Ron Paul on O'Reilly Factor Tomorrow....

[CavortingKron]

@ 8:00 Eastern Time.....just incase no one knew!

Can't wait to see RP make Bill look like a fool....

[VoltiSubito]

Papa Bear: Why do you hate America?

Ron Paul: I don't.

PB: You are against the liberation of the Iraqi people. Yes or no?

RP: Actually, what I'm against is...

PB: Yes or no? Are you against the liberation of the Iraqi people or not?

RP: The issue isn't....

PB: So why do you hate America?

WASH, RINSE, REPEAT.

Afterwards, Bill O will just talk about how he couldn't get RP to answer a simple question... I don't know how people can watch/listen to this crap every day.

[Bergs]

Papa Bear: Why do you hate America?

Ron Paul: I don't.

PB: You are against the liberation of the Iraqi people. Yes or no?

RP: Actually, what I'm against is...

PB: Yes or no? Are you against the liberation of the Iraqi people or not?

RP: The issue isn't....

PB: So why do you hate America?

WASH, RINSE, REPEAT.

Afterwards, Bill O will just talk about how he couldn't get RP to answer a simple question... I don't know how people can watch/listen to this crap every day.

Probably. If its anything like the Hannity-Paul debate thats exactly what will happen. And Hannity and O'reilly are both douchebags of the same mold.

I'm actually amazed by the reaction Ron Paul gets from the Hannitys and Guilianis of the world. Guiliani is steadily convincing people not to vote for him with the way he openingly mocks Paul, and if Hannity would shut up and listen for a minute he might actually learn something.

[david_slupper]

I'm not missing this one. It should be fun.

[drahkcorjc]

Can someone post a link? I don't get Fox n00s

[shade]

Talk about a set up on the timing of this. Ron Paul is fully aware of what he is walking into... and he will shine.

[Timebomb]

I keep missing ads for these things. I guess thats because I have fox news blocked from my favorites list on dishnetwork. I'll be sure to tune in for this though.

[pinger]

I will laugh heartily at the floundering O'reilly as he tires to cling to his crumbling neo-con power base.

[avix123]

He'll prob. attack Pauls stance on the drug "war". Accusing him of killing countless Americans by taking money out of the police programs to keep drugs off the streets. (you know, because it works so well...)

[greg vs greg]

at first i was a little worried, but i realized i shouldn't be. RP knows what he's doing. i don't think there is any way this can turn out badly for him. bill o'rly seems to be fox's go-to-dude whenever they need damage control. by now, especially after the recent debate, maybe they've realized their tactics aren't working so great. the only other option is to start aligning themselves with RP, at least just a little. some of you may not have noticed this, but there was actually a little bit of this in the debate the other night. some of the candidates were starting to move a little closer to what RP was saying. it still wasn't in the same ball park, but it was closer nonetheless.

i can't wait to watch it.

[david_slupper]

I think he's going to have a hard time, especially after the Patraeus report.

[322]

Can someone post a link? I don't get Fox n00s

this program allows you to watch TV from around the world on your computer. i love it because i can watch new south parks on comedy central, and Bayern Munich!

http://www.download.com/3000-2194_4-10652166.html

(we actually have Fox News in Canada, but you have to order it. I don't know anybody that does because it's fucking garbage. it had a free trial once, me and my friend would watch it and laugh our tits off.)

[douche nutz]

i have a feeling that mr. paul is going to be bombarded with loaded questions, and will be cut off by billo every time he starts to make a good argument

[legking]

Anyone want to place odds on a mic cut?

[RatedM]

Meh... I am betting $50 on "technical difficulties" then he brags like 2 hours later that when the cameras were "off", RP said something he didn't or he lies his ass off that he "owned" him...


Mic cut sounds very possible. :)

[Deamatix]

It's starting. I've had FOX on for 5 minutes and I have heard the phrase "Radical left" more than I can count.

[CavortingKron]

Wow lame interview, RP could hardly get a word out. Fuck O'Reilly

[shockzz]

I been reading this forum for quite a while now and haven't posted. Now if you think we should support Ron Paul's thoughts on cutting and running you guys are just dumb. What O'Reilly just said blew him away. He couldn't even answer the question. Of course Iran is going to move on and take over Iraq if we leave right now. But go ahead and vote with your blindfold on.

