Clear indication of disturbing media bias: Ron Paul and the GOP debates

[Deadpool]

I watched the 2 recent GOP debates that occured recently and was suprised by a man named Ron Paul. He was logical and spoke the truth. He has the right idea concerning government and economy. Hes anti-war, anti-income tax, anti-imperilist, anti-IRS.
He absolutely massacred all the other candidates in the debates.
Telephone polls, text polls showing he was ahead of the other candidates by a wide margin. ABCnews polls revealed that over 90% believed that he won the debates.
I Know that its no secret that they(media and other news orgs) present a view that is according to whomever is financing them at the time but I was stunned at how blatantly biased it was. Usually they try to smear and discredit candidates in a more subtle and graceful way but their methods were so outragous even a monkey could pick up on their intent to smother and silence Ron Paul. You could feel the hatred that all the ohter candidates have for this man.

MSNBC Debates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4JNAh5QrlU
Watch as some candidates especially Rudi Guliani laugh at the statement Ron Paul makes about not abusing habeus corpus. WTF!!!

Fox South Carolina debates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8h2oLpzB4I&mode=related&search=
Near the end R.Paul talks about how US foreign policy pisses people off and is a contributing factor to the breeding of hate towards the US. Rudy Guiliani interjects and begins to spin this and accuses R.Paul of blaming 9/11 on the American people. WTF!!!!!!

And here is where the fun begins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI
It is clear that the entire fox network is doing everything it can ignore and debase R.Paul. Watch Hannity make a fool out of himself.
Whats comical is that all these pundits are spinning and contradicting the entire event that took place. R.Paul was even running first on the fox polls, which of course Fox comepletely dismisses. WTF!!!! THeir own polls??

It seems that every major news media is either completely ignoring and in some cases not even printing his name on websites, like fox even though he is top 3 in their own polls...wtff!!!, or they are completely distorting his words that were said in the debates about 9/11. Are these people in La La land?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
Check out the captions on the bottom of this short interview on CNN after the debate. "Ron Paul blames america for 9/11" [b]"Guliani frontrunner" wtff!!! he wasn't even close to first

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705160009?f=h_latest
CHeck out the video on the right and near the end of the video and listen to those douche bags talk about how R.Paul is some kind of whako, that he was a non factor and totally lost the debate, which is comepletely opposite of the fact.

The thing is if you read some of these youtube comments and ramblings across the board on blogs or the politico sites, the opinion on Ron Paul is comepletely opposite of what these news organizations are trying to portray.
Its comepletely disturbing and reminds me of the news station on that movie V for Vendetta.
Theres also rumors going around that anything that has to do with Ron Paul is getting deleted off a lot websites especially ones that have any connection to Rupert Murdoch.

Perhaps you are not into politics but I think these videos are fun to watch anyways because its a clear portrayal of how biased and fake these news organizations are.
THe Media is trying to choose your Candidate for you it seems.

BTW If you guys think I have some sort of agenda or on some kind of Ron Paul pay roll, I'm Canadian and I can't vote :)

[Deadpool]

Oh sorry I didn't post the segement where Hannity starts attacking Ron Paul on something he never said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYD658fr2U4

You guys should check out the 2nd video I posted in the original post (the SC debates) then watch the 3rd one. Funny and disturbing at the same time.

[Yeahman]

Ron Paul was first in some internet and text message polls. He never got more than 1% in any credible poll.

I like him but he's far too radical. He's the Kucinich of the GOP and will receive about as much attention too. Don't tell me you blame the media for bringing down Kucinich.

[Deadpool]

I don't understand why you think hes radical. All the reforms he is pushing for is very traditional in the conservative sense and is congruent to the constitution.
What astounds me is how the media is semmingly trying to shut him out.
There are some Republicans tryong to get him banned from future debates. Even Fox news has completely stripped his name off the website.

[Yeahman]

I don't understand why you think hes radical. All the reforms he is pushing for is very traditional in the conservative sense and is congruent to the constitution.
Abolishing the IRS and the Fed is not radical?

Anyway, I'm switching parties just so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary. The GOP needs a good shot in the arm.

[SunWuKong]

Abolishing the IRS and the Fed is not radical?

does he want to abolish the IRS altogether?

i'd say he sounds like he's somewhere between a Libertarian and a traditional conservative.

but what does he have to say about gay marriage and abortion? he still needs to appeal to the voters that place those as the most important issues.

i'd be really happy once we get neo-cons out of the White House.

