digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Meet the Press omitts Ron Paul. Didn't the Hearst Era End?

msnbc.msn.com — Again it happens. Ron Paul is not on the list of candidates worth talking to. Ron Paul will raise more money than three candidates combined who are invited but MSNBC is part of the "New Media" mind, that the country needs to know what we tell them they should know. Shame on Meet the Press for letting the "press" be the news, not report it!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spamfiltertest, on 12/10/2007, -25/+212Dugg for the headline alone. Well played.
    • Myonosken, on 12/10/2007, -40/+5I don't understand how raising more money makes you a more worthy candidate. BNP make more money in donations than Lib Dems- but who would put them in a debate with Labour and Conservatives?
      • DebbilsAdvocate, on 12/10/2007, -4/+45Money raised is a measure of support. I didn't think the concept was so difficult.
        • Drahkar, on 12/10/2007, -3/+17People who would like to complain to Meet The Press for their extremely poor taste in cutting out someone who is a leading candidate in the 2008 elections because he doesn't fit in with their preferred political view can email them at:

          MTP@NBCUNI.com

          and send snail-mail to:

          Meet The Press
          c/o
          NBC News
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, N.Y. 10112

          I strongly suggest that everyone do so. Even if you don't support Ron Paul, having the media decide not to show you a candidate instead of letting you decide for yourself is completely unacceptable.
          • EricCiccone, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4I'm going to do one better and talk to his son about this, he is coming to my school to talk about Ron Paul's campaign today.
          • Jammer, on 12/10/2007, -9/+5Excuse me, but Ron Paul is not "leading" anything. If we use your logic, anyone running for President regardless of popularity should have equal time. So, with that in mind, let's not forget the Greens, the Libertarians, the Communists and all the other fringe groups that have fielded a candidate for President.
          • agentem, on 12/10/2007, -3/+13Never mind that he has won almost all of the post debate polls and straw polls, is kicking the pants off of the rest of the GOP in funding, and has energized a generation of disaffected youth.
          • Drahkar, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6@Jammer -
            And the fact you think that Ron Paul isn't one of the leading candidates is exactly why things like this is such a big deal. Ron Paul is one of the leading candidates. The reason some of the polls say he isn't is because they are being tailored specifically to prevent him from being able to be listed as one in a Major Poll. By not having him as an option, etc.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1www.ft.com
            America must resist protectionism
            By Michael Bloomberg

            Published: December 11 2007 19:04 | Last updated: December 11 2007 19:04

            The US economy has turned downward. People are feeling insecure. There are grave concerns about jobs moving overseas and about losing ground to Asian countries. Heavy pressures are mounting on the presidential candidates in both parties to pander to protectionist and even isolationist sentiments. The year, however, is 1992. Fortunately, the two parties’ candidates – Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush – refuse to cave in to the pressure. They resist the special interests and stand strong for the long-term health of the American economy – and the country begins one of the greatest economic expansions of our history.

            Today, we would do well to remember this lesson. It is easy to say that times have changed and take a more protectionist viewpoint. In fact, times have changed. Dramatic advances in technology and increased global trade are creating enormous economic opportunities, but also challenges. If America is to remain the world’s economic superpower, it must capitalise on the opportunities and confront the challenges. Countries that run away from globalisation in the 21st century – as with those that ran away from capitalism in the 20th century – will pay a heavy price for decades to come.

            i.e. DO NOT ELECT RON PAUL!
        • EditorResponse, on 12/10/2007, -29/+4ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALLIES AND TRADING PARTNERS

          First let me be the bearer of bad news and state that Ron Paul is mistaken and he will be unable to bring home many troops from overseas. The force size and weaponry that are overseas are there for a reason. The force sizes have been arrived at by the best minds in both foreign policy and military leadership over more than half a century. The forces are a critical balance of power against possible aggressors.

          Second, speaking with regard to wars fought in Asia at or around the time of WWII, against Japan, between the Bataan death march in Burma and the Corregidor death march in the Philipines 25,000 Phillipino and 16,000 American soldiers perished. Japan had military losses of 2,100,000 and civilian losses of 500,000. In the Korean war 60,000 Korean civilians perished against China and North Korea and the Korean war has NOT ended yet to this day. A peace treaty has yet to be signed between the North and South Korea and North Korea only recently gave up on building a nuclear weapons after having tested one.

          I do not have an exact breakdown for killed in action for the Pacific battles but the US lost more than 400,000 globally in WWII. Many of the locations where the United States of America fought are now allied nations. Note that they are not just trading partners they are ALLIES. For example, China is a trading partner but they are NOT an ALLY of the United States of America and there is a big difference. ALLIES paid in BLOOD and with their LIVES to make the relationship that now Ron Paul wants to destroy.

          The allies of the United States of America are the front line against all sorts of aggressors globally. Ron Paul wants the United States of America to GIVE UP ITS ALLIES! Ron Paul wants the United States of America to ONLY have trading partners. Ron Paul's view of the world is that of an ultranationalist or isolationist and he is unrealistic about what it takes to remain at peace.

          For example, China and Taiwan had a civil war more than 50 years ago and China lost. i.e. the people managing Taiwan broke away and are NOT communists they have a democracy that is supported by the United States of America. Since the cvil war Taiwan has grown into a major ally and trading partner of the United States of America. China wants Taiwan back in the fold now that China is a superpower. Taiwan refuses claiming that they are a sovereign nation. China is aiming thousands of missiles at Taiwan and plans to attack Taiwan if they pursue full 4membership in the United Nations or full sovereignty.

