Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crockett on January 05, 2008, 07:56:06 PM
-
I'm actually surprised the whole deal with Fox not inviting Ron Paul to the debates hasn't been more of an issue. I figured all those RP supporters would be out there in mass telling people to boycott Fox.
While I'm not a RP fan boy, I do think Fox is trying to keep him out of the way. Specially when he did better than Thompson and he's invited.
The New Hampshire Republican Party dropped their affiliation with a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News tomorrow night because they have limited the number of candidates that can participate.
“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field," said Republican chair Fergus Cullen. "Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures."
The Fox debate is excluding Texas Congressman Ron Paul even though he polls higher in New Hampshire and has raised significantly more money, and is campaigning more in New Hampshire than Fred Thompson who is invited.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/nh_gop_drops_sp.html
-
"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field"
TxMom would say this is right, that underdogs don't deserve to be heard, that only people who speak the truth and are best able to fill presidential functions would have the money, popularity and backing (i.e. greased cogs) to be favored by Fox & co to feature in their debates.
-
Originally posted by moot
"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field"
TxMom would say this is right, that underdogs don't deserve to be heard, that only people who speak the truth and are best able to fill presidential functions would have the money, popularity and backing (i.e. greased cogs) to be favored by Fox & co to feature in their debates.
Well then why is Thompson invited? I'm not a RP fan boy, but it was pretty clear even before the Iowa caucus that RP had more money and support than Thompson. Yet Fox choose to invite Thompson and not RP.
Seems to me Fox has more than over stepped their bounds of trying to push the candidate whom they choose and not the others. RP has raised a hell of a lot of money considering that most of his money has come from average citizens rather that big corporations.
-
The media won't give RP the attention he deserves because he will not dance to any corporate tune.
If you are a politician and the media cannot influence you they won't give you the time of day. It works the same way here in Oz.
-
Pretty convenient for you to misconstrue my previously stated opinion to fit nicely into your little post.:rofl btw, it's also an incorrect assumption that I would believe that.
(*edit* did you just call me a snob??? :lol )
-
Originally posted by moot
bj229r - Some candidates are less equal than others?
Originally posted by texasmom
Absolutely ~ all by personal opinion, of course. Hence: the reason you each select one candidate as your choice over the others (that's where the voting part comes in).
Originally posted by moot
In that case you're saying something like Fox News is impartial enough to decide for people who they should have the choice to vote for, or in this case who they see and hear debate with the rest of the candidates, as well as take it upon themselves to hamper the campaign of the candidates they think are less equal.
There's nothing impartial about Fox News, and the only reason you support their choice is because it favors your opinion. Your sense of impartiality's what's sub-standard here..
Originally posted by texasmom
Not at all. It's not the responsibility of Fox News (or any of the other TV channels, for that matter) to decide who's worthy of my research.
It's my own responsibility to get out there & search for who I think it top tier, and who isn't.
Anything less is blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging crap.
Fox isn't casting your vote; you are. If any of y'all don't like what you see: whatever, just get out there & keep searching and stop waiting for others to spoonfeed you what you think is correct.
I'm not wrapped around the axle about Fox. And I think NH GOP did a great job of manning up & doing something about what they thought was unfair. Heck of a lot better than the standard whining about it... which is par.
-
Paul is NOT going to get the GOP nomination, (for that matter he is more a libertarian than a Republican) and as such, his time in the debate will distract from those who MAY get the nod (one could argue Thompson oughtn't be in as well, but he placed 3rd in Iowa)
-
Originally posted by moot
only people who speak the truth and are best able to fill presidential functions would have the money, popularity and backing (i.e. greased cogs) to be favored by Fox & co to feature in their debates.
Wrong again! Ron Paul has bought ALOT of airtime on Fox for his campaign. Frankly, I was surprised that Fox didn't allow him to come to the debates for this reason.
-
And what more would you have done in my place if you'd see someone saying it's banal for something like Fox to censor someone like RP?
