Ron Paul was basically ignored. He was only given the opportunity to speak twice in the first hour. Then in the second hour, the moderator asked Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum a question regarding health care and abortion and was going to move on without even letting Paul respond. The audience started booing and yelling for Paul to have the opportunity to answer. At the end of the debate they panned to show all the candidates but cut it before the camera could fully show Paul. CNN is a joke! Of course, in the recaps they are not talking about Paul at all. Whether you like Paul or not, it's definitely hard to ignore the bias that the media has against him.
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
Ron Paul was basically ignored. He was only given the opportunity to speak twice in the first hour. Then in the second hour, the moderator asked Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum a question regarding health care and abortion and was going to move on without even letting Paul respond. The audience started booing and yelling for Paul to have the opportunity to answer. At the end of the debate they panned to show all the candidates but cut it before the camera could fully show Paul. CNN is a joke! Of course, in the recaps they are not talking about Paul at all. Whether you like Paul or not, it's definitely hard to ignore the bias that the media has against him.
it is very strange. It is certainly a look behind the curtain. I think the media is always looking for controversy and interesting story lines that don't really mean much in regards to the issues...and since Paul literally says the same thing over and over he just isn't that interesting to talk about. They ignore him, a NY times editorial admitted as much, Lawrence O from MSNBC said on air that he wanted the story about Paul flying first class to be true and even he couldn't go along with the lie....it is strange.
I don't see how anyone could look at the media coverage of the presidential primary season and think Paul is getting a fair amount of coverage. They are giving us their choice and saying they are the only ones who can win...garbage.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ron Paul was basically ignored. He was only given the opportunity to speak twice in the first hour. Then in the second hour, the moderator asked Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum a question regarding health care and abortion and was going to move on without even letting Paul respond. The audience started booing and yelling for Paul to have the opportunity to answer. At the end of the debate they panned to show all the candidates but cut it before the camera could fully show Paul. CNN is a joke! Of course, in the recaps they are not talking about Paul at all. Whether you like Paul or not, it's definitely hard to ignore the bias that the media has against him.
it is very strange. It is certainly a look behind the curtain. I think the media is always looking for controversy and interesting story lines that don't really mean much in regards to the issues...and since Paul literally says the same thing over and over he just isn't that interesting to talk about. They ignore him, a NY times editorial admitted as much, Lawrence O from MSNBC said on air that he wanted the story about Paul flying first class to be true and even he couldn't go along with the lie....it is strange.
I don't see how anyone could look at the media coverage of the presidential primary season and think Paul is getting a fair amount of coverage. They are giving us their choice and saying they are the only ones who can win...garbage.
I think that the major 24 hour news networks are staring to sing their swan song. Barring any real censorship of the internet in the next few years, their influence is much less than it was in 2008, and I think the trend is going to continue in that direction.
Ron Paul was basically ignored. He was only given the opportunity to speak twice in the first hour. Then in the second hour, the moderator asked Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum a question regarding health care and abortion and was going to move on without even letting Paul respond. The audience started booing and yelling for Paul to have the opportunity to answer. At the end of the debate they panned to show all the candidates but cut it before the camera could fully show Paul. CNN is a joke! Of course, in the recaps they are not talking about Paul at all. Whether you like Paul or not, it's definitely hard to ignore the bias that the media has against him.
it is very strange. It is certainly a look behind the curtain. I think the media is always looking for controversy and interesting story lines that don't really mean much in regards to the issues...and since Paul literally says the same thing over and over he just isn't that interesting to talk about. They ignore him, a NY times editorial admitted as much, Lawrence O from MSNBC said on air that he wanted the story about Paul flying first class to be true and even he couldn't go along with the lie....it is strange.
I don't see how anyone could look at the media coverage of the presidential primary season and think Paul is getting a fair amount of coverage. They are giving us their choice and saying they are the only ones who can win...garbage.
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
I know you are right about the part in bold. it is Paul's fault at this point during the debates. he could talk about it all night if he wanted to...But, if you start complaining about media coverage they will start talking about him, and pervert the questions about the civil rights act and call him racist...ignoring him or painting him has the next KKK leader? I am not sure which one is worse.
I sure hope you are right about santorum and newt...newt hasn't finished in the top 3 yet and somehow people still call him a front runner
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
I know you are right about the part in bold. it is Paul's fault at this point during the debates. he could talk about it all night if he wanted to...But, if you start complaining about media coverage they will start talking about him, and pervert the questions about the civil rights act and call him racist...ignoring him or painting him has the next KKK leader? I am not sure which one is worse.