          Taiwan is the SECOND greatest producer of RAM for nearly ALL computers globally. South Korea IS NUMBER ONE.

          The following link must be paste together.
          www.electroniccomponents.globalsources.com/
          gsol/I/Memory-chip/a/9000000089299.htm
          /QUOTE/
          Taiwan is the second-largest memory chip supplier in the world, with production focused on DRAM and Flash.

          With 20 percent of the market, Taiwan is now the world's second largest producer of memory chips, tailing South Korea, which supplies 45 percent of the global requirement. Three industry giants from across three continents hold sway over the rest of the market: Qimonda of Germany, formerly Infineon, which accounts for 15 percent of the overall supply; and Micron of the United States and Elpida of Japan, with 10 percent each.

          Taiwan is poised to capture 25 percent market share by 2009, according to the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). The overall production value of Taiwan-made memory chips is forecast to grow from $6.76 billion in 2006 to $6.96 billion in 2007, according to ITRI.
          /END QUOTE/

          The following link must be paste together.
          http://www.chinasourcingreports.com/csr/Computer-P ...
          Computer-Boards-&-Cards/p/CSRCBC/Executive-Summary.htm
          In 2005, makers of motherboards from Taiwan account for 86 percent of the global supply of motherboards.

          The following link must be paste together.
          http://www.chinasourcingreports.com/csr/Computer-P ...
          Computer-Boards-&-Cards/p/CSRCBC/Industry-Overview.htm
          /QUOTE/
          As many as 60 Taiwan companies manufacture motherboards. Taiwan makers account for eight out of every 10 motherboards produced worldwide. A total of 108 million units were made in 2004. Output is forecast to reach 112 million units in 2005 and 115 million units in 2006.
          /END QUOTE/

          Do you think that China will continue to trade with the United States in the capacity it is now trading with after taking over Taiwan? If you do not know what RAM or MOTHERBOARDS are let me state that you cannot manufacture a computer, iPod or many other devices without either. If China takes over Taiwan or North Korea takes over South Korea then they will control the global production of these components. Companies like Dell, HP, IBM, and Apple will virtually be out of business within a week and will remain so until we rebuild the lost infrastructure, which could take years. The U.S.A. will lose a major competitive advantage during that time as the U.S.A. may lose the ability to run businesses, the military, university research, etc.

          With out a doubt the United States of America would have go to war to prevent either of the takeovers. Several hundreds of thousand and possibly more than a million Americans will die to regain the losses. China has already threatened to strike Los Angeles if the United States gets in its way with Taiwan. They have also recently threatened to dump bonds on the market to crash our economy if we put in place any trade sanctions on (1)their lead painted toys, (2)due to the trade deficit or (3)we force them to adjust their dollar against our to where it logically should be trading at (4:1 compared to 8:1 where it currently is).

          China and North Korea remain HARDLINE communist countries. North Korea and the North Vietnamese were supported by China against the United States of America in the Korean and Vietnam wars. We are in a delicate balance at this time and Ron Paul is stating that he wants us to withdraw our support for allied countries.

          IT WOULD TAKE THE _WORLD_ YEARS TO SET UP FACTORIES TO BUILD RAM AND MOTHERBOARDS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO REPLACE TAIWAN AND SOUTH KOREA.

          The United States of America and all the trade that goes on does so at the PROTECTION of the United States of America. What do you think the satellites, submarines, Navy, Army and Marine Corps do? Along with protecting the people of the United States of America these units protect the trade of the United States of America supply routes for goods including oil. You must understand how the United States got to where it is and who it has alliances with globally and how dangerous RON PAUL is to those alliances. If we pull back all of our support the entire country will be very vulnerable within months.


          STOP THE RON PAUL PROPAGANDA! THINK!

          ANOTHER WORD FOR MISTAKEN is LIAR!


          The previous discussion was based on material within: The SAIS Center on Politics and Foreign Relations and the Financial Times discussion “A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy” featuring keynote speaker Congressman Ron Paul on Tuesday, September 11, 2007.

          www.sais-jhu.edu/mp3_player/fall2007/ronpaul091107.htm

          WWII killed in action:
          http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Japan ...
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualti ...
          http://www.army.mil/CMH/documents/misc/stcas.htm
          http://home.pacbell.net/fbaldie/In_Retrospect.html

        • Jammer, on 12/10/2007, -3/+4Hmm, let's see:

          35,000 donors @ $30.00 per donor = $1,050,000

          70,000 donors @ $10.00 per donor = $700,000

          Twice as many people voting for you as compared to the other guy: priceless.
      • Myonosken, on 12/10/2007, -14/+4@Debbils, not really. My point was, BNP has a small support base but a handful of rich supporters. How can it be accurate?
        • GreyICE, on 12/10/2007, -3/+10Well then what metric should we use? Money? Paul is getting more. Popularity? Paul keeps doing well in polls (and not just internet ones). 'Buzz,' 'excitement,' 'dedication of supporters?' Paul does pretty well there too.

          The only metric which Paul ISN'T more important than many of those other candidates is 'Press interviews.' Hello, self-fullfilling prophecy!

