Posted on 02/03/2015 10:49:02 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie
Rand Paul does a lot of interviews -- a lot. This, from time to time, has gotten him in trouble. Rarely, though, has it gone as poorly as this.
Speaking Monday afternoon with CNBC, Paul:
1) Reiterated his contention that vaccines should be voluntary.
2) Said this: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." (Michele Bachmann said something similar during the 2012 presidential campaign. It didn't go over well.)
3) Actually shushed the anchor when he thought she wasn't allowing him to answer her questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
LOL......I wouldn’t doubt it a bit.
” I like the Glen Beck show...when Glen Beck is not hosting. “
LOL!
I am fascinated at your reply because you assume that the infected child is vaccinated. I say this because the parents who do not vaccinate due to risk of autism assume everyone else is vaccinating their child. So the "risk model" of these parent is they are avoiding vaccination risk because the risk of measel is low because everyone else vaccinates their kids!!! However, this argument falls apart as more and more families rely of the same risk model and do not vaccinate. As more families "avoid" vaccination risk, the infection risk increases!
Thanks SoConPubbie.
I did not change the title of the article. The title of the article is as posted and at the linked article.
I gave the posting a different title because my title is more descriptive. The title of the post as it has now been edited, is deceptive because the Washington Post is the author. The title states "This Rand Paul interview with CNBC didn't go well".
The interview did not go well because the interviewer is a belligerent liberal media hack who has a personal agenda, and Rand Paul, like him or not, beat her at her incredulous slanted reporting game.
To title the article in a neutral manner as did the WaPo, is to place the journalist on equal footing as Rand Paul, when she is supposedly just a unbiased reporter. Hardly the case.
If the title of the article is propaganda, must it be repeated? Must that be the unintended function of Free Republic?
“Is he getting his interview prepping from Sharon Angle?”
If so, he’s plain retarded.
No, you weren't. But some here, as done in the first couple of posts where a Freeper posted every sin, real or imagined Rand has committed since birth, think I am a supporter.
I am just attacking the hateful, biased media that treats Republicans differently than Democrats while pretending to be reporting. That is un American.
Iowamark: please see my post #45. That was the reason my post was differently titled.
Must media propaganda be repeated on Free Republic?
I am not a Rand Paul supporter.
Did you see the interview? Did you see how unfair the reporter was? That is the issue, not Rand Paul.
I thought he was right to confront the unfair reporter who was twisting what he said. What do you think, SunkenCiv?
Since you’re upset by how a fake Republican, Democrat-in-all-but-name, who’s running for POTUS, was treated by some reporter, and by yours truly reminding all comers what a phony he is, I don’t buy the idea that you’re not a Rand Paul supporter.
She is a crazy kid.
You are certainly mistaken. At this point in time I like Scott Walker and Ted Cruz.
Since 1992, I have watched how the media distorts the news. This is just another example. Any time a candidate bests the media on the conservative side, on the Republican side, or on the side of decency, I am cheered.
I am not just upset how Rand Paul was treated, I am upset by how the media distorts the truth and treats the Republicans one way, and the liberals with kid gloves. Obama would never have been elected if we had an objective media.
Rand Paul is not a Republican, any more than pederasts are heterosexual.
Rand Paul goes by the Republican label. He calls himself a Republican, right?
And pederasts are self-described heterosexuals. Glad you’re not a Rand Paul fan, what’s the count of your messages desperately defending up to now?
Did you not read my moniker? The Media Never Lie. It is extreme sarcasm.
In the early 1990s, I got my American news by short wave radio. Two programs, Radio Free America, and For the People broadcasts programs where Arkansas State Troopers recalled Bill Clinton’s misdeeds, Whitewater witnesses, and more felonious behavior, included murder. Not covered AT ALL by the American media. Fortunately the internet has changed that for those of us WHO WANT TO KNOW.
This interview is an example of a smarmy, snarky, mean and biased interview. I think the candidate beat her at her game; maybe not. I cheer any time the biased media is outed.
You need to keep an open mind and not let your hatred for any candidate blind you.
I DO NOT SUPPORT RAND PAUL. HE IS TOO MUCH LIKE HIS FATHER.
Do you comprehend the above?
Lookie, YET ANOTHER POST defending Ron Paul.
Do you not comprehend how everything you’ve done so far just points to the very obvious fact that YOU SUPPORT RON PAUL?
I’m not a Rand Paul fan either.
I was in my vehicle listening to satellite radio so I couldn’t see the faces etc.
I thought the reporterette was the usual dip trying to earn her stripes by snotting off to an evil Republican.
But I thought Paul sounded even worse...it wasn’t that he argued with her just how he did it. Sounded like the bratty kid in school that everyone hates even worse than the teacher.
I am sorry to hear that the reporterette seemed to win that one, or at least Paul sounded like a brat.
I am certainly no Paul supporter, but the idea that any Republican is fair game, while the democrat is pitched softballs by a collaborating reporter (Candy, check the transcript) has got to end. I would like to see any Republican candidate get the best any belligerent or biased reporter at any time.
My theory is that it is better to confront the biased reporter at some point, rather than just pretend it is not happening. It must be done in a way that elicits support from the audience. It can be done without sounding bratty. Always, the candidate must keep his or her cool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.