Ron Paul only allotted 89 seconds in 90 minute debate

[natedogg624]

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-gets-89-seconds-to-speak-in-cbs-debate/

I'm not a politics guy, but this is awful.

[Casper]

He is certainly being cockblocked by the media. Without doubt.

[Disclaimer]

I think the awful thing is going to sites like infowars for information.

You can sorta judge the kind of idio...err... people that go to those sites by the kind of advertising on them. --------vvvvvvv

But, to be fair... it is a shame that candidates aren't given equal treatment in the media, unless they're batsh*t crazy and just tell lies, like Bachmann does.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gop-candidates-blast-cbs-news-for-disgraceful-bias-at-south-carolina-debate/

[Uncle Punk]

I don't see why it's so awful; it's their venue and format why shouldn't they be able to sell their entertainment how they chose? Consumers and sponsors can change the product by demands but R.P. supporters must be in the minority or they would change the system. It’s not supposed to be fair it’s an entertainment business that wants’ to appeal to the largest audience possible to maximize revenue.

[Casper]

I don't see why it's so awful; it's their venue and format why shouldn't they be able to sell their entertainment how they chose? Consumers and sponsors can change the product by demands but R.P. supporters must be in the minority or they would change the system. It’s not supposed to be fair it’s an entertainment business that wants’ to appeal to the largest audience possible to maximize revenue.

Because the media is supposed to be unbiased.

[Casper]

I think the awful thing is going to sites like infowars for information.

You can sorta judge the kind of idio...err... people that go to those sites by the kind of advertising on them. --------vvvvvvv

But, to be fair... it is a shame that candidates aren't given equal treatment in the media, unless they're batsh*t crazy and just tell lies, like Bachmann does.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gop-candidates-blast-cbs-news-for-disgraceful-bias-at-south-carolina-debate/

What websites do you visit for your political news? Please tell.

[Disclaimer]

When it's a private company in the business of making money... how can it be unbiased?

NPR is the closest thing you're going to get to being unbiased, and you know where they rate in the public eyes.

What websites do you visit for your political news? Please tell.

Way too many to list, but the ones that don't cite sources or back up information with credible numbers I take with a grain of salt.

Truth be told, one of my favorites is crooksandliars.com, which is admittedly biased towards many of my views, but I don't take every article as gospel... especially some of the gun stuff, which is emotion-based and not fact-based. I also read digg.com, which is a whole MESS of political articles from different areas -- some credible, some not-so.

Edited November 14, 2011 by JRMMiii

[Uncle Punk]

Because the media is supposed to be unbiased.

Is that what you think or what you wish to be true? From where did you get this notion? Why would you think that a business is supposed to be unbiased, it is ran by people who are most definitely biased. It's not a government run propaganda machine and has no obligation to give you what you want. It would go out of business very quickly if it didn't present the majority of likely viewers with a product that they wanted to see. I would be willing to bet they have researched who is a viable entertainment package for them to sell and that crazy anti military un-American isn't on the chart in that venue.

[ohiomike]

Because the media is supposed to be unbiased.

Yes they are, especially for something such as a political debate. By not doing so they sway public sentiment and the decisions they make.

[Uncle Punk]

Yes they are, especially for something such as a political debate. By not doing so they sway public sentiment and the decisions they make.

I'm sure that CBS missed the memo that when they put together the format for a political debate that they needed to give everyone equal time. What authority over that business is in place to make sure they don't do that again?

So you R.P. supporters changed your minds because he didn't get enough time and you can't support someone you don't know enough about?

[ohiomike]

I'm sure that CBS missed the memo that when they put together the format for a political debate that they needed to give everyone equal time. What authority over that business is in place to make sure they don't do that again?

So you R.P. supporters changed your minds because he didn't get enough time and you can't support someone you don't know enough about?

Common sense just seems to pass you right on by, doesn't it? LOL

[Uncle Punk]

Common sense

Oxymoron

[Casper]

When it's a private company in the business of making money... how can it be unbiased?

NPR is the closest thing you're going to get to being unbiased, and you know where they rate in the public eyes.

Way too many to list, but the ones that don't cite sources or back up information with credible numbers I take with a grain of salt.

Truth be told, one of my favorites is crooksandliars.com, which is admittedly biased towards many of my views, but I don't take every article as gospel... especially some of the gun stuff, which is emotion-based and not fact-based. I also read digg.com, which is a whole MESS of political articles from different areas -- some credible, some not-so.

Buwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I seriously hope you're just trolling at this point.

[John]

I think the awful thing is going to sites like infowars for information.

You can sorta judge the kind of idio...err... people that go to those sites by the kind of advertising on them. --------vvvvvvv

But, to be fair... it is a shame that candidates aren't given equal treatment in the media, unless they're batsh*t crazy and just tell lies, like Bachmann does.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gop-candidates-blast-cbs-news-for-disgraceful-bias-at-south-carolina-debate/

the thing with linking to stuff like washingon times or infowars, is that if its legitimate news, its going to be somewhere thats reputable, and that link is going to be posted anyway when someone verifies the story, so why not just post the good link in the first place?

[Josh1234]

the thing with linking to stuff like washingon times or infowars, is that if its legitimate news, its going to be somewhere thats reputable, and that link is going to be posted anyway when someone verifies the story, so why not just post the good link in the first place?

eeeeehhhh... All the "reputable" places took like 2 weeks to report on Occupy Wallstreet... and half of 'em buried it as back page news.

Even if a news site is shitty, they still might carry a true/good story... Like the fact that a presidential candidate was allotted 30 seconds of time during a 90 minute debate.

I don't care how crappy a news outlet is that reports that story, it's outrageous.

[Disclaimer]

eeeeehhhh... All the "reputable" places took like 2 weeks to report on Occupy Wallstreet... and half of 'em buried it as back page news.

Even if a news site is shitty, they still might carry a true/good story... Like the fact that a presidential candidate was allotted 30 seconds of time during a 90 minute debate.

I don't care how crappy a news outlet is that reports that story, it's outrageous.

The ABC news link (aka "mainstream media") I posted is dated Nov 12th, the Infowars one is dated Nov 13th.

[Uncle Punk]

I use whatever source Justin posts and then take the opposite position, turns out to be the correct stand 99.99% of the time.

[Disclaimer]

It's gonna be a long winter, Punk.