[L1mp_3rection]

Wasn't the greatest interview I've seen, but to be honest O'reilly seemed to give him a quasi-fair chance at answering. Still O'reilly has a huge advantage in any debate on his show, as he can choose the questions, how their asked, time, etc.

[shockzz]

Wow lame interview, RP could hardly get a word out. Fuck O'Reilly

^^ typical reviewof him. He gave him plenty of time to respond just you want to deny it. I bet you won't see that interview on youtube...

[Poser Park]

Shockzz, what are your views on the war? Do you think we fucked up big time? Do you think we did the 'right' thing? What are your views on Bush?

[Fossil]

I been reading this forum for quite a while now and haven't posted. Now if you think we should support Ron Paul's thoughts on cutting and running you guys are just dumb. What O'Reilly just said blew him away. He couldn't even answer the question. Of course Iran is going to move on and take over Iraq if we leave right now. But go ahead and vote with your blindfold on.

Iran is going to take over Iraq if we cut and run? What do you mean?

[chalupa]

^^ typical reviewof him. He gave him plenty of time to respond just you want to deny it.

No he didn't. RP was trying to illustrate the West's history in the region, and was going to use it to underline his point that NOT being there now looks like a better option than what we've done for the last 50 years. O'Reilly said, and I fucking quote:

We don't need a history lesson.

Never let RP finish his thought, and quite frankly, I thought the whole interview was a set-up to not even give him the chance.

OReilly misquoted RP about Afghanistan, didn't respond to what he said about it, and instead accused him of being oblivious.

I didn't hate Papa Bear until tonight, but now I put him on par with Limbaugh and Coulter.

In big letters, so that EVERYONE here can understand:

I may not end up voting for Ron Paul, but I WILL make every attempt and effort that I can to help him get his message out, because the RADICAL RIGHT is trying to quash him.

He deserves his chance.

[Nickster]

I been reading this forum for quite a while now and haven't posted. Now if you think we should support Ron Paul's thoughts on cutting and running you guys are just dumb. What O'Reilly just said blew him away. He couldn't even answer the question. Of course Iran is going to move on and take over Iraq if we leave right now. But go ahead and vote with your blindfold on.

If Iran and their doucheface president want Irak, let them have it, its a pile of shit, the only thing the entire middle east has going for it is oil, which, I'm not sure, but don't you have fuckloads of that in Alaska?

And if you're going to say something impossible like "O'Reilly blew him/her/it/shit away" (he only blows himself away, unless this entire board consists of hippie freedom hating liberals) then at least fucking elaborate and give us an example.

Fuck this, I don't even get Fox here in Ontario.

Edit: Wow, five people managed to get in responses in the time it took to type this. Fuck me

[BJ and UT5]

^^ typical reviewof him. He gave him plenty of time to respond just you want to deny it. I bet you won't see that interview on youtube...

So if I understand this correctly you're insinuating that an open forum who's content is provided purely by people who sign up and contribute has a liberal bias? Have we lost it. Does anyone not see this liberal media bias thing as pure bullshit now? If you want the damn video on youtube go post it.

[Bergs]

The thing is that Bill O'reilly as well as a very large amount of people in this country, left and right, absolutely do need a serious history lesson.

[shockzz]

he doesn't have enough time to go through a history lesson like he said in case you don't watch his show every once in a while which I know you don't you would know that.maybe I overstated that he blew him away. Sorry I take that back but the fact is he wants to pull out and we can't do that right now.

[Poser Park]

What SHOULD we do then? Stay there 10, 20, 30 or 40 years to babysit the masses?

There is no 'safe' solution to this problem.

[greg vs greg]

shouldn't we be acting based on what we've learned from history? we're not psychics. they can predict what will happen in iraq if we leave, but mostly likely their predictions will be wrong, just like most of their other ones. we should make our decision by reviewing history of that region within the last 50 years. that's what ron paul was trying to do before he was interrupted.

his appearance on that show was brief and rather boring. not to say he was boring, but bill didn't ask anything that hadn't already been asked in the republican candidate debates, and it only lasted like 5 minutes. i don't think his appearance will hurt RP in any way, but it probably won't help a whole lot either.

