T Nation

Fox News Gets Owned!


#1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjRXoH2nbc


#2

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.


#3

[quote]Sifu wrote:
This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. [/quote]

Un-freaking-believable! Paul took down YouTube. This is the first case of YouTube servers melting I hear of since it got backed by Google.

Anyway, to brief you out, it appears Fox News edited out Paul’s response to a question about his “electability” during the re-air of the debate. Watch it and you’ll understand why Fox decided to do so.

If that wasn’t a slam dunk, I don’t know what is.


#4

[quote]lixy wrote:

Un-freaking-believable! Paul took down YouTube. This is the first case of YouTube servers melting I hear of since it got backed by Google.

Anyway, to brief you out, it appears Fox News edited out Paul’s response to a question about his “electability” during the re-air of the debate. Watch it and you’ll understand why Fox decided to do so.

If that wasn’t a slam dunk, I don’t know what is.[/quote]

As a self-declared fan or irony, Lixy - you must be bent double with laughter because, in fact, Paul is and has always been completely unelectable.

A half-cocked fringe candidate who never had a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing first in a primary making an impassioned speech about his electablity.

Irony is awesome.


#5

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Un-freaking-believable! Paul took down YouTube. This is the first case of YouTube servers melting I hear of since it got backed by Google.

Anyway, to brief you out, it appears Fox News edited out Paul’s response to a question about his “electability” during the re-air of the debate. Watch it and you’ll understand why Fox decided to do so.

If that wasn’t a slam dunk, I don’t know what is.

As a self-declared fan or irony, Lixy - you must be bent double with laughter because, in fact, Paul is and has always been completely unelectable.

A half-cocked fringe candidate who never had a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing first in a primary making an impassioned speech about his electablity.

Irony is awesome.[/quote]

…and he never even answered the question, unless you consider his off-topic rant an answer in the negative.


#6

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…and he never even answered the question, unless you consider his off-topic rant an answer in the negative.[/quote]

Yes, yes - exactly. Paul never provided an answer to the question itself.

And, in addition - did you witness his trainwreck on the question related to the US’ reaction to Iran in the Strait of Hormuz?

Never good when the crowd is cackling at you.


#7

Excellent answer.


#8

My bad.

I assumed that the “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation” message was due to bandwidth (or lack thereof), but it wasn’t. Fox asked for the removal of that part. Of course, that was the only part of the debate they invoked copyright on (despite it being evidently fair use).

That was pretty viscous if you ask me. First they cut his response off from the rerun of the debate, then they censor (there’s no other word for it) it from YouTube.


#9

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…and he never even answered the question, unless you consider his off-topic rant an answer in the negative.

[/quote]

It didn’t warrant one ; he’s a congressman that has ran on the same platform for the entirety of his political life, and was indeed elected for it over and over.

To say he’s not electable while he breaks every fundraising record without any contributions from special interests like the other prostitutes is a joke and a testimony of the fear the establishment has towards Paul’s ideas.


#10

Here’s the clip at the end of this whole segment:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5329071034248823681&q=fox+news+sc+debates&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1


#11

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

…and he never even answered the question, unless you consider his off-topic rant an answer in the negative.

It didn’t warrant one ; he’s a congressman that has ran on the same platform for the entirety of his political life, and was indeed elected for it over and over.

To say he’s not electable while he breaks every fundraising record without any contributions from special interests like the other prostitutes is a joke and a testimony of the fear the establishment has towards Paul’s ideas.

[/quote]

I can speak for the establishment: We aren’t one bit scared of a guy who cannot win a single primary.

JeffR


#12

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Here’s the clip at the end of this whole segment:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5329071034248823681&q=fox+news+sc+debates&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[/quote]

EVERY PERSON WHO THINKS IT’S “COOL” TO BE “DIFFERENT” please watch this clip.

I suffered through it.

I’m starting to think that ron paul is, not only insulting to people who realize the world is a complex place, but, he may be manic.

One of the signs of mania is flight of ideas.

Listen very carefully to the guy. He’s all over the map. This is far beyond the usual politician’s propensity to change the subject.

I have to give McCain credit, he gives ron paul the perfect response. Watch McCain’s face. It says: “Poor ron. Time for a rest.”

JeffR


#13

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I can speak for the establishment: We aren’t one bit scared of a guy who cannot win a single primary.

JeffR

[/quote]

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??


#14

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I can speak for the establishment: We aren’t one bit scared of a guy who cannot win a single primary.

JeffR

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??

[/quote]

I like SOME of Paul’s ideas. Dislike others very much. But what does fundraising matter without appeal to voters, the ability to capture votes, and party backing? It really doesn’t.


#15

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I can speak for the establishment: We aren’t one bit scared of a guy who cannot win a single primary.

JeffR

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??

[/quote]

That says more about you fanatics than it does about him.

Also, last time I noticed, money doesn’t equal votes.

Thankfully.

You nutjobs aren’t only losing, you are being laughed at.

JeffR


#16

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I can speak for the establishment: We aren’t one bit scared of a guy who cannot win a single primary.

JeffR

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??

I like SOME of Paul’s ideas. Dislike others very much. But what does fundraising matter without appeal to voters, the ability to capture votes, and party backing? It really doesn’t.[/quote]

Js,

If the moRon’s led off with your opening two sentences, the rest of us wouldn’t be so irritated.

ron paul is factually incorrect and very clumsy on several key points. If you don’t acknowledge them, that makes you a fanatic.

That is what bothers sane people about the moRons.

JeffR


#17

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:

How about a guy able to raise 6 millions dollars in one single day WITHOUT EVEN ORGANISING IT HIMSELF ??[/quote]

Because the age old maxim is true - a fool and his money are soon parted. Paul’s supporters are too stupid to know better than to throw good money after bad.

In my next career, I am going to round up Paul’s voter rosters and use that list as my cold call list to sell race war and/or alien invasion insurance.

Easy money. I’ll bank gazillions.


#18

So, everyone should vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning and not the guy who is the best man for the job?


#19

[quote]Jason32 wrote:

So, everyone should vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning and not the guy who is the best man for the job?[/quote]

It’s an interesting question, but in the case of Ron Paul, since he is neither, it is a debate for another thread.


#20

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
So, everyone should vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning and not the guy who is the best man for the job?[/quote]

Exactly, the result of succesful brainwashing…