Post: #1

Rand Paul is catching heat from the media because he’s not taking shit from liberal reporters – including female ones.

Multiple butt-hurt articles are being written from the white knights about this exchange between Paul and Savannah Guthrie.





The supposed rough treatment starts at around 2:30.

It seems pretty mild to me. But don’t hit the girl. Strong and independent until someone doesn’t kiss their ass, then it’s “I’m just a girl!”

Here’s mangina Chuck Todd feeling “disappointed” that Rand didn’t rollover for Savannah.





At around 1:00 Chuck says Rand needs to be careful because this is the second female reporter Rand jumped on.

I'll give you a hint on what I think this is about:

Post: #2

This is from The Hill

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...auls-debut

Quote:April 08, 2015, 07:51 pm
Savannah Guthrie fight casts shadow on Rand Paul's debut
By Niall Stanage

Rand Paul’s first day on the campaign trail was marred by a high-profile fight with NBC “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie that raised questions about whether he is ready for primetime.

Video of Paul telling Guthrie how she should do her job went viral on social media, placing his attitude toward female reporters in the spotlight.



The Kentucky GOP senator was ultimately forced to give a partial mea culpa, even as he sought to dispel the notion that his earlier pushback was sexist.

But the damage may have already been done for Paul.

“If this were the first time this had happened, that would be one thing,” GOP strategist Ford O’Connell told The Hill. “But I’m not sure it is all that clear to Rand Paul that, when you’re running for president, it is not a good thing if you launch into a diatribe.”

The incident with Guthrie was reminiscent of a February interview with CNBC’s Kelly Evans when the senator shushed the TV host and told her to “calm down.”

By Wednesday evening, a less combative Paul was telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “I think I’ve been universally short-tempered and testy with both male and female reporters.”

He added, “I will have to get better at holding my tongue, but I think I'm pretty equal opportunity.”

In the earlier appearance with Guthrie, Paul interrupted her, yet accused her of “talking over” him. He also charged “Why don’t you ask me a question of whether I have changed my opinion?”

Guthrie’s name became a trending topic on social media and the mocking hashtag #Randsplaining — a pun on the term “mansplaining,” which refers to condescending male behavior — got widespread use.

Negative media attention came just as fast, with The Washington Post asking whether Paul had a “problem with female interviewers.”

The criticism came from Republicans, too.

“If Rand Paul is really ready for primetime, a good way to show that is not mansplaining to @SavannahGuthrie when she’s simply doing her job,” Meghan McCain, a media commentator and daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), tweeted.

“Pro-tip: lecturing the host of The Today Show (@SavannahGuthrie no less!) is not a way to endear yourself to that show's audience,” GOP pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson wrote on the social media site.

But even those who argued that Paul’s attitude toward female journalists wasn’t sexist acknowledged that the mere fact of that question being asked was a bad thing.

“I thought that he just came across as kinda overly grouchy and a little bit aggressive, unnecessarily. But I’m not sure it’s fair to link it [to the February CNBC interview] as ‘This is how he treats women,’ ” said Katie Packer Gage, who served as deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney during his 2012 White House bid.

Gage said it would be unfair if the flap was portrayed as indicative of Republican attitudes to women, but admitted that the incident could be construed that way.

“We just can’t make mistakes like that,” she said. “We can’t be seen as disrespectful or bullying or even as a little bit sharper, because it is going to be framed as a Republican problem.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Paul went on to show some irritation with a male reporter over questions about his position on abortion.

The Associated Press’s Philip Elliott interviewed Paul on the subject and wrote that the senator “grew testy when pressed in the interview on the questions of exceptions. ‘I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer,’ he said.”

Asked again about abortion by NH1's Paul Steinhauser, Paul shot back, “Why don't we ask the [Democratic National Committee], is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?”

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to keep the media fire around Paul burning, releasing a statement that emphasized her support for abortion rights, included a couple of rhetorical questions for Paul and concluded, “I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

Some observers played down the potential damage so early in the 2016 cycle.

“You don’t want to be a punching bag for these people,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. “Is this going to hurt Rand Paul with his voters or the people he’s trying to reach? Not really. Is it going to hurt him with liberals? They dislike him as it is.”

