Author Topic: Fox News Fascism – Ron Paul Excluded From Debates (Read 4163 times)

headhuntersix · « **Reply #25 on:** December 31, 2007, 08:59:01 PM »

Let me tell ya..Fox News isn't afraid of Ron Paul..If he ahd a chance of wiining or drawing more then 5% of the popular vote..he'd be on....he'l draw less. If mickeymouse could draw real numbers he'd be on the debate. Their producers, the guys doing the dabates aren't all hard news guys, they want ratings. If they thought he';d bring that, he'd be in.

Straw Man · « **Reply #26 on:** December 31, 2007, 09:11:20 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on December 31, 2007, 08:59:01 PM

Let me tell ya..Fox News isn't afraid of Ron Paul..If he ahd a chance of wiining or drawing more then 5% of the popular vote..he'd be on....he'l draw less. If mickeymouse could draw real numbers he'd be on the debate. Their producers, the guys doing the dabates aren't all hard news guys, they want ratings. If they thought he';d bring that, he'd be in.

if this is true then we're fucking doomed

democracy > ratings

w8tlftr · « **Reply #27 on:** December 31, 2007, 09:35:03 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 31, 2007, 08:18:25 AM

I agree no vote is a wasted vote - unless it's Ohio 2004 where they were never counted -

But Perot did statistically take away a lot more votes from bush than clinton, and Bush1 would had won if Perot hadn't entered.

Then Bush I should have run a better campaign.

The same can be said of Gore in 2000. The robot democrats were whining like pussies that Nader "stole" votes from Gore. Nader didn't steal shit. The people voted for who they wanted to vote for.

The arrogance of the Democrats and Republicans really sickens me at times.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #28 on:** December 31, 2007, 10:43:04 PM »

Honestly...I'd put him on, why not. They don't put on people who won't draw numbers. If he was black they might put him..but he's white and honestly I don't believ the money nor the numbers he's drawing. They say he's got the most support of any candidate amongst the military...I don't know anybody who is voting for him, most haven't heard of him. Some of his ideas a great...his domestic stuff is good..but his foreign policy is nuts.

240 is Back · « **Reply #29 on:** December 31, 2007, 10:50:53 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on December 31, 2007, 08:59:01 PM

Let me tell ya..Fox News isn't afraid of Ron Paul..If he ahd a chance of wiining or drawing more then 5% of the popular vote..he'd be on....he'l draw less. If mickeymouse could draw real numbers he'd be on the debate. Their producers, the guys doing the dabates aren't all hard news guys, they want ratings. If they thought he';d bring that, he'd be in.

Thompson is in, and he has lower numbers.

Explain.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #30 on:** January 01, 2008, 06:35:51 AM »

Quote from: MB_722 on December 29, 2007, 03:46:35 PM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071229_fox_news_fascism__96_r.htm

think they will let him back in? or will he remain blacked out?

How is that Fascism?

I would call it anti-democratic.

But how can anyone label it as Fascism?

Straw Man · « **Reply #31 on:** January 01, 2008, 09:18:40 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on December 31, 2007, 10:43:04 PM

Honestly...I'd put him on, why not. They don't put on people who won't draw numbers. If he was black they might put him..but he's white and honestly I don't believ the money nor the numbers he's drawing. They say he's got the most support of any candidate amongst the military...I don't know anybody who is voting for him, most haven't heard of him. Some of his ideas a great...his domestic stuff is good..but his foreign policy is nuts.

HH - do you really think that Fox is putting on the debate just to get ratings (i.e to sell ad's).
I seriously doubt it. In fact, Ron Paul is such a lightening rod that having him on would most likely increase the ratings. I think Fox (Murdoch) is much more interested in controlling the message and that's why they're leaving out RP. The question is why does a TV network get to frame the political discussion and influence our democracy.
Fuck it - why don't we just skip the election and let Fox News pick our next puppet president

headhuntersix · « **Reply #32 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:14:54 AM »

I have worked with several of their producers in the past...first off these guys All bounce between either cable or the big 3. They are all pretty much primadonna's and once they have what they need from u, u never hear from them again. Its all about ratings to these guys. Several of the folks who work on Brit Hume and Shepard Smith's show are pretty good and seem to care more about the news then any of the others including the other networks. I've worked with one from CNN and they were pretty good as well. But bye and large they're their for ratings which in turn lets em keep their jobs. The higher ups are the folks with the conservative agenda and thats fine. Fox news was created as an alternative to CNN..no harm with competition but..if u watch Fox u can see elements of Fox Entertainment creep in. I laugh when u guys debate the news networks....its all about cash first. In my line of work with the Army we get to train with Fox News as part of Training with Industry, the program is suspended until 09'.

Straw Man · « **Reply #33 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:29:58 AM »

Fox is now saying that they just don't have room for 5 people and that's why they are leaving out RP and Duncan Hunter. So now it's about lack of space. I still believe this is mostly about controlling the message and probably about removing anything that would harm Murdoch's favorite which is Rudy.
If this were simply about ratings then one would have to conclude that by INCLUDING RP that the ratings would be less than if he were excluded. This makes no sense. Would viewers tune out if they see RP? I doubt it. However it's likely that many/most RP supporters will not watch if he is excluded - hence lower ratings. If this were just about ratings they would definitely want RP on that stage. He's nothing else if not entertaining, especially when he makes the other candidates squirm. That's good TV - IMO

headhuntersix · « **Reply #34 on:** January 01, 2008, 01:15:41 PM »

I would agree...they should include him..but knowing these guys..they want ratings so I'm kinda surprised. Honestly RP supporters won't makea dent in Fox's numbers for the debate and I'm sure many of his supporters will watch, so they can better attack the other candidates.

