<p>
</p>
<p>Fox News is the only news network that is fair and balanced and I would add often entertaining. </p>
<p>People on the thread you cited tried to point out to you that there was no censorship, yet you still don’t belive it.</p>
<p>Your thread proves nothing. If you look at the Ron Paul forums, the people there remind me of the followers of Muqtada al Sadr. They blindly worship Paul and demonize anyone who might have even the slightest criticism of him.</p>
<p>No censorship? Posting huckabee’s pic in the 3rd place when Ron Paul got 3rd place is not censorship? Leaving out Ron Paul’s name, resulting in a blatant lie, is not censorship? Saying he had ‘no chance’ before the debates or primaries had even begun, is fair and balanced? Saying he did not really win the online polls, there must have been a mistake, when he repeatedly won the online polls, is not skewing the results? Excluding him from the debate, when he had beaten Guiliani and Thompson, who were included in the debate, is not censorship???</p>
<p>Oh, and you are calling Ron Paul supporters blind followers??? Well, you are just showing how very little you know about us, and about him. duh, just why do you think we have chosen to support Ron Paul? Ever wonder about that?</p>
<p>Gee, let’s see…is it because the mainstream media has forcefed us Ron Paul, they’ve told us that we MUST choose him, that he is the frontrunner, and we think he is the only viable candidate?</p>
<p>Yeah, that must be it! We’re blindly following the mainstream media…we’re sheeple!</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>
Paul has assembled a cult following that uses misleading tools like online polls to suggest there exists interest in him that does not actually exist. Like all cults Paul’s will fail. It would be better for news organizations to exclude him from debates so the Republicans can have a serious debate and chose a person who can win the election.</p>
<p>Just what we need, for the mainstream media, or, rather, the corporate owners of the mainstream media, to dictate to us whom we should vote for.</p>
<p>That’s Democracy?</p>
<p>tommybill said, "I took a quote out of context for whimsical proposes, "…</p>
<p>Yeah, Ok. No wonder you support Billary…;)</p>
<p>Introducing the word “cult” is just name calling and taunting. Libertarians have viewpoints just as valid and logical as anyone’s. I think building codes are a good thing (as a philosophical illustration), so I disagree with them, but I welcome Paul’s candidacy.</p>
<p>Yeah, Ok. No wonder you support Billary…</p>
<p>Cute, not curt, response I like it …</p>
<p>Well said, vossron. And that is my point. You don’t have to agree with Ron Paul (or any particular candidate) but the PEOPLE should have fair and ballanced coverage of ALL the candidates so that WE can ALL vote and select our candidate of choice based on accurate information, not bias.</p>
<p>“People forget that the job of president isn’t a big “Pay Raise”. For most people who have run for president over the years, becoming President is a major pay cut.”</p>
<p>In addition to a salary, contemporary presidents have budgets for everything from the china on which they eat taxpayer provided gourmet food to the cleaning of their taxpayer provided tailored clothes; presidents don’t pay for any of their living expenses while president. After their term(s) in office, they frequently return to the boards of the corporations on which they sat pre-presidency and command a greater fee for doing so. Most also have family money that doesn’t disappear just because they change jobs. With all of the financial perks, I don’t think any contemporary president has experienced the office as a pay cut.</p>
<p>Still, I don’t think they want to be prez for the $$.</p>
<p>It’s the power.</p>
<p>
Supporting a candidate does not make you part of a cult; it may make you passionate about your candidate and that is ok with me. Many (not all), Paul supporters behave like they are members of a cult. The go beyond passion and move into obsession. Even the slightest perceived insult becomes an outrage (eg. a news organization is slow to update an AP story and thus must be acting out of conspiracy to harm Paul). Paul supporters organize like a pack of wolves to try to dominate online polls even though their candidate, by any objective standard, is last in a debate. They turn their backs on obvious and legitimate criticism such as letting his newsletter spew racism and hatred. Those are just some of the examples of why some (not all), Paul backers should be ignored along with their candidate.</p>
<p>To see on TV the Paul supporters chasing and taunting Bill ORiley because the Fox network dropped Paul from a debate in NH reminded me of old footage of young Brown Shirts of the early 30s in Germany. </p>
<p>I am not saying they are Brown Shirts; however on that occasion they reminded me of right wing hooligans straight out of the horrible past. It is something to think about and to be aware of.</p>
<p>Why do you focus so much on the response from Ron Paul supporters and seem to care nothing about the fact that the mainstream media is dictating to the American people whom they should vote for? Regardless of whether you like Ron Paul or not, why do you think it’s acceptable for ANY candidate to be excluded?</p>