[Jay-Z]

he doesn't have enough time to go through a history lesson like he said in case you don't watch his show every once in a while which I know you don't you would know that.maybe I overstated that he blew him away. Sorry I take that back but the fact is he wants to pull out and we can't do that right now.
When can we pull out?

[Spike Lee]

What SHOULD we do then? Stay there 10, 20, 30 or 40 years to babysit the masses?

There is no 'safe' solution to this problem.

Or we could stay till they get thier shit together.


edit:Libertarians are notoriously weak on defense. We need to keep Republicans in power until all this Islaamic jihaad terrorist shit plays out.
But not what this guys says.

[shockzz]

What SHOULD we do then? Stay there 10, 20, 30 or 40 years?

There is no 'safe' solution to this problem.

I'm guessing you didn't see General Petraeus's report today... he is a guy with moreinformation on the matter that you or me can come up with. So here read up http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070910/D8RISQ0G0.html

[Poser Park]

Or we could stay till they get thier shit together.

And who is to say when that will be? It could be 30 years from now...hell, they may never get their shit together.

What then?

I'm guessing you didn't see General Petraeus's report today... he is a guy with information on the matter that you or me can come up with. So here read up http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070910/D8RISQ0G0.html

He wants to bring the troop numbers back down to the pre-surge level. While that is an awesome thing, it's nowhere near good enough.

[shockzz]

When can we pull out?

^^ see above comment

[Spike Lee]

And who is to say when that will be? It could be 30 years from now...hell, they may never get their shit together.

What then?

So, by your logic:

We could pull out completely watch that country turn to even worse shit that it is, or we could stay for a period which could be X number of years or longer and keep it from being terrorist breeding land and have it bite us in the ass later on.

[Jay-Z]

^^ see above comment
Tell me in your owns words please.

[chalupa]

Let me paraphrase RP's attempts to communicate with that screaming head called O'Rly:

"Bill, we should have finished in Afghanistan and not gone into Iraq. Now, it is time to leave Iraq, and let the region sort itself out. Western interference has only sewn the seeds of hate and discontent towards us, and while we may be having success with the surge, the political aspect there is worse than ever. Time for us to go."

O'Rly's response:

"If we leave, Iran will eliminate Israel with a secret nucular missile provided through Hezbollah or al Qaeda."


What O'Rly fails to realize is that the mutually assured destruction principle is MOST CERTAINLY still in effect in the Middle East (even though he tried to talk over RP on this point, too). If anyone, ANYONE, drops a big bomb somewhere in Israel...one that takes out more than a couple of people at a cafe, which, while sad, is not enough to set the Jews off...Israel will proceed to go apeshit on EACH AND EVERY ONE of their perceived enemies, a list that includes Iran and Syria.

Those countries know this, or they would have followed up their rhetoric with tangible action by now.

[Poser Park]

So, by your logic:

We could pull out completely watch that country turn to even worse shit that it is, or we could stay for a period which could be X number of years or longer and keep it from being terrorist breeding land and have it bite us in the ass later on.

It's ALREADY a terrorist breeding ground! Do you honestly think the American people are going to sit back and watch as we stay in Iraq for 15+ years? Hell no! 73% of U.S. citizens are tired of the damn war...they won't go for it much longer.

[shockzz]

Tell me in your owns words please.

when Iraq has a formidable army and established government.

[Danimal87]

when Iraq has a formidable army and established government.
They do. Maliki said we could leave. Let's leave.

[Spike Lee]

It's ALREADY a terrorist breeding ground! Do you honestly think the American people are going to sit back and watch as we stay in Iraq for 15+ years? Hell no! 73% of U.S. citizens are tired of the damn war...they won't go for it much longer.

15+ Years? Where do you get your numbers?

[Bergs]

he doesn't have enough time to go through a history lesson like he said in case you don't watch his show every once in a while which I know you don't you would know that.maybe I overstated that he blew him away. Sorry I take that back but the fact is he wants to pull out and we can't do that right now.

Actually I did watch it. It was a very typical Bill O'Reilly "interview." I think Congressman Paul performed admirably considering how O'Reilly conducts his so called interview. Typical of the man was in the segway leading into his show he hyped Petreaus and said "antiwar (with a very strong negative emphasis in his voice) Congressman Ron Paul will be joining us."

