Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CNN Paul Interview Uncut.

page: 5
189
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The anti-Pauls were SO convinced that 'Ron RAN away' from this interview because he couldn't handle it.

SOME of US in other threads repeatedly told the trolls this CNN clip was edited to manipulate viewers and were IGNORED.

Let them keep trolling and show themselves for how ridiculous they really are...




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
The anti-Pauls were SO convinced that 'Ron RAN away' from this interview because he couldn't handle it.

SOME of US in other threads repeatedly told the trolls this CNN clip was edited to manipulate viewers and were IGNORED.

Let them keep trolling and show themselves for how ridiculous they really are...


The sad thing is that, ALL the news agencies cut to skew a person or persons point of view. CNN isn't the only news agency that does this and Dr. Paul isn't the first victim of this blatant abuse of twisting the truth. As for the anti-Pauls, I think they're some provocateurs that clearly have an agenda and so they now have a following of individuals who want to try very hard to denounce the pro-Paul individuals so that they're ego might be heightened by going against the majority of ATS members that support Dr. Paul.

Pay them no mind. If they were paying attention, they would have known that since campaigning began this year, Dr. Pauls poll numbers were always strong and the pretending that Dr. Paul wasn't there by the MSM early on, was a sign of TPTB discontent for him being on stage with they're hand picked robot candidates. Now he explodes in Iowa and now the newsletter story breaks out "again" this time with more vigor, because of Dr. Pauls position now. Yes, provocateurs this news story broke out in 2008, so how come you all weren't claiming Dr. Paul was a raciest when his campaign started?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Case Closed after this video...

I wander how many other facts they keep hiding from us, I bet there is alot of stuff on the other canadates we don't even here about... because they just don't bring it out to the public.

Also like the fact that Jeff Rense Program has the story up at
their website...
edit on 12/26/2011 by Shdak because: Added Content



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

It does seem like CNN lied and cut the video to skew it against Ron Paul.



Gorman, I think you've started your journey on a road to perdition ...

When I hear what Ron Paul has to say ... I agree with him, 100% ... nothing more to say, he sure does seem like the only viable candidate with a brain.

The interresting thing, this woman says in my opinion, and the part we should actually "stick to" and investigate further. Is when she talks about "1993 and the Israeli involvement in 911". It appears, that Ron Paul hinted or didn't object to such "involvement" and that all that is being done, is a retaliation for this.

This certainly makes you start to think, WHO controls the US ... is it the PEOPLE of the US, or Israel?
edit on 26-12-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
This Ron Paul Hating is Disgusting, and those that are doing it should be labeled traitors to the nation. What more can he possibly say about these news letters that he hasn't already? What is gained by continuously asking about them? The more bashing I hear about him the more i want to vote for him and to have him as my commander and chief. Lets all move on to something with more Substance.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


no, I saw his face along the lines of "Well no, but..."

He has the same responses to things, so it's easy to understand what he would have said if he held his tongue. Take the example of when they asked him if he made money off the newstellers. Same face as when he talked about Bachmann on Jay Leno. It's a face that says "now, you ought to know this first".

I simply find it good that I can read his face so easily. He can give visual ques when he can't say something for whatever reason, but leaves a facial response able to give the answer in its own way.

IDK. Maybe I've had too many influences from people who are experts in espionage. Whatever.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
CNN was real fair to Ron Paul, look at all the questions they asked and allowed him to give his squirlly answers to before they hit him with his racism and he tore off his microphone to rage out of the room. If anything the short version is in favor of Ron Paul supporters because it gave the image that Ron Paul was asked only about his racism and he had to walk away being a victim of an ambush, this long version is way more damaging to Ron Paul's image.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


False, shill. Prove otherwise.


Just did, described in detail the obvious for anyone who watches this long version.
1) He was not ambushed - Long version makes CNN look better, Paul worse
2) He was allowed to answer a long series of questions on multiple topics before the racism Newletters - Long version makes CNN look better, Paul worse
3) Paul still unprofessionally takes off his microphone raging away at the end ranting about how the system works. - Paul looks way worse in this long version for having this reaction at the end as opposed to the short version where some could possibly sympathize with him for leaving an apparent ambush, which this long version definately clears up.

So thanks for providing this long version to the public all of you who participated in it, it was a real blow to Ron Paul which he only has his own actions to blame for.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 





1) He was not ambushed - Long version makes CNN look better, Paul worse


Dramatic lies by the media.




2) He was allowed to answer a long series of questions on multiple topics before the racism Newletters - Long version makes CNN look better, Paul worse


False. It makes him look cool under pressure, not emotionally unstable. he clearly was more than happy to answer.




3) Paul still unprofessionally takes off his microphone raging away at the end ranting about how the system works. -


False. When presented with unreasonable people, he left.




Paul looks way worse in this long version for having this reaction at the end as opposed to the short version where some could possibly sympathize with him for leaving an apparent ambush, which this long version definately clears up.


False, he looks better in the long version, because he doesn't loose his cool ever.




So thanks for providing this long version to the public all of you who participated in it, it was a real blow to Ron Paul which he only has his own actions to blame for.


Thanks for being so obviously a shill, so we can trust your name carries false words. How embarrassing for your title.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
The real conspiracy is on ATS. This has all ready been posted before. Both versions, if it was not about paul then it would have been taken down. So far only 10 people have posted. Why does htis have so many flags?
edit on 24-12-2011 by 8ILlBILl8 because: (no reason given)


You need to understand how members use the star and flag system here.

Most will flag a thread if they think it is worth taking a look at, whether they agree with the OP or not.

