(02-17-2011 10:18 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There's a solution for you left-wing f'ers and GTS, don't watch Fox.

Problem solved.

Yea, except that Faux and Obama-BSNBC etc are hugely influential in elections, because most of the sheeple don't bother to research for themselves.

It's a more serious problem than you think.

(02-17-2011 10:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:18 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There's a solution for you left-wing f'ers and GTS, don't watch Fox.

Problem solved.

Yea, except that Faux and Obama-BSNBC etc are hugely influential in elections, because most of the sheeple don't bother to research for themselves.

It's a more serious problem than you think.

Want'em banned?

(02-17-2011 10:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:37 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:22 AM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, I rarely watch the news anymore, other than Robin and Co. in the mornings. I'd rather watch King of Queens, Seinfeld, and documentaries than watch the news about **** I've already heard about all day on this board.

The only place worse for information than Fox news is this board

I don't view people's posts as information. I do, however, read links, dipsh1t. Links to reputable sites. Posts aren't anything but opinion, both left and right. The links to stories are stories that will normally be on in the PM. .....and I've already seen them because of this board. If you have a problem with this board, kindly get the f*ck out.

Rebel are you in 5th grade? :baby:

(02-17-2011 11:05 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:49 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:37 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:22 AM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, I rarely watch the news anymore, other than Robin and Co. in the mornings. I'd rather watch King of Queens, Seinfeld, and documentaries than watch the news about **** I've already heard about all day on this board.

The only place worse for information than Fox news is this board

I don't view people's posts as information. I do, however, read links, dipsh1t. Links to reputable sites. Posts aren't anything but opinion, both left and right. The links to stories are stories that will normally be on in the PM. .....and I've already seen them because of this board. If you have a problem with this board, kindly get the f*ck out.

Rebel are you in 5th grade? :baby:

No, 8th.

(02-17-2011 10:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Want'em banned?

No, but I don't think that standing trial for fraud and/or false advertising is out of the question.

Fox issues apology:

“It was clearly a mistake. We used the wrong videotape. There are similarities in the shot between last year’s event and this year.

…

Ron Paul won both years. However, there were audible boos in 2010 while you heard a lot more cheering this year. It’s an honest mistake. We apologize for the error and we look forward to having Representative Paul back on our show very soon.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-apol...aul-error/

(02-17-2011 10:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 10:18 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There's a solution for you left-wing f'ers and GTS, don't watch Fox.

Problem solved.

Yea, except that Faux and Obama-BSNBC etc are hugely influential in elections, because most of the sheeple don't bother to research for themselves.

It's a more serious problem than you think.

Does anybody even watch MSNBC? And I have all Faux "News" stations blocked on my telly as well.

(02-18-2011 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  “It was clearly a mistake.”

If you believe that, I have a great deal on a bridge for you.

While we're at it, I figured I'd briefly catalog some other "mistakes" Faux has had:

- Excluded from 2008 New Hampshire debate, despite Fred Thompson who was polling 1/5 of what Ron Paul was being allowed in. The local affiliate and the New Hampshire GOP pulled out of the debate because of this.

- After every single debate where they ran a poll, Hannity and company would immediately write off their own poll as being "manipulated" and "hacked" by "Paulites". This is despite the fact that you can only vote once per mobile number.

- Removed paragraphs containing Ron Paul references from the Associated Press stories late in the 2008 election cycle.

- Said on air that Ron Paul getting the most campaign cash from the military was from "libertarian mailing lists", and not real military support.

- Provided 1/3 to 1/8 of the time afforded to Mitt or McCain or Huckleberry during the debates.

- Cropped Ron paul supporters out of photos during the Mackinac Republican Conference, and were caught on film at the same event saying “I don’t want these Ron Paul people, but I need shots of audience”.

- Did not report Ron Paul's record breaking $4.2 million fundraising day, despite every other media outlet doing so. They instead chose to report on, frequently that day, "by mistake" I'm sure, of a man in Texas in a bath tub full of snakes.

- Excluded from their 2012 Presidential polls and candidate highlights.

- Can you spot what they altered here?


- Can you spot what they left out here?

And that's just the Paul stuff!

(02-18-2011 09:48 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While we're at it, I figured I'd briefly catalog some other "mistakes" Faux has had:

- Excluded from 2008 New Hampshire debate, despite Fred Thompson who was polling 1/5 of what Ron Paul was being allowed in. The local affiliate and the New Hampshire GOP pulled out of the debate because of this.

- After every single debate where they ran a poll, Hannity and company would immediately write off their own poll as being "manipulated" and "hacked" by "Paulites". This is despite the fact that you can only vote once per mobile number.

- Removed paragraphs containing Ron Paul references from the Associated Press stories late in the 2008 election cycle.

- Said on air that Ron Paul getting the most campaign cash from the military was from "libertarian mailing lists", and not real military support.

- Provided 1/3 to 1/8 of the time afforded to Mitt or McCain or Huckleberry during the debates.

- Cropped Ron paul supporters out of photos during the Mackinac Republican Conference, and were caught on film at the same event saying “I don’t want these Ron Paul people, but I need shots of audience”.

- Did not report Ron Paul's record breaking $4.2 million fundraising day, despite every other media outlet doing so. They instead chose to report on, frequently that day, "by mistake" I'm sure, of a man in Texas in a bath tub full of snakes.

