12-30-2007, 12:47 AM | #1 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
This is complete bullshit! And it's against FCC regulations!
Here is the contact information for FOX News. Remember to be firm but polite in your letter or telephone call. It is important THAT YOU FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! MAKE IT VIRAL! Here are the contacts (contact all of them if you can): * General Comments o Email: [email protected] o Phone: 1-888-369-4762 * Kathy Ardleigh, Sen. Politics Producer o Phone: 212-301-3186 o Email: [email protected] * Thom Bird, Fox News Sen. Producer o Phone: 212-301-3250 o Email: [email protected] * Todd Ciganek, National News Editor o Phone: 212-301-3352 o Email: [email protected] * Ian Rae, Exec. VP News o Phone: 212-301-8552 o Email: [email protected] * John Moody, Sen VP News o Phone: 212-301-8560 o Email: [email protected] * Brian Lewis, Executive Vice President of Corporate Communications o Phone: 212-301-3331 o Fax: 212-819-0816 o E-Mail: [email protected] * Irena Briganti, Vice President of Media Relations o Phone: 212-301-3608 o Fax: 212-819-0816 o E-Mail: [email protected] * Brian Knoblock, International Editor o Phone: 212-301-5486 o Email: [email protected] * Kim Schiller Hume, Wash DC Bureau Chief o Phone: 202-824-6389 o Fax: 202-824-6426 * Ken LaCorte, Los Angeles Bureau Chief o Phone: 310-571-2000 o Fax: 310-571-2009 * Justin Schmidt, Chicago Bureau Chief o Phone: 312-494-0428 o Fax: 312-494-0445 * Brit Hume, Managing Editor o Phone: 202-824-6470 o Fax: 202-824-6426 * David Asman, Fox News Host o Phone: 212-301-3944 o Email: [email protected] * Shepard Smith, Fox Report Host o Phone: 212-301-3711 o Email: [email protected] * Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor Host o Phone: 212-301-3320 o Email: [email protected] * Jane Skinner, News Anchor o Phone: 212-301-5023 o Email: [email protected]
__________________
|
12-30-2007, 01:12 AM | #2 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
I feel I don't have to send in any letters, the number of libertarians on the internet excited about Paul actually becoming a credible candidate should more than make up for anything I don't do.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
12-30-2007, 01:28 AM | #3 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
PROCRASTINATORS UNITE!... Tomorrow.... Maybe....
It's really funny when people say stuff like that because I'm sure at least 50% of his supporters are thinking the same thing and not doing anything as well. I personally don't care, so I won't be doing anything. |
12-30-2007, 01:30 AM | #4 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
*yawn*
And you're all honestly surprised? The national news haven't even MENTIONED his name in weeks. It's been Romney this and Huckabee that. With Giuliani and McCain getting a little screentime here or there. The men in power have already decided against Ron Paul, and there's little you kids can do about it. Start a revolution and see where it takes you if you're that up in arms about it.
__________________
|
12-30-2007, 01:37 AM | #5 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
When Paul netted the $7M one-day record a week or two ago, there was a huge buzz amongst the libertarian blog community - imagine a single snowflake falling on your face in heck itself. They're really excited, since with each "money bomb" Paul gets a surge of supporters. Reading his biography, I'm totally impressed at the path the man took to Congress; I thought it was a bit strange that he became a gynecologist, but he did that so he could deliver the babies of the young mothers who would eventually vote for him! Genius tactic, really!
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
12-30-2007, 01:48 AM | #6 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
Puh-lease. Nominate a more realistic theory. Preferably alongside a more realistic Presidential candidate.
__________________
|
|
12-30-2007, 01:59 AM | #7 |
Trying to send Christmas cards
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: *scribble*
Posts: 1,460
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Or maybe he became a gynecologist because he likes girl parts.
__________________
*munch munch* | FB Profile |
12-30-2007, 02:10 AM | #8 | |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
|
|
12-30-2007, 02:25 AM | #9 | |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
In any case, aren't networks required to give equal airtime to each candidate? I know Stephen Colbert raised issues on that when he was running for President in South Carolina.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
|
12-30-2007, 02:36 AM | #10 | ||
我が名は勇者王!
