Ron Paul Got Owned By Bill O

[max]

Reality check...


When you concede points to your adversary that should not be conceded...you will lose.

RP let Bill O get away with several false statements that he should have refuted:

1. Iran is not supporting terrorists.
2. Iran is not killing US troops
3. Iran is NOT building nuke weapons
4. Iran's president NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the map"...(that was exposed as a deliberate mistranslation.

RP let Bill O get away with creating that false foundation...then he came off like a typical politician dodging a question when he says..."What about the saudis?...What about pakistan?"

Worst of all was when he said..."Iran is still 10 years away?"...WHAT??? that sounds like he's saying, "Let's cross that bridge when we get there."...Iran has NO desire to build nukes now or in the future....They just want an energy program...do some research and you'll see that.

He had three days to prepare for these cliches...Why couldnt he say:

"Bill, the very same lies that were used to get us into Iraq are now being used to get us into an even bigger disaster in Iran. The WMD's lie...the threat to Israel lie...the ties to Al qaeda lies. The American people wont be fooled again. Iran is not building nukes. Iran is not funding terrorists. Give me some proof Bill"...or something like that...

Why does RP concede to faulty points and thus paint himself into a hole????

I was very disappointed...I'm sorry...but thats the truth. If RP keeps playing nice-nice these neo-cons will eat him alive.

[Elwar]

I watched the show and all I could think was, Ron Paul held his own on Bill O'Reilly's turf. Bill made his points, Ron made his.

With a few million viewers, the fact that Ron Paul got his points out is huge.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul did very well.

Bill O'Reilly might have been the bully and the loudest, but Ron Paul reached the hearts of the people.

People will be asking: Who is Ron Paul?

[themanhere]

Ron Paul did very well.

Bill O'Reilly might have been the bully and the loudest, but Ron Paul reached the hearts of the people.

People will be asking: Who is Ron Paul?

I agree RON DID AWESOME!

[max]

Ron Paul did very well.

Bill O'Reilly might have been the bully and the loudest, but Ron Paul reached the hearts of the people.

People will be asking: Who is Ron Paul?

You are not being objective...it seemed to u like he did well because u KNOW o'reilly is full of shit...

to an uninitiated viewer...RP made no sense because he conceded to Oreilly false assumptions ...rather than challenging a SINGLE ONE of them

[Bossobass]

Max,

I'm disappointed that you see any merit in appearing on the show at all, much less convincing BO or any of his audience of much of anything.

Waste of time. Wouldn't have mattered what RP said. If he had said any of the things you suggest, BO would just shout him down and kill his mic.

It's the dolt hour. Always has been, always will be. Don't know what RP was thinking.

Bosso

[Harry96]

This segment reminded me of why I normally never watch O'Reilley: It's not because I disagree with him so often; it's because I don't like listening to people yell and because he's such a bully who constantly talks over his guests and refuses to let them make their points.

It was obvious from the look on his face that RP was close to losing his temper a couple of times when O'Reilley kept cutting him off, but he didn't. I commend him for keeping his cool.

[Original_Intent]

You are not being objective...it seemed to u like he did well because u KNOW o'reilly is full of shit...

to an uninitiated viewer...RP made no sense because he conceded to Oreilly false assumptions ...rather than challenging a SINGLE ONE of them

I will call you out on this false assumption...he did challenge Bill on his past support for Afghanistan, he argued against many points that Bill made.

I agree that probably not a lot of BO fans were won over - what do you expect? But RP did a great job of getting his POV out there, as it gets out there, more and more people will start to question the "conventional wisdom".

[Nathan Hale]

it's true. O'Reilly controlled the conversation too much. Paul never got to make an argument, and O'Reilly spun Paul around a few times, most notably when he accused Paul of ducking the question, and Paul responded by launching into his stump speech about Al Qaeda.

You could see it when Paul went in. He had that tight-lipped frown and looked very tense. He was the perfect target for somebody looking to make him lose control. A better approach would have been to be calm, wait a second after O'Reilly stops speaking before replying, and then answering in a calm manner. Simply doing that changes everything.

