Ron Paul cheated again during CNN "Debate"

[Lookout]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_cheated_during_cnn_debate.htm

Ron Paul Cheated Again During CNN "Debate"
Corporate media engages in mass public deception as Congressman receives just a third of the questions given to Romney and McCain

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ron Paul was cheated for the umpteenth time last night, this time by CNN, as the corporate media once again engaged in mass public deception by advertising their spectacle as a "debate" when in fact it was nothing more than a staged punch and judy show.

CIA trainee Anderson Cooper directed just five questions at Congressman Paul as well as two half-questions, the answers to which he interrupted on both occasions.

In comparison, Mitt Romney fielded 17 questions and John McCain got 15, not including the time the two spent bickering with each other about their past statements.

Again, just as with the previous MSNBC debate and numerous others before it, Ron Paul was given less than a third of the questions as the other candidates.

(Article Continues Below)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary definition of a debate is, "A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

Since Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing opposing viewpoints, the corporate media's deliberate ploy to relegate, marginalize and restrict his opportunities to speak amounts to overt public deception. These farces should not be referred to as debates because they are merely PR stunts that are conducted with a deep-seated bias towards the establishment candidates.

As we have repeatedly emphasized, this is how frontrunners are created, this is how the establishment promotes its own candidates at the expense of others. The only solution is to continue to strike at the root of America's corporate media monopoly by creating our own forms of media and eventually eclipsing their influence which, slowly but surely, is beginning to happen with the aid of the Internet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV NEW YEARS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the breakdown of Paul's participation time courtesy of the Lew Rockwell blog .

Question 1 on the economy: 1:19 minutes

Question 4 on the environment: 0:41 minutes, because Anderson cut him short and assured him "2 minutes, in 2 minutes we have a question for you. I promise"

Question 5 on income tax rebates and "make work" schemes: 0:49 minutes
Question 11 on Sandra Day O'Conner: 0:09 minutes, I kid you not. Cut short by Anderson

Question 15* on McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement: 1:39 minutes (only question directly asked to Dr. Paul)

Question 18* on how X would handle the military as commander in chief: 1:50 minutes

Question 19* on a Reagan endorsement: 0:46 minutes

The highlight of the night came when Ron Paul slammed the punch and judy spat between McCain and Romney over Iraq, both of whom fully support endless occupation, with the Senator making it clear this week that a McCain presidency would mean more wars.

Watch it below.

 

[William Joyce]

I noticed.

Not to fear. The people will be silenced, so long as Wolf Blitzer can shut them up.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_cheated_during_cnn_debate.htm

Ron Paul Cheated Again During CNN "Debate"
Corporate media engages in mass public deception as Congressman receives just a third of the questions given to Romney and McCain

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ron Paul was cheated for the umpteenth time last night, this time by CNN, as the corporate media once again engaged in mass public deception by advertising their spectacle as a "debate" when in fact it was nothing more than a staged punch and judy show.

CIA trainee Anderson Cooper directed just five questions at Congressman Paul as well as two half-questions, the answers to which he interrupted on both occasions.

In comparison, Mitt Romney fielded 17 questions and John McCain got 15, not including the time the two spent bickering with each other about their past statements.

Again, just as with the previous MSNBC debate and numerous others before it, Ron Paul was given less than a third of the questions as the other candidates.

(Article Continues Below)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary definition of a debate is, "A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

Since Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing opposing viewpoints, the corporate media's deliberate ploy to relegate, marginalize and restrict his opportunities to speak amounts to overt public deception. These farces should not be referred to as debates because they are merely PR stunts that are conducted with a deep-seated bias towards the establishment candidates.

As we have repeatedly emphasized, this is how frontrunners are created, this is how the establishment promotes its own candidates at the expense of others. The only solution is to continue to strike at the root of America's corporate media monopoly by creating our own forms of media and eventually eclipsing their influence which, slowly but surely, is beginning to happen with the aid of the Internet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV NEW YEARS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the breakdown of Paul's participation time courtesy of the Lew Rockwell blog .

Question 1 on the economy: 1:19 minutes

Question 4 on the environment: 0:41 minutes, because Anderson cut him short and assured him "2 minutes, in 2 minutes we have a question for you. I promise"

Question 5 on income tax rebates and "make work" schemes: 0:49 minutes
Question 11 on Sandra Day O'Conner: 0:09 minutes, I kid you not. Cut short by Anderson

Question 15* on McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement: 1:39 minutes (only question directly asked to Dr. Paul)

Question 18* on how X would handle the military as commander in chief: 1:50 minutes

Question 19* on a Reagan endorsement: 0:46 minutes

The highlight of the night came when Ron Paul slammed the punch and judy spat between McCain and Romney over Iraq, both of whom fully support endless occupation, with the Senator making it clear this week that a McCain presidency would mean more wars.

Watch it below.

What's your point? He's not a frontrunner. Get over it. Edwards has been treated the same (until he bowed out) in the Clinton - Obama Show.

