Roger Ebert on Ron Paul

[paulaholic]

It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “*****!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling.

As a amateur movie critic, Roger Ebert is one of my heroes, as is Ron Paul, of course. Hearing one of them acknowledge the other was pretty cool.

What ignorant comments has Ron made about homosexuals? Roger is a liberal and probably assumes this of Paul solely because of the (R) next to his name.

That being said, if Ron really did say "*****" after the interview, that was a very stupid thing to do.

[Golding]

It's interesting to see people critical of behavior that they would probably also do in the same situation. I'm confused what the problem is if he said "That guy's a *****"? Isn't the Bruno character supposed to be *****?

Is it not nice to say *****? Should he have said, "That guy is gay"? "That guy is homosexual"? "That guy is a male who has sex with males?" That last one legitimately seems to be the popular push in college classes nowadays, actually.

I was in a microbiology class where a guy said the term "homosexual" is offensive, and that "gay" was more preferred. I would have thought it'd be the other way around. Hard to keep the lingo straight when you're being groped by one, I'd imagine.

[Sandra]

But even when a homosexual is accosted by another man, he'll shout "you *****!" It's an uninvited attack.

[StayTrue]

I think the word ***** is semi-accepted and not as offensive as ***.

***** can be mean weird

[Sandra]

Paulaholic, you aren't aware that Bruno is not looked upon kindly by the gay community.

[Arklatex]

He didn't call him a name, he said a phrase, as the blazes i think.

[rp4prez]

any word you use could be considered "bad" depending on who is saying the word is "bad" IMO

[gls]

Roger Ebert is full of shit as usual. He's just another worthless icon of the dying corporate media complex.

[Liberty Star]

Sexual orientation of that Cohen idiot doesn't matter but question arises whe why did he not setup McCain, Lieberman or any of the neocon, pro Israeli occupation politicians?


Edit:
Ebirt is being an idiot. Did anyone ask Bruno Cohen if he found any term offensive? Since he has had some training in Israel or is partially Israeli, could he have seen it as a compliment actually considering the popularity of the discussed term among homsexual community in holy land that it seem to wear it as badge of honor?


http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/picture/17
http://www.*****uption.org/q2006/images/scketch_small.jpg

http://www.*****uption.org/q2006/images/flayer.JPG


http://www.jewishmosaic.org/torah/show_torah
http://www.*****uption.org/q2006/nologo.html

[Chester Copperpot]

Fuck you Roger Ebert... Lay off the fatty foods you planetarium fuck

[sparebulb]

If ***** are proud of what they do/who they are, why are they so offended when the obvious is pointed out?

[Sandman33]

It's interesting to see people critical of behavior that they would probably also do in the same situation. I'm confused what the problem is if he said "That guy's a *****"? Isn't the Bruno character supposed to be *****?

Is it not nice to say *****? Should he have said, "That guy is gay"? "That guy is homosexual"? "That guy is a male who has sex with males?" That last one legitimately seems to be the popular push in college classes nowadays, actually.

I was in a microbiology class where a guy said the term "homosexual" is offensive, and that "gay" was more preferred. I would have thought it'd be the other way around. Hard to keep the lingo straight when you're being groped by one, I'd imagine.

He should have said "IS THAT GUY A BUTTFUCKING BROWNIE POUNDING ASSGOBBLER?" Kidding of course but this is just stupid.

Really though...this P.C. bullshit is WAY out of hand. The gay show is called ***** Eye for the Straight Guy right? But now the world ***** is offensive?:rolleyes:

Well dig the sand out of your manginas and deal with it.

[paulaholic]

I sent the following e-mail to Roger:

Dear Mr. Ebert,

As an aspiring movie critic, I have long regarded you as one of my heroes. As a libertarian, I feel the same way about Congressman Ron Paul. Naturally, I was thrilled to see one of you acknowledge the other in your "Bruno" review. But as you may suspect, I took issue with the way in which you characterized him.

Ron Paul has held steadfast to the position that marriage should not be interfered with by the state, and supports any free association between two people. He has also been quoted as saying, "we don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way." Although his personal opinion of homosexuality may differ from his political opinion, it is inaccurate to label his statements "intolerant". His position, which is to allow all people equal rights and equal treatment, regardless of how he may about their lifestyles, is the very definition of tolerance.

Thank you for your time. I hope I have helped to clear up this issue. I have really been enjoying your movie reviews; the opportunity to read your work has instilled in me a greater appreciation of both film and writing. I look forward to reading more great reviews throughout the summer movie season!