I sure hope you are right about santorum and newt...newt hasn't finished in the top 3 yet and somehow people still call him a front runner
He's leading in the SC polls, that's why they are saying that. Let's put it this way, if Newt loses in SC... he's done. And Santorum is not capable of surviving alone, he's got no money. These two HAVE to win or place in the top 2 both FL and SC.... Because they will get smashed in NV and ME.
They'll be out soon. And I, personally, can't wait. I get more agitated with both of them, the more they speak.
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
I know you are right about the part in bold. it is Paul's fault at this point during the debates. he could talk about it all night if he wanted to...But, if you start complaining about media coverage they will start talking about him, and pervert the questions about the civil rights act and call him racist...ignoring him or painting him has the next KKK leader? I am not sure which one is worse.
I sure hope you are right about santorum and newt...newt hasn't finished in the top 3 yet and somehow people still call him a front runner
one poll now has newt up on Romney in SC....
he's not going anywhere anytime soon....that guy would eat his first and third child stay in the race....
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
I know you are right about the part in bold. it is Paul's fault at this point during the debates. he could talk about it all night if he wanted to...But, if you start complaining about media coverage they will start talking about him, and pervert the questions about the civil rights act and call him racist...ignoring him or painting him has the next KKK leader? I am not sure which one is worse.
I sure hope you are right about santorum and newt...newt hasn't finished in the top 3 yet and somehow people still call him a front runner
one poll now has newt up on Romney in SC....
he's not going anywhere anytime soon....that guy would eat his first and third child stay in the race....
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
I'm not sure if he's being ignored or being treated like a one (or few) trick pony...
for me, he answers every question the same (the the federal gov't out of our lives)...and I'm not really sure what he really means by that...it's such a broad statement that sounds good on the surface...and plays well with is supporters...but for me it's just a talking point he likes to use again and again and again....
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
Mikepegg, I agree with you.
I was commenting to some coworkers this morning about Ron Paul continuing to be ignored and their response that it's okay because Ron Paul isn't going to win anyway. I don't necessarily disagree but that is not the point! He is a presidential candidate and has done better than Gingrich in both primaries thus far, and better than Santorum in NH and yet he is not even given the opportunity to answer a question in a presidential debate? The media is definitely biased against him it's obvious, and it's really disappointing. CNN and MSNBC are just as bad as FOX when it comes to being biased. These "news" stations are all run by corporations and people with their own interests and are just feeding the public what they want to public to think.
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
I'm not sure if he's being ignored or being treated like a one (or few) trick pony...
for me, he answers every question the same (the the federal gov't out of our lives)...and I'm not really sure what he really means by that...it's such a broad statement that sounds good on the surface...and plays well with is supporters...but for me it's just a talking point he likes to use again and again and again....
i would post links to example after example of when he has been deliberately ignored by "journalists" but I don't think it would matter much to you.
but you are right, he doesn't deviate from it. but don't forget about sound money too!
but let's go back to my hypothetical, do you think a General would be ignored on foreign policy/war related question? if not, is it the same thing?
they are all one trick ponies...it just so happens that paul's trick is consistency.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
I'm not sure if he's being ignored or being treated like a one (or few) trick pony...
for me, he answers every question the same (the the federal gov't out of our lives)...and I'm not really sure what he really means by that...it's such a broad statement that sounds good on the surface...and plays well with is supporters...but for me it's just a talking point he likes to use again and again and again....
i would post links to example after example of when he has been deliberately ignored by "journalists" but I don't think it would matter much to you.
but you are right, he doesn't deviate from it. but don't forget about sound money too!
but let's go back to my hypothetical, do you think a General would be ignored on foreign policy/war related question? if not, is it the same thing?
they are all one trick ponies...it just so happens that paul's trick is consistency.
come on, mike...everything matters to me...
seriously, when did Dr. Paul last practice medicine...? (question stolen from Cincy in another thread)...and when he did, he didn't deal with the real world of medicine...I'm pretty sure he did except medicaid or insurance or both, I can't recall...based on that, his view about the current state of healthcare is skewed in my opinion...
and Romney is not a one trick pony...he changes is views in mid sentence....
seriously, when did Dr. Paul last practice medicine...? (question stolen from Cincy in another thread)...and when he did, he didn't deal with the real world of medicine...I'm pretty sure he did except medicaid or insurance or both, I can't recall...based on that, his view about the current state of healthcare is skewed in my opinion...
and Romney is not a one trick pony...he changes is views in mid sentence....
early 90's I believe
as far as I know, he did not accept federal medicaid/medicare payments. He took the patients, not the payments. Pretty respectable I think.
