Fox News: Take Ron Paul Out Of The Republican Debates

Originally posted by VAPatriot
If Paul were to not get the Republican Nomination. I wager to bet he would endorse Gary Johnson.

I have full faith that Paul has a very strong chance of the Nomination.

edit on 8-11-2011 by VAPatriot because: (no reason given)

Maybe Paul should go ahead and name Johnson as his VP right now, and start campaigning for the Presidency and say screw the Republican establishment? He could still be listed on the primary cards, and if he wins, GREAT, but if he doesn't win the nomination, he could have 6 months of campaigning under his belt before the others really even get started!

I think Paul should name his VP, lay out his plans, and continue to fundraise and campaign, and let the cards fall where they may.

I agree with all the others. If he doesn't get elected, then the election is really a moot point anyway. Perry, Romney, Obama are all cut from the same cloth.

I never liked that woman anyways.
A pretty face doesn't get my attention on FOX anymore. (I fell for it once)
Because all the pretty faces are dumb as bricks.
Literally.

We all know why there's women on the show who have nothing but looks going for them.
Pure programmed nation.
But it proves how stupid people can be.

It's not the commentators that worry me.
The idiots that listen to and believe these morons on FOX are who worry me.
They are the blind following the sensual predators.
They are the ones following the pack.
The viewers are the voters.
And that bothers me.


Anyways...

I bet she wouldn't like it too much if we did the same to her:
She doesn't agree or nominate the candidates?
Good, YOU'RE FIRED!

See how she would like that comment.

reply to post by havok

The idiots that listen to and believe these morons on FOX are who worry me.
They are the blind following the sensual predators.
They are the ones following the pack.
The viewers are the voters.
And that bothers me.

But, to a typical blue collar working family, how are they to know how bad the spin is? They don't have a lot of time for the internet or reading publications. They work 8-12 hours per day, sit down for dinner with a TV set on in the background, get an hour or two of cable junk, go to bed, and go back to work the next day.

If folks aren't on ATS, and they aren't working in government circles, then how are they to know?

There is an implied authority to big Networks, and people assume they "have" to tell the truth. People don't realize that it is mostly opinion and extrapolation. People don't realize "polls" only had 2500 respondents. People don't realize news shows have to stage explosions on 60 minutes to make it dramatic enough for television. If someone only has a high school education, they don't realize statistics can be found or made to support any agenda or opinion.

I don't blame the people we so often call sheeple. Their only offense is trusting too much.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I do.
I blame the ignorant.
You want to know why?
Because everyone wants to ignore whats taking place right in front of their faces!
Everyone is programmed to think that nothing can go wrong.
I honestly think that's a huge problem these days.
BUT:
There's more than enough MSM coverage and youtube videos to explain the situation.
There's more sites that ATS that have plenty of information to research.
Heck even Ron Paul gets information out there that otherwise would've been silenced.
The hardworking middle class just don't care.
And...
The ignorant people are just that.
They don't care, they just want to have an "easy" life.
I know plenty of people you described.
And they all have one thing in common.
Blatant apathy.

It's not about having the time to know whats good for you.

It's about realizing that this country is actually not a "Dream" anymore.




And no one (outside of ATS) wants to admit it.

reply to post by havok


I guess you're right. But, I'm sure there are many that have never had their eyes opened in the slightest way, and they don't realize it is right in front of their faces.

My father has been a Democrat his whole life, yet most of his beliefs are conservative. Over the last few years, I have been able to show him that everything he stands for is more Libertarian or Constitutionalist, and leans toward Republican. He is no Democrat. Then, just this past 6 months or so, he argued against Ron Paul and in favor of Palin, Perry, etc. It took me many, many issues and debates and evidence to open his eyes to the fact that they are all media darlings, and only Ron Paul stands on his own. I still think he would probably take Palin over Paul, and he still likes Cain and awful lot, but I think Paul is his favorite for now.

My wife also loves Paul now that she has seen a few clips, and the Jon Stewart clips, and some debates, but she is intimately trusting of the press. She thinks they can't lie, because the government won't let them. She thinks they would get sued. She thinks there are plenty of safeguards in place.

These are highly intelligent and successful folks that just make wrong assumptions, because they were raised in an era when things were simpler!

I don't think it is laziness or apathy. I think we just have a LOT of conditioning to overcome.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by VAPatriot
If Paul were to not get the Republican Nomination. I wager to bet he would endorse Gary Johnson.

I have full faith that Paul has a very strong chance of the Nomination.

edit on 8-11-2011 by VAPatriot because: (no reason given)

Maybe Paul should go ahead and name Johnson as his VP right now, and start campaigning for the Presidency and say screw the Republican establishment? He could still be listed on the primary cards, and if he wins, GREAT, but if he doesn't win the nomination, he could have 6 months of campaigning under his belt before the others really even get started!