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
And I don't think for a moment that was his only tactic, nor did I mean to imply it was, it was just the most interesting and struck me as unusual. Bill Clinton's credentials were likewise amazing, and it seems to be a rising trend with presidential candidates to be "super-folk" as it were when it comes to everything - if anything, it makes a good story. Quote:
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
||
12-30-2007, 02:07 PM | #11 | |
Trying to send Christmas cards
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: *scribble*
Posts: 1,460
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
__________________
*munch munch* | FB Profile |
|
12-30-2007, 02:42 PM | #12 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Ron Paul is clearly a top tier candidate like it or not... he is even polling higher than Fred in NH and yet they still call Fred a "top tier" candidate and allow him to participate.
It's also a violation of FCC rules and Ron could sue Fox if he wanted to. It isn't right that he is being excluded... and I feel as if the media is trying to choose our candidates for us. That's why I have been so passionate about this. That, and this will be my first election year to vote in. If Ron doesn't make it, I don't know if I'll even vote.
__________________
|
12-30-2007, 03:08 PM | #13 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
It's not that I dislike it! Don't get me wrong, any of you Ron Paul supporters, and think that I'm "against Ron Paul" moreso than other Republican candidates. I'm not. He's not my man for the job, but he's certainly the Republican I'm happiest to see running.
My problem isn't with Ron Paul, but with you guys. You (and I mean that both generally and specifically) are all getting your hopes way too high. I mean, yes, it's nice to dream big. Yes, it's nice to fight for your ideals. (Don't ever do otherwise!) But what frustrates me is that a lot of you seem to be genuinely surprised that Paul is being silently scooted out of the running. And I think any such surprise is pure naivety. You have to have been born yesterday to have not seen this coming from a mile away. It won't be "normal" if Ron Paul manages to stick around all the way until a single Republican is chosen to represent the GOP -- it'll be a miracle. As the primaries get closer and closer to the end, it's normal for the focus to be on just two guys. You guys act like this is the first year the GOP has had a ton of candidates in the primaries. It's not. Does the name "Alan Keyes" ring any bells? No? How about "Pat Buchanan?" These were people in the Republican primary running alongside Bush and McCain in 2004. I don't see people crying over the fact that Dennis Kucinich or Joe Biden are being completely ignored by the media while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards rule a 3-way tie in Iowa. The media's ignoring of Ron Paul is no different. He's popular with the Internet, but guess what 4chan folks? THE INTERNET IS NOT SERIOUS BUSINESS AFTER ALL. Most American voters -- and by most, I mean well over 75% -- are not in that "Internet clique" you all find yourselves in. They're probably not aware Ron Paul even exists. The media tells them about Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, and so that's all they see. Those four names. If they do know Paul, then they know him about as well as they know the (gasp!) other ignorables in the Republican primary. Do I think it's a shame that Paul's being scooted off the stage against his (and your guys') will? Yeah, it's a democratic shame. But am I surprised by it? No. And am I agitated that you guys are surprised by it? and think that your "e-rants" will have any effect whatsoever? Yes, I am agitated by that. You guys seem to think that elections in this country will make a difference. Nothing could be further from the truth -- not in a world where money is power and people are easily corrupted. It also frustrates me how many of you childishly believe that "Dr. No" will keep most of the promises he's making to you right now. He didn't become a successful politician being a goody two-shoes. He became a successful politician the way they all do: lying, stealing, bribing. I wouldn't trust Dr. No with my future any more than I would any of the other candidates.
__________________
|
12-30-2007, 11:16 PM | #14 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
I don't know who Dr.No is but that sound's like a porn star who features in rape fetish flicks.