        • MWeather, on 12/10/2007, -2/+12He has a handfull of rich supporters that donate under $100 each?
        • reaganluver, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Yes the cheapskate richies!!
      • cdahlkvist, on 12/10/2007, -33/+8Buried as spam for containing the name Ron Paul.
    • Tilon, on 12/10/2007, -4/+27When the Establishment candidate has more money, money is what matters.

      When the Establishment candidate has less money, it's the 'message'.

      Wake up. It's not about the truth to these people, it's the message.
      • deadmann, on 12/10/2007, -1/+14Exactly, the reason for quoting money and polls is that they are the common excuses used to exclude candidates.
        • Araxen, on 12/10/2007, -18/+31. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
          2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights
          3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class
          4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes
          5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment
          6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations
          7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens
          8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns
          9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
          10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state
          • Drahkar, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5Most of these statements are completely and utterly false. And the few that are not false are moot because he feels they are not ones that should be decided on a federal level.
          • realunderdog, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1How many guns does Ron Paul own?
          • deadmann, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1They are all false. Roe V Wade is unconstitutional, if it should be legalised it should be through the correct legal procedure. The main criticism of the US is regarding its occupation and involvement in the affairs of foreign nations. And I couldn't give a ***** about 'glbt citizens', but I'm sure Ron Paul's policies are perfectly non-discriminatory, and don't give them any special privileges over everyone else.
          • Drahkar, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1@Deadmann -
            Ron Paul is actually Pro-Life but has stated time and time again that he does not feel that abortion is a federal issue to address or even a state issue. But that if it had to be addressed somewhere it should be done at a state level not a federal one. That being as it is, the fact he's pro-life has no bearing on anything.
            Other than that I agree with you completely. Not a single thing that Araxen has listed is true. Most of them go completely contrary to what Ron Paul has said in interviews. So I have no idea why he would even try and pass them off as facts when just a little research on Ron Paul would show them to be complete falsehoods.
    • compdude32, on 12/10/2007, -50/+8Buried as Ron Paul spam, being able to cook the books and look like you made money doesn't make you a viable candidate.
      • UnFriendlyFire, on 12/10/2007, -2/+22Cook the books? How exactly? His fundraising numbers are on his website.
        • gyrfalcon, on 12/10/2007, -1/+17Yeah he's actually one of the only candidates that shows his fund raising in real time.
    • extruder, on 12/10/2007, -3/+13email the executive producer, Betsy Fischer... betsy.fischer@nbcuni.com
    • mcduckov, on 12/10/2007, -1/+23I'm no Ronbot but I have to admit that his fundraising totals make him a newsworthy candidate. This is in contrast to someone like Gravel who is absent in the polling AND has raised hardly any money. One of the very few RP submissions I have dugg up.
      • ChimpFlix, on 12/10/2007, -7/+7And why exactly are you not a Ronbot? You should have received our mind-control pills by now.
    • ChimpFlix, on 12/10/2007, -4/+5"Omitt"? WTF is that? Is Mitt Romney involved somehow?
    • OttawaMarcin, on 12/10/2007, -2/+13I see another poll. ***** YOU FRANK LUTZ!
    • XXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/10/2007, -10/+2Sorry I am such a douche. Ron Paul 08
    • 10GunSalute, on 12/11/2007, -6/+4"Dugg for the headline alone". - Just like every other Ron Paul Digger
    • hiphoc, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3Wow such obvious bias. If they do add his name they will interview him last, after the primaries when ll the votes are counted and an appearanceon the show wont help. The more I see this the more ***** I get, the more I know I have to fight for this man, my future and the country. I realize we will get no help from the media. Its either us the citizens, or ron paul goes home to being a grandpa next november. Sorry Dr. Paul but your have one more delivery. The rebirth of the constitution is here and we need you in the operating room. Lets not forget that many people in the media are complicit in the crimes of BushCo., they are now in a battle for their lives along with Bush to stay out of jail.
  • volksgardencom, on 12/10/2007, -32/+235Meet The Press = worthless scum
    • dumpyhumpy, on 12/10/2007, -3/+28At the risk of getting dugg down, MTP is actually a rather good show. Tim Russert is a very good interviewer.