[lucius]

Max,

I'm disappointed that you see any merit in appearing on the show at all, much less convincing BO or any of his audience of much of anything.

Waste of time. Wouldn't have mattered what RP said. If he had said any of the things you suggest, BO would just shout him down and kill his mic.

It's the dolt hour. Always has been, always will be. Don't know what RP was thinking.

Bosso

Well put and some free tv face-time!

Let this thread die-off

[joshdvm]

1. Iran is not supporting terrorists.
2. Iran is not killing US troops
3. Iran is NOT building nuke weapons
4. Iran's president NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the map"...(that was exposed as a deliberate mistranslation.

I think RP was willing to let BO beg the question on these points, because his larger point was the main reason for the threats we face to national security is the flawed interventionist foreign policy.

On that note, I think RP had BO CORNERED and could have SKEWERED him after BO said, "if you think if we withdraw off the Gulf...there's not going to be any more terrorism, then YOU"RE living in the dream land..."

Unfortunately, BO wiggled out when Ron let himself get sidetracked (I can hardly blame him, though) by BO's spurious Afghanistan comment, and the interview went a little downhill from there. But RP ALMOST, owned BO.

[max]

Max,

I'm disappointed that you see any merit in appearing on the show at all, much less convincing BO or any of his audience of much of anything.

Waste of time. Wouldn't have mattered what RP said. If he had said any of the things you suggest, BO would just shout him down and kill his mic.

It's the dolt hour. Always has been, always will be. Don't know what RP was thinking.

Bosso

i understand...but this wasnt the first time that RP has coneeded points which need to be challenged...he needs to stop agreeing with these people when they say iran is building nukes, funding terrorists etc....

id u concede to the false assumptions....then your credibility is undermined when you say we should come home..

the iranian leader is NOT a madman....he wrote an open letter to the american people PLEADING with us for peace and dialogue...

RP should carry a copy and read from it...If the neo-cons get away with portraying the Iranian president as satan....his arguments for coming off will not sound credible..

Ya cant give these bastards an inch!

[Nash]

You are not being objective...it seemed to u like he did well because u KNOW o'reilly is full of shit...

to an uninitiated viewer...RP made no sense because he conceded to Oreilly false assumptions ...rather than challenging a SINGLE ONE of them

I think he did Ok. It certainly wasn't a bad interview. He could have done better but he was able to get his points across.

Bill kinda bucked him a bit when he brought up Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Paul had a point but Bill was right he was kinda avoiding the Iran issue. They are related of course but RP should have basically answered it straight up.

At the same time RP made a very good point about how our presence over there fuels their hatred and Bill had nothing to rebuttal with. Score a point there. RP also pointed out that nation building should not be something we pursue and O'reilly had nothing to come back with. Score a point there. Finally RP said we need to look out for our own National Security and defend ourselves and that came off well also.

RP is not a great debater on television but he's not a bad one either.

[RevolutionSD]

You've obviously never seen the Bill O'reilly factor if you think he "owned" RP.

This is what BO does- lists off a bunch of points and barely gives his opponent time to answer to 1 of them.

Ron did fine and this interview/hit piece should come as no surprise.

[Mordechai Vanunu]

Ron did fine, he just didn't play along with Bill's obnoxiousness.

[Dary]

Paul makes the point that the reformers are trying to gain control of Iran and we are about to attack them, which would cause an outcome that would directly contradict our national security interests.

This is perfectly true.

Paul says that the invasion of Iraq has helped Iran and BO says that may or may not be true.

Bullshit. Of course it's true. Bush has created a Shia theocracy in Iraq and that can only benefit one party.

Iran

BO says that the U.S. didn’t have anything to do with the Israel war in Lebanon last summer.

Bullshit again. Where did Israel get the bombs that they were using to decimate Lebanon? That's right. The U.S. Bought and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

BO says that withdrawing from the mid east would give Iran card blanch to do anything that they want in the region.

No. It doesn’t give them anything. If that is what happens, it isn’t because the U.S. gave them anything.

But even if they did do something, what the hell business is it of ours?

Paul makes the point that the Neo-Cons want to revamp the entire area and spread the war and that is what is causing the rise in Al-Qaeda membership and that is what is threatening our national security.

