Subscriptions
RSS
CNBC Ruins Debate
Yesterday, the Republican debate caravan moved into economically-depressed Michigan for another wild match, this time carried by CNBC. In between long stretches of terroristic, war-mongering rhetoric from “front-runners” Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the other candidates were allowed scant minutes to get their point across.
The worst treatment was once again doled out to this man right here:
It is absolutely shocking that a forum of debate in America can be so terribly censored by favoritism and partisan-pandering. Ron Paul, the only candidate with any semblance of sense, decency, and strategy, was completely blockaded from participating in this debate. Just look at the few opportunities given to Paul during this TWO HOUR debate:
Did you notice how Paul was constantly being interrupted by the comments and noises of the other candidates, whose microphones were suspiciously left on while he spoke? Did you notice how Paul managed to speak for only about four minutes during the entire two hours?
If these are the methods of a supposedly free society, then it deserves the totalitarianism that is sure to come. THIS is the country that feels it should give everyone else freedom? What a pathetic fucking joke.
While the other candidates talk about economic reform and “no new taxes,” Paul has spent years studying economic theory and has the answer to the restoration of the currency and the economy. While the other candidates promise to murder more innocent Americans and Middle Easterners with an increased conflict, Paul talks of peace. While the other candidates greedily slobber at the continuation of liberty destruction, Paul simply refers to the freedoms inherent in a forgotten Constitution.
And this message - despite its overwhelming acceptance by a beaten-down American public - has been a constant target of media blackout, interference, and ghastly, abominable lies. The reaction CNBC got immediately from viewers was telling:
After the debate, CNBC foolishly posted a poll asking their viewers who they supported from the debate. Ron Paul received a startling 75%, decimating his opponents in his strongest showing yet.
So what did CNBC do in response? THEY TOOK IT DOWN AND LIED. Here’s the proof:
A complete travesty in every way. People, it’s time to wake up to the monster you have allowed to overwhelm your government.
DO SOMETHING NOW!
Last 5 posts by Ray
- Why STAR TREK Fails - November 17th, 2008
- Useless Tube - November 17th, 2008
- Hold Me Closer, Tiny Dicker - November 14th, 2008
- What The Deficit Means To You - November 13th, 2008
- Stealing Movies - November 12th, 2008
Comments
3 Responses to “CNBC Ruins Debate”
Leave a Reply
Interesting piece and not the least bit suprising. Are you honestly suprised that CNBC would give more air time to Guilliani and Romney fighting over torture than to Ron Paul. For years the major news media has sold infotainment, not news. That is why we see so much of the pathetic tale of Spears, Lohan, etc. My advice is to treat the major news compainies as “reality news”, watch CSPAN if you want actual news.
That said, I would not put much faith in the Condit Youtube piece. Did anyone else notice that he said not to trust polls and tried to back up this statement by using a poll. Having worked as a pollster in the past, I can say that polls are very accurate, except of course internet polls. Sure, the poll that he used had a large sample (number of participants), however it was not a random sample, meaning that anyone could participate. So, even though 5800+ participated in the poll, there is no way to determine that it is representative of a Republican primary due to a lack of filter questions (like for instance “Are you voting in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary?”). This is why a random sample of 800 to 1200 respondants is much more accurate than any internet poll. Furthermore, the pollsters themselves have nothing to gain by being dishonest, their future paychecks depend on their accuracy.
This does not mean that I agree with CNBC for pulling their internet poll without explanation. It is dishonest. But so is the Condit piece.
Finally, what was with the antisemetic rant near the end of the Condit peice? If that guy is the typical Ron Paul supporter, I have a tough time faulting the infotainment media for not giving more coverage to a no chance candidate. The only way for Ron Paul to get his message to people vie the media is by entering the primary election as a third party candidate.
j
@ Jared - I think Ron Paul will eventually run as an independent, mainly because his message and support have risen dramatically over the last three months. I have recently noticed a shift from his previous declaractions of no independent run.
While I understand that the media does not want to give a lot of coverage to Paul in their general coverage, this is a DEBATE forum. In that forum, all participants should be treated equally and fairly and given an opportunity to speak. The idea that it’s okay to offer snide questions to Paul in the FOX debate, or almost completely cut him off in this one, is absolutely wrong. It disgusts me to no end.
Agreed, they should give equal time to all the candidates. My main gripe is with the Condit video, that was just as dishonest as CNBC but masquerading as a voice of truth.
The favortism shown by the major media is nothing new. Remember the 2000 election when Nader fought to be included in the debates? Personally, I would welcome equal attention given to all primary candidates as a way to discuss alternate ideas for age old problems. But, the media is driven by money not intellectual stimualtion.
j