|
12-30-2007, 11:19 PM | #15 | |||||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
Quote:
I don't like Huchabee because the guy isn't serious enough, he's a huge tax supporter, and to put it simply, I don't want some right wing Christian extremist running the country. Not a good idea. Same goes for a lot of the republicans running. "Hey, let's bomb Iran!" How about, uh, NO. You want to provoke Russia by going to war with a country that we really don't need to go to war with? Go right ahead, but I don't want to be a part of it. I'm moving to Australia. Unless they become part of the North American Union, too. Quote:
Kucinich has some pretty decent views but doesn't have the money to keep going, or even be noticed. (Which, Ron Paul has a lot of, and another reason why a ton of people are upset with Ron Paul's exclusion). Honestly, I don't know too much about Biden, except for his quote on Giuliani (Everything that comes out of his mouth is a noun, a verb, and 9/11). And please stop associating me with 4Chan. I've visited the site once and thought it was stupid and never went back. I like Ron Paul because I actually did research on everyone. This is my first election, I'm not some stupid person who is "Well, uh, I'm going to vote for Hillary because, uh, my parents like her. And she's Bill Clinton's wife, how bad can she be?". This is serious to me. I've looked up info on all of the candidates and after research, I really liked what Ron Paul believes. I don't like him just because everyone else does. I take this shit seriously, not like the other american's who follow what they hear. Elections have become a popularity contest and a mud-slinging festival. Complete and utter non-sense. I work with a chick who was like "I want Hillary to win because, um, she's cool. And she's a democrat, the opposite of Bush. Which is why I want her to win." And then some other idiot jumped in and tried to take her side (he had no clue what the hell he was talking about). I quickly told them both about what Hillary supports, and they instantly changed their minds (except for the idiot who jumped in "anyone but another Bush" was his standpoint. He went so far as to hope that Bush gets assassinated.) Funny thing is, I also told a few people about Ron Paul, and they liked him and a few said they'd like him to be president (even a teacher at my school, who knew of him prior to me telling her). No, I wasn't biased, I even included the negative things about him (I hate biased people and I don't want to be one, so I show both sides of the argument). Quote:
Quote:
We don't want anymore bullshit. Even if Paul doesn't win the nomination, why can't he go down in a fair fight? It isn't right the way things are run in this country, and I want that to change. I've also long thought about why can't we just do things the way the forefathers intended? Is the constitution nothing but a worthless piece of paper now? What has this country gone to? We've strayed so far off of the right path that now is the time to try to get back on it, which is why the next election is extremely important. So many things are riding on the outcome of this election, including the country. Ron Paul is fresh breath of air to the country, and while you or the media may not like him, and people may not know about him, at least give him a chance. Let him go down with pride, if he's going to to down. Don't just rip him out of the debate your sponsoring (the NH GOP WANT Ron to be in it, Fox is just keeping him out). It isn't right. So please understand why I'm pissed off. When the media start fucking with my viewpoints, I don't sit there and let them force-feed me their beliefs. I'm going to do something about it. As I've said before---this is my first election, and I want it to mean something. But you know, in the end, it may not mean anything---and I may just not participate.
__________________
|
|||||
12-31-2007, 01:11 AM | #16 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
VGM, I shadowed a class in political parties and the election process and I've got to say that while your dislike of establishment is admirable, the establishment holds all the power right now and there's nothing you can do. The amount of bureaucracy in political parties, and how they manage elections, is astounding. In the miraculous case you could coordinate a "grass field" effort, a combined coalition of so many grass roots campaigns to create a voting block more powerful than special interests, you might be able to start a political revolution from the ground up.