      Ive seen this story on digg before, but there is no link to where it says RP won't be considered. The list on the page is people who have already been interviewed. There is no list of upcoming interviews beyond 1 week. Where does it say that they won't consider RP?
      • UnFriendlyFire, on 12/10/2007, -11/+3Russert said 'We will interview 'major candidates" thats code for no, Paul, Gravel, Tancredo.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+16Well the actual quote is that they've extended invitations to "all the major candidates"
          To me, if you're on the stage at the debates, you're major. But thats just me.
          However, Tim has never said that he will not interview PR. Does anybody actually have anything to back up the claim that RP is excluded? They just announced Mitt Romney yesterday because he'll be on next week. You could have said the same thing about Mitt until yesterday.
          • bacon_skoda, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3but you don't have the spammers for mitt on digg.
            duh!
        • EditorResponse, on 12/10/2007, -12/+3wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul-159
        • samdu, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3The problem is that the major media and the party bosses decided who the "major candidates" were months ago. Which is the crux of what is wrong with the political system in this country.
      • cfulp, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2Dumpy, look at the candidate list for "meet the candidate". Notice someone missing?
      • SuperCUBE, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Did you see him 'interviewing' Stephen Colbert after his presidential ambitions came to light? He wasn't going along with _any_ of the satire that Colbert was dishing him. You can't be a good interviewer if you can't take some things lightly on occasion.
        • TenebrousX, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2He was excellent in that interview. It was obvious that Russert was playing along.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Are you serious? You think that Tim Russert can't take some things lightly on occasion? Like taking the election hysteria lightly for 1/2 of an episode... by having a comedian on? Thats exactly what he was doing...
    • gn0stik, on 12/10/2007, -13/+5MSNBC is the liberal version of Faux news. I wouldn't expect anything more.
    • tolbs, on 12/10/2007, -2/+8Meet the Press for Idiots is much better:
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=OBE2h8Gdmvc
      • MWeather, on 12/10/2007, -3/+3Meet the press for idiots? Is that like Fox News for Rednecks?
      • Crosshare, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3The part where they got to Bush almost got me in trouble at work, I laughed that hard.
    • bolognium, on 12/10/2007, -2/+7it should be 'Go visit the old press in the nursing home.. and speak loud because they can't hear so well these days'
    • lex0nyc, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4David Brinkley wouldn't have omitted Ron Paul.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2And nobody has anything to offer to prove that Dr Paul IS being excluded. Rudy was just on yesterday, and they didn't announce Romney until yesterday morning. They don't announce ahead of time and they are clearly still in the middle of their series.
    • extruder, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3email the executive producer, Betsy Fischer... betsy.fischer@nbcuni.com
    • notmike721, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1I'm disappointed RP hasn't been invited on MTP, but mainly because every candidate who goes on there gets asked really tough questions and usually gets pwned by Russert. I also have no doubt that after the Tea Party Russert will invite him on.

      Looking forward to Paulites bitching about the tough questions. BTW, did paul ever go on the Glenn Beck show and does anyone have a link to that?
    • gottadiggit, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1As far as I am concerned "Meet the Press" should now be called "Meet the Putzes"
  • joelbow, on 12/10/2007, -32/+238MSM conspiracy continues... Long live the RP revolution!
    • jwiesenborn, on 12/10/2007, -2/+7according to wikipedia, MSM can also stand for "men who have sex with men."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM
    • staxofmax, on 12/10/2007, -4/+7Conspiracy or not, shouting "CONSPIRACY!!!111!!!!11!!" will not advance your cause in the eyes of the common American. They'll just see you as a crackpot.
      • WilliamDavis, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Common americans love conspiracy theories.
      • realunderdog, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Really?
        Sit in a Federal court room sometime.
        Federal prosecutors use the word CONSPIRACY against the common American everyday.
  • fairley7, on 12/10/2007, -33/+396Ron Paul may be acceptable to the American people but not, apparently, to the American ruling class. Ergo, the MSM treats him as an illegitimate candidate.
    • AAK15, on 12/10/2007, -36/+7Just wait until he fails to get on the Republican ticket. Then you cant argue that he is illegitimate candidate
      • gn0stik, on 12/10/2007, -5/+7You're out of sense apparently, go make another batch please, then repost what you meant.
      • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -22/+4how is he out of sense?
        It is cause its something you dont like?
        He will fail to the get the rep ticket and what can you say then?
        o yeah its big business holding down the true candidate.
        there is always a excuse with you paulites.
        • gn0stik, on 12/10/2007, -3/+5Just because he has a lot of support at this stage, it doesn't mean it will follow when things are fully ramped up and people are really aggressively picking candidates. The MSM is not giving equal coverage.. Which by the way, is illegal. This will prevent Paul from securing a large following when the real constituency grab is under way. Everyone will be too distracted by the mudslinging of the MSM approved candidates. We are too far out from election day at this point. Most people's understanding of Paul is a sign on the side of the road at this point. They've only seen him jeered about on Faux and MSNBC.

          Also, if your argument is that he doesn't have the support that we think he does, then why would that be hmmm????? The entire basis of the statement was logically flawed.

          go back to hannity.com or tune back into air america.
      • Chandon, on 12/10/2007, -4/+10When Ron Paul fails to get the nomination, the Ron Paul supporters will be able to say (legitimately) that he was sabotaged by the MSM. If he had been covered and lost, you could say "the public didn't want him" or whatever - but without the coverage the Ron Paul fans have a solid opening to blame someone else if Ron Paul fails.
    • JointVenture, on 12/10/2007, -20/+2he is illegitimate, you might as well interview Larry Flynt. 0 chance of being elected.
    • cybrguy, on 12/10/2007, -2/+9Considering here in Eastern Washington Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with real on the ground support, people who spend their time PREACHING against him are laughable. If they don't like what they see they should move on to the next topic. They seem offended as if everything on Digg must be agreeable to them; and anything that is not, is pointless dribble which must be ridiculed.
    • Pulpfiction23, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3True, he is acceptable to anyone with brain cells. But the bitch is that the people that run this country don't want him to have any power because he stands for things absent to their minds. So it's going to take a lot to get him elected.
    • doyoulikeworms, on 12/10/2007, -4/+0I don't really understand why he's not acceptable to the "ruling class." He wants to lower taxes. Who the ***** is against that, especially the wealthy?
      • Lennalf, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Where do you think those taxes go!?
      • Garbagio, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul's administration will tax everyone equally and the current system pulls the most taxation out of the middle class and poor. Hence why the rich are ridiculously well off while even the middle class homes in good neighborhoods need one job that requires 8 years of education or 2 jobs per adult household member.
    • colorjam, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4thats the best part tho.. there are more of us and less of them.. and polls go by majority.. at least non-rigged polls
  • metapop, on 12/10/2007, -21/+216given the fact that they're (attempting) to omit ron paul, i think "meet the press" is probably the most appropriately named television show in the history of man.
    • extruder, on 12/10/2007, -1/+9email the executive producer, Betsy Fischer... betsy.fischer@nbcuni.com
    • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2How do you know that they are attempting to omit Dr Paul? If you like Dr Paul, then you probably like logic, questions and answers. I have yet to see anybody suggest a real example of intentional omission.
      • metapop, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2"I have yet to see anybody suggest a real example of intentional omission. "

        did you read the title of this article?
        "Meet the Press omitts Ron Paul. Didn't the Hearst Era End?"