"Whining" is just a convenient way to dismiss a lot of things on forums, regardless of whether they're pertinent or not. E.g. in the quotes you've refluffied, you don't include the real context, that is, that a national media fixture like Fox is playing with politics to the point of censorship of national elections debates.... And you say it's normal. You say it's arguable that some candidates are less worthy of free speech, you equate preference for a candidate's policies to his or her right to campaign. You equate impartiality with some biased bull**** media company.
The two have nothing to do with one another. There's no comparison. The real bull**** here is RP's censorship, it's saying people who denounce that censorship are whining, it's saying politics in the US are just a joke for the biggest money and influence mongering clown with the best looking suit and best poker face can win, as opposed to the candidate most fit to satisfy PRESIDENTIAL functions.
Thompson didn't do as well as Paul, and yet he's invited. How do you excuse that one? It's bias and double standard, and calling it for what it is isn't whining. No more than Paul's a limp wristed egghead.. By your previously stated criteria, the only electable candidate is not one that knows his stuff (e.g. the freakin Constitution), but one that can look good doing whatever the poop they do in the white house.
Delirium - that was sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Paul is NOT going to get the GOP nomination, (for that matter he is more a libertarian than a Republican) and as such, his time in the debate will distract from those who MAY get the nod (one could argue Thompson oughtn't be in as well, but he placed 3rd in Iowa)
Just about every other candidate is NOT going to be anywhere as faithful to the Constitution, to the principle of small govt., etc, as Paul, and as such, their time in the debate will distract from those who MAY get the ball rolling in the RIGHT direction again.
-
Originally posted by moot
And what more would you have done in my place if you'd see someone saying it's banal for something like Fox to censor someone like RP?
"Whining" is just a convenient way to dismiss a lot of things on forums, regardless of whether they're pertinent or not. E.g. in the quotes you've refluffied, you don't include the real context, that is, that a national media fixture like Fox is playing with politics to the point of censorship of national elections debates.... And you say it's normal. You say it's arguable that some candidates are less worthy of free speech, you equate preference for a candidate's policies to his or her right to campaign. You equate impartiality with some biased bull**** media company.
The two have nothing to do with one another. There's no comparison. The real bull**** here is RP's censorship, it's saying people who denounce that censorship are whining, it's saying politics in the US are just a joke for the biggest money and influence mongering clown with the best looking suit and best poker face can win, as opposed to the candidate most fit to satisfy PRESIDENTIAL functions.
Thompson didn't do as well as Paul, and yet he's invited. How do you excuse that one? It's bias and double standard, and calling it for what it is isn't whining. No more than Paul's a limp wristed egghead.. By your previously stated criteria, the only electable candidate is not one that knows his stuff (e.g. the freakin Constitution), but one that can look good doing whatever the poop they do in the white house.
Delirium - that was sarcasm.
You hit the nail on the head. The two have nothing to do with one another.
Who cares two hoots if CNN is liberal biased, or Fox News is conservative biased? If you don't like it, change the channel. If you don't like what's on the other channel ~ turn the TV off.
Why would I try to "explain" why Thompson is invited and RP isn't? I don't care at all. I'm not relying on Fox (or anyone else) to decide for me who I think is top tier. Frankly, I don't care much at all who's on the 'in' list at any of the channels. When I decide to let them do my thinking for me, perhaps that will change. Until then ~ I'll go find out for myself.
Saying that there was whining (yes, I'm saying 'whining' again) about Fox's decision isn't my way to dismiss anything that you or anyone else has said on this board. I was talking entirely about personal responsibility to choose for yourself (including independent research).
-
I invited Ron.
-
So you're saying there's whining somewhere by someone, but not in the thread you reply to, nor by anyone in that thread? Just where is this "whining", and what does that "whining" have to do with anything, then?
-
:rofl You spend an awful lot of time telling me what I'm saying! :rofl :aok
Thanks moot ~ I appreciated that. I've had a rough day & really needed a good chuckle just then. Thanks ;)
-
In fact, I asked for clarification on what you meant to avoid just that, but you can't help but not answer and take the lighter and diletante side of it.. and then say I am telling you what you mean to say.
