oh boo hoo Rand Paul shushed a reporter

[Redfish]

its not a myth, its a proven fact.

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

 

[dcraelin]

Thank you... American candidates should treat the media as one any reasonable person treats an inferior species, with ill-intent. The first thing they should do when they enter the room for the interview is walk up to the "New Reader" and slap the shit out of them... then shove their ass into the chair and tell them what they've come to convey... if the Reader tries to speak, stand up and SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF 'EM AGAIN! If their mouth opens upon that slap... SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF 'EM AGAIN.

At some point, the Left will figure out where they are in the pecking order of life and things will get back to normal.

Right, because that's what everybody is looking for in a president, A real ass hole who is rude to everyone. You should throw your hat into the ring.

It was the reporter who was being rude.........AND disrespecting the intelligence of the listener/viewer

Not asking the question would be not respecting the intelligence of the listener/viewer. Of course right wingers always cry "UNFAIR" every time their silly positions are exposed or questioned.

Im talking about a situation where interviewer asks same question over and over again......the viewers get it....reporters think they're being "hard-hitting" by repeatedly asking same question.............no they just wasting viewers time.

the reporter repeats the question because the politician has dodged the question by spouting unrelated talking points.

And as I said, the viewers get it......move on

 

[dcraelin]

Thank you... American candidates should treat the media as one any reasonable person treats an inferior species, with ill-intent. The first thing they should do when they enter the room for the interview is walk up to the "New Reader" and slap the shit out of them... then shove their ass into the chair and tell them what they've come to convey... if the Reader tries to speak, stand up and SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF 'EM AGAIN! If their mouth opens upon that slap... SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF 'EM AGAIN.

At some point, the Left will figure out where they are in the pecking order of life and things will get back to normal.

Right, because that's what everybody is looking for in a president, A real ass hole who is rude to everyone. You should throw your hat into the ring.

It was the reporter who was being rude.........AND disrespecting the intelligence of the listener/viewer

Not asking the question would be not respecting the intelligence of the listener/viewer. Of course right wingers always cry "UNFAIR" every time their silly positions are exposed or questioned.

Im talking about a situation where interviewer asks same question over and over again......the viewers get it....reporters think they're being "hard-hitting" by repeatedly asking same question.............no they just wasting viewers time.

You could be right about wasting time. However, the reporter should note that the person being interviewed is either too stupid to answer the question, or is a coward, before he moves on to the next question.

well something like that......perhaps just that they refused........which ive suggested above somewhere

 

[thanatos144]

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

 

[BULLDOG]

Time for conservatives to trot out the 'liberal media' myth as a lame 'excuse' for their own faults and failings.

its not a myth, its a proven fact.

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

 

[thanatos144]

its not a myth, its a proven fact.

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

So the biased media made a study about themselves and shocker of shocker the lest biased one was called the most biased one????? Don't you idiots ever get sick of lying so obviously?

 

[dcraelin]

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

how did he "shill" for McConnell?...... do you know what the word means?

And your not going to vote for him anyway....so whether he answered question you would like answered doesnt matter....I suggest he gets into further dust-ups with reporters like this..........the undecided will swing his way.

 

[thanatos144]

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

how did he "shill" for McConnell?...... do you know what the word means?

And your not going to vote for him anyway....so whether he answered question you would like answered doesnt matter....I suggest he gets into further dust-ups with reporters like this..........the undecided will swing his way.

You then are a fool.

 

[Redfish]

its not a myth, its a proven fact.

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

bullshit, give us a link that says that from a reputable source, or admit you lied.

 

[Redfish]

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

did you watch the clip? the reporter wanted to give a speech, not ask a question. It was an obvious set up attempt and Rand handled it as he should have.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course it is a proven fact, The right always whines about the "liberal media" myth. It's their "GO TO" whine.

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

bullshit, give us a link that says that from a reputable source, or admit you lied.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

 

[Redfish]

Are you really going to sit there on your fat ass and claim that the media did not support obama and will not support HRC?

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

bullshit, give us a link that says that from a reputable source, or admit you lied.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

give us a link. Which Fox programs were they measuring? Hannity is not Fox news. you are spinning and lying as usual.