[VV o n g B a]

does he want to abolish the IRS altogether?

i'd say he sounds like he's somewhere between a Libertarian and a traditional conservative.

but what does he have to say about gay marriage and abortion? he still needs to appeal to the voters that place those as the most important issues.

i'd be really happy once we get neo-cons out of the White House.he's sorta libertarian, but then again not.

he's against gay marriage and abortion. against drug war (seems to be against all war period). against illegal immigration and amnesty. against the civil rights act of 1964 and voting rights act of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[Banana]

"against the civil rights act of 1964 and voting rights act of 1965."

Wrong answer.

[Yeahman]

"against the civil rights act of 1964 and voting rights act of 1965."

Wrong answer.
Hardcore libertarians must understandably be against the Civil Rights Act.

As for the Voting Rights Act, there is plenty of opposition to that everywhere. It's a very costly regulation that has arguably marginal effect today. Maybe we can discuss this in another thread?

[VV o n g B a]

Hardcore libertarians must understandably be against the Civil Rights Act.

As for the Voting Rights Act, there is plenty of opposition to that everywhere. It's a very costly regulation that has arguably marginal effect today. Maybe we can discuss this in another thread?i grant it's understandable for him to be against the civil rights act. but i don't think the same can be said for his stance on gay marriage. he has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."

i find the wording there to be intrinsically contradictory and very illiberal. there's a lot i like about the guy and about just as much i don't like.

[SunWuKong]

i grant it's understandable for him to be against the civil rights act. but i don't think the same can be said for his stance on gay marriage. he has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."

i find the wording there to be intrinsically contradictory and very illiberal. there's a lot i like about the guy and about just as much i don't like.

"profoundly hostile to liberty" may be a contradictory thing for him to have said. but bearing in mind that he wants minimal government, it would make sense that he doesn't want the federal government to touch marriage. but i would like to see what he thinks of individual states legalising same-sex marriage.

then again, it may be that he's letting his religious self dictate his politics on marriage. if he's really a hardcore Libertarian, he'd get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

[Yeahman]

"profoundly hostile to liberty" may be a contradictory thing for him to have said. but bearing in mind that he wants minimal government, it would make sense that he doesn't want the federal government to touch marriage. but i would like to see what he thinks of individual states legalising same-sex marriage.

then again, it may be that he's letting his religious self dictate his politics on marriage. if he's really a hardcore Libertarian, he'd get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.
"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever." - Ron Paul

[SunWuKong]

"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever." - Ron Paul

right, but that may have been spoken purely outside the context of same-sex marriage.

[VV o n g B a]

it's possible i've mischaracterized him, but it still seems to fit awkwardly. he has been quite outspoken about not wanting the fed to redefine marriage, but the fact is that the fed has ALREADY defined it for the purposes of social security and medicare benefits and taxes. a redefinition that impacted only how the fed treated couples in those instances seems to be quite reasonable to me. he could have fought for language that removed all mention of marriage from federal agencies but apparently hasn't done so.

[SunWuKong]

it's possible i've mischaracterized him, but it still seems to fit awkwardly. he has been quite outspoken about not wanting the fed to redefine marriage, but the fact is that the fed has ALREADY defined it for the purposes of social security and medicare benefits and taxes. a redefinition that impacted only how the fed treated couples in those instances seems to be quite reasonable to me. he could have fought for language that removed all mention of marriage from federal agencies but apparently hasn't done so.

well... he wants to get rid of the IRS, and he probably wants to get rid of medicare and social security as well. so without these things, the federal government would basically hold next to zero responsibility in defining what a marriage is.

[Yeahman]

right, but that may have been spoken purely outside the context of same-sex marriage.
It was in the context of why he opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Ron Paul seems like a religious enough guy and I would guess that he personally opposes same-sex marriage. But to him that's irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet that he's for maintaining the freedom of contract between individuals and for state governments enforcing those contracts even if it's between same-sex couples.

[Yeahman]

Saw an interview with Ron Paul. Liked how he recognized illegal immigration and China-bashing as scapegoats. His stance on immigration is the standard libertarian position: Dismantle the welfare state in order to get rid of incentives then open the borders to unrestricted immigration.