He's just not a popular person and he isn't going to get the GOP nomination. I don't even know why he's running on the GOP ticket. He clearly is neither a conservative nor a Republican.

 

[eots]

What's your point? He's not a frontrunner. Get over it. Edwards has been treated the same (until he bowed out) in the Clinton - Obama Show.

He's just not a popular person and he isn't going to get the GOP nomination. I don't even know why he's running on the GOP ticket. He clearly is neither a conservative nor a Republican.

YOU CANT BE FOR REAL..Thank god there are people that a wiser than you or the fight would be over

 

[Gunny]

YOU CANT BE FOR REAL..Thank god there are people that a wiser than you or the fight would be over

The fight was over for him long ago. It's YOU that needs a dose of reality, but Lord knows what THAT would do to YOU.

 

[Alucard]

What's your point? He's not a frontrunner. Get over it. Edwards has been treated the same (until he bowed out) in the Clinton - Obama Show.

He's just not a popular person and he isn't going to get the GOP nomination. I don't even know why he's running on the GOP ticket. He clearly is neither a conservative nor a Republican.

When McCain was #4 he got equal time...

 

[pegwinn]

He's just not a popular person and he isn't going to get the GOP nomination. I don't even know why he's running on the GOP ticket. He clearly is neither a conservative nor a Republican.

I don't fully agree.

In some areas he is far more conservative and republican than either of the top two.

More accurately put, Paul is a Constitutionalist. More important from the media POV is that he is not mainstream.

 

[midcan5]

When McCain was #4 he got equal time...

Alucard is right for a change, it is interesting how (considered) front runners get more respect. And even though Paul has little chance, in a debate forum fairness calls for equality.

 

[Paulie]

Alucard is right for a change, it is interesting how (considered) front runners get more respect. And even though Paul has little chance, in a debate forum fairness calls for equality.

The irony in this thread's argument, is that maybe if the MSM hasn't been referring to RP as a "fringe", "longshot", or "darkhorse" candidate EVERYTIME THE MENTION HIM, he'd have more credibility in the "electability" department.

I speak to a lot of people who LOVE the guy, but are afraid to give their vote to him because "he can't win".

No one else told the American people this guy couldn't win, except for the MSM. I've been following him for almost 3 years now. People who have never heard of him before, usually end up becoming a supporter. People who initially heard about him on the news just this past year, say "he can't win". Where do you think they're getting that idea from?? MSM!

The MSM shapes the election for us every year. They begin the cycle by propping up the candidates that benefit the establishment status-quo the most. There's usually always 3 on each side that last up until almost the end, so that the people feel like we have "choices". They're not originally OUR choices though. They were, and have always been, the MSM's choices.

Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Bern80]

What's your point? He's not a frontrunner. Get over it. Edwards has been treated the same (until he bowed out) in the Clinton - Obama Show.

He's just not a popular person and he isn't going to get the GOP nomination. I don't even know why he's running on the GOP ticket. He clearly is neither a conservative nor a Republican.

How exacltey is he not a conservative? He's far more conservative then the front runners.

 

[Avatar4321]

When McCain was #4 he got equal time...

and that was before the votes were cast.

Votes have been cast now. Paul isnt getting any support. In fact, its very clear that the race has been narrowed down to McCain and Romney. It would be expect that they would get asked more questions.

 

[jillian]

How exacltey is he not a conservative? He's far more conservative then the front runners.

But he ISN'T a conservative. He's a libertarian... and an extreme libertarian, to boot.

Conservatism implies a desire to maintain the status quo. He wants to rip everything apart and hopes he's right that it can be put back together again. Nothing conservative about that.... not that the right of the GOP is conservative either, anymore. The religious right made them the radicals now. So who's a conservative? It sure isn't Paul.

 

[Paulie]

But he ISN'T a conservative. He's a libertarian... and an extreme libertarian, to boot.

Conservatism implies a desire to maintain the status quo. He wants to rip everything apart and hopes he's right that it can be put back together again. Nothing conservative about that.... not that the right of the GOP is conservative either, anymore. The religious right made them the radicals now. So who's a conservative? It sure isn't Paul.

Ridiculous. Where do you get the notion that conservatism implies conformity?

You don't have to change your positions just because everyone else does. That's about as ridiculous as it gets, jillian.

He wants to return the liberties that were granted to you as an American born citizen, that have been taken away over the years.

Isn't that what you liberals fight for the most? You think Hillary or Obama are going to do that for you? PLEASE.

If it were down to RP vs Hillary, and the polls were showing a close race or even a lead to Paul, you'd quietly jump on the bandwagon and vote RP, because deep down inside, you know Hillary wouldn't come through on her rhetoric and Ron Paul would.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Helios]

The irony in this thread's argument, is that maybe if the MSM hasn't been referring to RP as a "fringe", "longshot", or "darkhorse" candidate EVERYTIME THE MENTION HIM, he'd have more credibility in the "electability" department.

I speak to a lot of people who LOVE the guy, but are afraid to give their vote to him because "he can't win".

