Ron Paul supporters, we are going to the covention, invited or not!

[OzmO]

I'm not sure but Im  positive we'll question whether you have a brain or not.  

If you really want to know the skinny and get an unbiased assessment ask 240

[Bindare_Dundat]

So those facts don't speak for other possible reasons?

So, why would they censor the debate like that even after the person who asked the question said Ron Apul knocked it out of the ballpark, or maybe that WAS the reason they censored it?

Regardless, you didn't answer my question,  is the media always unbiased and have they never had an agenda?

[Dos Equis]

If you really want to know the skinny and get an unbiased assessment ask 240

Hahaha!   

[Dos Equis]

So those facts don't speak for other possible reasons?

Of course not.  Has to be (another) mass conspiracy. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Of course not.  Has to be (another) mass conspiracy. 

I'd love to hear your other reasons.

[OzmO]

So, why would they censor the debate like that even after the person who asked the question said Ron Apul knocked it out of the ballpark, or maybe that WAS the reason they censored it?

Has the media ever done that to other candidates in a debate?  And was significance of the perceived censor fueled by your bias for RP?

Your reasoning seems consistent of a conspiracy theorist.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question,  is the media always unbiased and have they never had an agenda?

The media has always had an agenda.  Sell product.  Period.   If RP isn't getting the draw then out with his ass, no matter how Godly his politics seem, he is flushed like a bad soap commercial.  It's the nature of the beast.  Jesus Christ would get cut off and bounce he if didn't draw viewers and advertising revenue.

[Deicide]

Neocons arent Republicans.

Republicans...maybe if you go back to the 19th century you can start talking about Republican values; going back as far as Reagan, Republicans have routinely run up deficits, overborrowed and overspent...there are your Republicans.

[Bindare_Dundat]

The media has always had an agenda.  Sell product.  Period.   If RP isn't getting the draw then out with his ass, no matter how Godly his politics seem, he is flushed like a bad soap commercial.  It's the nature of the beast.  Jesus Christ would get cut off and bounce he if didn't draw viewers and advertising revenue.

You just proved my point, so why waste energy on a debate unless your just fine and dandy with the way the media works?

[Bindare_Dundat]

Republicans...maybe if you go back to the 19th century you can start talking about Republican values; going back as far as Reagan, Republicans have routinely run up deficits, overborrowed and overspent...there are your Republicans.

Point taken.

[Dos Equis]

I'd love to hear your other reasons.

Presidential elections aren't just about ideas and qualifications, they're also a beauty contest.  That's why Obama is about to be the Democrat nominee.  He gave a good convention speech.  He looks good.  Sounds good (style, not substance).

I like Ron Paul.  I like many of his positions (as I've stated more than once on this site).  But he does not have the personality or charisma to win a presidential election.  I've said this before, but he really isn't any more viable than Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes.  If the media doesn't cover those people extensively, it's because those people will never be elected president.

I posted a commentary by local (ultra liberal) commentator Dan Boylan a while back, which says the same thing:  personality matters.  It shouldn't, but it does.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=183794.0

In any event, Ron Paul got tons of media coverage.  He shared the stage in almost every presidential debate.  He was front page news on CNN and other MSM outlets more than once.  He got his 15 minutes of fame.      

[OzmO]

You just proved my point, so why waste energy on a debate unless your just fine and dandy with the way the media works?

No point to prove.  

RP wasn't getting it done.   He wasn't getting people to buy into his ideas and his poll numbers reflected it.   So, the media, being the prudent outfits they are, focused on what would get them viewers.


What's so revealing or such an hidden agenda about this?   This IS how it works.  

Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing malicious unless of course, you love RP and believe everyone should feel as you do, which there is nothing wrong with that unless, you go around thinking it was some sort of deliberate conspiracy to turn the volume down on this guy because he made sense.  that's not what happened.   He didn't make sense to the majority of people.  that's the point.  That's why him and his political views are not accepted by main stream america and Barrack's is.

Sad isn't it?  Charisma and communication skills win over substance.   Get used to it.  That's the world we live in.  And if you're smart enough to have some substance and can communicate it with charisma, then my friend, you can make history.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Sad isn't it?  Charisma and communication skills win over substance.   Get used to it.  That's the world we live in.  And if you're smart enough to have some substance and can communicate it with charisma, then my friend, you make history.

Sad for sure.

It seems that we agree with some things  but have a differing opinion on what the right message is? i happen to believe  his message is sound and dont have a lot of faith in the average voter to understand the issues.

 For the record I knew it was a long shot for him to win but again it's what he has to say that I admire more than the man himself. Perhaps I phrased things in a manner that made it sound like him winning was more important than anything else, that wasnt what I meant.