I think Paul should name his VP, lay out his plans, and continue to fundraise and campaign, and let the cards fall where they may.

I agree with all the others. If he doesn't get elected, then the election is really a moot point anyway. Perry, Romney, Obama are all cut from the same cloth.

He said he will not run as an independent in that same interview. Not that it would matter if he won as a Rep or Inde he could not do anything without congress anyway so his entire agenda would be dead on arrival. I honestly do not think the guy has wants to be President because he could never do anything he wants to do anyway. This way he runs gets out his message and then says just enough of the wall stuff to keep from getting any large scale support.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

I know the girl who said, I remember her face
Hard to recognize because of regular fluctuations of makeup quantity on face

Her name is Andrea Tantaros. And was it really necessary for your weird comment, just because you disagree with what she said?

The title is misleading. Andrea Tantaros is NOT Fox News. She works there occasionally, as she does at CNN and MSNBC.

And Ron Paul actually is the instigator in this; he comes up with some ridiculous hypothetical of "Well, if the nominee were bad, no,,I mean Bad bad, no, that's Bad Bad BAD Bad Bad...., then oh how could I betray my loyal followers and all we've fought for and stand for?? By the way, that's RonPaul.com for your generous donations.."

Nice one with the high drama, Mr. Paul. You know full well that your 'scenario' would never come to be.. you are just setting yourself up for a 3rd party run which you cannot win.. and if YOU can't have it, then no one can, eh? Face it, folks -- he's either senile, selfish, or both. You're being had.

reply to post by havok

It's not the commentators that worry me.
The idiots that listen to and believe these morons on FOX are who worry me.
They are the blind following the sensual predators.
They are the ones following the pack.
The viewers are the voters.
And that bothers me.

Yes. How DARE they get their facts from anybody but you, eh?

And what of those who listen to Ron Paul and disagree with his views? Are they just plain stupid? Or didn't they listen hard enough? I know plenty of educated people who disagree with enough of his views and outrageous statements to never trust him. What about them?

reply to post by mishigas

You know full well that your 'scenario' would never come to be.. you are just setting yourself up for a 3rd party run which you cannot win..

No, it isn't a scenario that would never come to be. It is a scenario which is very likely.

Which candidate do you suppose he could honestly endorse? If there is a candidate in the race that Ron Paul, with his views, and his followers could honestly endorse, then please point them out. If he does endorse a candidate, I will vote for that candidate, but it isn't going to happen.

And yes, I think there was a clip where he said he would run as a Libertarian or Independent if he doesn't win the nomination.

Now that I think about it, if Ron Paul endorsed Gary Johnson or Newt Gingrich, maybe I could get on board, but those guys don't stand any chance either. This has always been a Perry/Romney race, and neither of them is conservative, and neither of them can beat Obama.

reply to post by getreadyalready

reply to post by mishigas


You know full well that your 'scenario' would never come to be.. you are just setting yourself up for a 3rd party run which you cannot win..

No, it isn't a scenario that would never come to be. It is a scenario which is very likely.

Which candidate do you suppose he could honestly endorse? If there is a candidate in the race that Ron Paul, with his views, and his followers could honestly endorse, then please point them out. If he does endorse a candidate, I will vote for that candidate, but it isn't going to happen.

Ron Paul doesn't punch my ballot. I don't vote for whomever he endorses. My vote is mine, not Ron Paul's.

I see too much blind advocacy for Ron Paul on ATS. Its is impossible to hold a rational discussion on his strengths and weaknesses here without being inundated by his followers, who destroy any such attempt. Same stuff happened with Barack Obama. And in that sense, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are no different.

Just look at this thread. Was there any discussion on his actual statement, and it's implications? No, but there was plenty of talk about bimbos, etc.

So your statement that it is a "likely scenario" is incorrect. RP infers that all other candidates hate mom, apple pie, and the American flag. Just not true, Mr. Paul. And btw -- nobody would vote for such a candidate. so nobody would run on those planks.

They are right about one thing. If Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, et al is the nominee and not Ron Paul I will not vote in the general election for president because my view are not represented by any other presidential candidate.

I don't even like Huntsman and he has no chance anyway. Even though Huntsman said he likes Ron Paul for his VP if he were nominated I still would not vote for him because he is just too close to China for my liking.

It is irrational ideas like back the nominee no matter who it is that has this nation on the financial ropes and in so many wars of empire world wide, and very deeply divided.

reply to post by mishigas


There is some blind idolatry for Ron Paul, I can't deny that. Not nearly to the level of Barack Obama though. Ron Paul has 30 years of voting "NO" to every thing that fell outside what is authorized by the Constitution. Ron Paul has 30 years of being in politics without any major scandals. He has documented accounts of being intentionally ignored or down-played by the media to a point that pundits and comedians talk about it openly! The people that endorse him can show his record, his stances, his own words, and they can support their opinion with it.