But at this stage, it's comparable to a single ant trying to topple an ant-hill, and frankly when most people aren't super-men of the Founding Father's calibur you won't get cooperation. Last year I campaigned strongly in my town and at UCD to keep the jack-arse Republican major of my town from getting elected to the county seat supervisor position, but too many people voted for him on inane grounds and not many on concrete issues. We couldn't sway them any other way, which just goes to illustrate the permanent problems with the world right now. If everyone was educated and reasonable, our society would be so much better. But until that day, one has to work with our current system, no matter how flawed, since it is ultimately futile to go against the flow of the river. Except, as Talon says, the "miracle scenario", the "lightning strikes" incident that most of the lower-tier candidates are gambling on. Something like Huckabee having AIDS from raping a child in Uganda or Mitt Romney secretly taking money from serial killers and child molesters during his governor years so he would veto a law allowing them to be tracked on the internet. Crippling the opposition is the only way Ron Paul will manage to win the Republican nomination - he'd literally have to be the last man standing.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
12-31-2007, 08:54 AM | #17 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
I want everyone reading this thread to realize, as you do, that my pessimism isn't "Oh, Talon's a lazy slob who doesn't deserve his freedom. Enter Dami's favorite quote of 'Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.' " No. My pessimism is simple realism. There is literally nothing 25% of the country (1 in 4 citizens!) can do to topple the corruption in the political system. You would literally, truly need a 60%+ popular revolution (as the Patriots enjoyed over the Tories back in the day) to exact any sort of change, and even then (just as in the 1770s) your victory would still not be guaranteed. The truth of the matter is, if the British had wanted to keep the US, they would have. The Founding Fathers moved at a perfect time in history -- when British interests in India were growing and so was dissatisfaction with the American colonies. Most of the British navy was not on hand, nor was most of their militia -- it was all stationed in India, and kept in India long after 1775 with Concord and Lexington (i.e. they had eight years until 1783, eight years in which to ship the word out to London, get a writ from the king authorizing mobilization of Indian troops to the American colonies, etc.), and they simply chose not to. American freedom was a flighting dream ... and it was a beautiful dream ... but the dream died nameless years ago, certainly by FDR's time, when we found ourselves with an ineffectual Senate, an overpowered President, and the catchphrase "special interests." Truly, for your vote to have any meaning whatsoever, you'd need to start a new government first. Because until you do (as far as I'm concerned), elections are just a show to appease "the dumb idiot masses" and the reality is that every 4 years, the various special interests (oil, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.) clash and it's their dollar-votes which end up deciding who goes to the White House that year and who does not.
__________________
|
|
12-31-2007, 10:00 AM | #18 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
So, who wants to start a new government? =D
Also we did have substantial help from the French. If England had stepped up their efforts, the French would've likely stepped up their support in order to make England look all the more foolish.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
12-31-2007, 11:47 AM | #19 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
We'll never know. The unarguable fact, however, is that England did not give the war everything they could have, whereas the colonists truly gave it their all -- they could not have given any more than they already did.
It's the same for the independence of a lot of the British colonies -- on England's priorities list, they all fell short of India. There's a good reason for why India was the last to be relinquished.
__________________
|
01-04-2008, 11:15 AM | #20 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Hahahahaha, while I think we should invest about as much national opinion in the Iowa caucus as we would an attempt at persuasion from Regis Philbin or Dr. Phil, I have to admit ...
Ron Paul indeed got Iowowned. So much for the "Revolution." In Iowa, at least. We'll see what happens in New Hampshire and (*gasp!*) the other 48 states. (You mean we have other primaries that matter, too!?)
__________________
|
01-04-2008, 04:34 PM | #21 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Oh please, Iowa hardly matters. It only gets so much attention because it's the first one.
Need I remind you, Talon, only two candidates in history won the Iowa caucus and went on to become president (GHWB and Carter).
__________________
|
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM | #22 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Someone with a kindergartener's reading capabilities would have told you, "No, you need not," but I think you probably would have anyway.
__________________
|
01-05-2008, 12:31 AM | #23 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Bashing is always fun. Go right ahead, I don't mind.
__________________
|
01-05-2008, 01:53 PM | #24 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Quote:
Honestly, this caucus was more important than New Hampshire, because Paul's winning support in the mid-west and south is what he REALLY needs since a lot of Republicans there don't even know who he is. I had an inkling that the caucus would turn out this way when I heard that 60% of Iowa Repubicans who went to the polls identified themselves as Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians and I'm not surprised by the results on the Republican side. On the Democratic, I'd expected Obama and Edwards to be close, with Edwards securing the win. An upset to be sure. Sad that those three hold such a strangle-hold on the top three slots, though.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
01-06-2008, 05:56 PM | #25 | ||||||||||||
We deny our creators.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
|
Re: Ron Paul EXCLUDED from Faux News Jan 6 Debate
Alright, I'm going to post in this thread again. I wonder which mod is going to delete my post this time :9
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you high? This is a serious question. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-193.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-237.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... s-235.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-233.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-260.html Paul's polling next to last or dead last in nearly every credible (ie Ron Paul spambots can't vote) poll. What reason is there to believe that Ron Paul even has a ghost of a chance? On to damicatz: Quote:
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib |
||||||||||||
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|