[Poser Park]

15+ Years? Where do you get your numbers?

I'm just using examples.

What if takes 15+ years to finally get everything running smoothly? Would it be worth the deaths of thousands of soldiers & the ever growing national debt?

The People's patience is being worn thin...unless things are fixed soon, we'll be an angry bunch.

[chalupa]

when Iraq has a formidable army and established government.

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh. Like it was before we went?

[greg vs greg]

So, by your logic:

We could pull out completely watch that country turn to even worse shit that it is, or we could stay for a period which could be X number of years or longer and keep it from being terrorist breeding land and have it bite us in the ass later on.

i don't understand why people keep saying things like this. it won't become a terrorist breeding ground if we leave. the insurgents are trying to bomb us, and most of the insurgency is comprised of iraqis who simply want us out. if we leave, they'll stop bombing. and why would al qaeda stick around in a shit hole country if we leave? they're only there to kill us. once we leave, so will they. unless you're going after oil, which al qaeda isn't, then iraq is far from being prime real estate. the land itself is shitty and not all that conducive to, i dunno... life, what with it's lack of water, food, vegetation, etc., all of which are staples of existence for any human, including terrorists. yes, the different iraqi sects might fight each other in a civil war. but they've been doing that anyway, even before we got there, and it will continue no matter how long we stay there.

[david_slupper]

I don't think it went bad, it's just that there's no way you can have a good discussion on these issues in 6 minutes. It's simply not possible, especially with a host like Bill O'Reilly.

[Mr. Heskey]

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh. Like it was before we went?

Yeah. Only this time if we do actually make it that far I hope we don't put some moron into power that'll only bite us in the ass later on.

[L1mp_3rection]

What O'Rly fails to realize is that the mutually assured destruction principle is MOST CERTAINLY still in effect in the Middle East (even though he tried to talk over RP on this point, too). If anyone, ANYONE, drops a big bomb somewhere in Israel...one that takes out more than a couple of people at a cafe, which, while sad, is not enough to set the Jews off...Israel will proceed to go apeshit on EACH AND EVERY ONE of their perceived enemies, a list that includes Iran and Syria.

Those countries know this, or they would have followed up their rhetoric with tangible action by now.

IMO, that was one of O'reillys only valid points. I'm in no way a supporter of him, but in a sense hes right. If Iran was capable of obtaining a nuclear device they would then be able to have a smaller terrorist sect carry out the deed. Israel wouldn't be able to pin it on Iran and because of that there is no mutually assured destruction. Granted, there will be many questions about the origin of the nuke, but do you really trust our intelligence to be able to find out where it came from?

[chalupa]

IMO, that was one of O'reillys only valid points. I'm in no way a supporter of him, but in a sense hes right. If Iran was capable of obtaining a nuclear device they would then be able to have a smaller terrorist sect carry out the deed. Israel wouldn't be able to pin it on Iran and because of that there is no mutually assured destruction. Granted, there will be many questions about the origin of the nuke, but do you really trust our intelligence to be able to find out where it came from?

I'm saying it wouldn't matter who delivered said bomb in Israel. They would lash out and everything and everyone, and you can very well believe that they have plans in place to absolutely fucking decimate all the major cities in Iran, Syria, Egypt (still, I would bet), Libya, basically every country that has given them shit over time.

The worse possibility is if that bomb were to be delivered to the US. We would have to start WW3.

[Bergs]

IMO, that was one of O'reillys only valid points. I'm in no way a supporter of him, but in a sense hes right. If Iran was capable of obtaining a nuclear device they would then be able to have a smaller terrorist sect carry out the deed. Israel wouldn't be able to pin it on Iran and because of that there is no mutually assured destruction. Granted, there will be many questions about the origin of the nuke, but do you really trust our intelligence to be able to find out where it came from?

Israel has never been known as one to show restraint. If a nuclear bomb went off in their country it wouldnt matter who set it off. It would be Armageddon in the Middle East.

BTW, I stumbled across this Fox News editorial by Radley Balko that does an excellent job explaining the foreign policy of Ron Paul. I suggest people read it.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

[Deamatix]

Israel has never been known as one to show restraint. If a nuclear bomb went off in their country it wouldnt matter who set it off. It would be Armageddon in the Middle East.

