Ron Paul and corporate news shut out...

[GrassAndRocks]

someone i know wrote this, found it interesting...

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

Ron Paul?s whining about third parties not being let into the debates, is so frighteningly ironic.

Ron Paul ran for the Republican Nomination for President on a platform of unbridled capitalism. He preached that the government should cease all regulation of big business, private corporations, and such. Ron Paul calls for a return to the gilded age of ?economic liberty? and the gold standard.
Ron Paul complains that third parties are not allowed to take part in the debates.

But who runs the debates Mr. Paul?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a PRIVATE corporation. MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and CBS are all private corporations. Would it not require regulation of private business to force these private corporations to allow third parties into the debates?

The only place this would not be so, would be PBS, the PUBLIC broadcasting system. But Ron Paul opposes PBS as unconstitutional.

The reason third party candidates aren?t in the debates, is because the government listens to people like him. Instead of forcing private corporations to be fair and allow alternative thought, the government is ?letting the market decide.? Private corporations which own TV have decided they don?t want to hear what Cynthia Mckinney, Chuck Baldwin, Jerry White, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Gloria La Riva, and yes, even Bob Barr, a libertarian like Paul, have to say.

Ron Paul shouldn?t be complaining about the lack of third party participation. He should thank the government for listening to him. The Market has spoken, Mr. Paul, free thought is out.

Hmmm?Perhaps the Market is the problem?

[Maestro]

hmm...

i'd like to see where this topic goes.....


bump.

[Wussy]

Hmm. Good agruement.

Of course Paul thinks we should be free to try and create other news organizations that don't do what the rest do and that it is okay to push for more change and freedom.

I don't think he would favor government control. He would encourage the people to choose not to watch or ask them to write in and complain and things like that.

But I could be wrong. I'm currently still learning about how Paul sees things.

[revkins]

Capitalism isn't always the best way, despite what most republicans think.

[Enyap]

When has Paul ever support government enforced media equality, your making a pretty big leap trying to connect a simple complaint to a plea for government interference.

[Spuddy]

interesting argument, but i think there is more behind the scenes than we think with lobbying and what not

[Dig]

This is a retarded argument.

Show me one single time that Ron Paul said anything remotely near forcing agencies to allow third party candidates into debates. Calling for something to happen and trying to get a law passed requiring them to do something are two entirely different things.

[drstrangepimp]

I think he is saying that Ron Paul thinks the free market should in theory be able to correct this problem.

He thinks that corporations never collude to **** us over.

This is where Ron Paul is wrong and it's pretty blatent that they gave him no coverage and when they did it was derisive.

There should be no corporate control of ANYTHING involving elections.

It's a no brainer.

[drstrangepimp]

Originally Posted by Wussy

Of course Paul thinks we should be free to try and create other news organizations that don't do what the rest do and that it is okay to push for more change and freedom.

I don't think he would favor government control. He would encourage the people to choose not to watch or ask them to write in and complain and things like that.

I think the government control argument falls flat.

Obviously it's not practical to create a news organization that can begin to compete with the already established one.

Writing in doesn't do squat and people are going to watch because people take seriously whatever is on the TV even if it's a farce.

There is nothing wrong with government regulation when it comes to elections.

Elections are a legitimate function of the federal government and should be tightly regulated.

Anything to do with natural resources or public safety should be tightly regulated.

You cannot have private corporations owning these assets and acting in detriment to the public.

They should collect their share off the top of these industries and stay off the backs of private citizens.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

someone i know wrote this, found it interesting...

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

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

Ron Paul?s whining about third parties not being let into the debates, is so frighteningly ironic.

Ron Paul ran for the Republican Nomination for President on a platform of unbridled capitalism. He preached that the government should cease all regulation of big business, private corporations, and such. Ron Paul calls for a return to the gilded age of ?economic liberty? and the gold standard.
Ron Paul complains that third parties are not allowed to take part in the debates.

There was a time when debates were hosted by an unbiased third party known as the league of women voters. They didn't especially care for partisan stupidity and had rules that gave an equal chance to third parties. Those days are no more, and its not because of the 'free market' or the will of the people, but rather thanks to government intervention resulting from Perot actually having a chance at winning.

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

But who runs the debates Mr. Paul?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a PRIVATE corporation. MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and CBS are all private corporations. Would it not require regulation of private business to force these private corporations to allow third parties into the debates?

This is typical socialist stupidity. This person is completely unable to differentiate between corporatism and the free market.

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

The only place this would not be so, would be PBS, the PUBLIC broadcasting system. But Ron Paul opposes PBS as unconstitutional.

The reason third party candidates aren?t in the debates, is because the government listens to people like him. Instead of forcing private corporations to be fair and allow alternative thought, the government is ?letting the market decide.? Private corporations which own TV have decided they don?t want to hear what Cynthia Mckinney, Chuck Baldwin, Jerry White, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Gloria La Riva, and yes, even Bob Barr, a libertarian like Paul, have to say.

If this person is American he should be ashamed of his ignorance. Does he really think we have a 'free market' when it comes to elections?

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

Ron Paul shouldn?t be complaining about the lack of third party participation. He should thank the government for listening to him. The Market has spoken, Mr. Paul, free thought is out.

Hmmm?Perhaps the Market is the problem?

Spoken like a true boot-licker.

Apparently you associate with retards. Lets hope the 'birds of a feather' argument does not apply here.

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by GrassAndRocks

Ron Paul shouldn?t be complaining about the lack of third party participation. He should thank the government for listening to him. The Market has spoken, Mr. Paul, free thought is out.

Hmmm?Perhaps the Market is the problem?

When did "the market" speak? Do you think ratings would go down if 3rd party candidates were included in the debates?

The only people who are speaking are the corporations.

[pleasesomeone]

Originally Posted by Dig

This is a retarded argument.

Show me one single time that Ron Paul said anything remotely near forcing agencies to allow third party candidates into debates. Calling for something to happen and trying to get a law passed requiring them to do something are two entirely different things.

exactly. He's recommending they change the policy, not recommending we cosign the ron paul fairness doctrine.

[NorthMass]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

There was a time when debates were hosted by an unbiased third party known as the league of women voters. They didn't especially care for partisan stupidity and had rules that gave an equal chance to third parties. Those days are no more, and its not because of the 'free market' or the will of the people, but rather thanks to government intervention resulting from Perot actually having a chance at winning.

+1

Ron Paul is actually complaining about government interference, creating a whole new department to deal with presidential debates essisentially to keep 3rd party candidates out.