Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why does fox news laugh at ron paul during the fox debate?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by jack, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Jan 16, 2008
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    he completely dominated the topic in his answer, too... not surprised... and as the crowd began applauding to every point he made, the goofy laughter (probably from the Fox Studio) ended...

    as a related side note, did anyone notice that the Nev. Supreme Court overturned a lower court judge's ruling and upheld Kucinich's NBC ban from the Dem debate in that state?

    yeah, that's right... the two candidates who actually read and voted against the Patriot Act are being phased right out from the public consciousness by the CORPORATE media... i mean, how vindictive is that? a judge rules against NBC and allows Kucinich on the stage in Nevada, but the media giant takes it a step further and gets around the ruling by appealing to a higher court?... wow... agenda much?

    yes, NBC, owned by General Electric, ... a major war profiteer...
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2008
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Aw, c'mon!
    It's pure co-incidence! You're being paranoid! :cool: :mad:
  4. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0


    You lost me here, i don't see where Fox did anything wrong. I heard laughter in the background when the questioned was asked but it doesn't show who was laughing.




    This question and clip (which i saw live) was a disgrace. I understand the question but it was poorly asked and the presentation was terrible....I am sure he got ripped for it after the debate. This man deserves more respect than that even if a lot of people think he's a nut.


    For the record I agree with a lot of what Paul says. Where he loses my vote is when he gets to the national defense.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2008
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Yeah,
    Paul's problem on national defense is that he thinks that our military should be used for our national defense as opposed to the defense of other nations.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    I laugh at him when I look at him:singing: :singing: :singing:
  7. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    What? He wants to pull in our troops from everywhere all over the world and bring them home and let the world run itself. Where i disagree is that while I don't think we should get involved much, i do think we should keep our bases that we have. If we ever do get into another conflict then having staging places is very important so we are not fighting the war on our soil.
  8. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Is it unpatriotic to say we are an empire?
  9. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Where does this come from? You seem to pull random crap out of the air.
  10. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Not unpatriotic, but also not true. We are ALLOWED bases around the world by other nations (Cuba a noteable exception), we don't occupy those nations against their will. If Germany for example asked us to pack up and leave tomorrow we would do so.
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Why shouldn't the world run itself? To say we shouldn't is the reason we breed any resentment there is.

    We can't afford it. There's no reason for it. Our carrier groups, ICBM's and bomber fleets alone are sufficient deterrent. The Russians, Chinese and Indians don't have foreign bases, why do we need them? Our foreign conflicts are of our own volition. We do not respond anywhere because we're needed - we do so because we want to. If that were not true, then where were we in Rwanda or Burma? Why don't we have African (except KofSA), South American or Australian bases?
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2008
  12. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    The world should run itself, i don't want to be the police of the world. The problem we have is that we are not a self sufficient country.....We need to keep peace in the middle east since we rely on a lot of their oil supply.
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    They laugh at Ron Paul because they are fair and balanced, remember?? That is what Righties do, listened for Rush Limbaugh for a year to see if I could be a switch hitter.. all I found out was about the body size of all the dems and how bad they all were. Never found out about conservatism, just how bad everyone else was.
  14. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Signs of an empire, Pulled it right out of the air:D
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Well, we've been at it for fifty years...how's it going?
  16. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Does this include invading a country.. that is an oxymoron.
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    and we laugh at you when we read from you... trust us on that one...
  18. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    keeping the peace? that's rich... does that include surrounding 60% of the known cheap crude oil reserves and perhaps taking it by force?
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    I Hung Myself Once
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I still wonder if our national interests would have been better served if in 1990 we had said: 'Congrats on the new acquisition Saddam. We need 100 billion barrels of oil, here's the cash...'

    Do we really need to provide security in the Middle East? Don't they need to sell the oil as bad as we need to buy it?

    Even if Saddam had conquered the whole oil producing area and tried to jack the price to $1000/barrel, wouldn't the whole world be willing to help toss him and likely put us in charge of an actual coalition of the willing instead of the pretend one we had in '03?

    This is how I perceive Paul would handle things and its pretty f'in appealing IMO.
  21. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Good post and I agree.
    "Saving the people of Kuwait" was nowhere near the most important reason for going there. The only reason we cared about the "sovereignty" of Kuwait is because they were our little in-house oil supplier. Geographically, Kuwait is more a part of Iraq than anything else. Looking at a map, it was obvious. More importantly, though, we wield a lot of influence in the region from there. It is our base in the Arab World and Saddam can't have it.
  22. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I would much rather take the Paul approach, but I understand our reasoning not to. Maybe 'keeping the peace' was a bad choice of words....but it is in our best interest to make sure there is peace...or at least not a huge war in the middle east. Sure they need to sell us oil, but don't you think if they are all at war each country would try and take out the other countries source of revenue. I'm not saying I like us being over there, but I understand why we are.
  23. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,883
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    As much as I want Ron Paul in, I have my doubts that he will get it.

    The zionists run the world, and Paul's goals are 180 off from the zionists goals.

    zionists have most of the power, control, influence, and money.

    Oh yeah, and they can rig the election via major press and diebold voting machines.

    So, I guess it's sad, but true.

    I'm not being doom and gloom... simply being realistic.

Share This Page