        meet the press has since changed the home page of their "meet the candidates" page, perhaps to indicate that they may at some point include kucinich & paul. when this story broke a day or 2 ago, i looked at their home page and it was pretty conclusive that they *weren't* going to do pieces on either of them, hopefully that will change.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Ummm.... my point was CONTRARY to the titles of numerous posts today, nobody has any actual proof. And a title of a digg article linking to the MTP page is not an example of intentional omission.
          MTP changes their page very often. Their "meet the candidates" page hasn't changed in content since November. And the pictures of the candidates are interview that have already happened. They are still doing interviews, and have never announced any guests weeks before they are on.
          What story broke? There have been people bitching on Digg saying the MTP is intentionally avoiding Dr Paul for MONTHS now. And there never has been any proof of it.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1go on... digg me down but don't offer any proof what so ever. its nice to be a sheep.
  • whch, on 12/10/2007, -22/+279The only way that Ron Paul is going to be elected, since corporate America and their media henchmen and government lackeys deny equal opportunity to Dr Paul's message, is to hit the streets and demonstrate as loud as possible for the local print, radio and television market, while, more importantly, showing enormous human support for Dr Paul to all those folks sharing the self-same streets en route to where-ever they may be going. The more on-lookers see real people marching and politicking for Dr Paul, the more they will question his absence and short-changing by normal national media. The core of this effort is the meet-up group, and the internet as the means to communicate, and, RonPaul2008.com and complimentary sites like RonPaulNation and DailyPaul, to name the obvious (but there are many more equally great), are the hubs of information distribution, as sites like digg or google begin or continue to ban Ron Paul activists' participation. This fight to elect Dr Paul will be won by people talking to other people. Boots on the ground. People talking to people. Do it!
    • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -37/+7No do this instead!
      Post stupid articles about how media is unfairly treating Paul to the same place over and over and over again.
      then give excuses when questioned about Paul but make sure you never give any details since you are never given details.
      just keep dong that as that will win this election.
    • Jimgress, on 12/10/2007, -16/+7so will IRL Ron Paul spam be just as annoying as internet Ron Paul spam?

      just sayin'
    • tomservo51, on 12/10/2007, -4/+5Once I saw "corporate america" I tuned out...
    • UrinalPooper, on 12/10/2007, -5/+2Make a list of MSNBC's advertisers, write to them saying that you will refuse to buy their products based on their sponsorship of biased programming, Maybe RP doesn't have enough support to win an election, but you can be damned certain that he has enough support to cause spasms in the marketing departments of MSNBC's sponsors if all of those supporters write in with their displeasure.

      Make the plutocracy work for you!
    • gandhii, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3What needs to be done is for the RP people to spend all the money we've donated and buy a lot of national add spots all over the inet, tv, and print so that the common person does at least know what his philosophy is. Because the MSM won't be doing it for free like they do for most other candidates. It is getting kind of annoying that all the activities and events that have garnered the most attention have been done completely independent of his campaign. Sometimes it seems like they're not even trying.
      btw.. can't wait to see the blimp. It is suppose to be launching tomorrow in Emerald City, NC. http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/
    • kahunaburger, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Could also email MSNBC's Meet The Press at link below:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
    • kymike, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, you're right. Except, instead of just meetup groups - which are local, and individually don't garner enough attention - we should all march in support of RP in Washington...sort of a "Million Revolution March" or "1,000,000 RPM (Ron Paul March)" or something...
  • Fabc001, on 12/10/2007, -15/+241I wonder if Keith olbermann would interview Ron Paul if he get's thousands of requests?
    • crichton101, on 12/10/2007, -2/+68only one way to find out.
    • orxor, on 12/10/2007, -2/+27That would be awesome, doubt that will happen though, however that shouldn't stop us from sending requests.
    • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -1/+13why not Olbermann.
      tell you what, tell me how to do it and i will email him.
    • iLemon, on 12/10/2007, -14/+2If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
    • starvo, on 12/10/2007, -19/+5I'd love the see that happen. If only because Olbermann would put Ron Paul and his group of supporters in their damn place.
    • hlcno, on 12/10/2007, -18/+13Pfft. Olberman is a liberal lap dog. All he cares about is praising dems and smashing Bush. I used to really like him but everyday it becomes more and more apparent where his loyalties are.
      • TheAtomicMoose, on 12/10/2007, -4/+4I meant to bury you, but i misclicked. I want you to know that. :C
    • AydenV2, on 12/10/2007, -2/+12countdown@msnbc.com

      Send him a request, we might be able to get him to do it.
    • GliTCH82, on 12/10/2007, -3/+10Here are some e-mail addresses:

      viewerservices@msnbc.com
      letters@msnbc.com
      countdown@msnbc.com
      KOlbermann@msnbc.com
      dabrams@msnbc.com
      • diznang, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3I sent a request to all emails listed above.
      • Rhenthalin, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1me too someone should make an article and get it dugg up. That way we can slaughter their mail servers with request. I like the sound of that word slaughter
      • catfish182, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1thank you. I have sent emails out asking for Paul to be exposed.