But other independent observers said the danger for Paul was especially acute on the issue of his demeanor toward women.

“I don’t think an incident on the ‘Today’ show with Savannah Guthrie makes or breaks a candidate,” said Jennifer Lawless, a professor of government and the director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University. “But if it becomes part of a bigger narrative that Rand Paul doesn’t respect women, it could become pretty damning.”

That didn't take long.

This election is going to be nauseating because you're going to see the press united in support of Hillary's "historic candidacy" and will do everything they can to trash her opponents.

Post: #3

(04-09-2015 09:37 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Rand Paul is catching heat from the media because he’s not taking shit from liberal reporters – including female ones.

Multiple butt-hurt articles are being written from the white knights about this exchange between Paul and Savannah Guthrie.





The supposed rough treatment starts at around 2:30.

It seems pretty mild to me. But don’t hit the girl. Strong and independent until someone doesn’t kiss their ass, then it’s “I’m just a girl!”

Here’s mangina Chuck Todd feeling “disappointed” that Rand didn’t rollover for Savannah.





At around 1:00 Chuck says Rand needs to be careful because this is the second female reporter Rand jumped on.

I'll give you a hint on what I think this is about:

It's about fucking time SOMEONE tells the uber leftist MSM to fuck off.

Post: #4

(04-09-2015 09:46 PM)Dusty Wrote:  This is from The Hill

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...auls-debut

Quote:April 08, 2015, 07:51 pm
Savannah Guthrie fight casts shadow on Rand Paul's debut
By Niall Stanage

Rand Paul’s first day on the campaign trail was marred by a high-profile fight with NBC “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie that raised questions about whether he is ready for primetime.

Video of Paul telling Guthrie how she should do her job went viral on social media, placing his attitude toward female reporters in the spotlight.



The Kentucky GOP senator was ultimately forced to give a partial mea culpa, even as he sought to dispel the notion that his earlier pushback was sexist.

But the damage may have already been done for Paul.

“If this were the first time this had happened, that would be one thing,” GOP strategist Ford O’Connell told The Hill. “But I’m not sure it is all that clear to Rand Paul that, when you’re running for president, it is not a good thing if you launch into a diatribe.”

The incident with Guthrie was reminiscent of a February interview with CNBC’s Kelly Evans when the senator shushed the TV host and told her to “calm down.”

By Wednesday evening, a less combative Paul was telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “I think I’ve been universally short-tempered and testy with both male and female reporters.”

He added, “I will have to get better at holding my tongue, but I think I'm pretty equal opportunity.”

In the earlier appearance with Guthrie, Paul interrupted her, yet accused her of “talking over” him. He also charged “Why don’t you ask me a question of whether I have changed my opinion?”

Guthrie’s name became a trending topic on social media and the mocking hashtag #Randsplaining — a pun on the term “mansplaining,” which refers to condescending male behavior — got widespread use.

Negative media attention came just as fast, with The Washington Post asking whether Paul had a “problem with female interviewers.”

The criticism came from Republicans, too.

“If Rand Paul is really ready for primetime, a good way to show that is not mansplaining to @SavannahGuthrie when she’s simply doing her job,” Meghan McCain, a media commentator and daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), tweeted.

“Pro-tip: lecturing the host of The Today Show (@SavannahGuthrie no less!) is not a way to endear yourself to that show's audience,” GOP pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson wrote on the social media site.

But even those who argued that Paul’s attitude toward female journalists wasn’t sexist acknowledged that the mere fact of that question being asked was a bad thing.

“I thought that he just came across as kinda overly grouchy and a little bit aggressive, unnecessarily. But I’m not sure it’s fair to link it [to the February CNBC interview] as ‘This is how he treats women,’ ” said Katie Packer Gage, who served as deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney during his 2012 White House bid.

Gage said it would be unfair if the flap was portrayed as indicative of Republican attitudes to women, but admitted that the incident could be construed that way.

“We just can’t make mistakes like that,” she said. “We can’t be seen as disrespectful or bullying or even as a little bit sharper, because it is going to be framed as a Republican problem.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Paul went on to show some irritation with a male reporter over questions about his position on abortion.