- Excluded from their 2012 Presidential polls and candidate highlights.

- Can you spot what they altered here?


- Can you spot what they left out here?

Because this deserves to be on both pages of this thread.

It's always been fox's slant to group Paul with the Birthers. Totally false. Fox states that their research shows Obama is eligible to serve. Then they rely on the newspaper birth announcement as their proof. It is totally lame. Paul has been malign by Fox, no doubt.

(02-17-2011 09:22 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  1. What was the difference in the the 2 videos? I didn't notice it.

Did you watch with the sound off?

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  2. Why didn't you call out the announcer who is obviously lying when he said "Ron Paul is accepted by the majority"? He is clearly not.

Your viewpointed is more tainted and biased than Faux News.

What exactly are you basing that on?

1. No....Was the message different. Does crowd response alter the message? Are you that much of a sheep that the crowd going crazy or booing is going to change your opinion?

2. 3+ failed humiliating attempts at the Republican nomination would suggest that he is not accepted by the general public.

(02-18-2011 06:05 PM)blah Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 09:22 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  1. What was the difference in the the 2 videos? I didn't notice it.

Did you watch with the sound off?

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  2. Why didn't you call out the announcer who is obviously lying when he said "Ron Paul is accepted by the majority"? He is clearly not.

Your viewpointed is more tainted and biased than Faux News.

What exactly are you basing that on?

1. No....Was the message different. Does crowd response alter the message? Are you that much of a sheep that the crowd going crazy or booing is going to change your opinion?

2. 3+ failed humiliating attempts at the Republican nomination would suggest that he is not accepted by the general public.

1. The crowd response was obviously much more supportive in the 2011 video. If you honestly couldn't notice it, you might seriously want to have your hearing checked. Or maybe you just didn't want to hear it.

2. So if you aren't willing to vote for someone as president, you don't "accept" them? Didn't Romney fail last time? I guess he's not accepted either.

(02-18-2011 07:29 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-18-2011 06:05 PM)blah Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 09:22 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  1. What was the difference in the the 2 videos? I didn't notice it.

Did you watch with the sound off?

(02-17-2011 08:20 PM)blah Wrote:  2. Why didn't you call out the announcer who is obviously lying when he said "Ron Paul is accepted by the majority"? He is clearly not.

Your viewpointed is more tainted and biased than Faux News.

What exactly are you basing that on?

1. No....Was the message different. Does crowd response alter the message? Are you that much of a sheep that the crowd going crazy or booing is going to change your opinion?

2. 3+ failed humiliating attempts at the Republican nomination would suggest that he is not accepted by the general public.

1. The crowd response was obviously much more supportive in the 2011 video. If you honestly couldn't notice it, you might seriously want to have your hearing checked. Or maybe you just didn't want to hear it.

2. So if you aren't willing to vote for someone as president, you don't "accept" them? Didn't Romney fail last time? I guess he's not accepted either.

1. I agree the crowd response was different, but who cares? Should I now be interested in voting for Ron Paul because people are cheering for him vs. booing? Isn't that kind of stupidity relegated to the democrats? At the end of the day the message in both clips is "Ron Paul won the meaningless straw pole".

2. Apples & Oranges....Mitt won 12 states in the primary....Ron Paul won 0. Mitt had 287 delegates and quit after Super Tuesday, Ron Paul had 21 delegates and stayed until the end. 2008 was Mitt's first attempt at the Presidency, Ron Paul has been trying since 1988. I mean after 23 years you'd think you'd realize it isn't going to happen. But I guess if you have eggheads like you and GTS continuing to give free money to him each time he runs, he might as well keep trying. Mitt finished 2nd in the primary, Ron Paul finished 4th (barely beating Fred Thompson in delegates even though Fred was only in for 6 primaries and was leading Paul by 3 delegates when he dropped out).

Any other stupid comments?

If being "electable" means immolating Rudy McRomney big government, civil liberty liberty destroying, deficit exploding, empire expanding "conservatism" ... then let's all just agree to wipe one last time and flush what's left down the toilet.

(02-19-2011 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If being "electable" means immolating Rudy McRomney big government, civil liberty liberty destroying, deficit exploding, empire expanding "conservatism" ... then let's all just agree to wipe one last time and flush what's left down the toilet.

Given the way the republicans are behaving so far, I see them as no better than the democrats. Come on, gridlock.

At this point I think the best answer is for the federal government to shut down--and maybe not reopen.

(02-19-2011 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If being "electable" means immolating Rudy McRomney big government, civil liberty liberty destroying, deficit exploding, empire expanding "conservatism" ... then let's all just agree to wipe one last time and flush what's left down the toilet.

You are missing the point....It isn't who is electable, it is that Ron Paul is unelectable. He needs to step aside and find someone new to lead the charge. Maybe its his son?

(02-19-2011 12:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2011 12:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If being "electable" means immolating Rudy McRomney big government, civil liberty liberty destroying, deficit exploding, empire expanding "conservatism" ... then let's all just agree to wipe one last time and flush what's left down the toilet.

Given the way the republicans are behaving so far, I see them as no better than the democrats. Come on, gridlock.

At this point I think the best answer is for the federal government to shut down--and maybe not reopen.

+1

Government shutdown would be the best thing that could happen to this country.