And please, stop with the immature comments about him. He's not some kind of status-quo-perpetuating political stooge. He reviews movies. And that's all.

[jmdrake]

Roger Ebert, you suck. You want to hear so called "intolerant" language towards gays? Read the statements from the Obama administration comparing homosexuality to incest.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

All Paul has said on the issue is that marriage should be left up to the states and that gay marriage should not be imposed by congress, federal judges or state judges. He introduced legislation to keep federal judges from hearing the issue and said that if he were a state legislature he would try to keep state judges from imposing gay marriage against the will of the people. He doesn't have to invoke specter of incest to get his point across. He just invokes the constitution.

So why would Ebert attack Paul like this? Because he doesn't pander to the gay community. He's not running around saying repeal the DOMA. (He actually supports it). He's also not pushing for this evil "hate crimes" bill that so many on the left (including radical gay groups) want. That bill, if passed, will curtail EVERYBODY'S speech. (Well I'm sure losers like Ebert will be able to continue.)

Really, anyone stupid enough not to vote for Dr. Paul based on his reaction to that sick and disgusting stunt deserves whatever hellish government they end up getting.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[SovereignMN]

***** is not an offensive term. Get over yourself Ebert.

[James Madison]

Sexual orientation of that Cohen idiot doesn't matter but question arises whe why did he not setup McCain, Lieberman or any of the neocon, pro Israeli occupation politicians?

I've always wondered this. Why would you want to make fun of a kind, honest man like Ron Paul when there are so many low-life neocons to mock?

[mstrmac1]

It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “*****!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling.

As a amateur movie critic, Roger Ebert is one of my heroes, as is Ron Paul, of course. Hearing one of them acknowledge the other was pretty cool.

What ignorant comments has Ron made about homosexuals? Roger is a liberal and probably assumes this of Paul solely because of the (R) next to his name.

That being said, if Ron really did say "*****" after the interview, that was a very stupid thing to do.

The guy was acting like a *****...whats wrong with saying "*****"?

[HRD53]

Wow a gay man (or one purporting to be gay) forcibly came on to him and then he had the audacity to call him a '*****'?? Should he have just exclaimed 'Oh you terrible, terrible man!' and then ran down the hall with his hands on his bottom?

[jkr]

FUCK Roger Ebert !:mad:

[Liberty Star]

I've always wondered this. Why would you want to make fun of a kind, honest man like Ron Paul when there are so many low-life neocons to mock?

Probably for same reasons Israeli lobby tools in media went after RP right after debates.

Every one now knows RP does not support elective wars and foreign interventions for other countries, US financial and military aid to Israel, dumb fiscal policies , increasing debt etc.

[James Madison]

Probably for same reasons Israeli lobby tools in media went after RP right after debates.

Every one now knows RP does not support elective wars and foreign interventions for other countries, US financial and military aid to Israel, dumb fiscal policies , increasing debt etc.

While you're correct, I don't think SBC is part of the Israeli lobby.

[MsDoodahs]

Maybe the word "*****" is like the word "******?"

Just as whites can't say "******," now straights can't say "*****?"

Anyone know?

edited to ask if anyone knows where there is an online list of the favored groups whose members must never be offended?

[Liberty Star]

He's too theatrical to be part of the lobby but he has to have reason to setup RP and not any of the hundreds of pro war neocon politicians. His antics are probably a bizzare reaction of highly religious upbringing.


Israel and Judaism

Baron Cohen first acted in theatrical productions featuring the Socialist-Zionist youth movement Habonim Dror.[51]

He spent a year in Israel at Kibbutz Rosh HaNikra and Kibbutz Beit HaEmek as part of the Shnat Habonim Dror, as well as taking part in the programme "Machon l'Madrichei Chutz L'Aretz" for Jewish youth movement leaders.

[mstrmac1]

Maybe the word "*****" is like the word "******?"

Just as whites can't say "******," now straights can't say "*****?"

Anyone know?

***** is not even close to the word "******"

Mmm lets see, Which sound worse?

"Quit being a *****"
OR
"Quit being a ******"

Come on!

[jmdrake]

Maybe the word "*****" is like the word "******?"

Just as whites can't say "******," now straights can't say "*****?"


Last time I checked Eminem was still white. Of course the word he says (and blacks say) is "nigga". Subtle but distinct difference. I don't use either word and I'm black.

