<p>
Gee, a human being making an error. I have made a few typos in the past. Was that intentional?</p>
<p>
Paul is not a serious candidate. He is like Kuchinic, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton for present and past democrat nominatins. In addition, Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian and thus does not belong in a Republican debate. He makes Republicans look bad by association.</p>
<p>See what I mean? You are just rattling off what you’ve been forcefed by FAUX News. You say he’s not a serious candidate, and giuliani and Thompson ARE serious candidates, yet he has raised more $$ than they, and has beaten them both in the primaries. Yet you say they are serious candidates and he is not?</p>
<p>That’s fine if that’s just YOUR opinion. Whether you like him or not is not the point. The point is that for a news source to be considered ‘fair and balanced’ they should let the PEOPLE decide who is a serious candidate, not just TELL them what to believe and whom to vote for.</p>
<p>Thank you for illustrating my point.</p>
<p>Lealdragon, it is possible that Razorsharp understands all of your points and still disagrees with you. Razor doesn’t have to be ignorant, biased, or stupid to hold a different belief. Let’s try to keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum, OK?</p>
<p>Heavens. From the thread title “Faux News” I thought it would be about Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and the Steve Colbert Report, with their parodies of news shows. </p>
<p>I’m outahere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>razor was the first to insult me, in the Romney thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He also said we were a ‘cult.’ Say what, because we support a candidate he doesn’t like?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/453750-i-m-not-concerned-about-voters-romney-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/453750-i-m-not-concerned-about-voters-romney-3.html</a></p>
<p>He softened a bit in post #51 to say ‘many but not all’ but that didn’t help much.</p>
<p>and in this thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is mere disagreement. I can handle disagreement and in fact welcome respectful debate. But razor’s comments towards Ron Paul supporters are quite venomous. The worst I’m guilty of is a bit of sarcasm. And even then, I was only returning to sender what had already been said. I never said he was ignorant, biased or stupid - HE said we were ‘blindly following’ and I used HIS OWN WORDS to show that the opposite seems to be true - being that he chose to use words I have heard frequently on FAUX News.</p>
<p>As for biased, I was referring to FAUX News and yes I believe there is ample evidence to show their bias. If razor doesn’t think they’re biased, that’s his perogative. (But those on the side of the bias don’t usually see the bias, now, do they?)</p>
<p>And stupid? I never used that word at all.</p>
<p>WashDad: WHY is it that other people insult me, and <em>I</em> get blamed for tossing a bit of sarcasm back?? Could my having a minority opinion have anything to do with it?</p>
<p>You are right, Razor has been snarky, too. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.</p>
<p>OK, people! Don’t make me stop this car! One more time, and I swear I’m turning this car around and you can just forget about getting any HappyMeals at McDonalds! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, for the majority of people, he makes the Republican party look much better by association. Most people consider him a bit of a kook; few consider him as scary as the assorted other Republicans. His views on the war, on drugs, on foreign policy, all agree with what majority American opinions are. He’s honest and consistent and has the voting record to prove it. No, the only people who think he makes the Republicans look bad are the far-right Republicans themselves.</p>
<p>As for you saying he’s not a serious candidate, that’s leal’s point! It might be your opinion that he’s not a serious candidate; it might be your opinion that he doesn’t deserve air time. It might even be 99% of Fox’s opinion. But for he network to be taken seriously, and not as some kind of partisan propaganda machine, they must take their opinion and attempt as best as they can not to translate it into outright bias in their coverage.</p>
<p>To be taken seriously, when presented with a candidate they disagree with, but who has significant support and fundraising, they must give that candidate commensurate airtime.</p>
<p>I generally don’t agree with leal, but there is just no logic whatsoever in the position that Giuliani and Thompson, both of whom had worse fundraising and polling than Paul, were serious candidates, but he was not - unless you are outright admitting that Fox news has been and is involved in attempting to influence the course of the primaries.</p>
