Roger Ebert on Ron Paul

[Ninja Homer]

I haven't seen the scene, but I thought he said something like, "that guy is queer as blazes." If so, that's a big difference from "shouting 'queer!' as he stalks out".

 

[angelatc]

I thought he was dead.

 

[0zzy]

Ebert & Co.,

I found your review for Brüno a little misleading, particularly with this paragraph:

It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “queer!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling.


I am not sure what you are referring to, but Ron Paul is one of the most tolerant people in the Republican party when it comes to homosexual issues. He has defended homosexual marriage if it is to be defined by the state, homosexuals in the military, and defended them against the blatant homophobic radio host John Lofton for six minutes. How this indicates making "a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals" is beyond me. By calling someone who pulls down their trousers in front of you "queer as blazes," it is not usually understood to be a homophobic insult - unless your name is Roger Ebert, I suppose.

What amends did he ever have to make with the homosexual community in the first place?

sent to : [email protected]
and I included this vide:
YouTube - Ron Paul on Homosexuality

Send Roger Ebert a comment:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[shocker315]

So Cohen makes a a film that openly mocks gay people, and plays into ridiculous stereotypes. Millions will go out and buy tickets to laugh and make fun of his over the top flamboyant antics. But Ron Paul is labeled as the person who is insensitive?...for what?...For objecting to Cohen's insulting caricature of gay people by using a word that is not even derogatory? Jeeeze....People need to wake up to reality.

I would think gay people who want to have their issues treated seriously by the public would be really annoyed by this film.

 

[ProBlue33]

The Ron Pual scene in Bruno

Here is the the very brief clip of Ron Paul in the Bruno trailer

YouTube - Bruno - Official Trailer

Go to 2 minute mark the rest is so stupid don't waste your time on that "queer", screw the PC police, Ron Paul calls it, like it really is.

 

[0zzy]

full scene:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199219

i had to start a new thread, cause i know ill get a lot of mileage

 

[paulim]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a queer. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

+1. It strikes me that, based on your description, Cohen and Jon Stewart are essentially the same person.

 

[ChaosControl]

What is wrong with saying "queer"?

It means "strange".
Homosexuals are "strange".

It isn't even an insult, just an accurate description in the same manner that "homosexual" is accurate. In fact it is a better word, in my opinion, than "gay", which originally meant "happy".

Just leftist b.s. They can't stand that other people don't accept their thought police crap. Ebert can go suck an egg.

 

[acptulsa]

And please, stop with the immature comments about him. He's not some kind of status-quo-perpetuating political stooge. He reviews movies. And that's all.

Apparently not. As you pointed out so well, he also offers unsolicited, half thought out political commentary and inaccurate political information and analysis. And, again as you pointed out so well, he seems incompetent to do it.

That's what he does, and people are judging him by his actions.

As for Cohen, well, he probably picks libertarian politicians because neocons might just kill him, and they might just react like certain Democrats (Bawney Frank comes to mind) which Cohen would apparently like even less...

I thought he was dead.

No. Unfortunately that was the more intelligent half of the duo, Gene Siskel.

 

[FindLiberty]

+100

+++

Given the situation, I think Ron Paul's actions were appropriate
and his comments were entirely harmless.

Imagine variations of the Bruno movie scene and the probable
real world verbal response(s) and likely actions/reactions
(remember a film crew is in the room, not a hidden camera):

Not RP, but some other female congress critter... (What if Cohen
appeared "straighter" and/or more threatening while suddenly
partially disrobing?)

Not Cohen, but some woman, and not RP, but some other
female congress critter...

Not Cohen, but some woman, and not RP, but some other
male congress critter...

or, an additional real-world twist on that last one, Not Cohen,
but some female intern (with her film crew) and not RP, but
Bill Clinton...

+++

I bet there are a few good laughs in this Bruno movie, but
that single theme joke would get pretty old, pretty fast, IMO.