I personaly don't care either way, it just irritates me when something as essential as politics is considered so frivolously.. When someone says they think what is obviously wrong is right, and turn it into a vote that will affect me.
-
Here's your whining:The whole idea that Fox News is responsible for spoon feeding every little tiny tid-bit of 'fair & balanced' information is responsibilty dodging, blame shifting crap. Yes, it's whining. If you don't like what they have to offer ~ who cares? They're not going to be casting your vote. Find your own information on your own choice of candidate.
It's not the politics that I'm considering frivolous ~ it's the whining of others about Fox that's frivolous. You're only responsible for your own vote moot ~ not for the vote of everyone else. So get the info you need to make an informed choice, and then act on it.
*edit*
Originally posted by moot
...and then say I am telling you what you mean to say.
That's mighty big of you to tell me what I mean to say! Thanks! :aok
How about you just accept that I mean what I say the first time instead of turning it around & saying that I mean to say something else! LOL
-
Where did Ron Paul finish in Iowa? And where did Fred Thompson finish?
-
Moot, you better let it go, Bud. I don't think you want to anger a Texas mom. ;)
-
Ya know, I really want to be amazed at the amount of bias shown by both the right and left wing media. Yet, sadly, it is so common place now I can not be. :(
-
Where did I say Fox is responsible for spoon feeding every little tid-bit of fair and balanced info? Fox is a commercial enterprise, not an ethical one. I never said that, but you thought I did because you sure like the idea that people are whiners.
Fox is only after cash, and the same way Arpajo doesn't deserve any positive publicity as a positive influence on the public he's supposed to protect and serve, Fox doesn't deserve anything more than being called for what they are: biased press. The same sort of journalism that journos make up or taint with anything that will make them more cash.
What I did mean was that it's condemnable to take Fox's bias, considering their ubiquity in news media, as a status quo not worth denouncing.
And you pick up only on the denounciation, and call it whining.
That's mighty big of you to tell me what I mean to say! Thanks!
This after :
You spend an awful lot of time telling me what I'm saying!
which is pretty explicitely saying just what it's saying... Apparently you can't do much besides call anyone pointing out the flaws in arguments "whiners".. You think the only useful action is a vote and can't recognize that shining light on BS like Fox's or the hollywood-ish glamour and sound bite superfluity of today's political debate is effectively a vote if it makes people aware of the deceptiveness of the status quo, so I'm not going to derail the thread in vain any more.
Tango - what's she going to do? Argue? Not...
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Where did Ron Paul finish in Iowa? And where did Fred Thompson finish?
Mike Huckabee ..... 40,841 ....34.4%
Mitt Romney .........29,949 .....25.2%
Fred D. Thompson .15,904 .....13.4%
John McCain .........15,559 ....13.1%
Ron Paul ..............11,817 .....10.0.%
Rudolph W. Giuliani .4,097 .......3.5%
Duncan Hunter ......524 ... .....0.4%
Tom Tancredo .......5 ...........0.0%
98% reporting | Updated 11:29 PM ET
-
Even though Ron Paul finished below Fred Thompson he should be in the debates. Fred Thompson is barely making a effort he survived Iowa because he's a well know actor. The only thing he's done in New Hampshire is the debate. No appearances just the debate. Most of the time he looks like he would just rather not be there.
Not a Ron Paul or a Fred Thompson supporter.
-
Here's the question you should be asking: Is Rudy going to be included?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Mike Huckabee ..... 40,841 ....34.4%
Mitt Romney .........29,949 .....25.2%
Fred D. Thompson .15,904 .....13.4%
John McCain .........15,559 ....13.1%
Ron Paul ..............11,817 .....10.0.%
Rudolph W. Giuliani .4,097 .......3.5%
Duncan Hunter ......524 ... .....0.4%
Tom Tancredo .......5 ...........0.0%
98% reporting | Updated 11:29 PM ET
Yet RP at over 3 times the votes of Giuliani and he's invited. As I said I'm not a RP fan boy, but he should have been invited.
