Ron Paul Not Doing Himself Any Favors By Appearing On The Alex Jones Show

Does it help him? Not really in my opinion. He undoubtedly knows he doesn't have a chance. Perhaps he figures though any publicity gives him a chance to get his message out - which is probably the real goad of running in the first place.

What message is that? That he's crazy?

he gets from the msm

What is that?

Adam, I know you're a big Ron Paul guy, but what principle is he following by associating himself with these kinds of people/messages?

I meant that he's right in that he should not decide which shows to appear on based on whether the hosts agree with him or not. That would rule out The O'Reilly Factor, for instance. If he can reach a large audience of potential supporters and get his message out, then he wants to do that even if he doesn't agree with the host of the show. If people expect him to only go on shows with which he agrees then there aren't many shows left open to him.

There's people you disagree with and then there's lunatics. People draw distinctions like that every day.

But have you considered the notion that your distinction between the two is not law?

Have you considered that that might be irrelevant?

Have you considered that distinctions may be?

;-)

Well, if Ron Paul is incapable of distinguishing lunatic (or racist) flights of fancy from sane ideas, I probably don't want him to be President, whether being a lunatic is legal or not. Yeah, the distinctions turn out to be relevant.

Wait, Alex Jones hates Asians and Africans?

I second that.

I don't know. It really depends on your measure of what is credible, my friend. :-)

I hate FOX News, and I have to agree with Bodhi. There are semi-rational arguments for the 9/11 conspiracy. None of them are coming from Alex Jones. Alex Jones is not just a nutcase, he's a lying douchebag and I hope he dies in a horrible car fire. :)

Ron Paul goes on Fox News, it's no more credible than the Alex Jones show.

I watch FOX and I have not seen him on there.

Maybe you should click the link I posted above, then.

Fox is more credible than Alex Jones.

If neither of them are credible, how can one be more credible than the other?

If neither of them are credible, how can one be more credible than the other?

Cutting right to the quick, aren't you?

Is that good or bad?

I personally think it's good. Rupert Murdoch and our own corporate overlords may disagree, but you really hit the heart of the issue right there. Is zero more, or less, than zero? Does it matter by how much you miss the target?

Dang, man, you people never stop educating me.
I don't know who this Alex Jones is.
First time I ever heard of him was right now.
I know I have so much to learn and many in my private circles tell me I am exceptionally intelligent. That tends to be relative, I've discovered.
I go by my gut a lot.
I read, I watch, (leave me alone on this one, you who don't agree) I pray and I read some more.

Ron Paul?
Ugh.

I have not liked what little I have seen of him so far and this didn't help him with me.

911 an inside job?
Sick!
Nope
It does not add up. We are in fact mortal enemies of a religious agenda that we don't want to acknowledge.
If we did, we'd have to acknowledge God.

Dang, man, you people never stop educating me.

Stick around. It's what we're here for. :)

I don't know who this Alex Jones is.
First time I ever heard of him was right now.

You're not missing anything....

Festive, I think I should clarify in case you are confused. Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Festive, I think I should clarify in case you are confused. Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Thank you.
I didn't think so, which was why I put extra space between the ideas.
But thank you for that (just in case I was walking away with that idea).
Much appreciated.

Jones enemies dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as "conspiracy theorists" like that's some horrible thing.

Or maybe we dismiss him because he's a @!$%#ing liar. (Note: I didn't get to finish researching even half the claims he made in that video that I wanted to look into, but what I found was plenty sufficient to make any claims to his "credibility" laughable. What "facts" he doesn't outright fabricate, he twists and bends out of context to make them fit the conclusion he wants to convey.)

I am familiar with what Ron Paul's positions are, and I do not support him. I would wager that the majority of the people on this site are familiar with his positions (the Newsvine community is unusually well-educated and well-informed, especially when it comes to politics), yet the majority here don't support him.

Yeah, crutch. Freedom blows.

When "freedom" means the freedom of massive corporations to @!$%# over consumers without government regulation? Yeah, freedom blows.

When "freedom" means the freedom of foreign countries to commit heinous human rights violations without the intervention of nations like the U.S. with the resources and capability to enact change? Yeah, freedom blows.

When "freedom" means that the less fortunate in this country are left to fend for themselves in a Darwinistic, laissez faire societal structure so that the rich don't have to bitch as much about taxes? Yeah, freedom blows.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point: There's a reason most of us aren't libertarians, and it's not because we hate freedom.

So, what you're saying is that it was right to go to Iraq. Good call.

Not exactly, no. But thanks for the hasty misinterpretation.

Your arguments directly support that Iraq war. Just because you dislike Bush and would rather use those worthless arguments to support invading the Sudan, does not make you any better a person. You are the same as the socialists in power.

Don't kid yourself. The US rarely intervenes in countries just because of human rights violations, and it's even more rare for our intervention to actually do some good. Ron Paul isn't much different from most other politicians in this regard. Few would actually support intervention in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China (!), Myanmar, the Sudan, or any other nation with human rights issues. Ron Paul is just honest about it.