See: YouTube - 50 Cent approves of Eminem saying "nigga" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEhvYWdvuc)

Anyway, I don't expect the show "N-word eye for the white guy" to be airing anytime soon.

[Brian4Liberty]

While you're correct, I don't think SBC is part of the Israeli lobby.

SBC has gone after Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr and Ron Paul. What is the common thread?

[James Madison]

SBC has gone after Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr and Ron Paul. What is the common thread?

He also went after Alan Keyes.

[chuckp123]

I sent the following e-mail to Roger:

Dear Mr. Ebert,

As an aspiring movie critic, I have long regarded you as one of my heroes. As a libertarian, I feel the same way about Congressman Ron Paul. Naturally, I was thrilled to see one of you acknowledge the other in your "Bruno" review. But as you may suspect, I took issue with the way in which you characterized him.

Ron Paul has held steadfast to the position that marriage should not be interfered with by the state, and supports any free association between two people. He has also been quoted as saying, "we don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way." Although his personal opinion of homosexuality may differ from his political opinion, it is inaccurate to label his statements "intolerant". His position, which is to allow all people equal rights and equal treatment, regardless of how he may about their lifestyles, is the very definition of tolerance.

Thank you for your time. I hope I have helped to clear up this issue. I have really been enjoying your movie reviews; the opportunity to read your work has instilled in me a greater appreciation of both film and writing. I look forward to reading more great reviews throughout the summer movie season!

And please, stop with the immature comments about him. He's not some kind of status-quo-perpetuating political stooge. He reviews movies. And that's all.

Well put. I also sent him an email, but yours is better. Here's hoping he issues an apology in his next answer man column.

[Brian4Liberty]

He also went after Alan Keyes.

So let's include Keyes. What is the common denominator?

- Social Conservative?
- So called isolationist (not a global government lover)?
- Fiscal conservative?
- Against US foreign aid?
- Small government?
- Hard money advocate?
- Religious? Christian?
- Not a war monger?
- Against war on Iraq? Iran? Syria?

I don't know enough about Keyes, Barr and Buchanan to know which is common to all of them.

[emazur]

Two thumbs down to that ***** Ebert.

Just kidding about the '*****' part, but seriously, 2 thumbs down http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gifhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

[James Madison]

So let's include Keyes. What is the common denominator?

- Social Conservative?
- So called isolationist (not a global government lover)?
- Fiscal conservative?
- Against US foreign aid?
- Small government?
- Hard money advocate?
- Religious? Christian?
- Not a war monger?
- Against war on Iraq? Iran? Syria?

I don't know enough about Keyes, Barr and Buchanan to know which is common to all of them.

They're all Republicans; that's about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think SBC has EVER gone after any main line "liberal" politician, only "conservatives" and I use that term very loosely. Borat, in particular, is really bad about it. The entire point of the movie is to make fun of rural, conservative America. Not that I really agree with most of their beliefs, the film is extremely one-sided. I also really don't like the fact a guy who isn't American singles America out to be mocked while completely ignoring the stupidity of mainstream Europe.

[MCockerill08]

"It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “*****!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling"

-Roger Ebert

I usually like Roger Ebert's reviews, but his backhanded bashing of Dr. Paul pissed me off when I read his "bruno" review. This time, Ebert has claimed in his recent review of "bruno" that Ron has made "a lot of intolerant comments towards homosexuals."

This is hogwash; the good doctor may have called Bruno a "*****" (a mild insult, if anything) under circumstances that would get an average joe in jail if he did it to a girl, but he doesn't go around making intolerant comments about ANY group of people. Ebert is saying this on the basis of NO EVIDENCE, apart from the overblown newsletters which we agree Ron Paul certainly didn't know about.

I sent Ebert an email (feedback@rogerebert.com) demanding a correction of this erroneous, defamatory comment. I suggest you do the same:

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I'm a big fan of yours and also have been a Ron Paul volunteer for about 2 years.

I noticed a factual inaccuracy in your film review of "Bruno." Since I have not yet seen the film, I take your account of what transpired in it at face value. But while Ron shouldn't have lost his temper and made an intolerant comment, even while being sexually assaulted in an illegal fashion, (that would have an average gay or straight dude in jail, though Cohen survives because of his fame) it is totally unfair to definitively say that Ron Paul has made anti-gay comments in the past.