BTW, I stumbled across this Fox News editorial by Radley Balko that does an excellent job explaining the foreign policy of Ron Paul. I suggest people read it.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

Thanks for that article, I needed assurance that at least some people who work for Fox still live in the real world.

[GlutSow]

he doesn't have enough time to go through a history lesson like he said in case you don't watch his show every once in a while which I know you don't you would know that.maybe I overstated that he blew him away. Sorry I take that back but the fact is he wants to pull out and we can't do that right now.

Give me one reason why we shouldn't pull out other than the "unavoidable bloodbath" (which is bullshit.)

You know why the surge is working? Because it is a fucking surge. You could add 100,000 more troops and it would be even better. We could send every single person in the military over there and it would work.

What is the limit on the required number of forces in Iraq? None. There is no limit. The more troops you send, the better off they are going to be. But the problem with all this is Iraq is not our fucking problem. The Iraqis should be able to deal with their own people instead of relying on the US for security. They need to get their act together.

[david_slupper]

IMO, that was one of O'reillys only valid points. I'm in no way a supporter of him, but in a sense hes right. If Iran was capable of obtaining a nuclear device they would then be able to have a smaller terrorist sect carry out the deed. Israel wouldn't be able to pin it on Iran and because of that there is no mutually assured destruction. Granted, there will be many questions about the origin of the nuke, but do you really trust our intelligence to be able to find out where it came from?

It would be something so risky for Iran to do that it borders insanity and annihilation. I doubt they'd be stupid enough to do such a thing.

Israel has never been known as one to show restraint. If a nuclear bomb went off in their country it wouldnt matter who set it off. It would be Armageddon in the Middle East.

Exactly. Israel is thought to have plans to take everyone, and I mean everyone down if its own existence is at risk.

[Dr Jones]

o reilly's kryptonite = logic


ron is gonna tear him apart tomorrow.

[shade]

Here is the video for those who have not seen it yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwkLNyR4w_M

Is it just me or does he look younger in this? His mannerisms are more like back in the day.

[blabam]

Bill sucks.. Every nuke can be traced by a uranium signature.

[drahkcorjc]

shouldn't we be acting based on what we've learned from history? we're not psychics. they can predict what will happen in iraq if we leave, but mostly likely their predictions will be wrong, just like most of their other ones. we should make our decision by reviewing history of that region within the last 50 years. that's what ron paul was trying to do before he was interrupted.

his appearance on that show was brief and rather boring. not to say he was boring, but bill didn't ask anything that hadn't already been asked in the republican candidate debates, and it only lasted like 5 minutes. i don't think his appearance will hurt RP in any way, but it probably won't help a whole lot either.

Just watched the interview on Youtube (thanks Shade) and I have to say I agree with greg vs greg.
Nothing really happened during that interview.. They kind of sparred for a couple minutes and that was it. Ron Paul fans will see Paul as a winner there and neo-cons will think O'reilly kicked his ass.

I really hope every single day that Paul gets the nomination.

[rand0m]

Here is the video for those who have not seen it yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwkLNyR4w_M

Jesus they both fucking suck.

They will get one point right ... then they rant on and fuck it up.

Both of them.

Christ I'm glad none of them have a chance with getting into office in the US.

[Nocturnal]

I actually saw this.

I think Ron made some great points, especially when it came to how the Blowback from our actions have triggered many of the problems we face.

Oreilly was being his typical douchebag self. "so you don't think we should attack Iran? Well, Sir, why do you love terrorism and hate America?"

[BlueQuarter]

Bill, as always, is an asshole..
But, he makes a few good points.

[Nocturnal]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[droogsteve]

I don't understand O'Reilly's logic. How is our presence in Iraq preventing Iran from giving a nuke to Hezbollah? And his claim that mutually assured destruction doesn't apply is ludicrous. Does he really think that if Israel is nuked, they'll say "Gee, it was Hezbollah that nuked us, not Iran. Darn it, I guess we can't retaliate". Ridiculous. They'll immediately turn Iran, Syria and any other arab nation with nukes into thousands of miles of smooth glass. And those arab nation know it.