The Associated Press’s Philip Elliott interviewed Paul on the subject and wrote that the senator “grew testy when pressed in the interview on the questions of exceptions. ‘I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer,’ he said.”

Asked again about abortion by NH1's Paul Steinhauser, Paul shot back, “Why don't we ask the [Democratic National Committee], is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?”

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to keep the media fire around Paul burning, releasing a statement that emphasized her support for abortion rights, included a couple of rhetorical questions for Paul and concluded, “I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

Some observers played down the potential damage so early in the 2016 cycle.

“You don’t want to be a punching bag for these people,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. “Is this going to hurt Rand Paul with his voters or the people he’s trying to reach? Not really. Is it going to hurt him with liberals? They dislike him as it is.”

But other independent observers said the danger for Paul was especially acute on the issue of his demeanor toward women.

“I don’t think an incident on the ‘Today’ show with Savannah Guthrie makes or breaks a candidate,” said Jennifer Lawless, a professor of government and the director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University. “But if it becomes part of a bigger narrative that Rand Paul doesn’t respect women, it could become pretty damning.”

That didn't take long.

This election is going to be nauseating because you're going to see the press united in support of Hillary's "historic candidacy" and will do everything they can to trash her opponents.

^^Im not convinced that Hillary! is going to be the Rat candidate. Martin O'Malley, former MD governor (and a HUGE mangina) seems to be picking up steam. One of Hillary's! biggest problems is that she's so polarizing. Plus she is truly last century's news.

Post: #5

Reminds me of when Kyle Bass shat all over this female reporter for the same issue: editorializing.





Fuck Hillary and Fuck Guthrie

Edit: The video I posted is rather long, but very entertaining and informative, especially for people who are interested in finance and economics. Try not to skip through it just to watch Kyle tear the clueless reporter up.

Post: #6

He could have handled it with more panache, but ultimately nothing really happened, and everyone will forget about this within a week.

I love how a couple Republican female typists come in to rag on him, including one with a tell tale double barreled last name. Loyalty stops where attention whoring beckons.

Post: #7

(04-09-2015 09:37 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Rand Paul is catching heat from the media because he’s not taking shit from liberal reporters – including female ones.

Multiple butt-hurt articles are being written from the white knights about this exchange between Paul and Savannah Guthrie.





The supposed rough treatment starts at around 2:30.

It seems pretty mild to me. But don’t hit the girl. Strong and independent until someone doesn’t kiss their ass, then it’s “I’m just a girl!”

Here’s mangina Chuck Todd feeling “disappointed” that Rand didn’t rollover for Savannah.





At around 1:00 Chuck says Rand needs to be careful because this is the second female reporter Rand jumped on.

I'll give you a hint on what I think this is about:

Lost all respect for Chuck Todd after watching that clip. Not just the woman thing, but how "particularly republicans" are prone to hypocrisy. Fuck you, Chuckie.

On the other hand, I'm more inclined to vote for Rand Paul the more he backhands reporters who deserve it, male or female.

And how about that old dried up turkey-neck, Andrea Mitchell..."he took on Savanah...not a good move!". LOL.

Post: #8

Rand Paul is a sellout. It makes zero difference whether it is he, or Hilary, Rubio, or any of the other muppets that gets elected. In the meanwhile though the media will continue to manufacture drama in order to create the illusion of "choice."

Post: #9

Get ready to see more outright feminist terms like "Mansplaining" and male vs. female gender relation angles in this campaign.

The left has been pushing feminist bullshit for years now, and the federal government giving out grant money to gender studies "academics" to study irony on Twitter, among other inane shit. This is all in an attempt to better understand how to propagandize to the populace, and part of me wonders how much of it has been just to set up for a female president.

The Democrats are going to be pushing hardcore feminist frames against all of Hillary's male opponents, trying to paint them as stodgy old white men who hate women or don't think they should lead. This is intentional. It is calculated and you are looking at the first tastes of it here.

Post: #10

I don't believe Rand to be a sell-out, though I AM slightly uncomfortable with his more traditionally Republican stances on Israel and war in the Middle East as of late. I think that he is just playing the game that his father did not. If that gets him into the White House, then fine. I'd rather have Rand in there than anyone else.