Ron Paul both supports gay marriage (based on libertarian principle) (1) and is not a homophobe. (based on personal principle) (2) He's also certainly not as tolerant and aware of this issue as younger libertarians, as one might expect from a Texan in his mid seventies. I assume that you think Ron is a homophobe because he attached his name to a newsletter that, unfortunately, published some ugly screeds about gays and certain ethnic groups. (3) He has taken moral responsibility for this miscue and apologized for over a decade. You may not be surprised to know to that when one is a radical, he often inadvertently comes in contact with less benign fringes through his activism.

Ron Paul has told the press, for over a decade, that he was not aware of the publication's intent. He was paid by people who advocated intolerant positions to place his name on their newsletter; it was a real mistake but no hanging offense, and certainly has nothing to do with the message of libertarianism, which is distinguished from conservativism in its upholding of individual liberty, social tolerance, secular government bereft of attempts to "impose morality,", and peace.

While YOU are not obligated to believe him, and can state such in your column, I don't think it's fair for you to imply Ron Paul has made bigoted, anti-gay statemements or say he has "said" intolerant comments about gays without a clip or credible citation of him SAYING something homophobic, or a disclaimer that you believe he is lying about the newsletters.

I hope you are able to correct this aspect of your review in a satisfactory manner.

Matt

P.S. Thanks for reading my feedback! I know this sounded rant-like, but I am both a regular Ebert reader and HUGE Ron Paul fan, so it was a tough review to swallow. :[


(1) YouTube - John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul 2007.12.07 part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M)
(2) YouTube - Ron Paul on Homosexuality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE)
(3) YouTube - RON PAUL FORCEFULLY RESPONDS TO RACIST RUMORS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI)

[coyote_sprit]

Maybe the word "*****" is like the word "******?"

Just as whites can't say "******," now straights can't say "*****?"

Anyone know?

edited to ask if anyone knows where there is an online list of the favored groups whose members must never be offended?

Maybe the MSM is trying to make a controversy out of nothing.

[MsDoodahs]

Maybe the MSM is trying to make a controversy out of nothing.

So just business as usual for Pravda....

[Blueskies]

I'm really glad SBC put Ron Paul in this movie.

Any press is good press. Millions and millions of people will see this movie. For many, it will be the first time they've ever heard of Ron Paul. Maybe it will inspire them to research him and perhaps join the movement.

[Light]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a *****. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

[t0rnado]

Man, I can't wait to see this movie today. I'm going to yell out, "Ron Paul 08!" when that scene rolls. Oh and it wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some C4L info outside the theater.

[Light]

Man, I can't wait to see this movie today. I'm going to yell out, "Ron Paul 08!" when that scene rolls. Oh and it wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some C4L info outside the theater.

It would be best if you didn't see this movie at all, and told your friends not too. This movie is going to make Paul look bad in the eyes of the "enlightened" PC youth.

[JoshLowry]

Man, I can't wait to see this movie today. I'm going to yell out, "Ron Paul 08!" when that scene rolls. Oh and it wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some C4L info outside the theater.

You'd probably be better off and more well received by just handing out materials rather than yelling in a movie theater.

[LibertyEagle]

And please, stop with the immature comments about him. He's not some kind of status-quo-perpetuating political stooge. He reviews movies. And that's all.

Apparently not, or he wouldn't have made the comments about Dr. Paul that he did.

[Ninja Homer]

I haven't seen the scene, but I thought he said something like, "that guy is ***** as blazes." If so, that's a big difference from "shouting '*****!' as he stalks out".

[angelatc]

I thought he was dead.

[0zzy]

Ebert & Co.,

I found your review for Brüno a little misleading, particularly with this paragraph:

It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “*****!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling.


I am not sure what you are referring to, but Ron Paul is one of the most tolerant people in the Republican party when it comes to homosexual issues. He has defended homosexual marriage if it is to be defined by the state, homosexuals in the military, and defended them against the blatant homophobic radio host John Lofton for six minutes. How this indicates making "a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals" is beyond me. By calling someone who pulls down their trousers in front of you "***** as blazes," it is not usually understood to be a homophobic insult - unless your name is Roger Ebert, I suppose.

What amends did he ever have to make with the homosexual community in the first place?

sent to : feedback@rogerebert.com
and I included this vide:
YouTube - Ron Paul on Homosexuality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE)

Send Roger Ebert a comment:
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com
feedback@rogerebert.com

[shocker315]

So Cohen makes a a film that openly mocks gay people, and plays into ridiculous stereotypes. Millions will go out and buy tickets to laugh and make fun of his over the top flamboyant antics. But Ron Paul is labeled as the person who is insensitive?...for what?...For objecting to Cohen's insulting caricature of gay people by using a word that is not even derogatory? Jeeeze....People need to wake up to reality.

