MSNBC Compares Dr. Ron Paul to Al Qaeda

[acidhead]

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster today compared Ron Paul to a terrorist on live television commenting that the presidential candidate represents "the Al Qaeda wing of the Republican party". http://www.infowars.net/articles/january20...0108Shuster.htm

Shuster, a regular on Hardball with Chris Matthews and other MSNBC programs was responding to comments Matthews himself had made during an appearance on the Jay Leno show.

When this exchange was reviewed this morning on MSNBC with Joe Scarborough, Shuster waded in and blurted out "I think it's a great analogy, I mean Ron Paul is the Al Qaeda wing of the Republican party". Shuster then began to smirk and laugh as the two anchors attempted to wriggle their way out of the situation.

So there you have it, the mainstream media, in the form of GE owned MSNBC, literally saying Ron Paul is Al Qaeda.

Shuster goes even further than Glenn Beck did last November(click on link) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/novem...beck_smears.htm

when he declared Ron Paul's supporters to be terrorists. Beck and CNN were flooded with complaints, will this happen to MSNBC? (click on the link to politely complain and demand a retraction) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

[Pinky Floyd]

The anti-global, semi-isolationist ideas that Ron Paul represent horrifies the status quo of Washington (as well as many other capitals as well)..

Expect the baseless hyperbole to get even worse as his popularity and ideas gain momentum with the American voters. FOX ignoring him shows that the right doesn't like him and when MSNBC decides to irresponsibly diss him such as they did, represents the lefts disdain for him as well..He scares the hell out of both sides..

As well he should..

[raoulduke666]

That is exactly why I disregard everything the media says nowadays. The more attention the media gives GOOD or BAD exposure, will give the candidate more or less edge in the coming up race. I mean come on...all i hear when I get off work is either about Clinton, Obama, Romney, McClain and absolutely NOTHING about Ron Paul. And because of that, of coarse, they are gonna get more votes. Unfortunately MOST people today will believe ANYTHING they see in the media and will probably take to heart what that reporter said about Paul which I really think is bull s***.

[bathory]

I don't get the love for Ron Paul?

His a far right, ultra conservative, ultra religious, kkk supporting fool hiding in libertarian clothing.

Check the guy's voting record, check the guy's history.

[acidhead]

I don't get the love for Ron Paul?

His a far right, ultra conservative, ultra religious, kkk supporting fool hiding in libertarian clothing.

Check the guy's voting record, check the guy's history.

Just another smear attempt on Ron Paul. You won’t find any skeletons in this man’s closet, so the media just makes up sh**. Wake up people he’s our last hope! He really cares about America!

(Click on link for Dr. Ron Paul's career voting record)

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

[Raptor Witness]

Soon the False Prophet(electronic media) will be revealed for what it is. After all, they gave us King George on a platter and we swallowed every lying sound bite. Now it appears that real economic fears are setting in.

Let the second Great Depression begin, so the heads of these lying correspondents can roll for their complicity every inch of the way down. They shall not be immune for their part in this tragedy. They are brought to you, by WHOM?

Edited January 19, 2008 by Raptor Witness

[Cradle of Fish]

Please, Isolation is not the answer. Militant Islam will not go away if we leave the middle east. Perhaps it's Ron Pauls policies and the fact that half his supporters are 9/11 CT weirdos that is hurting his campaign and not some media conspiracy.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Cradle of Fish

[Dowdy]

I like him because of his monetary policies and also when you reasearch everything he says, it's true.

About the comment on isolation, Ron Paul answers it very nicely.....

Yet if you look at the results of the policy of the last six years, we find that we are more isolated than ever before. So I claim the policy of those who charge us with being isolationists is really diplomatic isolationism. They are not willing to talk to Syria. They are not willing to talk to Iran. They are not willing to trade with people that might have questionable people in charge. We have literally isolated ourselves. We have less friends and more enemies than ever before. So in a way, it’s one of the unintended consequences of their charges. They are the true isolationists, I believe.