        Lets all hope.

        Give me a shout if you want to see the email so you to can send this out.
    • rlbond86, on 12/10/2007, -3/+12Olbermann is a liberal. Ron Paul is a conservative. Just because Paul wants to end the war doesn't make him a liberal.
      • hiphoc, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5True, I have heard Keith mention Rons name once. Even in a straw poll where Ron came in top 5 Keith skipped over Dr Pauls name on the list. I am sitting here saying wait a minute. Keith is against the war, but he wont mention Dr Pauls antiwar Stance. I am starting to get a feeling that keith is a shill for the left and he is being built up. Kind of like how Rush was a shill for the right and cut his teeth attacking Clinton.
    • Thedarklord187, on 12/10/2007, -16/+3olberman wont do it cause he knows just like me and many others that all your ron paul people are cultists
      • slenderdog, on 12/10/2007, -0/+7This from "Thedarklord187." Sacrificed any goats lately?
    • Jayspring, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11Cultists...lol.
      Yeah, it's a "cult of crazies" that want to restore the U.S. Constitution to health, limit the power the Federal Government can have over an individual citizen, and are fighting for YOUR freedom and liberty. We're all nut-job cultists.

      In the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, that little event that created a sovereign nation called "The United States of America", the instigators were frequently referred to as an unpredictable, almost religiously-devoted, "fringe element" of the Colonial society.
      • SwingCorey, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I'm all for the Constitution, and although I'm academically curious about the effects of abolishing the Federal Reserve, I have a really hard time accepting the notion of disbanding the CIA and FBI - all things Mr. Paul would also like to do, under the guise of "restoring the Constitution".
    • Richandler, on 12/10/2007, -0/+8Olbermann has been emailed probably tens of thousands of Ron Paul emails. He won't even mention the guy on the program.
    • Shawn4168, on 12/10/2007, -2/+9Olbermann's a joke. Of course he won't interview Ron Paul. He's a legitimate threat to the Democrats.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3I like Olberman. I like Dr. Paul. I dislike Hillary and partisan politics. However, I don't think that the democrats really feel threatened by Ron Paul.
        • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Of course they do! The dirty secret of the Democrats is they are entirely dependent on the debt money system of the Wall Street they pretend to hate. Paul wants to end the game. Of course they feel threatened.
      • eligus12345, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Does Olbermann really care about what party you're with, or does he care about helping people and preserving liberties? It happens that conservatives fit that statement and that's why Olbermann doesn't like that group as a whole, but I think he could agree with what Ron Paul is fighting for.
    • eligus12345, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Can someone start a "Get Ron Paul on Countdown" page? Put the e-mails on there, that kind of stuff...let's get moving
  • FyreGoddess, on 12/10/2007, -21/+76You know, Romney hasn't yet been on Meet the Press either for their Meet the Candidates section.

    Has Paul contacted MTP? They've essentially put the call out there to the candidates. If he doesn't respond to it, it's kind of hard to blame NBC/MTP/Russert. Not that I expect any less.
    • dagnabbit, on 12/10/2007, -19/+54Shhh...you're upsetting the apple cart in here. We'd prefer to believe it's an evil media conspiracy, even though there's no proof one way or the other. And even though this only links to the Meet the Press homepage. We'll digg it just based on the submitter's one paragraph commentary!
      • lucciinthesky, on 12/10/2007, -8/+34It warms my heart to see people on here who haven't completely lost all common sense
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -13/+25No proof one way or another? The many closed polls, the lack of coverage, the deliberate sidelining at debates? I would say it at least constitutes circumstantial evidence. Good enough to convict, in some court cases.
      • JohnFromChicago, on 12/10/2007, -10/+29Actually, I went over to MSNBC's site, and found a full write ups for all the candidates except Ron Paul. Considering he has reasonable polling numbers, excellent fundraising, and a grass roots following, it seems quite odd that MSNBC wouldn't think to include only him in their piece. If that's not enough to reasonably suspect the media is defending the establishment, I don't know what is.
        • Aard88, on 12/10/2007, -5/+16Yeah ok except for this...
          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17153378/
          • id10tjoeuser, on 12/10/2007, -2/+12My 2 favorites are the ones on top:

            Ron Paul endorsed by Nevada brothel owner
            Fake Ron Paul coins seized

            this is bull *****, all of it.
          • numb, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Brantano: The article is about how Ron Paul is a threat to the Democratic party. So really it just adds fuel to the fire. I don't think Aard was suggesting they were giving him equal coverage.
    • UnFriendlyFire, on 12/10/2007, -0/+17Romney will be on next Sunday.
    • Chandon, on 12/10/2007, -2/+26Do you seriously think that Ron Paul would refuse media coverage? I think the "they didn't ask him" hypothesis is much more reasonable.
      • ruley, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3he skipped Glenn Beck. understandable, but he has done it.
        • rv36116, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Glen Beck was interviewing Huckabee last night and they showed every Repub Candidate, INCLUDING Brownback, but subsequently left out Ron Paul.. :(