Again, perfectly true.

As soon as Paul points out that the U.S. was allied with Sadam in his war with Iran, BO cuts him off. Can't let that cat out of the bag now can you Bill.

BO thinks that mutual assured destruction is a thing of the past. If anything is a thing of the past Bill its you and the OM.

BO says that it’s the policy of Iran to eliminate Israel. Actually Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran, nor does he control its foreign or military policy. The man in charge is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Guardian Council.

Bill says that it is the policy of Iran to attack the U.S.A. Again, bullshit. I'm sure it is Iran’s policy to defend itself and would hit back if the U.S. attacks. But so would we if someone attacked us.

Paul makes the point that our policy of preemptive invasion is what threatens or national security. Paul never said that there wouldn’t be terrorism if the U.S. withdrew from the Gulf. BO's attempt to smear Paul by saying that he is living in the land of OZ was not only rude, but ignorant.

Then again, we are talking about BO so what should one expect?

Ron Paul owned BO. No doubt about it.

[max]

You've obviously never seen the Bill O'reilly factor if you think he "owned" RP.

This is what BO does- lists off a bunch of points and barely gives his opponent time to answer to 1 of them.

Ron did fine and this interview/hit piece should come as no surprise.

RP should never have allowed Bil O's false accustaion of Iran to go unchallenged...These neo-cons make claims and no one calls them on it...

You have to nip the adversary's argument in the bud...u cannot allow an opponent to get away with a false foundation...

there is ZERO evidence of an Iranian nuke program and of an Iranian link to "terrorism".....That should have been challenged ON THE SPOT and the whole debate could be redirected

[skilt]

Reality check...


When you concede points to your adversary that should not be conceded...you will lose.

RP let Bill O get away with several false statements that he should have refuted:

1. Iran is not supporting terrorists.
2. Iran is not killing US troops
3. Iran is NOT building nuke weapons
4. Iran's president NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the map"...(that was exposed as a deliberate mistranslation.

RP let Bill O get away with creating that false foundation...then he came off like a typical politician dodging a question when he says..."What about the saudis?...What about pakistan?"

Worst of all was when he said..."Iran is still 10 years away?"...WHAT??? that sounds like he's saying, "Let's cross that bridge when we get there."...Iran has NO desire to build nukes now or in the future....They just want an energy program...do some research and you'll see that.

He had three days to prepare for these cliches...Why couldnt he say:

"Bill, the very same lies that were used to get us into Iraq are now being used to get us into an even bigger disaster in Iran. The WMD's lie...the threat to Israel lie...the ties to Al qaeda lies. The American people wont be fooled again. Iran is not building nukes. Iran is not funding terrorists. Give me some proof Bill"...or something like that...

Why does RP concede to faulty points and thus paint himself into a hole????

I was very disappointed...I'm sorry...but thats the truth. If RP keeps playing nice-nice these neo-cons will eat him alive.



Why didn't he say this, and why didn't he say that - were you watching the same interview I was watching. He didn't hardly get to say anything. And how the fuck can you get owned when you aren't even given the courtesy of more then five words in your answers. So, you want to be objective, then be objective. Was the interview the best possible scenario for RP to get elected, hell no; but I don't think anyone expected it to be so. He was invited to be "interviewed" so he could be a prop for BO to dissimenate his views on going into IRAN. That's not getting owned. What the patriots did to the jets yesterday - that's getting owned.

Sk

[Zydeco]

RP got owned? Give me a break. O'Reilly is a tool who doesn't let his guests finish a sentence.

Remember O'Reilly is the guy who said "If there turn out to be no WMDs in Iraq I'll eat my hat."

Hope the felt tastes good.

[fletcher]

Another dumb thread from max. Couldn't you just post your opinion in one of the many other O'Reilly threads?

[SewrRatt]

When the host tells 10 lies in 10 seconds and gives you 3 seconds to begin to refute them before yelling at you and changing the subject, only an idiot would accuse you of conceding the point. Ron did awesome and anyone watching who got any impression other than "O'Reilly's a jackass and Ron Paul is a badass" is immune to rationality anyway, would never be on our side regardless, and won't vote against us because they're apathetic sacks who don't even believe strongly in their terrified emotional convictions.