also, real world of medicine?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
seriously, when did Dr. Paul last practice medicine...? (question stolen from Cincy in another thread)...and when he did, he didn't deal with the real world of medicine...I'm pretty sure he did except medicaid or insurance or both, I can't recall...based on that, his view about the current state of healthcare is skewed in my opinion...
and Romney is not a one trick pony...he changes is views in mid sentence....
early 90's I believe
as far as I know, he did not accept federal medicaid/medicare payments. He took the patients, not the payments. Pretty respectable I think.
also, real world of medicine?
real world of medicine means dealing with medicaid, medicare and insurance...we may not like it, but that's reality....
and if you're saying he took patients and treated them for free without taking any payment, yes, that is respectable...
I disagree when people say that it's ok for the media to ignore Ron Paul because he won't win anyway. It's pretty much circular logic. A candidate who gets minimal attention when the others get massive amounts of it has no chance to win. The debates aren't supposed to be a showcase for the frontrunner(s). Considering that Ron Paul did fairly well in the NH Primary (finishing 2nd), I'd say he's got a better shot at winning than Gingrich, whom he's outperformed in both Iowa and NH but Newt certainly wasn't ignored in the debate. I wonder if that has anything to do with CNN's liberal leanings and the fact that Ron Paul is a threat to take independent voters who voted for Obama in 2008 to a greater extent than most of the other Republican candidates?
seriously, when did Dr. Paul last practice medicine...? (question stolen from Cincy in another thread)...and when he did, he didn't deal with the real world of medicine...I'm pretty sure he did except medicaid or insurance or both, I can't recall...based on that, his view about the current state of healthcare is skewed in my opinion...
and Romney is not a one trick pony...he changes is views in mid sentence....
early 90's I believe
as far as I know, he did not accept federal medicaid/medicare payments. He took the patients, not the payments. Pretty respectable I think.
also, real world of medicine?
real world of medicine means dealing with medicaid, medicare and insurance...we may not like it, but that's reality....
and if you're saying he took patients and treated them for free without taking any payment, yes, that is respectable...
well he did deal with the real world of medicine, he just didn't accept it as the way it needed to be. he didn't believe that it was necessary to do it that way and proved that he could have a successful practice without it.
only two minutes long, not sure if you have seen it, but worth the watch. and Don't worry, it isn't him talking about ending the fed
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well he did deal with the real world of medicine, he just didn't accept it as the way it needed to be. he didn't believe that it was necessary to do it that way and proved that he could have a successful practice without it.
Heads up, Debate Tonight Feb/22 8pm/E/T CNN in Arizona.
Hell Yes! I'm going to smoke a big fat joint and laugh my ass off. I'm also taking bets on weather or not Santorum will have the ashes from Ash Wensday still on his forhead during the debate.
Comments
i'm all for a good laugh ... but that was pretty bad ... c'mon ... :oops:
ABC tonight at 9est.
Mmmmm, Andersons split pea soup!
BuMp
Ron Paul was basically ignored. He was only given the opportunity to speak twice in the first hour. Then in the second hour, the moderator asked Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum a question regarding health care and abortion and was going to move on without even letting Paul respond. The audience started booing and yelling for Paul to have the opportunity to answer. At the end of the debate they panned to show all the candidates but cut it before the camera could fully show Paul. CNN is a joke! Of course, in the recaps they are not talking about Paul at all. Whether you like Paul or not, it's definitely hard to ignore the bias that the media has against him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4lnlDVW3o
it is very strange. It is certainly a look behind the curtain. I think the media is always looking for controversy and interesting story lines that don't really mean much in regards to the issues...and since Paul literally says the same thing over and over he just isn't that interesting to talk about. They ignore him, a NY times editorial admitted as much, Lawrence O from MSNBC said on air that he wanted the story about Paul flying first class to be true and even he couldn't go along with the lie....it is strange.
I don't see how anyone could look at the media coverage of the presidential primary season and think Paul is getting a fair amount of coverage. They are giving us their choice and saying they are the only ones who can win...garbage.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think that the major 24 hour news networks are staring to sing their swan song. Barring any real censorship of the internet in the next few years, their influence is much less than it was in 2008, and I think the trend is going to continue in that direction.
Good points. There's no doubt there's a bias to limit Ron Paul's time speaking. The truth is though, in the debates, Ron Paul has to do better in saying that. He started last night, but he needs to do it more. Newt Gingrich would not allow that to happen to him.