True, that militants will never go away but if america stops meddling and putting troops around the world it wont give them any incentive to attack and it wont send the USA broke

He probably the most honest politician i've ever seen.

He is easily the most educated on monetary issues . He predicted the 1987 recession in 1983!

Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here? - Ron Paul

Edited January 19, 2008 by Dowdy

[Cradle of Fish]

True, that militants will never go away but if america stops meddling and putting troops around the world it wont give them any incentive to attack and it wont send the USA broke

They already have their incentive to attack, they wont suddenly stop if we withdrew entirely from the middle east and stopped supporting Israel. Infact they'd use it as an example of a victory over imperialist USA. Sure, they might set their sights elsewhere for a while, but we cant hide from this threat forever, and not dealing with them now will make the situation far far worse when we're forced to deal with it in the future.

[Dowdy]

Here, Ron Paul has already answered that for you too.

The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan - just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.

o Hypocrisy in the Middle East, February 26, 2007

* Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

o Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again, April 30, 2007

Pretty much every argument against Ron Paul is easily addressed with Ron Pauls' own words. All you got to do is clear out your ears, stop listening to all these bs attacks on him and listen to him.

[Unlimited]

Here, Ron Paul has already answered that for you too.

Pretty much every argument against Ron Paul is easily addressed with Ron Pauls' own words. All you got to do is clear out your ears, stop listening to all these bs attacks on him and listen to him.

Ron Paul doesnt stand a chance of winning..it's interesting how far washington regulars will go to smear this guy...

[Cradle of Fish]

First of all, alot of lies have been told about this war. Saddam Hussein and Iraq was the problem of the US, regardless if they want it or not. The Bush administration lied about the 9/11-Saddam link to justify their war, perhaps if they told the truth, that Iraq was a failed state ruled by a dictator that the USA installed and backed for years, that was soon to be inherited by one of Saddams wacko sons, one of whom was far worse than the other, the US would have backed the war. Not to mention that the Clinton administration had planned to remove Saddam themselves.

It was not preemptive war, it was a very late war, Saddam should have been removed in the Gulf War, all this could have been avoided. Now this militant islamic threat is out of the middle east and in our midsts. What are we going to do? Leave it until it goes away?

Of course, the US does support democracy in the middle east, specifically Israel and the Iraqi Kurds. If we leave Iraq, we're abandoning the Kurds to potential genocide.

[Unlimited]

noones going anywhere; the US will have bases in iraq til...?....forever...strategically its a good idea as long as you need that oil..

[bathory]

Just another smear attempt on Ron Paul. You won’t find any skeletons in this man’s closet, so the media just makes up sh**. Wake up people he’s our last hope! He really cares about America!

(Click on link for Dr. Ron Paul's career voting record)

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

smear attempt?

his voting record is far right, look at his stance on abortion, healthcare etc etc

like i said before, whats with all the liberals loving him for?

Bush is more leftwing than this guy.

- Post removed -

-Edit-

Edited January 19, 2008 by SaRuMaN
Removed quote and response to deleted post

[Aztec Warrior]

smear attempt?

his voting record is far right, look at his stance on abortion, healthcare etc etc

like i said before, whats with all the liberals loving him for?

Bush is more leftwing than this guy.

MSNBC is a joke and with their pathetic viewership, 12 people, they should be bankrupt by now.

As for Paul...he is a libertarian calling himself a Republican. I don't see any conservative principles. As an isolationist, he is against free trade, immigration and his foreign policy ideas are racists and xenophobic. He wants to withdrawl from NATO, the UN, close the IRS, Federal Reserve and cancel the patriot act.

"After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Paul referred to African-American rioters as "barbarians" and suggested that the riots only stopped when it came time for "blacks to pick up their welfare checks". Link Now here's a guy with no business experience.

He's a loon and doesn't stand a chance.

[Cradle of Fish]

smear attempt?

his voting record is far right, look at his stance on abortion, healthcare etc etc

like i said before, whats with all the liberals loving him for?

Bush is more leftwing than this guy.