[LibertyEagle]

Another dumb thread from max. Couldn't you just post your opinion in one of the many other O'Reilly threads?

Honestly, I don't know why he's doing this. Why start a bunch of threads to do nothing but slam Dr. Paul's performance tonight? I mean, what's the purpose? Is it somehow going to help Dr. Paul do it differently next time? :rolleyes:

[Hook]

Why don't BillOs guests just say "If you won't let me answer your questions, then you are just wasting my time". And then walk off the set in mid-interview?

[JS4Pat]

Reality check...


When you concede points to your adversary that should not be conceded...you will lose.

RP let Bill O get away with several false statements that he should have refuted:

1. Iran is not supporting terrorists.
2. Iran is not killing US troops
3. Iran is NOT building nuke weapons
4. Iran's president NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the map"...(that was exposed as a deliberate mistranslation.

RP let Bill O get away with creating that false foundation...then he came off like a typical politician dodging a question when he says..."What about the saudis?...What about pakistan?"

Worst of all was when he said..."Iran is still 10 years away?"...WHAT??? that sounds like he's saying, "Let's cross that bridge when we get there."...Iran has NO desire to build nukes now or in the future....They just want an energy program...do some research and you'll see that.

He had three days to prepare for these cliches...Why couldnt he say:

"Bill, the very same lies that were used to get us into Iraq are now being used to get us into an even bigger disaster in Iran. The WMD's lie...the threat to Israel lie...the ties to Al qaeda lies. The American people wont be fooled again. Iran is not building nukes. Iran is not funding terrorists. Give me some proof Bill"...or something like that...

Why does RP concede to faulty points and thus paint himself into a hole????

I was very disappointed...I'm sorry...but thats the truth. If RP keeps playing nice-nice these neo-cons will eat him alive.

I agree. This was a missed opportunity. (But really how many people get the best of Billo on his show?)

One thing I would suggest is not arguing over whether Iran is 1, 2 or 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. That is a waste of time and misses the bigger point. Who are we to threaten a sovereign nation militarily because they are acquiring weaponry to defend themselves? And how about the hypocricy? North Korea? Pakistan?

[rich34]

Personally, I thought Ron did a pretty good job. Ron was limited with time he couldn't refute everything Bill said, or he wouldn't have even got his own talking points in.

[lost_in_samoa]

..

[Mastiff]

It did seem to me like RP was ducking the question about Iran developing nukes and handing them off to terrorists. Is it a threat or not? If not, why not? BO actually did have a point that Russia was not the same kind of animal.

RP came off well though, except where he temporarily lost it on the Afghanistan point.

[SewrRatt]

It did seem to me like RP was ducking the question about Iran developing nukes and handing them off to terrorists. Is it a threat or not? If not, why not? BO actually did have a point that Russia was not the same kind of animal.

RP came off well though, except where he temporarily lost it on the Afghanistan point.

There are many countries that could be giving nukes to terrorists, but none of them are, and Iran is only considered more likely to do so because it's currently (and therefore always has been) the target of the two-minute hate. Also because we've been fucking them and their neighbors over for decades.

[Pete Kay]

This was Ron Paul's big opportunity. Bill O'Reily has a large viewership and Ron Paul could had made a big impression with strong answers but instead he came off as wishy washy with his answers. It actually stung me to see Ron Paul do so poorly because I know that he can do much better. He started off good but was completely derailed by Bill.

When Bill asked him why he isn't afraid of Iran, he should had said something along the lines of, "Of course I am not afraid of Iran. We are the United States of America! The most powerful nation on earth. Why should we be afraid of this 3rd world country?" He's made those statements in the past and he should have made them tonight. A statement like that directly appeals to the American's sense of pride and trumps the fear mongering that Neo-cons are constantly spewing.

I love Ron Paul, but I can't deny that moments like tonight do not fill me with hope for his campaign. All it takes is one public mess up to destroy your whole campaign. Look what happened to Howard Dean.

I can only hope that the 60 Minutes piece portrays him in a positiev light.