I really don't understand how you can think that freedom is in favor of the corporations. What do we have now? Corporate control. What will we have with Hilary? Corporate control. What is the solution?

Well, all I'm sure of is that in order to find that we're going to have to shake things up a bit. And if you look at the early days of monopolies you'll realize that the government went from supporting these tychoons with cops and lawyers to "opposing" them with regulations that put any competitors out of business.

It's mind-blowing to me that you don't get it, and I really don't know how to spell it out so that you do.

Yuriy, that's an excellent point. Ron Paul supports small government. Democrats and Republicans both support big government. Big government is what leads to things like Halliburton getting billions in no-bid government contracts and corporate lobbies pushing through awful legislation that is bad for competition and bad for consumers. Ron Paul's position is the only one that will actually make corporations have to compete and give the advantage to the consumers. The free market is best for consumers and best for the economy.

I worry that it sounds like we've espoused some dogma when we talk sense, Adam.

Maybe we are?

But clearly the hole big government thing isn't working either.

Let me clarify: When I'm talking about "intervention" concerning human rights violations, I am in no way necessarily talking about invasion or militaristic action. That's what we got wrong with Iraq (well, that and the fact that Hussein was not exactly the world's biggest problem when it comes to human rights). I'm talking about diplomacy, trade sanctions, multi-lateral efforts (i.e., in cooperation with the UN and/or NATO, not in defiance of them like we did with Iraq), and using invasion 1.) as a last resort, 2.) only for the most severe of violations like the ethnic cleansing occurring in Darfur, and 3.) only when significant evidence suggests that it will actually be effective. Ron Paul wants to immediately withdraw us from the UN and NATO and (as I understand it) establish freer trade without regard to human rights issues, and that is mostly what I was talking about in my second point. I'm not talking about invading China or dropping a bomb on them, I'm talking about taking a stand and discontinuing the import of their cheap goods until they stop jailing people for speaking their minds.

I really don't understand how you can think that freedom is in favor of the corporations. What do we have now? Corporate control. What will we have with Hilary? Corporate control. What is the solution?

Let it also be known, once and for all, that I do not like Hillary. I would still vote for her over any of the Republicans (with the possible exception of Paul—maybe), but I desperately hope she loses to Edwards, or at least to Obama. She strikes me as very insincere and basically the Democratic version of the same sort of political corruption that we see in Washington right now. I'll be pretty disappointed if she wins the Democratic nomination.

I'm talking about taking a stand and discontinuing the import of their cheap goods until they stop jailing people for speaking their minds.

Capitalism in China is on the rise, and along with that is a rise in popular support for freedom and democracy. If we stop trading with China or reduce our trade with them then that prosperity will end, the Chinese government will blame us, and the human rights violations will continue for far longer than it would otherwise. Free trade with China is the best thing that can happen for them.

Hilary's going to win. Not a damn thing you can do about that. She's the one they plan on continuing the Bush-Clinton-Bush-legacy.

I might also mention that they're not going to go into Darfur. It's just not going to happen. If you want to get a charity to hire Blackwater, however, that could work. That'd fix things up right in a jiffy.

Hilary's going to win. Not a damn thing you can do about that. She's the one they plan on continuing the Bush-Clinton-Bush-legacy.

Who is "they," exactly?

I might also mention that they're not going to go into Darfur. It's just not going to happen.

I don't know about Clinton or Obama, but I know that at least Edwards has laid out a plan to intervene in the area with NATO.

What shot does Edwards have? Ron Paul has more money than he does.

Who is "they," exactly?

THEM

The media, the corporations. The people with money who want to keep it. Power-lovers.

It's pretty much an undercurrent in all of this that it's Hilary's. I'd put money on her, if that money wouldn't be better used by the Ron Paul campaign.

I'd put money on her, if that money wouldn't be better used by the Ron Paul campaign.

Are you crazy? You've got to start saving for retirement now. No depending on Social Security, remember. ;-)

What shot does Edwards have? Ron Paul has more money than he does.

Well he sure is polling a hell of a lot better than Paul is.

And the polls don't factor in Paul's support base. I mean honestly, you can just chuck them out the window. I'm not saying the online polls are any better, but land-lines are inherently biased. Paul overwhelmingly wins the debates, though. Of course more of his supporters watch and vote. So there's no way to even guess.

Are you crazy? You've got to start saving for retirement now. No depending on Social Security, remember. ;-)

I'm putting away about a thousand a month. I plan on reitiring in December.

Who is "they," exactly?

THEM

Van Morrison's backup band is rigging American elections?

Seriously, Yuriy, if you can't express "they" any more clearly than "them" then there is no them.

I was being facetious.

How about if I say, "Whoever gave the 1992 election to Clinton and the 2000 election to Bush, is going to try to give the 2008 election to Clinton again."

I don't know who they are. Maybe it's the American people. But if you read the writing on the wall, then the American people are going to rig this one in favor of Hilary.

Well, there's a real problem there in that you don't know who they are. You can't even describe them in any way. If it's the American people, then have you considered the implications of your thinking? You're calling democracy undemocratic. On the other hand, "they," is probably just a figment of your imagination.