I would think gay people who want to have their issues treated seriously by the public would be really annoyed by this film.

[ProBlue33]

Here is the the very brief clip of Ron Paul in the Bruno trailer

YouTube - Bruno - Official Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAGpmNb2xfQ&feature=fvst)

Go to 2 minute mark the rest is so stupid don't waste your time on that "*****", screw the PC police, Ron Paul calls it, like it really is.

[0zzy]

full scene:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199219

i had to start a new thread, cause i know ill get a lot of mileage

[paulim]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a *****. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

+1. It strikes me that, based on your description, Cohen and Jon Stewart are essentially the same person.

[ChaosControl]

What is wrong with saying "*****"?

It means "strange".
Homosexuals are "strange".

It isn't even an insult, just an accurate description in the same manner that "homosexual" is accurate. In fact it is a better word, in my opinion, than "gay", which originally meant "happy".

Just leftist b.s. They can't stand that other people don't accept their thought police crap. Ebert can go suck an egg.

[acptulsa]

And please, stop with the immature comments about him. He's not some kind of status-quo-perpetuating political stooge. He reviews movies. And that's all.

Apparently not. As you pointed out so well, he also offers unsolicited, half thought out political commentary and inaccurate political information and analysis. And, again as you pointed out so well, he seems incompetent to do it.

That's what he does, and people are judging him by his actions.

As for Cohen, well, he probably picks libertarian politicians because neocons might just kill him, and they might just react like certain Democrats (Bawney Frank comes to mind) which Cohen would apparently like even less...


I thought he was dead.

No. Unfortunately that was the more intelligent half of the duo, Gene Siskel.

[FindLiberty]

+100

+++

Given the situation, I think Ron Paul's actions were appropriate
and his comments were entirely harmless.

Imagine variations of the Bruno movie scene and the probable
real world verbal response(s) and likely actions/reactions
(remember a film crew is in the room, not a hidden camera):

Not RP, but some other female congress critter... (What if Cohen
appeared "straighter" and/or more threatening while suddenly
partially disrobing?)

Not Cohen, but some woman, and not RP, but some other
female congress critter...

Not Cohen, but some woman, and not RP, but some other
male congress critter...

or, an additional real-world twist on that last one, Not Cohen,
but some female intern (with her film crew) and not RP, but
Bill Clinton...

+++

I bet there are a few good laughs in this Bruno movie, but
that single theme joke would get pretty old, pretty fast, IMO.

In any case, I hope Ron Paul gets on many more interview
shows (and can deliver his Liberty message) because
of this movie.

[zach]

I don't think reacting in such a way as Dr. Paul did should be considered "intolerable" to most people.
Unless you're extremely sensitive to words, "***** as blazes" is being considerably nice compared to what other things could have been said.

It's bullshit to call him out as that when I think anyone in that position would have done something more physically or verbally assaulting.

[erowe1]

What ignorant comments has Ron made about homosexuals?

He might be referring to things in RP's old newsletters, like:


I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.


gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.


I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
I don't see anything wrong with any of those claims. But they would definitely qualify as ignorant comments about homosexuals in the eyes of people as unabashedly committed to promoting homosexuality the way Ebert and others in the Hollywood establishment are.

[James Madison]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a *****. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

It's a shame too because I think SBC has legitimate talent as a comedian and entertainer. Unfortunately, he sold out to the Hollywood establisment a long time ago. A lot of people I talk to say that his films are "satire", but his stuff isn't even close to being on the level of a show like South Park. Bruno and Borat are basically the movie equivalents of a show like Family Guy.

[Liberty Star]

Maybe but his being agent for questionable agenda of hollywood radicals is a waste of any talent.

[BenIsForRon]

Does Ron Paul really believe there is a coming race war?? Please tell me he didn't write that.

[John of Des Moines]

I'm with Ron Paul on this one. It really says something about our culture when people by the millions go to see trash films like Bruno. Ron Paul did nothing wrong by calling Cohen a *****. The PC police need to back off. Most people would have given that punk a whooping if Cohen tried to come onto them.