[FluffyUnbound]

It did seem to me like RP was ducking the question about Iran developing nukes and handing them off to terrorists. Is it a threat or not? If not, why not? BO actually did have a point that Russia was not the same kind of animal.

RP came off well though, except where he temporarily lost it on the Afghanistan point.

This nonsequitur of a threat is trotted out periodically by dumbasses who read too many Tom Clancy novels, and it's absolutely absurd.

A nuclear weapon is considered the ticket to first-class power status and often represents the culmination of years or decades of effort and expense. For a smaller nation, it's also the best guarantee possible of the security of the state. The idea that a country would GIVE ONE to random criminals is ludicrous. We have no evidence that any nuclear nation has ever given a nuclear weapon away, and aren't likely to ever encounter such an episode. Given the routine betrayal, double-cross, conflicting loyalties, etc. inherent in terrorist groups, the Iranians would have no way of knowing that the bomb they "handed off" wouldn't be used against THEM.

Iran has no history of aggression against its neighbors. Such limited aggression as they undertook against the US never went further than the city limit of Tehran. We have much, much more reason to be worried that Israel might use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East than we have to be worried about Iran.

[Paulitician]

I don't feel as if anyone got "owned." I believe Ron Paul could have shot down every single point Bill O' made if he was given the time. What's more improtant though is that Ron Paul rolled with the punches fairly well and the overall feeling of the "lively debate" was neutral. I mean, at least Bill O' didn't go into full-on attack mode, as he could have. I guess we'll know his true feelings about the exhange tomorrow or something.

[CMoore]

I think Dr. Paul did GREAT!!!!

He knew what he was going into. He knew what kind of an interviewer Bill is.

What he did was take advantage of huge exposure to get his message out.
He talked right past O'Reilly. True it turned into a shouting match, but I could tell Dr. Paul was trying to speak directly to the American People in a venue that was large enough to make it worth his while. O'Reilly was merely a foil. He may as well not have been there at all. He only served to try to block what Dr. Paul had to say.

Remember 70% of the American People are against this war. If 100% of the American People can hear Dr. Paul, it is pretty safe to assume that approximately 70% of them will support him since he is basically the ONLY anti-war candidate in either party. He was preaching to the choir tonight and it was one of the biggest choirs to date. There may be some anti-war folks who will not support him, but anyone who is seriously against the war is going to at least take a look at him. But first they have to actually be exposed to him.

[dircha]

This was Ron Paul's big opportunity. Bill O'Reily has a large viewership and Ron Paul could had made a big impression with strong answers but instead he came off as wishy washy with his answers. It actually stung me to see Ron Paul do so poorly because I know that he can do much better. He started off good but was completely derailed by Bill.

When Bill asked him why he isn't afraid of Iran, he should had said something along the lines of, "Of course I am not afraid of Iran. We are the United States of America! The most powerful nation on earth. Why should we be afraid of this 3rd world country?" He's made those statements in the past and he should have made them tonight. A statement like that directly appeals to the American's sense of pride and trumps the fear mongering that Neo-cons are constantly spewing.

I love Ron Paul, but I can't deny that moments like tonight do not fill me with hope for his campaign. All it takes is one public mess up to destroy your whole campaign. Look what happened to Howard Dean.

I can only hope that the 60 Minutes piece portrays him in a positiev light.

I agree that Paul was not on top of his game. It doesn't do anyone any good to, on a forum like this, come in and pretend that our candidate is in the position he needs to be in to win the nomination. He is not, and just as Dr. Paul says, so long as we fail to understand our mistakes, we will continue making them.

That said, Bill was incredibly charitable to Ron. Anyone suggesting that Bill "owned" Ron hasn't seen what it is to be bullied by Big O. I'm talking shouting, threatening, red in the face, and cutting mics off. Paul came off well, but unfortunately not revolutionary.

It wasn't a bad showing, but Dr. Paul failed to present the message in a charismatic and winning way. And this is an audience that desperately needs to hear it. His body language speaks for itself. Stating the facts isn't enough to win on the national level. It is about message, and it is about presentation. It isn't enough to tell the people the facts and ask them to draw their own conclusion. You must give the people something to believe in, and you must draw them to join you in your belief by through own personal charisma and by appealing to your shared values.