<p>Which was leal’s entire point.</p>
<p>Seeing your logical inconsistency yet?</p>
<p>For the record, Paul is a Republican in the mold of some of the party’s most prominent historical members. The current crop are a bunch of Democrats, by historical comparison. Your outright dismissal of his views as not Republican are inaccurate.</p>
<p>
I did not mention you and I don’t know if my quote applies to you. You will know better than me whether the quote applies to you.</p>
<p>
Many (not all) Paul supporters resemble a cult. I did not mention you by name and do not know if you are a member of that “cult”.</p>
<p>Your opinion of Fox news has been disproven, but you are free to believe otherwise.</p>
<p>The words, “If you weren’t running around in an anti-Fox dudgeon you would have done a little research…” was in quotes. It took someone elses response, but could not make the link. The “you” was actually that author referring to someone else. I should have caught that, but I made a mistake (sort of like Fox News failing to quickly update an AP story that AP changed.)</p>
<p>Thanks, 1of42, for clarifying my point.</p>
<p>razor, I’d be interested in your response to 1of42’s points, if you care to address them.</p>
<p>No, you didn’t mention me by name, but were referring to supporters of Ron Paul, of which I am one. You added the ‘not all’ in later posts.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am interested in discussing 1of42’s points, not petty insults. And, my opinion of FAUX News has not been disproven. It’s impossible to ‘disprove’ an opinion. I disagree that Ron Paul supporters are members of a ‘cult’ but it’s impossible for you or I to prove that one way or another. (I find it amusing that you say my opinion has been ‘disproven’ in the same post in which you make such an unprovable and inflammatory statement.)</p>
<p>It is, however, possible to display evidence for bias, and I have done that regarding FAUX News, and you have yet to refute it.</p>
<p>42, you act like Fox has not carried Paul on any of its debates. I watched Paul on a Fox debate.</p>
<p>Neverthless,
If we adopt your view, then Fox must present every crazy person claiming to be a Republican even if that person has no chance of winning, just as Paul has on chance of winning. News organizations serve no purpose by presenting irrelevant people like Paul and Kucinich. Here are some of the people Fox would have to have in its debate:</p>
<p>Virginia Algar (R-FL), Michael Jesus Archangel (R-MI), Michael Andrew Arterburn (D-GA), George Brent Bailey, Jr. (R-NM), Daniel James “Barndog” Barnett (R-CO), William Hobert Blakley (D-NC), Dewey R. Broughman (R-VA), Edward Allan Buck (R-UT), Alan “Alen” Bunch (R-GA), William Jason Burns (R-FL), Michael Burzynski (R-AZ), Anthony L. Carter (R-IL), Eamon Patrick Clune (R-UT), James Cooper (R-MI), Hugh Cort, III (R-AL), '00 Congressional candidate & '02 Senate candidate attorney John H. Cox (R-IL), '88 congressional candidate / retired Gen. Jerry R. Curry (R-VA), David F. Diamond (R-TN), Susan Gail Ducy (R-KS) Lowell Jackson “Jack” Fellure (R-WV), H. Neal “Cap” Fendig, Jr. (R-GA), '98 Senate candidate John Michael Fitzpatrick (R-NY), Robert L. “Bob” Forthan (R-OR), David Ernst Furniss (R-OR), Anthony Keith Gallagher (R-NC), Anne Hart Geisler (R-TN), businessman Daniel A. “Dan” Gilbert (R-NC), Ray Ferrill Green (R-MA), Robert E. “Bob” Haines (R-NH), Joe Honeychurch (R-CA), Mildred T. “Millie” Howard (R-OH), Albert B. Howard (R-MI), Alexander Michael Huton (R-FL), Jerry Roland Johnson (R-VA) Derrick C. Johnson (R), Timothy Charles “Tim” Kalemkarian (R-CA), nurse anesthetist Walter D. “Donnie” Kennedy (R-GA), Dr. Mark Klein (R-CA), William R. Koenig (R-VA), Philip A. “John” Kok (R-CA) Philip A. Kok (R-CA), Yaphet Kotto (R-CA), Alden Link (R-NY), Elvena E. “Pee Wee” Lloyd-Duffie (R-IL), Stephen D. Macmillan (R-MA), Yehanna Joan Mary Malone (R-DC), Stephen W. Marchuk (R-NH), John R. McGrath (R-AZ), Raymond Louis “Ray” McKinney (R-GA), Steven Edward Mirabella (R-TN), James Creighton “Mitch” Mitchell Jr. (R-IL), Robert Edward Moreau (R-CA), Abdul “Kareem” Muhammad (R-CA), Jesus Bilal Islam Allah Muhammed (R-MI), Sean “CF” Murphy (R-AZ), former Cumberland mayor Frank K. Nethken (R-MD), Cornelius E. O’Connor (R-FL), Frederick Eugene Ogin (R-NV), Rick Outzen (R-FL), Rajesh Srinivasa Raghavan (R-NJ), '04 Gov candidate / '06 Gov. candidate Charles G. “Bud” Railey (R-WV), William Nathaniel Raven (R-OR), David Ruben (R-AZ), Rev. Martin Rust (R-WI), Colonel Launeil Sanders (R-SC) Marshall Samuel Sanders (R-CA), Michael P. Shaw (R-AZ), Freddy Irwin “Messiah” Sitnick (R-MD), '02 Senate candidate / '04 & '06 Congressional candidate / dentist / fugitive Jack Shepard (R-MN), Charles Skelley (R-AZ), Michael Charles Smith (R-IA), Richard Michael Smith (R-TX), Rhett R. Smith (R-TX), Keith Robert Sprankle (R-WA), Johns Wallace Stevenson (R-CA), Vermin Supreme (R-MA) physician Hoa Tran (R-TX), '04 * '06 Senate candidate Corrogan R. Vaughn (R-MD), Charles Gordon Vick (R-TN), Virgil L. R. Wiles (R-MO), Marc Wolin Vernon Edgar Wuensche (R-TX), Eugene Robert “Gene” Zarwell</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, but he gets very, very little airtime on the Fox debates, compared to other candidates with similar polling and fundraising records.