Liberals only love him for his anti-war and pro-liberty rhetoric. That's anti-war except when it comes to intervening in foreign genocides and saving lives, which liberals are really into, and thats pro-liberty unless you're gay and want to serve openly in the army or get married.

They get sucked in by the rhetoric, the truth is, they do not want this person as their president, but they just dont know it yet.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Cradle of Fish

[IronGhost]

How come no one here talks about Ron Paul's famous KKK-like newsletters -- they referred to Martin Luther King as a "gay pedophile."

These newsletters were published for more than 20 years under Ron Paul's name -- they were extremely racist. Paul says he had nothing to do with them -- how could he not know that someone was publishing a newsletter under his name for 20 years?

[Fluffybunny]

like i said before, the guy is a far-right conservative, its plainly evident from the voting record, i guess you just aren't capable of reading words containing more than four letters.

Looking at his voting record, he looks perfectly libertarian, which a lot of people outside of the US are not familiar with...of course it is a death sentance to put yourself in a Libertarian classification for a presidential election. Somehow People think Liberaterians are going to end up left of the liberals...I dont get it...

also, even though the guy you quoted was out of line, your response is simply ridiculous. Report people that make post like that so that they can be dealt with rather than ending up getting yourself in trouble responding in a heated manner.

How come no one here talks about Ron Paul's famous KKK-like newsletters

Well, he denied that he believed that way; that it was either taken out of context or written by staff for him and he did not catch it. He has a huge staff and didnt micromanage them.

Personally when I was in LA during the riots I called the rioters a lot more than barbarians so I cant really cast stones, most people are the same way, we have all said things at one time or another that we may not have really meant, so I if the man says that he does not believe that way, I believe him.

[bathory]

Looking at his voting record, he looks perfectly libertarian

i understand that he's a libertarian in theory, but the consequences of for example insisting that it should be up to the states to rule on the legality of abortions or whatever is kind of silly, he doesn't uphold a libertarian standpoint, he merely passes the problem onto the states.

Federalism has its place, but when you are supposedly championing individual rights, it hardly makes any sense to absolve any say in the matter and hand it over to people who are going to play politics with an issue and may not look after those rights.

Now if i was a libertarian (and i guess i am for many social issues) i wouldn't give up my say to push forward an extreme form of federalism at the potential cost of those very freedoms i claim to stand for.

Paul says he had nothing to do with them -- how could he not know that someone was publishing a newsletter under his name for 20 years?

exactly right, remember if it was Bush, they'd be all over him, but because Ron wants an immediate withdrawel and advocates a borderline r******ed foreign policy that would do nothing but weaken the US internationally far more than Bush may have, they give him a pass.

[acidhead]

MSNBC is a joke and with their pathetic viewership, 12 people, they should be bankrupt by now.

As for Paul...he is a libertarian calling himself a Republican. I don't see any conservative principles. As an isolationist, he is against free trade, immigration and his foreign policy ideas are racists and xenophobic. He wants to withdrawl from NATO, the UN, close the IRS, Federal Reserve and cancel the patriot act.

"After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Paul referred to African-American rioters as "barbarians" and suggested that the riots only stopped when it came time for "blacks to pick up their welfare checks". Link Now here's a guy with no business experience.

He's a loon and doesn't stand a chance.

Did you even read the link you provided?

---In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in the newsletters under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by unnamed writers and did not represent his views.---

---Most of the incendiary items appeared between 1989 and 1994.[115] For example, a 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report stated that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities". After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the newsletter referred to African-American rioters as "barbarians" and suggested that the riots only stopped when it came time for "blacks to pick up their welfare checks".---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy

Instead of merely claiming that Ron Paul is anti-semetic or homophobic, why don't you show us some examples of his being so. These claims, without any examples, end up sounding like baseless attacks - typical of those who claim that someone with a political viewpoint different than their own is "anti-semetic."

'They' are obviously getting nervous! People are waking up and removing the wool from their eyes. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We are at step 3.'