240 is Back · « **Reply #35 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:04:11 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on January 01, 2008, 01:15:41 PM

I would agree...they should include him..but knowing these guys..they want ratings so I'm kinda surprised. Honestly RP supporters won't makea dent in Fox's numbers for the debate and I'm sure many of his supporters will watch, so they can better attack the other candidates.

Remember that Ron Paul has won many of the polls based upon online voting.

He's also leading most if not all of those guys in donations.

And military people donate more to him than anyone else.

There have to be a *few* Ron Paul fans watching the debate, dude. Enough to make a dent.

Straw Man · « **Reply #36 on:** January 01, 2008, 02:04:40 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on January 01, 2008, 01:15:41 PM

I would agree...they should include him..but knowing these guys..they want ratings so I'm kinda surprised. Honestly RP supporters won't makea dent in Fox's numbers for the debate and I'm sure many of his supporters will watch, so they can better attack the other candidates.

Not to belabor the point (but I have nothing else to do today). If RP supporters won't make a dent in Fox's #'s for the debate (I assume you meant if they didn't watch) then how exactly would they lose #'s by including him. Would other viewers tune out if he were included??

i.e - include RP and ratings go down as compared to the same debate without RP?

The "ratings" argument makes no sense (IMO).

headhuntersix · « **Reply #37 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:22:20 PM »

No..I think its cost vs having him thing..honesly they should include him but they may feel that there is a cost/ratings benefit from not having him. As far as the military..how do we know that he's the leading candidate among the military based on donations....I know of nobody voting for this guy, let alone giving him money. I'd need proof..this to me is bullshit. I'd only half believ it if Mccain said it..nobody else.

Deicide · « **Reply #38 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:38:24 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on January 01, 2008, 08:22:20 PM

No..I think its cost vs having him thing..honesly they should include him but they may feel that there is a cost/ratings benefit from not having him. As far as the military..how do we know that he's the leading candidate among the military based on donations....I know of nobody voting for this guy, let alone giving him money. I'd need proof..this to me is bullshit. I'd only half believ it if Mccain said it..nobody else.

Boom!

Straw Man · « **Reply #39 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:44:19 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on January 01, 2008, 08:22:20 PM

No..I think its cost vs having him thing..honesly they should include him but they may feel that there is a cost/ratings benefit from not having him. As far as the military..how do we know that he's the leading candidate among the military based on donations....I know of nobody voting for this guy, let alone giving him money. I'd need proof..this to me is bullshit. I'd only half believ it if Mccain said it..nobody else.

again - I think the ratings thing is nonsense

explain how it Fox is going to lose money by including RP or give it up

Straw Man · « **Reply #40 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:45:38 PM »

Quote from: Trapezkerl on January 01, 2008, 08:38:24 PM

Boom!

FOX NOISE = LIBERAL MEDIA

240 is Back · « **Reply #41 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:51:26 PM »

RP has ripped the shit out of Rupert murdoch in his speeches and interviews.

is it any surprise he is excluded from the debate?

Deicide · « **Reply #42 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:56:40 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on January 01, 2008, 08:51:26 PM

RP has ripped the shit out of Rupert murdoch in his speeches and interviews.

is it any surprise he is excluded from the debate?

You know, one day away from I-day...we will see; I am most concerned about voter fraud though; they pulled that shit in the past.

If the country is going down, it better go down fighting the Neo-cons...(Dems and Repubs=same)!

Dos Equis · « **Reply #43 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:07:35 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on January 01, 2008, 08:22:20 PM

No..I think its cost vs having him thing..honesly they should include him but they may feel that there is a cost/ratings benefit from not having him. As far as the military..how do we know that he's the leading candidate among the military based on donations....I know of nobody voting for this guy, let alone giving him money. I'd need proof..this to me is bullshit. I'd only half believ it if Mccain said it..nobody else.

I don't see the harm in including him either, but according to the polls he is clearly not a viable candidate for the Republican nomination.

Straw Man · « **Reply #44 on:** January 01, 2008, 10:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on January 01, 2008, 10:07:35 PM

I don't see the harm in including him either, but according to the polls he is clearly not a viable candidate for the Republican nomination.

given that Iowa is the first primary and there are many more to go, why not include ALL candidates

primary is the first in a process

let the people decide

Dos Equis · « **Reply #45 on:** January 01, 2008, 11:47:08 PM »

The people are going to decide. Fox doesn't control the election.

I can see arguments on both sides. On one hand, he has done some remarkable things with his recent fundraising. On the other, his poll numbers haven't changed much and the NH primary is next week.

Straw Man · « **Reply #46 on:** January 01, 2008, 11:54:06 PM »

why start trimming the field before even having the first real vote

fox is most definitely trying to exercise all the influence it can

Dos Equis · « **Reply #47 on:** January 02, 2008, 09:29:57 AM »

Fox has already had more than one debate in which candidates, including Ron Paul, who are in the single digits, were invited to participate. Even after all the buzz, he is still in single digits in New Hampshire:

Poll: Neck-and-neck in New Hampshire

(CNN) -- With six days to go until the New Hampshire primary, there are ties in poll results for the top candidates in both parties.

Sen. John McCain, left, has come back to tie ex-Gov. Mitt Romney in a New Hampshire poll.

With roughly a quarter of those polled in both parties saying they won't make up their mind until the election, both the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination races are up for grabs.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was languishing six months ago, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are now tied for first place, with each grabbing the support of 29 percent of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters, the CNN/WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire found. Watch an examination of Romney's attack ads »

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is at 12 percent with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 10 percent. The remaining Republican White House hopefuls for the 2008 campaign are in single digits.

. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/nh.poll/index.html