His main stances on executive overreach and traditional Libertarianism are solid. You are not going to get someone who speaks the truth 100% of the time to win over a nation of idiots that has a media-war-government machine fueling the idiot fire. If Rand has to be a devout Christian to win over the Republican base, then so be it. It is more important that he win than my personal belief that Christianity is bad and that no intelligent man would believe in it. He has to put on a mask. It is better that the USA be a Christian country than a feminist one.

I have seen Rand do what he did with this reporter before as well, and it is so shocking to us because he is dropping the politician act and schooling this "journalist" on journalism.

[Physically sushes journalist in the following video]





They will always push an agenda and narrative just by asking a question a certain way. Jon Stewart does this constantly when people like Peter Schiff and Warren Farrell are interviewed on his show, for example. Rand is maintaining frame by dictating the terms. It seems so harsh and shocking to us because we live in the culture of the "thist" where it is too offensive to have regular hand gestures. Thanks Obama!





I really don't see who the other option would be. I agree that usually it truly is a fight between "douche and turd", but I believe that this election is different. This election is critical. We are at a tipping point where we can either roll over to Feminism and Government overreach, and essentially lose our right to due process, or we can do something that gives us a chance to call out the bullshit that is taking over the world.

Can someone truly say that Hillary Clinton is the SAME as Rand Paul in the White House? It makes zero difference?

I think that we have become like caged birds. We have lived under tyranny for so long, seeing machine candidate after machine candidate put forth before us, that we do not realize that the door to our cage has come unhinged and all we have to do is push to break free. I had said the same thing about the 2014 national elections that happened in India, in which the conservatives overthrew the corrupt "liberals".


Or maybe it's all another false hope created by O'Brien, and we're going to sell out our sons as our faces are chewed up by rats.

Post: #11

I don't think the point here has to do with the worthiness of the Paul candidacy or whether he'd be better than Hillary.

The point is that the media's framing this exchange as "you can't talk to a female reporter that way!" will have a ripple effect on male-female relations in our workplaces and our personal lives if people believe their tripe. The media has replaced the church when it comes to how we judge each other's behavior.

Therefore, "you can't talk to a female reporter that way" and "mansplaining" leads to our being reprimanded at work for not putting our female co-workers on a pedestal and the women we know in our personal lives expecting more double standards (i.e. she can take your job but you still have to pay on dates).

Paul handled Guthrie as he would have anyone. Replace her in your mind with Alan Colmes or even Sean Hannity, and you get a riveting tough-guy political face-off. This is what the media should be seeing: that Paul is actually not "sexist" (a bullshit word) because he didn't kowtow to Guthrie as "a lady," but treated her as an equal.

The fact that the media puts women in jobs developed by men, then turns around a cries sexism when they're treated like the men they replaced is deeply troubling. You can't have it both ways.

This is the media equivalent of those races where they give women a head start, then expect people to think of the end result as "equal."

Post: #12

I think most people perceive him as a sell-out because they just assumed he would have similar policies to his father and then people got surprised when they realized he wasn't his father. Many neocons branded him an isolationist with no evidence and then when he confirmed himself that he wasn't an isolationist people thought that was a flip-flop?

He's described himself as being "conservatarian", which for me is nice because I land halfway between conservative and libertarian. No doubt the Ron Paul followers will be disappointed with his policies, but they fit pretty neatly in line with my own views. I think libertarian principles can solve a narrow set of problems but I don't believe in libertarianism as a philosophy.

My complaint is that Rand Paul is actually not aggressive enough. Does nobody remember Newt Gingrich? He was the only 2012 candidate to actually flip the script on leftists, hold their feet to the fire and make them answer questions about their own ideology. It's funny to witness their reactions because it's like they've never been asked these types of questions before.

Post: #13

I have not been even close to as excited about a candidate as I have been for Rand Paul. Well his father and Gary Johnson were exciting, but had no legitimate shot. Rand does have a real shot, at least at this time. If the Republicans nominate him it will be the litmus test for if our society can be saved or not. If a man cannot be president because he stands for liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, actually treats women as equals, and calls out the far left loons in the main stream media, then our country cannot be saved. TBH, with the current national debt, economic numbers, the coming economic cost of Obmaacare, and the flooding of our country with illegal aliens it may in fact be too late already. But as noted above, the 2016 election might tell us for sure which way we are heading as a society and what I will personally do with my savings/life.