On the other hand, those that blindly supported Obama had nothing to go on. They were simply voting for eloquent promises and the elusive idea of "change." Then, when things started going downhill, they grasped onto racism as the cause, not substantive information.

The reason I say I will change my vote if Ron Paul endorses another candidate, is because I don't believe he would endorse any candidate that wasn't a strict Constitutionalist and Conservative. I plan to vote for Ron Paul, even if I have to write it in, because he is the only candidate on the market that I trust at this moment. So, by that trust, I will be swayed if he endorses someone else.

Maybe Gary Johnson? I could support that.

NOW, let me give a disclaimer. IF he endorses a mainstream candidate like Perry or Romney, then I will gladly concede that he has gone senile, and I will write in SpongeBob like my wife did last year!!

This is why Fox news is an entertainment channel first and foremost, while being a news channel second, a very distant, distorted second. It doesn't take a genius to realize those talking heads at Fox should be taken with a grain of salt

reply to post by Swills

It doesn't take a genius to realize those talking heads at Fox should be taken with a grain of salt

I think it does take a genius. Fox is the only alternative to the liberal leaning media on all the other channels. They are also the network of the NFL and Nascar. They pander to the conservative crowd. They have "News" in their name which gives an air of authority and fact to what they preach, and they use the "Fair and Balanced" logo on so much stuff that it drives home that point to the people watching.

I think it indeed does take a genius to even think to question them.

Fox News have never been ``conservatives``...

Those who call themselves ``republicans`` these days are nowhere near conservatism.

Conservatism is less government, no war, no law destroying the constitution, freedom. Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, most republicans aren't conservatives, they are the opposite of it.

``Liberals`` are not liberals either. Where were the ``liberals`` when it came to vote against the Iraq war? Cut funding for the wars? Impeach Bush? Impeach Obama? Stop torture? Legalize marijuana? Etc? Real liberals are nowhere to be seen.

Both used to be for the constitution, against war. Now both are for war and against the constitution. Disgusting really.

reply to post by getreadyalready

reply to post by mishigas

There is some blind idolatry for Ron Paul, I can't deny that. Not nearly to the level of Barack Obama though. Ron Paul has 30 years of voting "NO" to every thing that fell outside what is authorized by the Constitution. Ron Paul has 30 years of being in politics without any major scandals. He has documented accounts of being intentionally ignored or down-played by the media to a point that pundits and comedians talk about it openly! The people that endorse him can show his record, his stances, his own words, and they can support their opinion with it.

Ron Paul has Spartan-like followers; Obama followers were more like groupies. But as for his voting record, it is well known how deceptive that is. Example his No votes on spending bills to which he would attach earmarks. That would allow him to boast that he never voted for spending increases and technically be telling the truth. You can't deny he did that. It's duplicitous, and takes the shine off of his halo. But his followers can't see that.

On the other hand, those that blindly supported Obama had nothing to go on. They were simply voting for eloquent promises and the elusive idea of "change." Then, when things started going downhill, they grasped onto racism as the cause, not substantive information.

Of course. Agreed.

The reason I say I will change my vote if Ron Paul endorses another candidate, is because I don't believe he would endorse any candidate that wasn't a strict Constitutionalist and Conservative. I plan to vote for Ron Paul, even if I have to write it in, because he is the only candidate on the market that I trust at this moment. So, by that trust, I will be swayed if he endorses someone else.

Maybe Gary Johnson? I could support that.

I can seriously see him choosing a non-conservative as VP, such as Kucinich. Close enough?

Originally posted by dizzie56
Id like to see Anon do something about this blatant censorship by the MSM on Ron Paul cause this is getting ridiculous. I know Anon doesnt do much, but even DDS attacks is something that tells the MSM people are fed up over this. I honestly dont understand how they can not show more respect for this man, even if they dont agree with him. The clip they showed of Ron Paul actually reaffirmed my beliefs in him when he said that he didnt want to let his supporters down by endorsing somebody that didnt share his principles.

Anon tend not to target news outlets....

reply to post by mishigas


Kucinich would be a very interesting choice!! I would love to see that. I'm not sure how it would play out, but it would make things very interesting.

What did you expect? He only aligns himself with the Republican party for the increased exposure. And you wonder why they want to shut him out?

So wait , the mainstream media get's to fudge the numbers and lie about the polls and then smear the propaganda " your vote won't count , so vote for who everyone else is voting for according to us " ???

This is delusional nonsense they are feeding us. I've heard way too many people say , "My vote won't count if I vote for that guy. " As though people have lost their conviction.

Last presidential election , if I hadn't followed so closely , I would not have believed the amount of manipulation that goes on . However it was enough to just disgust the hell out of me and make me almost lose any hope in the American people.

Who the hell is fox news ??? NOONE , just regurgitating opinions that means absolutely nothing to me !