 

[BULLDOG]

The media doesn't support the Democrats any more than a sports commentator reporting a touchdown is supporting that team, or is opposing the other team. If it was a GOP vs DNC football game, you would whine if the commentator mentioned anything other than bad plays for the DNC.

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

bullshit, give us a link that says that from a reputable source, or admit you lied.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

give us a link. Which Fox programs were they measuring? Hannity is not Fox news. you are spinning and lying as usual.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I plainly said it was Politifact.

 

[dcraelin]

In yet more evidence that Cruz is a shill...it comes out that his major sugar-daddy is a Roger(?) Mercer of the Renaissance hedge fund. The founder is known for his donations to the Democrats. Mercer is also apparently a gambler well versed in bluffery.

 

[thanatos144]

Of course they did....The media is mostly liberal mouth breathers..... Still doesn't excuse a candidate from acting a child because he didn't know how to answer his own positions....Rand Paul is to me just as bad as Obama.... Both for some reason believes that we the people dont have the need to know about the positions he takes.....Both are damn wrong.

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

did you watch the clip? the reporter wanted to give a speech, not ask a question. It was an obvious set up attempt and Rand handled it as he should have.

He never let her finish so no she wasn't making a speech

 

[thanatos144]

In yet more evidence that Cruz is a shill...it comes out that his major sugar-daddy is a Roger(?) Mercer of the Renaissance hedge fund. The founder is known for his donations to the Democrats. Mercer is also apparently a gambler well versed in bluffery.

He should only get money from jew hating groups right m

 

[Redfish]

when a "reporter" asks a set up question, the candidate should tell them to STFU and do their real job. If Romney had done that to Candy Crowley he might be president today.

BTW, than, are you still smoking and selling crack? yes or no.

Not the same in any shape or form,.... Paul DID change his position on these issues and it is proper to ask him why...He instead of answering acted like a child.....Have you seen Cruz or Rubio shushing reporters for asking tough questions?????Rand tried to spin. When that didn't work he acted like a damn child. His father did the same with reporters and while I am sure many love to see liberal media heads get treated like the idiots they are a Adult does it with information not with shushing. The part of him treating the reported like a infant doesn't bother me so much as the fact of WHY HE DID IT. He did it because he couldn't answer why he flipped on these issues. Like when his father left a interview because he couldn't answer why his newsletters were full of racist rhetoric.

If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a biased reporter who is asking set up questions or trying to bait the candidate into a debate.

The problem is it wasn't a baited question.... It was a valid question. One I wish he would answer. Like how he turned a abortion question back on the democrats....That was brilliant I have to admit yet I did notice he himself has yet to answer where he stands on the issue...And killing babies is important to me. I wish i could trust the man at his word but he has shown to not be able to be trusted by shilling for McConnell.

did you watch the clip? the reporter wanted to give a speech, not ask a question. It was an obvious set up attempt and Rand handled it as he should have.

He never let her finish so no she wasn't making a speech

she was trying to make a speech, he correctly told her to ask her questions and stop the BS.

 

[Redfish]

media bias has been documented in many valid studies. If you choose to pretend that it doesn't exist there is nothing I can say except you are living in a fantasy world.

All credible studies of media bias put fox at the top of the list. Far above any of the others.

bullshit, give us a link that says that from a reputable source, or admit you lied.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

give us a link. Which Fox programs were they measuring? Hannity is not Fox news. you are spinning and lying as usual.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I plainly said it was Politifact.

then you should easily be able to provide the link, you say you read it, so show us what it says.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Fugelsang on Rand Paul - ROFL!
John Fugelsang on Twitter Rand Paul is running from Libertarianism faster than Ayn Rand ran to the mailbox for her Social Security checks.

 

[Papageorgio]

straw-man fallacy mixed with a pathetic attempt at a smear and a false narrative.
And if the same "legit" question is asked two or three times, have a little fucking respect for the intelligence of your listeners and let it go.

Well, if Rand CrazyPerson had answered it the first time, they wouldn't need to ask a second or third.

He should have pulled a Hillary, claim he is a victim of a vast left wing conspiracy, then lie.

Other than that, who cares how he treats the press, can't be any worse than the current administration.