[constituent]

It would have been a mistake for Rep. Paul to buck heads w/ Bill O'Reilly. He tried once and got shouted down so he did exactly what he needed to do...

gotta think about the psychology of your typical fox viewer...

when their 'liberal' son, grandson, niece, nephew comes over
talking about ron paul and steps over the line for the company
they are in... .the vibe gets rough and everyone wants out of
the room...

ask people what it is like the first time they discuss the FDA or
Federal Reserve in polite company... just incase you've gotten
comfortable and forgotten that feeling.

if fox can make a tense, shouting match interview, they will
succeed in perpetuating that emotional (even pavlovian) response
to the name Ron Paul, or any of the issues that he wants to
discuss...

then commercials won't sell them, you won't sell them, and most
importantly...

fox will.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, but there's nothing "liberal" about Dr. Paul.

[Ozwest]

I've got to agree with max. We all know Ron has the solutions and would win any debate given the time but regretably, debates have digressed into "sound bites"and sparring sessions with the interviewer. Bill O'Reilly rules in this format and Ron should have expected nothing less than he got. - The questions he received should have been anticipated considering the current topics and he should have rehearsed short snappy rebuttals. He was unprepared and paid the price. - One battle does not win the war and this is the first battle of many Ron Paul will have with Mr. O'Reilly. Beware the wounded Lion Mr. O'Reilly!

[huchahucha]

I just watched it again. My initial reaction was that RP did fine. Upon the second viewing I think he did really good. I mean he didn't knock it out of the park or anything, but he held his own and he made Bill concede that some of his points were more debatable than time would allow, proving that he is not a kook and there is depth to what he is saying. I got the impression that Bill started holding back on his shouting. That probably seems unlikely if you never watch his show. If he has a guest on that is spouting pure nonsense he will have no problem burying them by yelling. If a guest is making points then he will allow openings to keep the debate rolling while still keeping over all control of the situation. The fact that RP got to speak all the way into the music marking the commercial break shows a small sign of respect for RP.

[constituent]

Ok, but there's nothing "liberal" about Dr. Paul.

i thought that went w/out saying :)

[Elwar]

So...of the extra 200 or so people who came to this forum, most of them new, were welcomed to an active thread titled "Ron Paul gets Owned by Bill O".

Then you open the thread and it's not as bad as the title shows.

But how many people actually read the thread and how many potential RP supporters just saw that and said...I guess even Ron Paul's supporters think he's done, what am I wasting my time on him for.

Not saying they're all sheep, but they have some learning to do about Ron Paul...he's much more than a 4 minute clip on some neo-con's show.

Let this tread die...start a new thread to talk about the interview...whatever. Just don't make the title so damned misleading.

(I will not be checking back to this thread, I will be posting on other threads until this one rolls off the front page. I suggest you do the same. No need to respond.)

[max]

So...of the extra 200 or so people who came to this forum, most of them new, were welcomed to an active thread titled "Ron Paul gets Owned by Bill O".

Then you open the thread and it's not as bad as the title shows.

But how many people actually read the thread and how many potential RP supporters just saw that and said...I guess even Ron Paul's supporters think he's done, what am I wasting my time on him for.

Not saying they're all sheep, but they have some learning to do about Ron Paul...he's much more than a 4 minute clip on some neo-con's show.

Let this tread die...start a new thread to talk about the interview...whatever. Just don't make the title so damned misleading.

(I will not be checking back to this thread, I will be posting on other threads until this one rolls off the front page. I suggest you do the same. No need to respond.)

they open the thread and saw how i dismantled orielly's bullshit.....how is that bad for rp?

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I have never been particularly impressed with Ron's debate skills. He is always on the defensive.

[dantheman]

It was hard for Ron Paul to get a word in edge wise since Bill O took to his old tactics of asking a question and then as soon as the person disagrees with him, he starts yelling all his talking points. Bill O has been doing this for years and I thought Ron Paul would have been better prepared for this, but he did the best he could. Unfortunately Bill O's fans are thinking Ron Paul is an idiot right now b/c any time Bill O yells at his guests they think he's making people like Ron Paul look like idiots. I don't really know if anything good or bad will come for this but perhaps it'll get Ron Paul's attention as to why he finally needs to start putting even more passion in to what he says.