I am seriously shake my head at those that find these movies funny. Our culture is in serious disrepair, and in open attack. Its no coincidence why Cohen goes after traditional thought and behavior. The best way to subjogate a society is by creating an immoral one, by mocking traditional values and people with traditional values, Cohen is conditioning the youth of this generation into thinking that traditional values are archaic and need to be disgarded. Unfortunately, few people realize that when people have little responsbility in their personal lives, it only moves for the government to usurp the right for yourself to be responsible.

I know I will be flamed for having this opinion since its an unpopular one, however, I believe what makes this movement great is the broad range of perspective we have.

Best post in the thread.

After first hearing about the Bruno set-up way back when several thoughts came to mind. What if Bruno's set-up victim were a woman, would he have been charged with some crime? I think so, disorderly conduct at the very least and attempted sexual assault, lewd conduct, and indecent exposure. Then what if Paul had a concealed carry license and had been a sexual assault victim in his past. What would be the outcome of a trial over Bruno's dead body?

After learning SBC uses dozens of front companies to induce his targets into being unwilling test subjects in his comic schemes I have a hard time not believing that anybody would not only be exonerated in any criminal or civil trial but would likely have a claim for fraud.


Man, I can't wait to see this movie today. I'm going to yell out, "Ron Paul 08!" when that scene rolls. Oh and it wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some C4L info outside the theater.


It would be best if you didn't see this movie at all, and told your friends not too. This movie is going to make Paul look bad in the eyes of the "enlightened" PC youth.

If you go to the movie wait until the scene then go demand your money back.

[0zzy]

Does Ron Paul really believe there is a coming race war?? Please tell me he didn't write that.

he didn't.


He might be referring to things in RP's old newsletters, like:







http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
I don't see anything wrong with any of those claims. But they would definitely qualify as ignorant comments about homosexuals in the eyes of people as unabashedly committed to promoting homosexuality the way Ebert and others in the Hollywood establishment are.

Those were written by someone else, anyone who knows Paul or has heard him speak knows this. Many claim it was Lew Rockwell, including TNR who posted the original newsletters.I'm not sure who wrote it, but either way it wasn't paul.

[V4Vendetta]

YouTube - Barney Frank is trying to destroy America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-I34MdWAMY)

LMAO

[erowe1]

he didn't.



Those were written by someone else, anyone who knows Paul or has heard him speak knows this. Many claim it was Lew Rockwell, including TNR who posted the original newsletters.I'm not sure who wrote it, but either way it wasn't paul.

I know he didn't personally write them, just like he didn't personally write The Revolution: A Manifesto ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102461.html ); or any of the emails I get from him asking for money for C4L with his signature on the bottom; or his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin; or any number of things that go out in his name all the time. But all that's irrelevant, and Ron Paul knows it, which is why every time the newsletter controversy came up in his previous campaigns he didn't say, "But I didn't really write those," as if that would have been a valid excuse. He put out those newsletters in his name. So Ebert is within his rights to refer to them as being from RP.

[dantheman]

Who cares about Roger Ebert? If the man doesn't know jack about movies, why listen to his opinions on the proper connotations of words and the political life of congressmen?

[A. Havnes]

I don't think Robert Ebert should be subject to ridicule because he's uninformed. However, Ron Paul is not a homophobe by any stretch of the imagination. Why wouldn't he use the word "*****?" People used to use it all the time! Ever read The Lord of the Rings? Those little Hobbits use the word quite frequently in their conversations. An older man like Ron Paul is definately not going to find anything wrong with the word because he knows the actual meaning of it.

Besides, if it had been me, the language I would've used would have been a lot worse. Not to mention, I may have been arrested for assault.

Also, does anyone but me find it weird that when a guy dupes an older man into entering a private room and then proceedes to drop his pants and make sexual advances on the older guy (who has no idea that it's not real), and the older man walks out with the words, "*****er than blazes!" that the audience shriekes because the victim used such offensive language? We have potential rapist vs. the guy who reacts with the word "*****". Which is more offensive to you?

[Liberty Star]

Main issue is why Bruno setup RP? It looks like he wanted to ridicule RP, because a man dropping his pants in front of another man invited under a false pretence is probably more creepy than anything else. It does not help homosexuality in America in anyway.

Ebert rants are a fuss about nothing, Bruno probably wears the said term as a badge of honor considering his youth training in holy land.

[Todd]

Apparently not, or he wouldn't have made the comments about Dr. Paul that he did.

Yep. He's a great reviewer, but just check out his reviews of political films. He seems to lose his objectivitiy when he's fawning all over the likes of Gore and Michael Moore.