[acidhead]

How come no one here talks about Ron Paul's famous KKK-like newsletters -- they referred to Martin Luther King as a "gay pedophile."

Because this isn't FoxTV, CNN television, or a MSNBC Forum. Try thinking for yourself instead of allowing somebody else to do it for you!

Edited January 19, 2008 by acidhead43

[PryOpenUr3rdEye]

Ron Paul is our last hope for this damn country. The federal reserve is owned by a private bank and its leaching vast amounts of money from the populous. And what happens if you refuse to pay them??? They sick the IRS on ya. They must both be abolished. And if Hilary wins, and lets hope like no tomorrow she doesn't, then this country is never going to have a bright tomorrow for a very, very long time to come.

[Cradle of Fish]

Because this isn't FoxTV, CNN television, or a MSNBC Forum. Try thinking for yourself instead of allowing somebody else to do it for you!

That's funny coming from a rampant Ron Paul supporter who repeats the same things all his supporters say.

@PryOpenUr3rdEye: Countries go through periods of recession and growth all the time, you dont really need to take drastic measures to stop them when they usually balance out anyway.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Cradle of Fish

[acidhead]

That's funny coming from a rampant Ron Paul supporter who repeats the same things all his supporters say.

Thanks for the support!

Ron Paul 2008

Don't FORGET to register!

[Dowdy]

i understand that he's a libertarian in theory, but the consequences of for example insisting that it should be up to the states to rule on the legality of abortions or whatever is kind of silly, he doesn't uphold a libertarian standpoint, he merely passes the problem onto the states.

Federalism has its place, but when you are supposedly championing individual rights, it hardly makes any sense to absolve any say in the matter and hand it over to people who are going to play politics with an issue and may not look after those rights.

Now if i was a libertarian (and i guess i am for many social issues) i wouldn't give up my say to push forward an extreme form of federalism at the potential cost of those very freedoms i claim to stand for.

exactly right, remember if it was Bush, they'd be all over him, but because Ron wants an immediate withdrawel and advocates a borderline r******ed foreign policy that would do nothing but weaken the US internationally far more than Bush may have, they give him a pass.

How is he going to destroy the freedoms he stands for? HE wants a smaller government so to give the individual more freedom and choice. With his healthcare stance - i think he's more qualified then anyone to talk about it and offer soultions. He is a doctor, who has delivered more than 4000 babies, after all.

How can I run for office and say I want to be a weak president? We need a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn’t have. -Ron Paul

As with his foreign policy, well the US hasn't done a good job with foreign policy for awhile. Giving 3 times more money to your enemies than to your allies is not good foreign policy. Supporting dictators and radical fundamentalist who later become you enemy is not a good foreign policy. Who really has a retarted foreign policy?

The US spends over 1 trillion a year to maintain it's military efforts overseas. Wouldn't that money be better spent it their own country or do you want the US to be the world police?

Most often, our messing around and meddling in the affairs of other countries have unintended consequences. Sometimes just over in those countries that we mess with. We might support one faction, and it doesn’t work, and it’s used against us. But there’s the blowback effect, that the CIA talks about, that it comes back to haunt us later on. For instance, a good example of this is what happened in 1953 when our government overthrew the Mossadegh government and we installed the Shah, in Iran. And for 25 years we had an authoritarian friend over there, and the people hated him, they finally overthrew him, and they’ve resented us ever since. That had a lot to do with the taking of the hostages in 1979, and for us to ignore that is to ignore history… Also we’ve antagonized the Iranians by supporting Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to invade Iran. Why wouldn’t they be angry at us? But the on again off again thing is what bothers me the most. First we’re an ally with Osama bin Laden, then he’s our archenemy. Our CIA set up the madrasah schools, and paid money, to train radical Islamists, in Saudi Arabia, to fight communism… But now they’ve turned on us… Muslims and Arabs have long memories, Americans, unfortunately, have very short memories, and they don’t remember our foreign policy that may have antagonized… The founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense. I think our defense is weaker now than ever. -Ron Paul

Edited January 20, 2008 by Dowdy