-
Well, if Rudy is being included and RP excluded it's clear Fox is trying to manipulate the election. Fair and balanced, huh?
-
Ah the Foxnews pig pile
No controversy when ABC news didnt invite him?
-
You're stuck behind a cultural barrier. You won't understand what I'm telling you no matter how I put it.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Ah the Foxnews pig pile
No controversy when ABC news didnt invite him?
ABC didn't invite him?
Fox thrives on controversy, and all news organizations would be petrified if Ron Paul is elected:
Anchor: And now over to our Washington correspondent for todays political news.
Reporter: Well, Sally, nothing happened at the White House today. Nothing to report.
Anchor: What?! How did the nation survive? Are Americans panicked at this? How can the White House do nothing?
Reporter: Well, somehow the country kept right on going.
Anchor: How about Congress? What happened on the hill today?
Reporter: Nothing, Sally.
Anchor: What!? But, but what about the new civil war in Bulganistan? Aren't they going to do anything about it? Hold hearings or send a delegation?
Reporter: No. No one really cares about it here on the hill, Sally. It's their problem.
Anchor: But, but... how about the UN?
Reporter: Since we left the UN, no one cares, Sally. Nothing to report here, except the economy is doing great and everyone is happy since the income tax was abolished.
Anchor: What's the latest on the terror front?
Reporter: Nothing to report.
Anchor: But what about the fear gripping the nation since Homeland Security was abolished?
Reporter: No fear, Sally. Just billions and billions of dollars saved. Airlines are hiring more people and buying more planes. Prices are dropping and airlines are adding back new routes that were canceled years ago since profits are up, making it more convenient for Americans.
Anchor: But, but... Any news likely tomorrow from the White House or Congress?
Reporter: Not really, Sally. Things are quiet. Maybe things will pick up in a few months...
Anchor: Now over to our nightly war report.
War Reporter: Nothing to report, Sally.
Anchor: sheesh.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
ABC didn't invite him?
Nope (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080104/D8TVC2S00.html)
-
Well, I'm thoroughly confused. I could have sworn Ron Paul was included in the ABC debate. Perhaps it was an exact replica of Ron Paul.
-
Didnt see it, I know he sued to get in...did he?
-
LePaul, you just can't stand that your holy grail of media is actually a biased source trying to manipulate the election the same way as it has manipulated the news.
If ABC excludes RP from it's debate and includes Rudy, then it is just as guilty of manipulation. I had to work tonight so I did not get to watch the debate. Was RP on stage?
This may just backfire on the media. When voters see the media deliberately including candidates that out polled others being excluded I'm sure there will be a backlash.
This is not a .05% candidate being cut out. This is a candidate that garnered 3 times as many votes as one that is being invited.
Face it, Faux News is just as biased as your other so called "liberal media". Hurts to face the cold hard facts, does'nt it?
-
No. He didn't sue anyone because he was never excluded.
-
Well rpm, Foxnews isnt *my* sole source of news...Drudge, Reuters...I hit them all. So your assumption that I am sold only on what Foxnews puts out is completely wrong. Heck, sometimes I hit the British sites too...but those boobies on Page 3 sometimes distract me :)
But hey, thanks for the angry post. I didnt see you present any "cold hard facts".
And I'm just not hurting.
Well, I'm lying. I am laughing at you :p
-
I did'nt say it was your only source. I said it was your holy grail.
The truth hurts, does'nt it?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I did'nt say it was your only source. I said it was your holy grail.
The truth hurts, does'nt it?
It is?
And no...it doesn't hurt.
Sorry, RPM, as hard as you try to make this some sort of personal dig at me, it just aint working. First, I dont care one way or the other about Ron Paul. Second, I have no idea why you are trying to be so vindictive over a BBS post.
Dunno, dude...my life just dont revolve around the BBS. Maybe that's why you are a few zillion posts ahead of me :)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Ah the Foxnews pig pile
Yeah, you're not a Faux News fan.
