MSNBC vs Ron Paul - Very Tense Interview

I wish I had the time and energy to organize a boycott against their main sponsors.
 
Wow. Just saying "No." at the end. I remember every interview during the election you could tell if he liked the interview or not..

"Thank you, [insert name]." meant it was nice and pleasant.

a quick "Thanks." meant he didn't like it.

He's not even doing the cordial "Thanks." just shaking his head and saying "No.".. Whoop 'em Ron!!!
 
I am so glad Dr. Paul isn't in congress anymore and running for anything. Notice his feisty response! I love it! "Sounds like you are here bashing Catholics!"

LOL, I loved at the end where he said the "anytime somebody attacks me like you are doing, its because they disagree with my foreign policy". haha

Edit: also when she first described it as an "antisemetic" group, he quickly followed that up by describing it as a "pro-peace" group. loved how he quickly turned that around.
 
Last edited:
"Father of the fringe," eh?

What a smug, rude little bitch.

Here you go, sweetheart:

"Military Intervention In Syria", US Training "Rebels" Since 2011 And The Complete Grand Plan - The March 2012 Leak
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...-rebels-2011-and-complete-grand-plan-march-20

For all those still shocked by the "developing events" in Syria, here is the full rundown as it was orchestrated back in 2011, and as it was released in March 2012 by Wikileaks.

From Wikileaks, released 3/6/2012, typos and grammar errors as in original.

* * *

INSIGHT - military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces

Released on 2012-03-06 07:00 GMT

There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It isn't clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can't just create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD campaign lasting the duration of the war. They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage. Theyre also questiioning the skills of the Syrian forces that are operating the country's air defenses currently and how signfiicant the Iranian presence is there. Air Force Intel guy is most obsessed with the challenge of taking out Syria's ballistic missile capabilities and chem weapons. With Israel rgiht there and the regime facing an existential crisis, he sees that as a major complication to any military intervention.
 
RON PAUL SCHOOLS A LIBERAL MSNBC SHREW
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=60184

Must Watch: Ron Paul Squares Off Against MSNBC’s Alex Wagner in Explosive Interview
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/must-wat...st-msnbcs-alex-wagner-in-explosive-interview/

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) joined MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on Thursday for a wide-ranging and contentious interview focused on President Barack Obama’s push for American intervention in the Syrian civil war. What followed was a tense and heated exchange between the two ideologically unaligned figures about the need for intervention in Syria, American foreign policy in general, and Paul’s speaking before “anti-Semitic” groups.

Wagner opened by asking about a recent interview Paul conducted with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on his web-based interview program, but the conversation quickly turned to the push for intervention in Syria.

Paul questioned the “so-called gas deaths” in Syria supposedly ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and suggested that pro-intervention advocates have absolved the rebel factions fighting against Assad of any malfeasance.

“Do you really think President Obama is looking for a reason to go to war in Syria,” Wagner asked She noted that the president has been reluctant to go to war.

“I think the pressure comes from the people around him,” Paul said. “It might be contradicting some of his self-instincts.”

Paul said that the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Congress are behind Syrian intervention in opposition to rank-and-file opinion.

“I think there’s a historic event going on here and if this vote is won, that is defeat the request to have a more military approach to Syria, I think it’ll be historic,” Paul said. He noted that such a defeat would be an unusual alignment of the “libertarian Republicans” and the “progressive Democrats.”

Wagner appeared to agree with Paul but countered his assertion by saying that it was the president’s push for an unpopular war in Congress which united Democrats and Republicans against him. “Do you not applaud the president for making that decision?” Wagner asked.

Paul did not. He said that the president came under pressure and did not seek Congressional authority out of deference to the Constitution.

“In terms of surveillance, how confident are you that we are seeing the end of what has been termed the American empire in terms of a broad overreach and surveillance of Americans citizens” Wagner asked.

“We haven’t’ seen the end of it,” Paul replied. “Tyrants and empires cling desperately, and their best weapon is lying.”

Paul said the “people are waking up” and he was encouraged by a close vote in the House in which the Amash/Conyers Amendment to scale back the powers of the National Security Agency was narrowly defeated.

Paul added that this problem would also be solved if the “conspiracy” of the American government to “run all these wars” was ended and American troops came home.

“We haven’t proven any lies yet from this administration,” Paul said. “But believe me, there’s going to be found many, many deceptions.”

Wagner took issue with this statement. “Don’t you think this is sort of irresponsible?” she asked.

Paul went on to say that there is little proof to suggest that Assad is behind the use of chemical weapons in Syria. “Quite frankly, if they were honest with us – some are, some of the neo-cons are more honest, Tehran is – this is all to do with getting Iran and taking that country over, and we’ve been doing that since 1953,” Paul asserted.

Wagner asked Paul about his speech coming up at the Fatima Center, which she said has been accused of being an anti-Semitic organization. Asked if he would reconsider this speech, Paul said “no.”

Wagner cited some of the items in that group’s charter that led some to believe the organization is anti-Semitic. “I have nothing to do with that,” Paul said. “Sounds to me like you have me on here to bash Catholics.”

“There have been a lot of folks that have been involved with your campaign, supporters, newsletters that have been accredited to you that have strong anti-Semitic, racist undertones,” Wagner said.

Paul said that he has been dealing with accusations like these his whole political career. “When people disagree with your ideas they have to destroy your character,” Paul insisted.”
 
Much as I love the man, I wish he were a little quicker off the cuff in situations like this.

His answer to her obvious sand-bagging should have been:

"look, I don't know every position this group does and does not take; they invited me to discuss my foreign policy stances, and I eagerly accept any chance to promote a foreign policy of peace, whatever the venue. My speaking in front of that group is no more an endorsement of their so-called anti-semitism than is my appearance here today an endorsement of Obamacare. [wry smile]"

F this pseudo-intellectual bitch.
 
Much as I love the man, I wish he were a little quicker off the cuff in situations like this.

His answer to her obvious sand-bagging should have been:

"look, I don't know every position this group does and does not take; they invited me to discuss my foreign policy stances, and I eagerly accept any chance to promote a foreign policy of peace, whatever the venue. My speaking in front of that group is no more an endorsement of their so-called anti-semitism than is my appearance here today an endorsement of Obamacare. [wry smile]"

F this pseudo-intellectual bitch.

Well, I thought he did a brilliant job calling her to the carpet.
 
Much as I love the man, I wish he were a little quicker off the cuff in situations like this.

His answer to her obvious sand-bagging should have been:

"look, I don't know every position this group does and does not take; they invited me to discuss my foreign policy stances, and I eagerly accept any chance to promote a foreign policy of peace, whatever the venue. My speaking in front of that group is no more an endorsement of their so-called anti-semitism than is my appearance here today an endorsement of Obamacare. [wry smile]"

F this pseudo-intellectual bitch.

But, I loved his comeback, "I'm on this show without scrutinizing your credentials ........" :D
 
Back
Top