Cenk Young Turks now DEFENDS Ron Paul - Video

[qwerty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjCKQ

[AlexG]

Cenk is so wishy washy, but I'm glad he's actually seeking the truth.

[Fr3shjive]

Cenk is the man. He doesn't cling to partisan politics and thinks for himself.

[Agorism]

Good defense against the newsletters.

Too bad we don't have a CPAN video of the 1979 MLK day debate.

[qwerty]

Cenk is the man. He doesn't cling to partisan politics and thinks for himself.

he isn´t...

[Fr3shjive]

he isn´t...

I respect him because he's not an Obamabot that toes the party line regardless of what Obama does. He has said several times that he likes Ron Paul over Obama. Ideologically you may disagree with him but from what I've seen recently he has integrity.

[speciallyblend]

Cenk is the man. He doesn't cling to partisan politics and thinks for himself.

i'm liking cenk more everyday.

[Agorism]

I wonder how many TYT listeners\fans there are in Iowa..

[Inny Binny]

I have no problem with him getting riled up over the newsletters. Honestly, look at it from the perspective of a progressive. The whole thing clearly looks dodgy on the face, so why wouldn't you ask questions?

He doesn't praise Obama every five seconds so he clearly isn't a partisan hack.

[qwerty]

lol, just check how many hit-pieces he has done agaisnt Ron Paul and continue to do...

[qwerty]

i'm liking cenk more everyday.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z17hBEZpu2E&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=4&feature=plcp

[Student Of Paulism]

Lol i laughed at his caveman impersonation though :D See thing is, however, he isnt informed on that fiat currency. Ron has never said he wants to abolish it completely. What he wants to start with is a parallel system where you can use BOTH for awhile and eventually get to a point where we can have the proper convertibility systems going. You can't print gold and silver, and being able to weigh fiat money on it, gives that same fiat money more value as well.

Cenk can be a butthead yea, he overreacts alot and as i said in other threads, he isnt objective enough and doesnt bother to weigh any good with the bad sometimes. He just goes right to the bad, doesnt report or compare past events with it, and just makes a hasty decision to buy into it, and lets his emotions get in the way. But then he will eventually look at everything, and the next day he changes his tune, so at least he does come to his senses after some time goes by. He just needs to chill out a bit.

Plus ya gotta understand too, hes liberal, so he is gonna pick on Paul a bit when it comes to the social issues.

[milo10]

I'm pretty happy with it, and overall for Cenk's coverage.

Getting hissy about PC stuff is what Cenk does. I wouldn't expect anything more from him. His being very fair to Ron Paul repeatedly does remind me why at times I like his show.

There are only a small number of media people who have consistently helped Ron. Cavuto, Stewart, Rattigan, Stossel, Napolitano, and a very few others.

There are only a small number of media people who have really gone out of their way to be damaging to him. Morris, Levin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and a few others.

The rest of it you just take as what the media does.

[Diurdi]

lol, just check how many hit-pieces he has done agaisnt Ron Paul and continue to do... Ofcourse he will be rabidly against Paul's economic views, with the exception of cutting military spending.

[qwerty]

Ofcourse he will be rabidly against Paul's economic views, with the exception of cutting military spending.

and that makes him the MAN ? :D

[LawnWake]

What a lot of people here need to learn is that people are entitled to dislike Paul enough to not outright support him. Cenk's a big-government centrist. He doesn't dislike Paul because his bosses told him to (hell, his actual boss outright hates Paul, you know, Al Gore), he straight up disagrees with him. And he's completely entitled to disagree with his economic policies. And hell, no matter how much he dislikes Paul, he likes him more Obama and would support Paul over him. So what's the beef? That he doesn't like Paul as much as we do? That he's not blindly wearing a Ron Paul 2012 shirt because we want him to?