Face it, they are just biased and manipulative trying to push their own private agenda.
Can you admit that?
Oh, nice try at deflection because of my post count. I think I'm like #30 or so on the list and I don't have my own private forum.
My life revolves around finding the murderer of Shiela Reed.
-
Wow, you certainly are trying to make this some sort of personal crusade.
Oooooh.
I noted the usual "faux news" lameness....because based on...ready?...the facts...that Fox wasnt the only news organization to not host your *beloved* Ron Paul. I provided the link earlier. Mr Paul, in that article, indicated he was suing to get into the debate.
Rolex says he was there, I dont know...didnt see the entire debate.
I don't see the "manipulation" you claim. But again, I dont base my "news collection" from one source.
You seem to feel I do. Whatever. Don't go blowing a stent trying to think "Boy I've shown that Paul guy a thing or two! Yay me!" You haven't.
But please, by all means, keep detailing for me how, somehow, my life has been thrown sideways by your post :rofl
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I noted the usual "faux news" lameness....because based on...ready?...the facts...that Fox wasnt the only news organization to not host your *beloved* Ron Paul. I provided the link earlier. Mr Paul, in that article, indicated he was suing to get into the debate.
Rolex says he was there, I dont know...didnt see the entire debate.
I don't see the "manipulation" you claim.
Let's see... They include Rudy who got 1/3 of the votes RP did but is a good little Republican. Yeah, no manipulation there.
It's not a dig at you, it's a statement of fact about Faux (that means fake) News. It's not a news channel, it's a yellow journalism outlet. The fact that you are trying to defend them is why I am taking you to task.
You are the one that wants to make this personal taking my post count to task. Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's patootie because Maine has, what... 4 electoral votes? I just want you to admit Fox is a biased media outlet pushing their own private agenda instead of being the "fair and balanced" bastion of media. Just because they have a little flag waving in the corner of the screen does not make them tell the truth.
Fair enough?
-
Heh, now my state doesn't count. Waah.
You're asking me, and the readers here, to feel Foxnews is a smear station. Meanwhile other organizations are hardly exept from criticism. CNN, NBC, etc etc all have their own controversies.
I'm not going to comment on your gradiose notions that Foxnews is somehow the scum of the news organizations.
All I did was point out how ABC's exclusion of Dennis Kucinich in the debate seemed to escape discussion. You guys have rallied on how terrible Fox is, while completely ignoring the point I made...if Fox is bad for ignoring a guy, how is it so OK that ABC do it?
Answer that.
I've made no attempts to "defend" Foxnews. You are the person who has insisted I am a devout follower and only beleive what they publish. I've stated that's not the case. But you continue to insist you know me better than me, and continue to insist that somehow you've proved how wrong I am.
You've failed. Again.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
You guys have rallied on how terrible Fox is, while completely ignoring the point I made...if Fox is bad for ignoring a guy, how is it so OK that ABC do it?
Originally posted by rpm
If ABC excludes RP from it's debate and includes Rudy, then it is just as guilty of manipulation.
You want to rethink that statement?
Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involves sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting sales and exciting public opinion.
(http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/01/21/70/image_1570211.jpg)
Just the facts.
-
Yawn.
Again, in your opinion. >shrug<
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Again, in your opinion.
Well, at least we agree on one thing. Care to prove it wrong?
I've never said any other source is unbiased. You just can't seem to admit that Fox is not "fair and balanced".
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I provided the link earlier. Mr Paul, in that article, indicated he was suing to get into the debate.
Rolex says he was there, I dont know...didnt see the entire debate.
Maybe you need to get out the reading glasses, gramps. :) There is nothing in the article you posted indicating that Ron Paul was going to sue anyone about anything.
He was never excluded by ABC, so why would he have sued?
He is being excluded by Fox, but he not suing anyone.
Is it a full moon? :huh
-
He heard it on Faux. It has to be the truth, you amerihater.