          Nothing to see here.
          • ruley, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1i was saying that Beck asked Ron to come on the show and he bailed at the last minute
    • ravikanth170, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2romney is on next week]
      hope ron is after him
    • rxbudian, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2on the Explore box, there is a "Participate" tab, on the "Sound Off" section there is a link to send them Comments. Use it to ask for RP to be included in MTP
    • slenderdog, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Good point. If Paul's thousands of supporters send brief, polite requests, maybe he'll get invited too. Not rants about media conspiracies, but requests.
  • IMJGalt, on 12/10/2007, -19/+124The establishment is terrified of what a RP victory would mean to their cleptocracy.
    • chicofaraby, on 12/10/2007, -16/+23Yeah, they are terrified of having the government dismantled so it can't regulate businesses. Those scary state governments really have corporate America shaking in their boots. Who knows how much damage the nasty regulations put into place in Texas and Mississippi would cause to the profits of the Exxons and GEs of the corporate world. I can hear the corporate giants shouting, "No! PLEASE don't throw me into the Libertarian Briar Patch!"
      • BigW, on 12/10/2007, -7/+13Yes, but while they'd get less regulation, they would no longer get special legislation ala the RIAA and MPAA's government sanctioned protection of their outmoded distribution schemes. And they ARE scared of that.
        • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -16/+5That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on Digg.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 12/10/2007, -5/+7I think the same thing to myself almost everytime I see one of your posts.
          • mmazing, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4NO U
      • matador3, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6Corporate welfare, Google it
      • geoboy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, the only thing big businesses hate more than regulation is 50 different kinds of regulation for the same damn thing (each law with its own different little nuances). Ron Paul wants to limit the power of the federal government and give that power to the states. But corporations like having one big conglomerate of a government to deal with, not 50 smaller ones. Not only do businesses have less power and control that way, but they have potentially 50 times as many hoops to jump through and 50 times as many lobbyists to pay to write the laws.
    • AAK15, on 12/10/2007, -21/+11actually most people are terrified of what a RP victory would do to this democracy
      • dortiis, on 12/10/2007, -5/+9America is a Republic. It always has been.
        • AAK15, on 12/10/2007, -4/+6technically its a representative democracy
        • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3AAK15, you obviously are not acquainted with Article 4, section 4 of the constitution:

          "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..."

          We practice "representative democracy" in our republican form of government.
      • TLAKABM, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Democracy?
    • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -15/+3Good thing for them it wont ever, ever happen.
    • l0rdn1k0n, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3kleptocracy ;)
  • look4alec, on 12/10/2007, -30/+5Blame the MS in MSNBC. Bill Gates wants his estate tax to be 0% and he is will to exert his influence (made that up, so don't buy into it)
    • Alpione, on 12/10/2007, -6/+15If any billionaire's estate tax should be 0%, it's Bill Gates... That guy has given truly unbelievable amounts to charity and good causes...
      • LOCK3D, on 12/10/2007, -9/+5Sure, like planned parenthood? Gates is a eugenics freak like his father who wants to see most of the world population killed off. Great cause there.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Interesting. Source?
          • LOCK3D, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2I guess it's really difficult to google "Bill Gates Planned Parenthood" so instead I just get dugg down. He's given millions to various local planned parenthood chapters as well as 8.8 mil to planned parenthood international. His Father was a head of planned parenthood.
      • gyrfalcon, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3His estate tax should be 100% considering he's directly responsible for setting computing technology back 20 years.

        Social activists frequently criticize philanthropic contributions by corporations whom activists consider suspect. Harvard University divested itself of Exxon stock after pressure and accusations that Exxon's business activities in South Africa contributed to apartheid. But when asked if they still wanted to receive philanthropic contributions from Exxon, Harvard said "yes". Some considered this morally inconsistent, others would consider it a warranted penance. If Harvard remained a stockholder, it could have voted to stop operations in the country. Instead, it sold the stock in protest.
      • TLAKABM, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1That's because he has unbelievable amount of money.

        I'm not saying philanthropy is a bad thing, but it's much easy to be philanthropist when you're rich than when your poor.

        If a multi-billionaire gives a billion dollars to charity, they're still a damn billionaire.
    • john2kx, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1don't worry, I don't think anyone would have bought that.
    • adwarereport, on 12/10/2007, -1/+17Actually, your comment is really ignorant and/or a blatent attempt to deceive people . Bill Gates is for the estate tax, not against it. He wrote a book explaining his reasons why he is *for* the estate tax.

      Even a simple Google search turns it up as the first result: http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+estate+t ...

      I'm not a huge Bill Gates fan, but I am a fan of accuracy.



    • BigW, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2What!!!??? MSNBC ignoring RP because of the estate tax. FYI, RP would eliminate the estate tax.
    • turbodiesel, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Microsoft gave up on MSNBC at the end of 2005, http://www.news.com/Microsoft-sheds-control-of-MSN ...
      Time to come up with another conspiracy theory.
  • Lolerdong, on 12/10/2007, -36/+6HELL YEAH ***** MEET THE PRESS!!!

    I prefer to get my news submitted by Paris Hilton junior aka emobrat. He's a hard hitting journalist for the people!!!! one

    Also, iphone
  • Smight, on 12/10/2007, -6/+104They did manage to squeeze Colbert in there. He's got a serious shot right?
    • RonBurgundy76, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11He probably would have if they had let him run.
      • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -12/+2Jesus, how ***** stupid are you? Your mother should've swallowed you.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11I didn't say he was a great candidate. I was merely implying that his popularity from being a celebrity would have given him a chance. It would have been interesting, nonetheless. Apparently, you have a bone to pick with me over some comments and it has clouded your judgment as well as your flame-writing ability.