Personally, I think Romney and Paul are just sitting back and watching Newt and Santorum claw themselves to death though. I bet both will be out by mid-February.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I know you are right about the part in bold. it is Paul's fault at this point during the debates. he could talk about it all night if he wanted to...But, if you start complaining about media coverage they will start talking about him, and pervert the questions about the civil rights act and call him racist...ignoring him or painting him has the next KKK leader? I am not sure which one is worse.
I sure hope you are right about santorum and newt...newt hasn't finished in the top 3 yet and somehow people still call him a front runner
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
He's leading in the SC polls, that's why they are saying that. Let's put it this way, if Newt loses in SC... he's done. And Santorum is not capable of surviving alone, he's got no money. These two HAVE to win or place in the top 2 both FL and SC.... Because they will get smashed in NV and ME.
They'll be out soon. And I, personally, can't wait. I get more agitated with both of them, the more they speak.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
one poll now has newt up on Romney in SC....
he's not going anywhere anytime soon....that guy would eat his first and third child stay in the race....
right, but Newt being up in South Carolina is like Romney up in NH. I am just not sure how a candidate can be taken seriously when they couldn't even be bothered to get on all 50 ballots.
But back to your original question about this debate specifically, Do you think it is right that the audience has to moan, groan and chant someone's name for them to get to answer a question when all three other candidates spoke on the topic? When has that happened before? let alone twice. I cannot remember a time.
on a broader topic, I realize you may not be inclined to think there is a concerted effort to ignore Paul, I would differ with you there but understand where you would be coming from. There are plenty of examples throughout this nomination process where CNN has made it a point to exclude him from discussion. The pundits are choosing who they support and who they don't. Bill Kristol said Ron Paul makes him uncomfortable and he wished he would leave the party. Even though the Neo-cons hate him, left leaning MSNBC have chosen not to discuss him without talking about how he has no chancen...maybe it is because the 24 hour news cycle won't be filled with wars, terrorism, and debt ceiling debates...I don't know why, but CNN certainly seems to be the worst offender.
I used to think it was Paul's fault (and to some extent it still is) but it is pretty obvious at this point he is simply being ignored. Even the Daily Show brought it up on more than one occasion...it is out there, I just don't know why.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not sure if he's being ignored or being treated like a one (or few) trick pony...
for me, he answers every question the same (the the federal gov't out of our lives)...and I'm not really sure what he really means by that...it's such a broad statement that sounds good on the surface...and plays well with is supporters...but for me it's just a talking point he likes to use again and again and again....
Mikepegg, I agree with you.
I was commenting to some coworkers this morning about Ron Paul continuing to be ignored and their response that it's okay because Ron Paul isn't going to win anyway. I don't necessarily disagree but that is not the point! He is a presidential candidate and has done better than Gingrich in both primaries thus far, and better than Santorum in NH and yet he is not even given the opportunity to answer a question in a presidential debate? The media is definitely biased against him it's obvious, and it's really disappointing. CNN and MSNBC are just as bad as FOX when it comes to being biased. These "news" stations are all run by corporations and people with their own interests and are just feeding the public what they want to public to think.
i would post links to example after example of when he has been deliberately ignored by "journalists" but I don't think it would matter much to you.
but you are right, he doesn't deviate from it. but don't forget about sound money too!
but let's go back to my hypothetical, do you think a General would be ignored on foreign policy/war related question? if not, is it the same thing?
they are all one trick ponies...it just so happens that paul's trick is consistency.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
come on, mike...everything matters to me...
seriously, when did Dr. Paul last practice medicine...? (question stolen from Cincy in another thread)...and when he did, he didn't deal with the real world of medicine...I'm pretty sure he did except medicaid or insurance or both, I can't recall...based on that, his view about the current state of healthcare is skewed in my opinion...
and Romney is not a one trick pony...he changes is views in mid sentence....
early 90's I believe
as far as I know, he did not accept federal medicaid/medicare payments. He took the patients, not the payments. Pretty respectable I think.
also, real world of medicine?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
real world of medicine means dealing with medicaid, medicare and insurance...we may not like it, but that's reality....
and if you're saying he took patients and treated them for free without taking any payment, yes, that is respectable...
well he did deal with the real world of medicine, he just didn't accept it as the way it needed to be. he didn't believe that it was necessary to do it that way and proved that he could have a successful practice without it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
only two minutes long, not sure if you have seen it, but worth the watch. and Don't worry, it isn't him talking about ending the fed
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
nice story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps
The clip is about the 2000 US presidential debates and The System keeping Mr Nader out of the debates.
Hell Yes! I'm going to smoke a big fat joint and laugh my ass off. I'm also taking bets on weather or not Santorum will have the ashes from Ash Wensday still on his forhead during the debate.