He's been fair to Paul considering his point of view. Sure he brings up the newsletter stuff, but to a non-supporter and definitely to a non-Republican, the newsletters are an issue that havent'been dealt with properly. Lew Rockwell's been rumored to have written the racist remarks and that makes a lot of sense considering how much he likes to provoke people. So Paul doesn't bother to name the people who did it and Lew Rockwell, who admitted to having 'hired freelancers' to write them isn't stepping up either. So all we're left with is Ron Paul, with contradictory statements to his name. Now we trust Paul enough to not having lied about this stuff, but why should we the general public to be convinced that a politician who's got 2 different statement to his name, to have actually said the good stuff and didn't actually say the bad stuff? Politicians lie, period. You'd think that libertarians would be happy that people are being distrustful of a politician (that's not to say that what most of the mainstream media is doing isn't merely a smear campaign, it is, so don't think I'm saying that Fox's smears are 'healthy skepticism', I'm just saying, in Cenk's case it is).

There's a difference between what Fox is doing to Paul and to what Cenk is doing to Paul. We gotta look at some of these things more objectively.

[Diurdi]

and that makes him the MAN ? :D Ofcourse not, I'm just saying that for a person who is so different on economic views, I think it's pretty great that he can look at the things they do agree with and defend Paul on those issues.

There are things I agree with Romney and Gingrich on, and I'm not afraid to point them out or defend those views. For example Gingriches view on Child labour laws and all the heat that got him. I don't mind defending him on those points, even though it may seem odd and counter-productive.

[fatjohn]

Good defense against the newsletters.

Too bad we don't have a CPAN video of the 1979 MLK day debate.

What happened there?

[Miguel]

What happened there?

C-SPAN was launched on March 19, 1979, C-Span were on a shoestring budget. C-Span didn't record much then. Equipment was very expensive.

[AlexMerced]

lol, just check how many hit-pieces he has done agaisnt Ron Paul and continue to do...

Also look at how many videos he's done defending and promoting Paul, more so than any other media personality, and he even isn't a supporter

[HOLLYWOOD]

CENK: "As The Ron Paul Turns... as the Information Turns and Turns"

Well, Cenk, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ron's long track record of freedoms and liberties for all contradicts the BS newletters garbage.

Cenk you're still trash because you could of looked at his entire career and how he has always been for personal liberty and the racist/group discriminatory preferences created by the same Congressional members that have been there term after term.

[airborne373]

Cenk has been showing signs of Schizophrenia. One thing Cenk isn't cursed with, credibility. Bye Bye Cenk .... another paid presstitute.

[Nathan Hale]

Want a Cenk-like guy who is more solidly on our side? Check out Dylan Ratigan.

[Travlyr]

What a lot of people here need to learn is that people are entitled to dislike Paul enough to not outright support him. Cenk's a big-government centrist. He doesn't dislike Paul because his bosses told him to (hell, his actual boss outright hates Paul, you know, Al Gore), he straight up disagrees with him. And he's completely entitled to disagree with his economic policies. And hell, no matter how much he dislikes Paul, he likes him more Obama and would support Paul over him. So what's the beef? That he doesn't like Paul as much as we do? That he's not blindly wearing a Ron Paul 2012 shirt because we want him to?

He's been fair to Paul considering his point of view. Sure he brings up the newsletter stuff, but to a non-supporter and definitely to a non-Republican, the newsletters are an issue that havent'been dealt with properly. Lew Rockwell's been rumored to have written the racist remarks and that makes a lot of sense considering how much he likes to provoke people. So Paul doesn't bother to name the people who did it and Lew Rockwell, who admitted to having 'hired freelancers' to write them isn't stepping up either. So all we're left with is Ron Paul, with contradictory statements to his name. Now we trust Paul enough to not having lied about this stuff, but why should we the general public to be convinced that a politician who's got 2 different statement to his name, to have actually said the good stuff and didn't actually say the bad stuff? Politicians lie, period. You'd think that libertarians would be happy that people are being distrustful of a politician (that's not to say that what most of the mainstream media is doing isn't merely a smear campaign, it is, so don't think I'm saying that Fox's smears are 'healthy skepticism', I'm just saying, in Cenk's case it is).

There's a difference between what Fox is doing to Paul and to what Cenk is doing to Paul. We gotta look at some of these things more objectively.
Sure, I agree, but facts are facts. Ron Paul is promoting honesty. Ron Paul's opponents are promoting dishonesty. You can trust an honest person. You cannot trust a dishonest person.