The rest was typical O'Reilly:

B.O.: "Well if you think if we withdraw from the gulf there won't be any terrorism, you're living in a dream world."

Paul never made that claim. And :

B.O.: "You didn't even want to go into Afghanistan to punish those people, did you!!"

Bill O was accurate as he usually is. Paul had to inform him that in fact he DID vote to invade Afghanistan.

O'Reilly is Morton Downey Jr with a more expensive suit. If he were subject to the rules of a high school debate, where both side get to present their side fairly and accurately, he'd be crushed every time. There's no real debate at all, just him yelling and browbeating from his bully pulpit.

[ohgarcia]

O'Reilly is Morton Downey Jr with a more expensive suit. If he were subject to the rules of a high school debate, where both side get to present their side fairly and accurately, he'd be crushed every time. There's no real debate at all, just him yelling and browbeating from his bully pulpit.

Ha. Very true. It's a shame, too, because one of the only ways candidates like Ron Paul can get exposure is through programs like O'Reilly's with high ratings. It's a Catch-22: they can't take their opinions to the public unless they go on TV, where the personalities won't allow them to voice their opinions! Ah, well. I've been rooting for Ron to take up the conservative side of the Unity08 ticket, for anyone who's heard of that -- I like his basic principles. I suppose he could always go "Gore/McCain" and do SNL, right? And then clips would wind up on eBaum's World... :)

[Burningnun]

"We didn't let him go... he just went."

Bill O'Reilly is a tool.

[VoltiSubito]

Here is the video for those who have not seen it yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwkLNyR4w_M

Is it just me or does he look younger in this? His mannerisms are more like back in the day.

Thanks shade. Just watched it.

So were his mannerisms "back in the day" nervous and uncomfortable? His jacket was too big. He leaned back the whole time. He never engaged the camera. He repeatedly broke eye contact. If he wants to woo the traditional voter, he will need to clean that up a bit.

[Karajan]

Man every time I watch BillO I think I get a little bit dumber.

It's a shame too because the guy has POTENTIAL to actually be a fair guy, he just lets his emotions take too much control. I've heard him actually be reasonable on several issues. Not really sure what his deal really is, besides creating controversy to get ratings.

[Bergs]

Thanks shade. Just watched it.

So where his mannerisms "back in the day" nervous and uncomfortable? His jacket was too big. He leaned back the whole time. He never engaged the camera. He repeatedly broke eye contact. If he wants to woo the traditional voter, he will need to clean that up a bit.

Unfortunately average voters are morons and irrelevant crap like that matters to their miniscule little brains. If we ever found somebody with Ron Paul's opinions who was younger, good looking, and charismatic. Watch out.

I don't understand O'Reilly's logic. How is our presence in Iraq preventing Iran from giving a nuke to Hezbollah? And his claim that mutually assured destruction doesn't apply is ludicrous. Does he really think that if Israel is nuked, they'll say "Gee, it was Hezbollah that nuked us, not Iran. Darn it, I guess we can't retaliate". Ridiculous. They'll immediately turn Iran, Syria and any other arab nation with nukes into thousands of miles of smooth glass. And those arab nation know it.

I agree completely. PB simply isnt a very logical person. He's consistantly inaccurate with his statements and his conclusions are extremely suspect. And the idiots that watch his show religiously eat it up without consulting their own brains.

[Nocturnal]

Unfortunately average voters are morons and irrelevant crap like that matters to their miniscule little brains. If we ever found somebody with Ron Paul's opinions who was younger, good looking, and charismatic. Watch out.

I was thinking that the whole time during that piece. RP just doesn't have the "presidential" look. People will see that that think "weak".

[Bergs]

I was thinking that the whole time during that piece. RP just doesn't have the "presidential" look. People will see that that think "weak".

Agreed. Although he certainly isnt weak. When you maintain your principles in the face of massive opposition from your own party including multiple attempts to undermine and defeat you, you are not a weak person.

[VoltiSubito]

So where his mannerisms "back in the day"...

Unfortunately average voters are morons and irrelevant crap like that matters to their miniscule little brains. If we ever found somebody with Ron Paul's opinions who was younger, good looking, and charismatic. Watch out.


I used "where" instead of "were." ... How embarrassing...

Charismatic is the important one. Younger and good looking is just icing on the cake.