In any case, I hope Ron Paul gets on many more interview
shows (and can deliver his Liberty message) because
of this movie.

 

[zach]

I don't think reacting in such a way as Dr. Paul did should be considered "intolerable" to most people.
Unless you're extremely sensitive to words, "queer as blazes" is being considerably nice compared to what other things could have been said.

It's bullshit to call him out as that when I think anyone in that position would have done something more physically or verbally assaulting.

 

[erowe1]

What ignorant comments has Ron made about homosexuals?

He might be referring to things in RP's old newsletters, like:

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.

gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

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.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
I don't see anything wrong with any of those claims. But they would definitely qualify as ignorant comments about homosexuals in the eyes of people as unabashedly committed to promoting homosexuality the way Ebert and others in the Hollywood establishment are.

 

[James Madison]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a queer. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

It's a shame too because I think SBC has legitimate talent as a comedian and entertainer. Unfortunately, he sold out to the Hollywood establisment a long time ago. A lot of people I talk to say that his films are "satire", but his stuff isn't even close to being on the level of a show like South Park. Bruno and Borat are basically the movie equivalents of a show like Family Guy.

 

[Liberty Star]

Maybe but his being agent for questionable agenda of hollywood radicals is a waste of any talent.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Does Ron Paul really believe there is a coming race war?? Please tell me he didn't write that.

 

[John of Des Moines]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a queer. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

Best post in the thread.

After first hearing about the Bruno set-up way back when several thoughts came to mind. What if Bruno's set-up victim were a woman, would he have been charged with some crime? I think so, disorderly conduct at the very least and attempted sexual assault, lewd conduct, and indecent exposure. Then what if Paul had a concealed carry license and had been a sexual assault victim in his past. What would be the outcome of a trial over Bruno's dead body?

After learning SBC uses dozens of front companies to induce his targets into being unwilling test subjects in his comic schemes I have a hard time not believing that anybody would not only be exonerated in any criminal or civil trial but would likely have a claim for fraud.

Man, I can't wait to see this movie today. I'm going to yell out, "Ron Paul 08!" when that scene rolls. Oh and it wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some C4L info outside the theater.

It would be best if you didn't see this movie at all, and told your friends not too. This movie is going to make Paul look bad in the eyes of the "enlightened" PC youth.

If you go to the movie wait until the scene then go demand your money back.

 

[0zzy]

Does Ron Paul really believe there is a coming race war?? Please tell me he didn't write that.

he didn't.

He might be referring to things in RP's old newsletters, like:







http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
I don't see anything wrong with any of those claims. But they would definitely qualify as ignorant comments about homosexuals in the eyes of people as unabashedly committed to promoting homosexuality the way Ebert and others in the Hollywood establishment are.

Those were written by someone else, anyone who knows Paul or has heard him speak knows this. Many claim it was Lew Rockwell, including TNR who posted the original newsletters.I'm not sure who wrote it, but either way it wasn't paul.

 

[V4Vendetta]

YouTube - Barney Frank is trying to destroy America

LMAO

 

[erowe1]

he didn't.



Those were written by someone else, anyone who knows Paul or has heard him speak knows this. Many claim it was Lew Rockwell, including TNR who posted the original newsletters.I'm not sure who wrote it, but either way it wasn't paul.

I know he didn't personally write them, just like he didn't personally write The Revolution: A Manifesto ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102461.html ); or any of the emails I get from him asking for money for C4L with his signature on the bottom; or his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin; or any number of things that go out in his name all the time. But all that's irrelevant, and Ron Paul knows it, which is why every time the newsletter controversy came up in his previous campaigns he didn't say, "But I didn't really write those," as if that would have been a valid excuse. He put out those newsletters in his name. So Ebert is within his rights to refer to them as being from RP.

 

[dantheman]

Who cares about Roger Ebert? If the man doesn't know jack about movies, why listen to his opinions on the proper connotations of words and the political life of congressmen?