[constituent]

I have never been particularly impressed with Ron's debate skills. He is always on the defensive.

that's why he needs to master the strategic retreat...

it seems that he's been working on it lately, honing his skills.
someone like bill o' you have to let them step over the line...

people statistically turn anyone off after something like three
sentences, so if you just sit there and let him ramble, people
will turn him off until the are simply frustrated that he is
still talking.

then, you wait and let him grasp at straws b/c there is nothing
worse than dead air and to maintain his pace he switched from
a concrete question to some sort of broad-brushed statement
or ... sometimes they'll put a little bow on it in the form of a rhetorical
question...

usually they'll muck up their facts first and then it's all an issue of
listening skills and timing, and throwing in a Now Bill... at the first
vocal cue (read any college level text on linguistics and you'll
be a master).

Ron Paul made the best out of a no win/full-tilt spin situation...

congratulations to Ron Paul!

[Slugg]

Ron Paul made the best out of a no win/full-tilt spin situation...

congratulations to Ron Paul!

I hate to bump a thread that has such a nasty title, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

[BillyDkid]

it's true. O'Reilly controlled the conversation too much. Paul never got to make an argument, and O'Reilly spun Paul around a few times, most notably when he accused Paul of ducking the question, and Paul responded by launching into his stump speech about Al Qaeda.

You could see it when Paul went in. He had that tight-lipped frown and looked very tense. He was the perfect target for somebody looking to make him lose control. A better approach would have been to be calm, wait a second after O'Reilly stops speaking before replying, and then answering in a calm manner. Simply doing that changes everything.
Well, anyone who goes on BO's show should know that his mission and goal is to discredit in any way possible anyone he disagrees with. That is his whole thing. My feeling is that is was a risk to go on the show - it is little other than a bully pulpit for self-agrandizing blowhard who's primary intention is to belittle people for ratings.

[CodeMonkey]

Reality check...


When you concede points to your adversary that should not be conceded...you will lose.

RP let Bill O get away with several false statements that he should have refuted:

1. Iran is not supporting terrorists.
2. Iran is not killing US troops
3. Iran is NOT building nuke weapons
4. Iran's president NEVER said he wanted to "wipe Israel of the map"...(that was exposed as a deliberate mistranslation.

RP let Bill O get away with creating that false foundation...then he came off like a typical politician dodging a question when he says..."What about the saudis?...What about pakistan?"

The statements you point out as "false" are not so... 1, 2, and 3 are debatable, and 4 may be false in the context of that one quote but it's clear that they aren't too fond of Israel (Israel's regime actually but Bill O's audience doesn't know the difference).

Paul did a great job of appealing to typical Fox News viewers by reaffirming their beliefs that the Iranian government are bad people, but explaining that our current course is only making them stronger. He came off as strong on defense, only with a different strategy.

I do agree that it looked like he was dodging the question when he starts bringing up Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when asked about Iraq. I think he would have tied it together with Iran if given the chance to speak, but since Bill kept cutting him off before he got there, it looked like he was merely diverting attention.

[micahnelson]

The statements you point out as "false" are not so... 1, 2, and 3 are debatable, and 4 may be false in the context of that one quote but it's clear that they aren't too fond of Israel (Israel's regime actually but Bill O's audience doesn't know the difference).


I responded to the assertions from Bill here http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=115

[Magsec]

I have never been particularly impressed with Ron's debate skills. He is always on the defensive.

That's how a real Christian debates though, from what I've seen...

[Elwar]

And this thread pops its ugly head back up...

what a great title

[stones88]

O'Reilly fans weren't going to vote Paul anyway. To a normal person and viewer, Paul made two important points. Saudis account for many(over 50%) of the suicide attacks in Iraq and Pakistan - the country harboring Bin Laden - has nukes.

Paul should have said Hezbollah has no means to attack us, do they have their own navy or airforce? No. And Al Qaeda (sunnis) hate Iran (Shias).

