Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's already over. I hate Bill O'Reilly. He is evil. He railroaded Ron Paul by not allowing him to finish an argument. The whole point of the show was to make Paul look bad.
Bill O'Reilly is one of the most despicable human beings on the planet. I will register my feelings by voting for Ron Paul.
Paul made himself look bad. I respect Ron Paul and support many of his policies, but his Middle East policy is naive at best. Everytime Bill asked what he felt about Iran, he would change to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because he had no answer except that he doesn't fear Iran but is concerned. Bill gave him 3 or 4 chances to answer, but he failed.
You may not like Bill but he's far from despicable since he gives all profits from the sell of his Factor gear to charity and he was a primary player in getting Jessica's Law passed in over 40 states. Hate him if you must, but at least give him credit for the good that he does.
Paul made himself look bad. I respect Ron Paul and support many of his policies, but his Middle East policy is naive at best. Everytime Bill asked what he felt about Iran, he would change to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because he had no answer except that he doesn't fear Iran but is concerned. Bill gave him 3 or 4 chances to answer, but he failed.
You may not like Bill but he's far from despicable since he gives all profits from the sell of his Factor gear to charity and he was a primary player in getting Jessica's Law passed in over 40 states. Hate him if you must, but at least give him credit for the good that he does.
As I pointed out earlier, Ron Paul is being asked to give a 10 second response to a 50 year old policy dilemma. We seem to have this tendency to want to so simplify the world into tiny sound bytes so that even the pin heads can find them digestible.
Bill O'Rielly and his counterpart Keith Olberman epitomize what passes as journalism today. Flaming partisanship, party cheerleaders that appeal to emotion far more than reason. I do not hate either one of them and in fact I think they both have their place and welcome them as I am not one who believes that all news/entertainment has to be balanced since it rarely ever has been.
Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy are certainly a subject of heated debate but they also echo many of the findings of our own intelligence agencies. At the very least his ideas should be more integrated into the national dialog and debated over instead of just dismissed as naive.
As I pointed out earlier, Ron Paul is being asked to give a 10 second response to a 50 year old policy dilemma. We seem to have this tendency to want to so simplify the world into tiny sound bytes so that even the pin heads can find them digestible.
Bill O'Rielly and his counterpart Keith Olberman epitomize what passes as journalism today. Flaming partisanship, party cheerleaders that appeal to emotion far more than reason. I do not hate either one of them and in fact I think they both have their place and welcome them as I am not one who believes that all news/entertainment has to be balanced since it rarely ever has been.
Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy are certainly a subject of heated debate but they also echo many of the findings of our own intelligence agencies. At the very least his ideas should be more integrated into the national dialog and debated over instead of just dismissed as naive.
I agree with you that Paul should be included in the national debate. His opinions, though somewhat extreme, deserve a hearing.
But he was rattled badly by O'Reilly, from what I could see. He was often at a loss for words when challenged straight on. Paul showed that he is not presidential material -- and there is certainly no disgrace in that. The candidates who DO seem "Presidential" strike me as amoral, egotistical, and nearly psychopathological in their intellectual shallowness and consuming need for attention and power.
Frankly, I've changed my opinion of Dr. Paul. Before, I thought he was crazy for holding such outlandish opinions. Now I don't think that he is crazy enough to be President.
Paul made himself look bad. I respect Ron Paul and support many of his policies, but his Middle East policy is naive at best. Everytime Bill asked what he felt about Iran, he would change to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because he had no answer except that he doesn't fear Iran but is concerned. Bill gave him 3 or 4 chances to answer, but he failed.
I happen to know about the history and issues that Ron Paul was trying to address. The idiotic tactic of talk show hosts where they railroad their guests into answering a nuanced question with simplistic responses is sickening. You provided the perfect example of why I loathe O'Reilly.
Bill didn't give Ron 3 or 4 chances to respond. He forced the conversation into simplistic jingoism and wouldn't permit Ron to respond intelligently. To cram such enormously complex questions into sound-byte format for the sake of pleasing advertisers and the agenda of the biased host is despicable. There was nothing remotely ethical about the way that Bill hurried Ron into half-sentence responses regarding issues that require many hours to even begin to understand.