I truly hope that Rand Paul treating these very rude female interviewers as they deserve to be treated excites young male voters.

Post: #14

You people do realize that none of these major politicians actually believes what they say?
The true agenda is decided behind closed doors, with input from lobbyists and major campaign donors, who sometimes receive promises of specific legislative favors, other times its a government post. The input of the average citizen is non existent on any major policy initiatives.
Then professional media manipulators go about achieving victory at any cost by pumping up their horse and kneecapping the opposing horse.
If anything is said during the course of a campaign that has any relation to fact or truth, that is merely a coincidence, the idea is to say or do whatever it takes to win.
One dollar, one vote, hooray USA!
This is all bread and circuses designed to hide the fact that this isn't a real democracy.

Post: #15

This! What women do not realize is that if we treated them with true and full equality, their lives would be so much harder and brutal. They literally wouldn't be able to hack being treated exactly the same as a man.

I was thinking about this the other day, true equality would result in the following.

- Dramatic increase in the female prison population due to their casual use of violence (pushing, slapping, throwing objects)
- The rate of violence against women would dramatically increase (think about the number of times you have not hit a woman just because she was a woman. In the same situation most of us would have no qualms about hitting a man)
- The number of women in high positions would dwindle down to an insignificant number without quotas and positive discrimination (they wouldn't be able to handle 'competitive equality')

They have the whole concept of equality upside down. Because true equality would put the vast majority of broads back in the home and the kitchen

(04-10-2015 02:34 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I don't think the point here has to do with the worthiness of the Paul candidacy or whether he'd be better than Hillary.

The point is that the media's framing this exchange as "you can't talk to a female reporter that way!" will have a ripple effect on male-female relations in our workplaces and our personal lives if people believe their tripe. The media has replaced the church when it comes to how we judge each other's behavior.

Therefore, "you can't talk to a female reporter that way" and "mansplaining" leads to our being reprimanded at work for not putting our female co-workers on a pedestal and the women we know in our personal lives expecting more double standards (i.e. she can take your job but you still have to pay on dates).

Paul handled Guthrie as he would have anyone. Replace her in your mind with Alan Colmes or even Sean Hannity, and you get a riveting tough-guy political face-off. This is what the media should be seeing: that Paul is actually not "sexist" (a bullshit word) because he didn't kowtow to Guthrie as "a lady," but treated her as an equal.

The fact that the media puts women in jobs developed by men, then turns around a cries sexism when they're treated like the men they replaced is deeply troubling. You can't have it both ways.

This is the media equivalent of those races where they give women a head start, then expect people to think of the end result as "equal."

Post: #16

Rand Paul is undoubtedly an authentic, doctrinaire libertarian deep down who is masking his real beliefs to obtain the presidency. Proof: he has questioned the very idea of antidiscrimination legislation on conventional libertarian grounds, something no conservative politician has done in decades, and it's a radical position even among conservatives. Only libertarians have the temerity nowadays to question Martin Luther King Jr.

Will Paul flop back to being a true libertarian once in office? I think he'll focus on the issues where he can be a hardcore libertarian and get support for it, or change existing policy to make it more libertarian.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04...struction/

Post: #17

I hate media and reporters who think they're more knowledgeable than anyone else just because they talk over them

Post: #18

The neocon Wall Street Democrats and neocon Wall Street Republicans and their media servants will do what they can to ensure a win/win Clinton/Bush race.

Post: #19

Every candidate of every party of every election in history has shifted towards a more mainstream image during elections. That's the purpose of a campaign, to maximize appeal and support at the national level. Obama ran as a moderate but held liberal positions, McCain and Romney held moderate positions but ran as conservatives, etc. In a country as large and ideologically diverse as the U.S., it's not cheating the system or manipulating it, it's simply playing to win.

As with game, persuasion is the art of keeping your cards hidden for benevolent reasons.

Post: #20

(04-10-2015 02:34 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The fact that the media puts women in jobs developed by men, then turns around a cries sexism when they're treated like the men they replaced is deeply troubling. You can't have it both ways.

Actually they can, and they do. I was thinking that one of the things about feminism is that it does not actually *force* equal treatment, it merely provides that as an option that women are now free to selectively apply in cases where it benefits them.