<p>I believe that all reporting should report all candidates. I definitely don’t think that the liberal media should present their preferences of who the people should be voting for. At least CNN made the “Ragin Cajun” get off the air until the primaries are over because he expressed too often his belief and support for Hillary. I just wish some of the other media would follow suit. I can honestly say that I haven’t heard the conservative media promoting any particular candidate. They may go pro-republican but they aren’t pressing a particular candidate.</p>
<p>At the same time, time is very important. I was listening to a liberal radio show a little while back on XM radio. Talking about finances. A caller called in an asked who the host thought knew the most about economics and would be a good president. The host, credit to him, said what he thought the democrat and republican candidates knew about economics. BUT; he ONLY would mention Hillary, Obama, Romney, McCain, and Gulianni. He said he doesn’t have the time to go over ever candidate and he would ONLY talk about candidate that had a chance and would be a viable answer to the caller’s question. He wouldn’t mention Paul, Richardson, Edwards, Thompson, etc… I can understand that you can’t always allocate enough time for every candidate. </p>
<p>The truth is; there are some candidates that are out of the race. They just refuse to die and instead will spend more money. For all intent and purpose, Hillary and Obama are the only Democrats still in the race. Unless some how edwards does a turnaround. For the Republicans, it’s McCain and Romney. Depending on Florida, will decide if Gulianni or Huckabee should bow out. You can believe that Ron Paul has a chance, but he doesn’t. It’s not because of the media, it’s because they aren’t making an impact. The media is definitely making a mistake by saying who you SHOULD vote for; but they aren’t wrong by not allocating a lot of time to those without a chance. The candidates are all involved in the debates and polls. If they are of significance there, then the media will talk about them. Unfortunately, they aren’t making any significant impacts.</p>
<p>Respectfully, cc, there are multiple points not considered in your post:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Most media, FAUX in particular, excluded Ron Paul since the beginning, even when he consistently son many online polls. </p></li>
<li><p>Conventional polls are not entirely accurate, because they only call registered members of that party, with landlines. Many people nowadays have cell phones but not landlines, so were not included in the polls. Also, conventional polling does not take into consideration the independents.</p></li>
<li><p>It has been documented that many of the poll did not even mention Ron Paul as an option. So, if he’s not listed as an option, how can he possibly score in the polls? This is an example of bias at an early stage of the game.</p></li>
<li><p>In the early stages, before polling even became an issue, the media mentioned giuliani as the ‘frontrunner’ even though there was no reason for it.</p></li>
<li><p>It has been documented that, even in the very early days, the ‘preferred’ candidates’ names were mentioned numerous times, while Ron Paul’s name was mentioned very rarely in comparison. This amounts to free advertising. It’s a given that repetition makes a difference. People have actually run software to count the number of mentions and this is documented. Point being, that the media had their favorites from the start, before the people even had a chance to decide.</p></li>
<li><p>The exclusion of Ron Paul by FAUX was AFTER he had already beaten giuliani and Thompson. He met the network’s criteria for inclusion, yet was excluded.</p></li>
<li><p>Another case in point: Right now, this very minute, FAUX is covering Florida. They are mentioning the other 4 candidates, but not Ron Paul. Ron Paul has beaten 1 of those 4 candidates (giuliani) CONSISTENTLY and in fact came in #2 in the last 2 states’ primaries. (no impact???) Yet FAUX does not mention him as even being in the running???</p></li>
<li><p>Is not the purpose of the primaries to decide whom the PEOPLE want to run in the general election? The early states actually have very few delegates. giuliani has fewer delegates than Ron Paul, yet is considered ‘in the race’ and ‘having a chance’ whereas Ron Paul is considered ‘having no chance’ by people like you. Based on what? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Again, the bottom line is that many of these comments ‘has no chance’ etc. is based on pure opinion and really means nothing until after the primaries. What’s more, if there is not a consistent winner, there will be a brokered convention, in which case Ron Paul (and giuliani for that matter) DO have a chance because they have even more time to raise $$ and get support.</p>
<p>And we have our first Reductio ad Hitlerum!
</p>
<p>I’m neither a huge fan of Dr. Paul nor of Mr. O’Reilly but generally comparisons with Brown Shirts and the Nazis require a tad more than non-huge-fanhood…</p>
<p>“why do you think it’s acceptable for ANY candidate to be excluded?”</p>
<p>I did not say that I thought it was acceptable to excluded Ron Paul I said the response of his supporters was “something to think about and to be aware of.”</p>
<p>Please read more carefully in the future, thanks……</p>
<p>I miss IF Stone.</p>
<p>I miss IF Stone.</p>
<p>Me too…</p>
<p>Well, at least he’s honest about ignoring the needs of his constituency. Unlike the other political sleazes.</p>