No one else told the American people this guy couldn't win, except for the MSM. I've been following him for almost 3 years now. People who have never heard of him before, usually end up becoming a supporter. People who initially heard about him on the news just this past year, say "he can't win". Where do you think they're getting that idea from?? MSM!

The MSM shapes the election for us every year. They begin the cycle by propping up the candidates that benefit the establishment status-quo the most. There's usually always 3 on each side that last up until almost the end, so that the people feel like we have "choices". They're not originally OUR choices though. They were, and have always been, the MSM's choices.

Take that for what it's worth.

Well said Paulitics. Without the ruthless distortion of the truth, propagated by the corrupt corporate media, people might understand what's actually happening in this campaign, and in the world.

 

[ronpaul2008]

The media has ceased pretending to be unbiased. Opinions used to be reserved for the editorial section, now it is hard to find an article that is not full of opinions. Or they just slant things by highlighting select info, and neglecting to inform the public of crucial facts.

 

[Paulie]

The media has ceased pretending to be unbiased. Opinions used to be reserved for the editorial section, now it is hard to find an article that is not full of opinions. Or they just slant things by highlighting select info, and neglecting to inform the public of crucial facts.

I think Anderson Cooper's behavior the other night in the debate was a testament to that. His bias against RP was about as blatant as it gets.

The GOP is actually going to let their party tank, as long as it means keeping RP from gaining notoriety. It's fucking AMAZING to me.

Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee formed a "coalition" down in Louisiana to create an 11th hour ballot slate called "Pro Life, Pro Family" that included newly added "uncommited" delegates, none of which were RP supporters. That slate won out, which really only effectively hurt Paul's chances of getting more delegates, rather than any ONE of those other candidates GAINING any.

That was blatant stone-walling of RP, by a group effort among the other GOP candidates. I'd say that pretty much says they are willing to let their party tank. There's no way the GOP wins the White House without the votes of RP's supporters, who none of which will vote for anyone but RP.

What a sad state of affairs this country is in.

 

[eots]

Ron Paul RNC Participation Petition


To: Republican National Committee
Date May 17, 2007

To the Republican National Committee,

WHEREAS, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis has announced a petition of Republican National Committee members asking the Republican National Committee to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates due to Congressman Paul’s comments in the second Republican presidential debate that Mr. Anuzis characterizes as "off the wall and out of whack";

WHEREAS, the terrorist motivation comments made by Congressman Paul are, at minimum, supported by the following:

The 911 Commission Report: During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004

One of the countless expert CIA statements: Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live." Lou Dobbs CNN

Osama Bin Laden statement: In response to President George W. Bush’s statement in an Address to a Joint Session of Congress and to the American People, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other,”

Bin Laden in a video response stated, "The White House (is) hiding the truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)."

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul’s statements concerning the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education spoke to Congressman Paul’s position of reforming and streamlining both organizations to make them more efficient while lessening the expense burden on the U.S. taxpayer – a true conservative Republican position;

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul represents traditional, conservative republican values more so than any Republican candidate;

WHEREAS, the Republican party is losing membership to other parties due to the abandonment of the traditional, conservative republican platform;

WHEREAS, registered Republican voters and American citizens desire to hear Congressman Paul’s message on these issues and others in his bid for president;

BE IT DECLARED, that the undersigned request the Republican National Committee to support fair election procedures, as well as the views and desires of its members and American citizens, by allowing Congressman Ron Paul full participation in all future debates and election events as a Republican National Committee candidate.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

 

[Gunny]

Ridiculous. Where do you get the notion that conservatism implies conformity?

You don't have to change your positions just because everyone else does. That's about as ridiculous as it gets, jillian.

He wants to return the liberties that were granted to you as an American born citizen, that have been taken away over the years.

Isn't that what you liberals fight for the most? You think Hillary or Obama are going to do that for you? PLEASE.

If it were down to RP vs Hillary, and the polls were showing a close race or even a lead to Paul, you'd quietly jump on the bandwagon and vote RP, because deep down inside, you know Hillary wouldn't come through on her rhetoric and Ron Paul would.

Prove me wrong.

The basic premise of conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Not allowing "tradition" and "rules" to be changed in any way. That IS definitely conformity to a set standard.

Hillary actually has a better chance of coming through on her rhetoric that Paul does. She at least would have the support of 1 political party.

 

[Gunny]

I don't fully agree.

In some areas he is far more conservative and republican than either of the top two.

More accurately put, Paul is a Constitutionalist. More important from the media POV is that he is not mainstream.

All depends on your particular definition of "conservative." I'm not voting for anyone who's idea of an exit strategy is to just pull the plug regardless the consequences.

Not to mention the very thing he seems to be admired for by those who do would be his greatest failing as President ... his unwillingness to compromise.

 

[jillian]

Not to mention the very thing he seems to be admired for by those who do would be his greatest failing as President ... his unwillingness to compromise.

Ummmmm... he wouldn't be the first. It's been that way for the last 7 years. But you are correct that by definition conservative means maintenance of the status quo.