If you've ever heard the term Cafeteria Catholics, it's in reference to people who like to pick and choose which parts of Catholic Doctrine they wish to follow while still calling themselves Catholic.

Feminism has given women Cafeteria Egalitarianism where they get to pick and choose when "equal treatment" applies and when they should be treated "like a lady" for all the other times.

Post: #21

(04-10-2015 08:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Obama ran as a moderate but held liberal positions, McCain and Romney held moderate positions but ran as conservatives, etc.

Centrists, yes, but those who call for pointless wars can hardly be considered voices of moderation.

Post: #22

At least Megyn Kelly spoke some sense about the whole thing, first pointing out that you can't be a Strong Independent Woman™ while at the same time expecting preferential treatment, and later that Chuck Todd is the one being sexist for being mad that Paul didn't go easy just because it was a woman he was speaking to. Relevant stuff starts 8 minutes in.






As for Rand generally, I get that he's in a tough position with respect to balancing libertarian ideals and the reality that in this political an social climate, strict adherence to them means marginalization.

People forget that we're eye deep in SJWism and 'social democracy' (to be polite) such that the only presidents in US history that could be elected today are Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton. The rest were either too 'extremist,' too much in favor of freedom/liberty over the pretense of security, too racist, too sexist, too economically 'hawkish,' or some combination of those. Even leftist darlings like FDR, Woodrow Wilson and LBJ would be shat on today for things they said/did.

From here, we've got a few options. We can continue to either walk down that proverbial road to serfdom at the same pace, by electing Hillary, or one of the interchangeable Republicans like Jeb Bush, Christie, Walker, etc. We can start jogging and sprinting down the road by electing a hardcore leftist like Warren. Or we could stop walking, turn around and point ourselves in the right direction again. That's the max a candidate like Paul is capable of. The rest would have to be done by the culture. If there is a cultural lack of willingness to deviate from our current values, which are generally not aligned with reality, it's going to take a huge smack in the face before it changes. Paul to me, represents a chance to slow down before a smack becomes inevitable.

I actually think Paul has a good shot, if not now then in 2020, which is why the mainstream has to shit on him almost immediately. He's getting hit from all angles, which to me highlights the fact that he's someone I'd rather see than the alternatives. For now, he has to be less of a hard line libertarian in order to appease the GOP, but if he somehow wins the nomination I could see him stiffening up to present a true contrast to Hilary. The other GOP nominations are almost certainly going to employ the opposite strategy - start out as a 'Reagan Conservative' but end up as Hilary-lite by the time November hits. I'd love to see Rand in a debate with Hilary though, he'd wipe the floor with her, and then be accused of being sexist afterwards.

Post: #23

Rand Paul as it stands is the last best hope for the restoration of the Republic by means other than force of arms. He is the only candidate that would be able to create a coalition with enough Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to defeat a Hillary candidacy.

I am not quite sure if he is a pure Libertarian like his father and has modified his positions simply to play the game and win, or if he is more of a Conservative-Libertarian. It means little either way though, he is the only candidate that speaks openly of liberty, the Constitution, personal responsibility, and a free market. He is the one person who might actually be able to stem the tide of progressivism and actually perhaps begin the long struggle to roll it back. Worst case scenario if he wins is that he is assassinated, in which case we have a martyr .

Electing a Democrat is only going to hasten the death of the Republic, electing a mainstream Republican is only going to mean we get a slightly slower ride into hell.

Post: #24

This might be too far back, but does anyone else remember the interview between Bush Senior and Dan Rather back in the 80s, when Rather tried to bully Bush and Bush wouldn't put up with his shit? And he stopped Dan Rather in his tracks with the line:

Quote:'I want to talk about why I want to be President,'' Mr. Bush said, his voice rising. ''It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?''

You want to see a caustic interview between men, here's one.





Ironically, this interview actually helped Bush in the polls at the time. It made him look strong, like he wouldn't shrink from confrontation, which was important at the time because he was perceived as a wimp by the public.

Of course it doesn't work this way with women, does it? When you won't put up with their bullshit, the public doesn't say you look stronger, instead they say you look like a bully.

Post: #25

delete