It's sad to me that you watched that program and saw "3 or 4 opportunities" rather than seeing "3 or 4 attempts to silence Ron Paul from talking about the real issues." Do you really think the topic of Iran can be addressed in a one-sentence sound byte?
I happen to know about the history and issues that Ron Paul was trying to address. The idiotic tactic of talk show hosts where they railroad their guests into answering a nuanced question with simplistic responses is sickening. You provided the perfect example of why I loathe O'Reilly.
Bill didn't give Ron 3 or 4 chances to respond. He forced the conversation into simplistic jingoism and wouldn't permit Ron to respond intelligently. To cram such enormously complex questions into sound-byte format for the sake of pleasing advertisers and the agenda of the biased host is despicable. There was nothing remotely ethical about the way that Bill hurried Ron into half-sentence responses regarding issues that require many hours to even begin to understand.
It's sad to me that you watched that program and saw "3 or 4 opportunities" rather than seeing "3 or 4 attempts to silence Ron Paul from talking about the real issues." Do you really think the topic of Iran can be addressed in a one-sentence sound byte?
Dr. Paul knew the format and the amount of time allotted for his segment. If he needed more time to discuss the issue, he should've specified before being put on-air. He was straightwordly asked,
Now if you have an Iran actively seeking nuclear weaponry, as you do, and if you have the ability of that country to hand it off to a Hezbollah or an al Qaeda or anybody else, you withdraw from the region, you give them carte blanches to do what they want, do you not, congressman?
Dr. Paul replied, " See, I think you're concerned about the wrong country right now because more than half of the al Qaeda that are committing suicide in Iraq right now are Saudis. And nobody even talks about it..."
The question wasn't about al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia. Then, when asked again, he started talking about Pakistan.
I feel that Dr. Paul is the most honorable candidate running this election, yet he either needs to find a better way of explaining his ME policy or he needs to realize that leaving won't make things better, only worse.
Do you really think the topic of Iran can be addressed in a one-sentence sound byte?
The entire middle east can be addressed only as a complete history originating with western occupation in the early 20th century, gone awry. The bill has come due, I think Europe is beginning to wake up to that.
I don't take O'Reilly seriously but I do listen when reason presents itself. O'Reilly has pre-ordained position and wants his guests to respond to that. I just wanted to hear what Paul could say. He used to be Libertarian but has taken on some sicko dem/rep traits in his old age.
I like some of ron paul's idea's.. but realistically are they something that will ever get implimented? He just comes across as an idealist... where the "ends" justify the "means"
suppose none of his ideas are able to work well with congress? I really wonder how effective of a leader he will be... also being from texas.. makes me a little worried as well.. lol.. its all definetely something that should be heard out... I just don't know if I'm able to throw support for it...
Dr. Paul knew the format and the amount of time allotted for his segment. If he needed more time to discuss the issue, he should've specified before being put on-air.
Bill O'R doesn't give you that option. You make a very good point and I acknowledge that, but what possible intelligent response can you give to the questions he asks when you have 10 seconds to respond? Dr. Paul made an attempt to interject some history, context and perspective and I think he succeeded to the extent that maybe 1% of viewers might actually look into what he was trying to say. Our leaders, Democrat and Republican alike, cozy up to the Saudi Royals while those same monarchs turn a blind eye to the fact that their nation is the number one breeding ground and source of funding for terrorism.
If Dr. Paul got a few thousand people to look into this then I'd say he won. Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to talk about it because his advertising and political support would be damaged if he were to take on our REAL enemies. He's a coward who sets up his guests to be knocked down (when he disagrees with them) or validated (if he agrees with them.) He's a phony blowhard who contributes nothing of substance to the national debate and he wastes precious air time with his vanity. On the other hand, he's better than some of the alternatives on cable news in that time slot. CNN has become a mockery of what it originally set out to become --- a news station.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
http://www.overspun.com/images/oreillymad.jpg (broken link)