Then there are stars,
Most members will usually star a post because they agree with the poster or they think the poster has made a good and fair comment.
some people even star a post even if they don't agree with it, because they find the poster has made a good argument, point or debate.

And then there a few comments but they have a lot of stars, this is because the comments pretty much sum it up and if they did comment it would pretty much be cut and paste, so why say it when its already been said by another member.

There is no conspiracy about stars and flags.


love and harmony
Whateva



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperTripps
omg....it WAS a SET UP to get him frustrated..so they could then CUT the video/edit it and SPIN IT

I am deleting the CNN app off my IPHONE ASAP no joke

SCUM garbage


I wouldn't do that, the more we keep a close eye on these terrible liars who can manipulate the innocent onlooker who are too naïve to realize that MSM lie to them.

We need to be the eyes and ears for all. The MSM would love it if people like you who question them would stop monitoring what they are telling the world. Imagine what they would get away with.

No keep watching them and look out for those who aren’t looking out for themselves.

Love and harmony
Whateva
edit on 26/12/11 by Whateva69 because: oops



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I did see this in the comments on youtube.


Gloria Borger wants to bring ethics into scope?
Her husband is a lobbyist for Powell Tate. A MILITARY CONTRACTOR.
How about you ask your #ing husband about ethics, being the money handler for the action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya. A million and a half civilian casualties and she's some sort of shining display of ethics and morality.
Good job, CNN.


when i saw this i was like wow.
no wonder she said she would do the interview in the way they wanted her to.

does anyone know if this statement is fact or not?

love and harmony
Whateva
edit on 26/12/11 by Whateva69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Whateva69
 


It's been stated a few times. I haven't looked it up...but to be honest, it doesn't seem wrong. A media whore is a media whore. Having a warlord husband wouldn't exactly be abnormal.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I really don't see how the full interview does anything for Ron Paul.

He still ran away like a little baby after he didn't get his way.


Run away Paul...I guess that is what you will do as President



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


But he didn't. He answered it like a man, and when they wouldn't stop, he left. It's no different than dealing with, say, Mormons. and solicitors.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
They were probably doing what they could to make it more sensational, we all know that news outlets have been doing that quite a while.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Gornman91. I registered because of you. I read many of your level headed posts about ancient aliens. I have come to the conclusion that many of your theories are flawed, and you do not realize it. I also have had the same vision of no light, light, etc being. In fact i can pretty much attain that state at will. I also had striking visions besides this. I challenge you (in a good way) to a debate by means of logic, fantasy, speculation and mutual respect.
where should this take place? Perhaps you can open a new thread? I suggest we start with aztecs and astronomy? Or what is your poisen?
My "challange" is based on your logic, views, and as an opportunity to learn and exchange possibly new ideas. Not to win. If not new thread and u are up to it, where.
Sorry for posting here, but could not find how to write to you directly.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Well yay. But this is off topic.

Suffice to say, If you've read enough, you know I change my opinion on a dime when something new comes up.

I don't have a whole many great number of beliefs. Because belief entitles sureness of correctness. I don't believe I am correct. Because things change all the time.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Well yay. But this is off topic.

Suffice to say, If you've read enough, you know I change my opinion on a dime when something new comes up.

I don't have a whole many great number of beliefs. Because belief entitles sureness of correctness. I don't believe I am correct. Because things change all the time.


good, good. i also don't believe i am correct. if i believe anything about myself, it is the fact that i can think and create systems, and can overview them pretty quickly. from what i read, to me you seem to be the person whom i can learn the most from in an intellectual capacity (and possibly vice versa)...although i will check out your advisories comments too.i know this is off topic, not pertaining to this discussion, so what do you suggest, are you interested in my vision (which is off course not fact) pertaining not the the no being-being, but outside it?
i also think that to change ones opinion is a good thing. we must not be to entranced to our opinions, as we will become hostages to our own thoughts and limits. critical thinking is perhaps the method, with theories and speculation the fuel for creativity. what is truth we may never know. what we will know if a theory works, which doesn't make it true, just accurate enough to work or explain things.
off course faith and what we believe are in reality not debatable, as they are just that: faith. however some people do tend to believe things which are not systematic, flawed in logic. this is unfortunate, as these things unravel quickly. without a sound mind, and system ultimately (even with faith) you are a hostage to someone else's thoughts. but enough of introductions.
and more importantly faith can be blind. faith in itself is not good or bad. i am sure the child killers, had untarnished faith. faith is a matter of personal preference, but when you have a faith that is precise to our current observations (and beyond), it is probably on higher level.
if you would be so kind as to share your views as to how the aztecs produced a calendar (astrological one at that) so complex, and so precise it has only been fully understood recently.
Sure you can argue that it was important to them, but I still ask why?
For crops to grow, to predict stuff? this is one aspect..
All evidence for the exact applications of their findings in astronomy, point to that they didn't need to go into such depths, not at all. i would presume a lot of their findings had no real life applications, and seemed very much in conflict with their lifestyle. So why? Where they looking for something? What made them look, and how exactly did they reach their findings, when we as a moderns have only been able to observe a lot of phenonoma with more knowledge (i am simplifying) and much more powerful equipment.
It seems that all humanoids looked to the stars as soon as they stated to think more complexly. This is natural, logical and understandable. This would make sense for a number of reasons. But in this case the aztecs went far beyond and deeper, much much deeper...what would make them search the stars (and with what exact equipment)? How do you feel about this, surely there is at least some mystery there....

And to stay on topic: Go ron paul. Although I have to admit I have no idea who he is, or if I knew, i would support him.
edit on 27-12-2011 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2011 by BBalazs because: additions






top topics



 
189
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join