-
Giuliani .4,097 .......3.5%
Giuliani did not campaign in Iowa.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Maybe you need to get out the reading glasses, gramps. :) There is nothing in the article you posted indicating that Ron Paul was going to sue anyone about anything.
He was never excluded by ABC, so why would he have sued?
He is being excluded by Fox, but he not suing anyone.
Is it a full moon? :huh
I corrected myself earlier, it was Kucinich.
As for the rest...Ill let RPM spin away. He seems to think he knows everything. I'll just sit back and watch him continue to make an idiot of himself. He's on an anti Foxnews troll...an he seems to think i own the company or something. He's a kook.
-
the doctor educating the people has become real thorn in the side for the neocons and their propaganda press... and the turncoat whiners were also wrong yet again.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Well, if Rudy is being included and RP excluded it's clear Fox is trying to manipulate the election. Fair and balanced, huh?
Rudy has been polling near the top NATIONALLY for most of a year---and, RP...hasn't. Rudy is putting his money in FLA, as he rightly concluded a buncha religous, country folks in IOWA aren't gonna vote for a pro-abortion New York Mayor who is on his 3rd wife. and I don't know WHY any GOP people put effort into NH, as the results mean little nationally, other than in the media.
I'm starting to think I want Obama to win--I think we could stand 4 years of whatever this idiot could do to the country, in return for being able to declare that RACISM IS OVER!
-
I don't know.. I guess if you took the national polls and then took into consideration how paul did in iowa...
Then I guess fox is just playing the numbers. I think that they are making a mistake tho since ron paul would be good ratings.. good sound bites.. but.. they used a formula that they think is fair and works out the best.
They think thompson has a better chance than paul.
I would also add that a lot of the republicans are looking at thompson as a vice pres. I am pretty sure that no one is looking at paul as a possible vice pres.
I think that you guys are just wound up too much on this.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't know.. I guess if you took the national polls and then took into consideration how paul did in iowa...
Then I guess fox is just playing the numbers. I think that they are making a mistake tho since ron paul would be good ratings.. good sound bites.. but.. they used a formula that they think is fair and works out the best.
They think thompson has a better chance than paul.
I would also add that a lot of the republicans are looking at thompson as a vice pres. I am pretty sure that no one is looking at paul as a possible vice pres.
I think that you guys are just wound up too much on this.
lazs
I agree
-
Yah Paul WOULD make for good ratings---you always tend to want to hear him when he speaks...Newt is the only other one who does that for me...I had hopes for Fred, but he is about done...I'm afraid it's gonna be McCain or Rudy or the hick....
-
Originally posted by rpm
LePaul, you just can't stand that your holy grail of media is actually a biased source trying to manipulate the election the same way as it has manipulated the news.
If ABC excludes RP from it's debate and includes Rudy, then it is just as guilty of manipulation. I had to work tonight so I did not get to watch the debate. Was RP on stage?
This may just backfire on the media. When voters see the media deliberately including candidates that out polled others being excluded I'm sure there will be a backlash.
This is not a .05% candidate being cut out. This is a candidate that garnered 3 times as many votes as one that is being invited.
Face it, Faux News is just as biased as your other so called "liberal media". Hurts to face the cold hard facts, does'nt it?
Last nights debate wasn't the Republican only debate that this article talked about. The one RP is excluded from will be on tonight I believe but I'm not 100%.
The one that was on ABC last night did have Ron Paul but as luck would have it I turned it on, just in time to see the Republicans walking off the stage. (there is a god)
-
I watched the "forum". It was a Romney love fest, despite the fact that Romney wasn't all that impressive. I was even less impressed with Huckabee. Fox didn't do themselves any favor in the credibility department, they looked near as bad as CNN or MSNBC. Paul would not have done well there even if he had been there. They'd have treated him just as poorly as they did Thompson, if not worse.
-
The only problem I have with Ron Paul is that he is Texan.
