavow any negative treatment of my wife.

BHH: Well, I'm stumped. Not since Jack the ripper has a case been so stymied.

Nice hijacking of the thread. It was supposed to be about CNN and news media "presentations" but this is productive too.

Given the size of their organizations, I find Paul's denials less credible than Murdoch's.

LiberalWeenie: Now it's controlled by the Jews.

What do you mean "Now"?

Rupert Murdoch is the only noble gentile in control of a media empire, which is why he's the only one we can trust.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Given the size of their organizations, I find Paul's denials less credible than Murdoch's.

I guess it's true what they say.

Size matters.