As was already mentioned by someone else, the fact that he is not mainstream is what I like the best. Mainstream thinking is what i believe got us hooped in the first place.

[OzmO]

Sad for sure.

It seems that we agree with some things regarding the media but have a differing opinion on what the right message is.

For the record I knew it was a long shot for him to win but again it's what he has to say that I admire more than the man himself. Perhaps I phrased things in a manner that made it sound like him winning was more important than anything else, that wasnt what I meant.

As was already mentioned by someone else, the fact that he is not mainstream is what I like the best. Mainstream thinking is what i believe got us hooped in the first place.

Yes i agree.  Most of the stuff i heard about RP i liked.  I am greatly disappointed in our political system and the people of our country because here we are again, the range of our candidates for the most powerful nation in the world is so lacking just like it was in 2004 and 2000.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Yes i agree.  Most of the stuff i heard about RP i liked.  I am greatly disappointed in our political system and the people of our country because here we are again, the range of our candidates for the most powerful nation in the world is so lacking just like it was in 2004 and 2000.

Do you not believe there may be some connection between Ron Pauls vocal criticisms of what caused the war, the federal reserve and other statements that could have gotten his time limited on debates and overall news coverage other than the points you made, (regarding the public not getting the message)?

for example, some people in "higher up" positions didn't want these criticisms public.

[OzmO]

Do you not believe there may be some connection between Ron Pauls vocal criticisms of what caused the war, the federal reserve and other statements that could have gotten his time limited on debates and overall news coverage other than the points you made, (regarding the public not getting the message)?

for example, some people in "higher up" positions didn't want these criticisms public.

There are no shortage of criticisms of the war from prominent sources.

I think you may be confusing the reasons of his limited debate time with a planned and deliberate censor of war time criticisms.

If there were no criticisms of the war from prominent sources or if criticisms we being censored in other instances then you might have something to be suspicious about.  But that's not the case.

In fact his criticism of the war may be the reason his draw was so low in the polls with-in his own party.  The fact is there is a large percentage of people in america (my guess would be 30%) who are stupid enough to think Iraq was necessary and applaud BUSH for invading.  Most of them are republican. 

What you have going there is classic conspiracy reasoning.  You are isolating his criticisms of the war and his limited debate time from all other influences and circumstances and drawing a conclusion from it.

[Dos Equis]

There are no shortage of criticisms of the war from prominent sources.

I think you may be confusing the reasons of his limited debate time with a planned and deliberate censor of war time criticisms.


In fact his criticism of the war may be the reason his draw was so low in the polls with-in his own party.

Right.  There has hardly been an attempt by the media to suppress criticism of the war.  If anything, the opposite is true. 

RP also did not show a lot of party loyalty, which may have hurt his chances.  He refused to say whether or not he would support his party's nominee.  Not sure if he still has that opinion. 

[OzmO]

Right.  There has hardly been an attempt by the media to suppress criticism of the war.  If anything, the opposite is true. 

RP also did not show a lot of party loyalty, which may have hurt his chances.  He refused to say whether or not he would support his party's nominee.  Not sure if he still has that opinion. 

Dude you are up early.   

[Dos Equis]

Dude you are up early.   

lol.  Not really.  I'm up at about 4 a.m. every morning.  Had to get up about an hour earlier, because I have a 6 a.m. telephone conference (Florida time).  Why the heck does the world revolve around Eastern Standard Time?   

[Bindare_Dundat]

There are no shortage of criticisms of the war from prominent sources.

I think you may be confusing the reasons of his limited debate time with a planned and deliberate censor of war time criticisms.

If there were no criticisms of the war from prominent sources or if criticisms we being censored in other instances then you might have something to be suspicious about.  But that's not the case.

In fact his criticism of the war may be the reason his draw was so low in the polls with-in his own party.  The fact is there is a large percentage of people in america (my guess would be 30%) who are stupid enough to think Iraq was necessary and applaud BUSH for invading.  Most of them are republican. 

What you have going there is classic conspiracy reasoning.  You are isolating his criticisms of the war and his limited debate time from all other influences and circumstances and drawing a conclusion from it.

Thanks.  Im not a conspiracy theororist however nothing surprises me anymore so I leave all options open. I agree with you on many points but go that little step further and thats where we disagree. Good conversation though, much better than mindless name calling which unfortunalty we all get sucked into from time to time during these debates.


You going to the march? 

[OzmO]

Thanks.  Im not a conspiracy theororist however nothing surprises me anymore so I leave all options open. I agree with you on many points but go that little step further and thats where we disagree. Good conversation though, much better than mindless name calling which unfortunalty we all get sucked into from time to time during these debates.


You going to the march? 

I'm very guilty of things like that from time to time.   

[shootfighter1]

That second clip of Ron Paul at the debate is excellent.  That should make people wake up and think a little...