-
Oh now look, you are forgetting...somehow Foxnews is the devil...(see how rpm ignores whatever "outrage" he has for them, completely ignoring ABC's ignoring of a candidate)....and somehow, he feels I worship Foxnews....so again, somehow, he thinks he's shown me something
LOL
-
Originally posted by rpm
If ABC excludes RP from it's debate and includes Rudy, then it is just as guilty of manipulation.
Face it, Faux News is just as biased as your other so called "liberal media".
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking LePaul.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking LePaul.
;)
-
Originally posted by texasmom
You hit the nail on the head. The two have nothing to do with one another.
Who cares two hoots if CNN is liberal biased, or Fox News is conservative biased? If you don't like it, change the channel. If you don't like what's on the other channel ~ turn the TV off. [...]
My problem with that is the airwaves are controlled by the FCC, and Cable is corporate controlled. It's not the internet, and us 'elites' that are privileged to have Internet access are not everyone.
The government controls the media completely. Or you could say the media controls the government completely. When they are so closely linked, it works both ways.
If I try to power up an antennae and broadcast, the FCC would be all over me like a wardrobe malfunction. I consider broadcasting free speech, as much as publishing a book. I'm not sure how anyone can believe a system like this is American in spirit. At least on the Internet I'm free... but today, in this country, you have to be able to afford freedom. In other words freedom is for the rich (aristocracy).
I hope it's a Paul vs. Obama race. Anything but the status quo. I liked my country better when a farm boy became president, instead of a rich boy. (or girl hopefully soon {not Hillary tho}.
-
I've never considered Fox news to be without bias. It just happens that their bias coincides with mine. I do find it manipulative that they excluded Ron Paul and the session after the "forum" last night seemed to be bent in favor of Mitt Romney. While I am disappointed in these I am certainly not surprised. Fortunately, Al Gore's invention makes it pretty tough to dominate the populace with propaganda.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I've never considered Fox news to be without bias. It just happens that their bias coincides with mine. I do find it manipulative that they excluded Ron Paul and the session after the "forum" last night seemed to be bent in favor of Mitt Romney. While I am disappointed in these I am certainly not surprised. Fortunately, Al Gore's invention makes it pretty tough to dominate the populace with propaganda.
Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet. According to your theory, you know that, because you have Internet access. So, you knowingly wrote false propaganda because it coincides with your bias. Now, I can call you out on your propaganda here, but there are no mechanisms to correct the media when they put their agenda above the truth. It's a one-way street with the media.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet. According to your theory, you know that, because you have Internet access. So, you knowingly wrote false propaganda because it coincides with your bias. Now, I can call you out on your propaganda here, but there are no mechanisms to correct the media when they put their agenda above the truth. It's a one-way street with the media.
No, but he does make alot of other lies up. Even won an oscar for them.
-
He only compiled a presentation based on what many scientists had written or said. He didn't "make alot of other lies up." [sic]
Whether the projections are correct or not is not something anyone can say right now - maybe yes, or maybe no. Either way, there is no evidence that he "lied" about the data or projections of the scientists.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet. According to your theory, you know that, because you have Internet access. So, you knowingly wrote false propaganda because it coincides with your bias. Now, I can call you out on your propaganda here, but there are no mechanisms to correct the media when they put their agenda above the truth. It's a one-way street with the media.
Anyone who claims to be bias free is either dead, dishonest, or stupid. I was joking about Al Gore.
-
Rolex.. there is no evidence that he "lied" about the data but a british court has ruled that he made one hell of a lot of dumb mistakes all on his own. he did not present the data out there correctly in most cases.. he misquoted some scientific work and it does appear that he exaggerated for agenda purposes.
It is his trademark in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rolex
He only compiled a presentation based on what many scientists had written or said. He didn't "make alot of other lies up." [sic]
Whether the projections are correct or not is not something anyone can say right now - maybe yes, or maybe no. Either way, there is no evidence that he "lied" about the data or projections of the scientists.
I consider it a lie when his lifestyle shows he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Anyone who claims to be bias free is either dead, dishonest, or stupid. I was joking about Al Gore.
One could say the same about you, and everyone else on this forum. everyone is likely to be basised about something they believe in.