I once heard a story, I think it was about Eisenhower, who was being criticized by some general down in Florida. Eisenhower was President at the time and was telling the top military brass to "get them to shut him up" (or some such words). But, as his advisors told him, there was no "them" to get to do anything. The most powerful man in the world, talking to his most powerful servants, and felled by "them."

It's a very useful pronoun.

Let's just say that victory in this next election, in my humble estimation, dramatically favors Hilary Clinton, and that it will be a vary polarizing and divisive one. Let's just say that the pieces fall so well into place for her to squeeze in there that if there is no invisible hand controlling the government then God's must be there, or else probability has a quirky sense of humor.

It's a very useful pronoun when you know precisely who it refers to. Otherwise, it's an invitation to the worst in yourself.

Them and they are very useful pronoun. In four letters you can summarize what is bad in others. Everything that is out of your control and not going your is summarized by blaming it them. They are the system, they are the conspiracy, they are in control. The funny thing is if you really look - they look like us.

Them and they are very useful pronoun. In four letters you can summarize what is bad in others. Everything that is out of your control and not going your is summarized by blaming it them. They are the system, they are the conspiracy, they are in control. The funny thing is if you really look - they look like us.

Well put. They look like us, except with scales instead of skin... and they're British.

Or even worse: French.

Well, the secret they never let the lower or middle classes in on is that they're in fact both the same.

If only.

Well put.

My point was that Fox News's credibility isn't worth a damn. Knowing that Fox is not a reputable source, we still listen to their interviews and "analysis" of Presidential candidates as if they mean something because they are a major corporation with billions of dollars to grant them pseudo-credibility.

So, who do you recommend listening to?

Your heart.

FDBryant: I guess I can't expect everyone to do what I do. Ideally, you'd listen to CNN, NBC, FOX, CSPAN, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Times... and have a well balanced view on politics so you could make a decision. If you are a major conservative, I'd recommend you read the Washington Post and other more liberal papers or listening to the Daily Show regularly. If you are a major liberal I'd say listen to Fox News and reading the Washington Times. Somewhere between all of the propaganda that these networks spew is 'the right answer'. Occasionally one group of propaganda artists will get it right, though.. don't be deceived.

What I don't like is how politics has become so polarized that liberals go to their daily source at the Washington Post, listen to the Daily Show, and maybe watch MSNBC while conservatives will go to news orgs that cater to them, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal op-ed, Washington Times, Limbaugh, Coulter. It's a serious problem in our country and we continue to encourage it by allowing companies like Fox News get away with a conservative approach to reporting.

Finally, I know that the common response is to say that CNN and NY Times is liberal.. there is a key difference between the types of bias you'll experience. With Fox News, a business decision was made to cater to the right. It generates a lot of revenue, and they tell you what you want to hear. Heck, the President even floats 'breaking' news their way so he can get positive play in the media.

When liberal bias shows itself on CNN, it's a more human and natural bias. The non-elites, lesser journalists, regular Americans who grew up in environments that were more humble, etc... tend to become members of the media. The bias is a natural response to life and they still TRY, ATTEMPT, sometimes succeed at being "neutral" and presenting both sides so that the reader or viewer can make their own decision. Fox, on the other hand, is inconsistent on this front. The presentation, even the Democrats they choose to give airtime to, are handpicked and 'weak'. This is no accident.

My politics = social libertarian or moderate democrat or social conservative. I DO watch Fox News more than I any other network. The difference, for me , is that I know what I am getting (conservative viewpoints), whereas many non-political Americans think they're getting "fair and balanced news", they are not.

Your heart.

It's truthier that way.

Ideally, you'd listen to CNN, NBC, FOX, CSPAN, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Times... and have a well balanced view on politics so you could make a decision.

Or you can just go to Newsvine, which regularly features seeds from all of them, plus more extreme sources on both sides of the fence.

Shh! You want the secret to get out!

FDBryant: I guess I can't expect everyone to do what I do. Ideally, you'd listen to CNN, NBC, FOX, CSPAN, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Times... and have a well balanced view on politics so you could make a decision. If you are a major conservative, I'd recommend you read the Washington Post and other more liberal papers or listening to the Daily Show regularly. If you are a major liberal I'd say listen to Fox News and reading the Washington Times. Somewhere between all of the propaganda that these networks spew is 'the right answer'. Occasionally one group of propaganda artists will get it right, though.. don't be deceived.

Wouldn't it be simply hilarious if all the differences were manufactured so that lies can be easily accepted as truth where they all agree? That would crack me up. Or where truth can be discarded as lies if they keep their mouths shut...

Pray tell yuriy, you are starting to sound like a con spiritual theorist!

Food for thought:

Wouldn't it be simply hilarious if all the conspiracy theories were true, right up to the reptilian lizard people? Now, THAT would crack me up. (Right after I shat my pants!)

Yeah. Well, what if the Catholics are right?

Then I'd have to stop thinking of myself as a vegetarian, what with all the crackers I eat.

Nicely done.