MSNBC - The bane of conservatives - is one of the few outlets acknowledging Paul wins

[Sallow]

Why is that?

I hate to break this to you, Sallow...but nobody really takes MSNBC seriously. Bane? More like laughingstock.

On this very message board there is complaint after complaint about Maddow, Schultz, Matthews and Sharpton.



Not bad for a station no one watches.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why is that?

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

Well if Democrats were getting that organized!

That would be great!

So MSNBC is the Democrats.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why is that?

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

The Bush campaign actually ran Nader ads in the Florida newspapers.

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

 

[elvis]

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

The Bush campaign actually ran Nader ads in the Florida newspapers.

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

clinton ran Perot ads?

 

[Oldstyle]

Why is that?

I hate to break this to you, Sallow...but nobody really takes MSNBC seriously. Bane? More like laughingstock.

On this very message board there is complaint after complaint about Maddow, Schultz, Matthews and Sharpton.



Not bad for a station no one watches.

I didn't say I didn't watch MSNBC. I freely admit that I do but I watch it for the humor of someone like Ed Schultz foaming at the mouth about how the problem with Obama is that he's not far left enough. MSNBC is like The Daily Show except they don't realize they're doing farce instead of facts.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Why is that?

I hate to break this to you, Sallow...but nobody really takes MSNBC seriously. Bane? More like laughingstock.

On this very message board there is complaint after complaint about Maddow, Schultz, Matthews and Sharpton.



Not bad for a station no one watches.

Well.. I like comedy... why else watch MSNBC...

 

[Sallow]

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

Well if Democrats were getting that organized!

That would be great!

So MSNBC is the Democrats.

They are pretty critical of the Democrats..but they favor progressive ideas. Far moreso then myself..

And I am with that old Will Rodgers saying..

"I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because it's not even an "issue". Ron Paul allowed it to become an issue. Chris Matthews is a pundit and an advocate.

It should have been easy to brush this whole thing aside. But instead Ron Paul insists on drawing lines in the sand. That's ridiculous.

How do you think that would work on the world stage? Because really..the most important task of the President of the United States is to deal with the rest of the world.

I could just imagine him closing off trade with China because they don't have "a free market economy".

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

Seriously you aren't talking to someone who "hates" Ron Paul. And neither, I suppose does Maddow or Matthews. But if it was that easy for them to get both Pauls to paint themselves into a corner..how do you think it's going to go on an international stage? The world is a wild and wooly place.

I don't want to see a Nader or Kuncinch presidency for very much the same reason. While I like Ron Paul's stance on many things..I recognize that as President..you MUST be flexible.

And I don't see that in Ron Paul.

Maybe they don't hate Ron Paul, but they have no problem painting him as a racist.

 

[Sallow]

The Bush campaign actually ran Nader ads in the Florida newspapers.

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

clinton ran Perot ads?

Oh..all the time.

After he finished calling his top secret buddy who was a sniper and had Osama Bin Laden in his sights and told him to forget it while he was shooting Vince Foster in the head and dragging his body to the park.

 

[Sallow]

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

Seriously you aren't talking to someone who "hates" Ron Paul. And neither, I suppose does Maddow or Matthews. But if it was that easy for them to get both Pauls to paint themselves into a corner..how do you think it's going to go on an international stage? The world is a wild and wooly place.

I don't want to see a Nader or Kuncinch presidency for very much the same reason. While I like Ron Paul's stance on many things..I recognize that as President..you MUST be flexible.

And I don't see that in Ron Paul.

Maybe they don't hate Ron Paul, but they have no problem painting him as a racist.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The Bush campaign actually ran Nader ads in the Florida newspapers.

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

clinton ran Perot ads?

No, I mean one party fracturing so badly with essentially two people on the ticket, that it hands the opposition a win they would not of had if one of the other individuals had not been running.

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I think Bush's campaign took it to the next level with the ads.

 

[elvis]

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

clinton ran Perot ads?

No, I mean one party fracturing so badly with essentially two people on the ticket, that it hands the opposition a win they would not of had if one of the other individuals had not been running.

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I think Bush's campaign took it to the next level with the ads.

ah. I agree.

 

[Sallow]

Yup.

Actually quite brilliant. And since then both sides do the same sort of thing.

Hell, the first time we saw this type of thing was in 92 with Perot.

clinton ran Perot ads?

No, I mean one party fracturing so badly with essentially two people on the ticket, that it hands the opposition a win they would not of had if one of the other individuals had not been running.

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I think Bush's campaign took it to the next level with the ads.

Rove learned from the best. Lee Atwater.

While I may not have liked the guy..no denying both his genius and ruthlessness.

 

[elvis]

clinton ran Perot ads?

No, I mean one party fracturing so badly with essentially two people on the ticket, that it hands the opposition a win they would not of had if one of the other individuals had not been running.

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I think Bush's campaign took it to the next level with the ads.

Rove learned from the best. Lee Atwater.

While I may not have liked the guy..no denying both his genius and ruthlessness.

Who is Rove's protege?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is that?

Because you are delusional?

 

[Sallow]

No, I mean one party fracturing so badly with essentially two people on the ticket, that it hands the opposition a win they would not of had if one of the other individuals had not been running.

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I think Bush's campaign took it to the next level with the ads.

Rove learned from the best. Lee Atwater.

While I may not have liked the guy..no denying both his genius and ruthlessness.

Who is Rove's protege?

That's a toughie.

 

[Ernie S.]

He came in third in Iowa.

Won a NH young republican straw poll.

Ron Paul Wins New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll

He came in second in Iowa, but like I said MSNBC only likes Paul when it's convenient for them to use him to attack Republicans in general. When he's not being used for that purpose they paint him as a racist.

All the MSM loved McCain until he became the nominee for the Rep. ticket.

They'll always appear to love who they figure has the slimmest chance of beating the Dem.

 

[nolebrakai]

after reading close to two pages of this crud I just want to remind you that AFN (American forces network) carries all American news providers and they run on a one hour rotation. just as much FOX as their MSNBC. so thankfully, the boys defending our freedoms don't get caught up in this silly little argument. PBS also gets in on the rotation as well, thankfully.


you all should go back and reread your posts.

 

[dblack]

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

Right. What you want is exactly what Ron Paul won't do. He won't dumb down what he's saying simply because some people will misunderstand it. Or because the press will deliberately misrepresent it. He has principled reasons why he thinks some of our civil rights legislation was a bad idea. If those reasons are too subtle for MSNBC, so be it. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it seems to be the argument you're making; that he should drop all the nonsense about 'rights' and acquiesce to the simplistic solutions. The fact that he doesn't do that - that actually tries to explain his views instead of condensing everything down to twenty second sound bites is what makes him a better candidate than the other Republicans. People aren't as stupid and short sighted as the press would like to think.

 

[Sallow]

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

Right. What you want is exactly what Ron Paul won't do. He won't dumb down what he's saying simply because some people will misunderstand it. Or because the press will deliberately misrepresent it. He has principled reasons why he thinks some of our civil rights legislation was a bad idea. If those reasons are too subtle for MSNBC, so be it. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but it seems to be the argument you're making; that he should drop all the nonsense about 'rights' and acquiesce to the simplistic solutions. The fact that he doesn't do that - that actually tries to explain his views instead of condensing everything down to twenty second sound bites is what makes him a better candidate than the other Republicans. People aren't as stupid and short sighted as the press would like to think.

Then no problem right?

Ron Paul has the election locked up.