-
Originally posted by crockett
One could say the same about you..
Say what about me? I recognize and admit my bias, how about you?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Nope (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080104/D8TVC2S00.html)
Do you even read what you post?
The Republican debate will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EST.
-
Did you read the posts afterward, putz? :)
-
It is hard to totally blast Fox when the other networks are doing the exact same thing. Only they are pushing the republican candidates they feel that the dems can easily beat.
However, I sure don't understand it about RP.
I'm running out of people to root for here. I like Huckabee but he is for bigger government, give-away programs for illegals etc.. So I can't vote for him. Julianie is for abortion. Can't vote for him either. Unsure about Mitt Romney. Can't vote democrat. They are always pushing for bigger Gov't and larger taxes. Haven't seen or heard of a decent democrat since Kennedy. He was actually a fiscal conservative.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Did you read the posts afterward, putz? :)
Putz?
LOL...
You post an ignorant rebuttal and I'm a putz cause I'm not the 1st to point it out?
Funny. You never recanted it by the way. You went right along with your nonexistant point using your nonexistant evidence. But Oh yea, I meant Kucinich! LOL...
-
Paul FINALLY gets some publicity.... (not good, however) I don't much many of these purported statements of his to be unrealistic
link (http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php)
I like this one:
“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.”
-
Fox News had a set deal for what was required to get asked to the debate...
10 percent avaerage of the national polls according to a polling source....Political something or another...cant remember the name...
At any rate RP didn't have 10 percent in the national polls average and therfore was not invited.
I watched both the ABC and Fox debates.....AFter seeing what Paul had to say..and giving him his due...I see why he doesn't have the 10 percent.
Much ado about nothing as always. Unless your an RP fan.
Edit....
Btw....since RP is NOT a republican per se'...why haven't the Dems invited him? Just wondering.
-
It's true Fox News has no bias at all.. :lol :lol :lol
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2775/010808decisions14cp8.jpg)
This is an image from Fox News..
http://www.foxnews.com/
-
RedTop, if RP isn't republican per se, then what are the rest of the GOP candidates?
-
Originally posted by moot
RedTop, if RP isn't republican per se, then what are the rest of the GOP candidates?
He's really a libertarian...He just had to pick a side to get in the bigger mix. IMHO of course.
No libertarian would get invited to diddly this time.
-
Goldwater wasn't republican? Or would he just not be republican today?
-
Of course Goldwater would not be a Republican today. Can you just see him tap dancing in an airport Men's room??
-
Originally posted by moot
Goldwater wasn't republican? Or would he just not be republican today?
Goldwater was really before my time....sorry can't comment on that. :)
-
The founding fathers were too...
-
Goldwater was really before my time....sorry can't comment on that.
He was before my time too. But knowing about him would allow you to understand that the top three Republican front runners are far more liberal and far closer to being Democrats than Paul. Libertarianism is far closer to traditional conservative/Republican values than the current mess of the party. Even Bush II ran his first election paying lip service to those values (some anyway) that he promptly threw out the window.
Have fun in the upcoming recession. I know I won't.
Charon
-
Barry Goldwater considered Ronald Reagan a liberal RINO.
-
I remember Barry Goldwater and the race against LBJ very well. There is no truth to the rumor I remember Taft, though. It was the classic race of ideals. A small government, low tax, strong military, fiscal conservative, no social welfare Goldwater against a cunning politician. Johnson ran the first manipulative, negative TV ad in US history. The ad had a young girl holding a flower (a daisy, I think) and picking the petals off. It changed to a launch countdown followed by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. The voice over made Goldwater out to be a war monger, when it was LBJ who turned out to be the war monger. Ironically, whispers and innuendo that Goldwater was tied to the KKK (unsubstantiated, of course) magically appeared in the press. Goldwater never stood a chance after that. He made some campaign blunders, but LBJ trounced him in the media and in the election.
One of his biggest fans was Ronald Reagan, and it was Goldwater that helped Reagan shift from acting to politics.