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is patently absurd. Paul is not some candidate running with $100 and 10 votes. He is consistently beating other “serious candidates”, and is currently fundraising better than anyone other than Romney (who just pays for it himself).</p>
<p>He may not win, but he is a far cry from Kucinich. Paul’s campaign, with grassroots financial support, will go the distance to the convention, and he is collecting delegates slowly but surely. He is almost certain not to win, but then neither is Giuliani - are you suggesting we give Giuliani no airtime?</p>
<p>Or do your pronouncements on excluding candidates only include the ones you consider not to be proper Republicans?</p>
<p>People once had an opinion that the world was flat. That opinion has been disproven. </p>
<p>
[Center</a> for Media and Public Affairs](<a href=“http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html]Center”>http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html)</p>
<p>Plain and simple, Fox News is Fair and Balanced.</p>
<p>razor, you are still missing the point. I don’t know where you got all those names, but there were 11 (ELEVEN) original Republican candidates. Of those, 6 have dropped out, leaving 5 remaining official candidates. Of those, Ron Paul has beaten both giuliani and Thompson in polls, fundraising, and, more importantly, PRIMARIES!</p>
<p>So, the bottom line is, why would FAUX choose to allow giuliani and Thompson on the debates, but not Paul? btw, yes, he was on some of the debates, but was excluded from a recent major debate, despite meeting their criteria, and despite beating giuliani and Thompson, and THAT is the issue.</p>
<p>So, continuing the logic here, since he has beaten giuliani and Thompson, would you also say that THEY have ‘no chance’ of winning?</p>
<p>I doubt it. You have applied a SUBJECTIVE opinion (you don’t like Ron Paul) to a mathematical construct (chance of winning).</p>
<p>Only the people can decide, by their votes, who has a chance of winning, and the people cannot decide if the media decides for them.</p>
<p>
In other words, 42, you just made a judgment that Paul should be in the debates and the other Republicans who I listed should not be in the race. Fox is entitled to make that judgment as well and unfortunately they continue to have Paul in the debates. </p>
<p>Republicans have zero tolerance for racists. If Paul had a chance of winning, the news networds would force him to answer many questions during the debates about his racist views. They don’t because they know he is not a serious candidate. If McCain had let a newsletter go out under his name with racist views, you can bet Fox News would be all over him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are not other candidates. There were 11 official candidates, and now there are 5.</p>
<p>The newsletter issue did come up, and was resolved, long ago. Ron Paul did not write those comments and is not a racist.</p>
<p>
You are wrong again. The list I provided shows many more than 11 candidates and not all of them have dropped out. Thompson and others have dropped out because they realize they won’t and have better things to do with their lives. Paul should do the same so Republicans can focus on the candidates with a real chance to win.</p>
<p>Where are you getting this? Those people are not in the race. They may have expressed an interest at one time, but that’s not the same thing as being actual candidates. Source, please.</p>
<p>And you still have not addressed 1of42’s point about Ron Paul beating other candidates whom you consider viable candidates. Just what criteria are you basing this on? Or are you using any criteria at all other than your opinion?</p>
<p>I ask you this, razor: Exactly what criteria must a candidate meet to be considered viable, having a chance?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I see. You read it someplace; therefore, it must be true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA.</p>
<p>Jesse Helms
Storm Thurmond
Tom DeLay
George Allen</p>
<pre><code> The Republicans are the racist party. When that newsletter came out I was surprised Paul didn’t win SC by a 20 point margin.
</code></pre>
<p>Also according to polls, 90 percent of South Carolina Republicans support the Confederate Flag on state grounds. You can’t get any more racist than that withot using the n-word.</p>