Paul needs to stress the point that muslims in the Mid East hate terrorism and terrorists too. The Anbar province is evident of this.

[winston84]

Worst of all was when he said..."Iran is still 10 years away?"...WHAT??? that sounds like he's saying, "Let's cross that bridge when we get there."...Iran has NO desire to build nukes now or in the future....They just want an energy program...do some research and you'll see that.



lol, you actually think its for energy purposes. "Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and third in oil reserves." A 3rd world country like Iran is not investing in nuclear power for energy, sorry. They are not a direct threat now and even if they did had nuclear capability they may still not be a direct threat, but I'm not as foolish to think that they are building nuclear facilities for energy purposes.

[SewrRatt]

lol, you actually think its for energy purposes. "Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and third in oil reserves." A 3rd world country like Iran is not investing in nuclear power for energy, sorry. They are not a direct threat now and even if they did had nuclear capability they may still not be a direct threat, but I'm not as foolish to think that they are building nuclear facilities for energy purposes.

Iran would be foolish not to develop nuclear energy. When fossil fuel reserves start running out and prices skyrocket, Iran will not be able to afford its own natural gas or oil and without alternative energy it will crumble, and it will do so far faster than rich 1st-world countries.

[bhayl]

I watched it for a second time this morning on TiVo and I don't think he did as bad as my initial impression was last night. It could have been better, sure, for various reasons that have been mentioned in this thread and others but I wouldn't go so far as to say he got 'owned'. Bill did introduce him as a presidential candidate and did give him the (rather lengthy) last word. I'd say it was an average O'Reilly interview.

[Kuldebar]

Other nations are not ruled by complete idiots, having nuclear weapons is about the one sure guarantee that the United States will leave you alone.

We don't invade countries that have a working nuke weapon program. As Paul said, Iran is acting logically.

[max]

Israel has hundreds of nukes and has openly threatened its neighors...

nobody complains about that though....because that would be "anti-semitic"

[undergroundrr]

"A 3rd world country like Iran is not investing in nuclear power for energy, sorry."

No, the US invested in it for them -

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/nuke-miles.htm

[Original_Intent]

Other nations are not ruled by complete idiots, having nuclear weapons is about the one sure guarantee that the United States will leave you alone.

We don't invade countries that have a working nuke weapon program. As Paul said, Iran is acting logically.

Yep remember how North Korea was characterized as "crazy" and "we can't let them get nukes becuase they are actually crazy enough to use them!"

You don't hear much of that talk since they actually got them, do you? And Wow! we haven't been nuked and Japan and South Korea haven't been nuked.

I think it is funny they talk about countries that are CRAZY enough to actually use nukes, and yet WE are the only ones that have actually met the criteria.

[Akus]

I was just thinking.

Ron Paul usually does awesome, but the more I think about Bill O'Reilly vs. Ron Paul debate, the more I think he terribly tank.

First of all, assuming max is right on his points, Ron Paul should have stopped leprecaun on his tracks if he was spilling false info.
Second, if Ron Paul felt that he was badgered or otherwise verbally assaulted, he should have firmly stated that Bill O'Reilly is engaging in dishonest tactics and he has no intention to yell over people, because the terrorism is a serious issue. And if O'Reilly persisted on not letting him finish or misquoting him, he should have stood up and walked out.

That would give me an impression, were I a casual observer who has never heard of RP, that RP is tough and takes shit from no one. That is not an impression I got. He looked intimidatable and easy to bully around.

That's just my observation.

[Revolution9]

lol, you actually think its for energy purposes. "Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and third in oil reserves." A 3rd world country like Iran is not investing in nuclear power for energy, sorry. They are not a direct threat now and even if they did had nuclear capability they may still not be a direct threat, but I'm not as foolish to think that they are building nuclear facilities for energy purposes.

Its minerals and oil are the prime source of revenue. If they use reactors then they make that much more money on their oil output. Now..just how foolish are you? Did you know that Iran is one of two countries wthout a Rothschild controlled central bank. They are also not using USD to do oil transactions, cutting out the FedRes families from their middleman skimmer access. Now..how foolish are you again?

Randy