          Also: My mom couldn't possibly do that... your mom was way ahead of her.

          Yeah, I went there. ***** off.
        • dumpyhumpy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Fred Thompson still has 10%ish nationally. Colbert could match that.
  • mablco, on 12/10/2007, -12/+180Dennis Kucinich is missing too!
    • Alpione, on 12/10/2007, -8/+7He's on the "Mystery Science Theater" candidate website...
    • mypreciousss, on 12/10/2007, -5/+10He's hiding in one of Elizabeth's pockets...
    • tid242, on 12/10/2007, -4/+38Yea, they've got Dodd and Biden, but no Paul or Kucinich - doesn't get much more obvious than that.
  • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -54/+26Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, dissolve unions and is against Net Neutrality. Why does the Digg community want to suck his ***** so hard?
    • cwdrake, on 12/10/2007, -26/+11Because overturning Roe v Wade and dissovling unions are GOOD things!
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -18/+15Taking away a women's right to choose and making corporations more powerful are good things? What about Net Neutrality. Doesn't that mean anything? Stem Cell research will suffer too. This guy is GREAT!

        You Ron Paulites are all so laughable.
        • cwdrake, on 12/10/2007, -13/+91) A woman's right to choose should be before she opens her legs, not after she conceives a child.
          2) Unions do nothing but raise labor costs, increase inflation, and drive down the value of the dollar.
          3) On Net Neutrality, an ISP operates as a business and as such should be able to run their business as they see fit. If an ISP decides they want prioritize internet traffic, they may do so at their own risk of losing customers to other more open ISPs.
          4) Stem Cell, and any other research should be done by private individuals with private dollars. Government has no right to take my hard earned dollars in the form of taxes and spend it on research. If I want to support Stem Cell research I can make the choice to donate my dollars on my own.
          • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -5/+51- thats not always the case but how about rape victims or incest victims?
            2- prove it. show me examples
            3- what happens if there are only say 2 isp's or maybe 3 and they all raise thier rates? What then?
            4- here i agree kind of. If there is a bill that is approved to spend tax payer money on it thats fine but then that means we decide. Otherwise big business can spend that cash which i know they will not.
          • deadmann, on 12/10/2007, -4/+5Ron Paul is against rape.
          • catfish182, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1well no *****.
            got any thing really breaking?

            I am saying what about a rape victim? should she not have the ability to abort? she should have to carry the child? Should she not have the choice and allow her to decide?
        • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -12/+9#1: What a ***** idiot moronic ***** statement. You should be drawn and quartered for even suggesting something so retarded.

          #2 And protect workers from being exploited, but who cares about that right? You will, once you are old enough to have a job. Good thing most Paultards like yourself are to young to vote anyway.

          #3 Except of course that most people dont have another choice. Where do these magical "other open ISPs" that your fairy tales speaks of come from? Take a look at history kid, the Feds had to step in and break up MaBell before you were even allowed to buy your own damn phone. The free market is great when it works, and when it doesnt thats what the government is there to handle. Its not some fix all religion like Libratariards seem to think it is.

          #4 Then get the ***** off the internet jackass. It was started with public money and grants for research. For some reason Paultards seem to forget that the tool they are using to spam their deluded message was government funded.
        • cwdrake, on 12/10/2007, -7/+7#1 So why does a woman not have to take responsibility for an act that she knows full well could result in having a child. If she is not ready for that responsibility, she needs to make her choice before performing the act. PERIOD!
          #2 You're too funny. Unions are the ones exploiting workers by taking away their rights as individuals to negotiate their own terms of employment. I have been working long enough (31 y/o) to know that as soon as I become a member of a union, I become a slave.
          #3 The reason we have the stupid problem of ISP monopolies is because of government regulation. If it weren't for government regulation of the telecom and television industries, there would be plenty of competition for ISPs.
          #4 Get a clue. The Internet was developed by our military defense organizations, which by the way is one of the only things that I do support government and taxes for.
          • catfish182, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1my god drake.
            i never saw something as dumb as you at 31. you are 31 living in your mom's basement working at wendy's huh?
            dude dont worry you will get to the fry station soon. hang in there.

            1- no man as a right to tell a woman anything. you will understand that when you meet a woman. sorry a real one that doesnt have a PSI requirement.
            2- i have been a member of 2 unions to your none. so shut the hell up.
            3- i dont have time to bother with this.
            4- i would sooner beleive Al gore did the internet then the military. think for once in your life. wait sorry i forgot. you are a paulite and you can think for yourselve.
      • mactaggart, on 12/10/2007, -8/+10You're missing the point, Regal...probably on purpose, I know, but why not participate in intellectually honest discussion rather than just giving the sensationalized Hannity-style version of those positions?

        What? Ron Paul didn't vote in favor of the free lollipops and bubblegum bill? Well then...
        RON PAUL THINKS SWEETS ARE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!!!

        I mean, seriously...
        • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -6/+3"why not participate in intellectually honest discussion rather than just giving the sensationalized Hannity-style version of those positions? What? Ron Paul didn't vote in favor of the free lollipops and bubblegum bill? Well then... RON PAUL THINKS SWEETS ARE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!!!" Using idiocy to combat perceived idiocy is not at all effective.
          • mactaggart, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah...kind of slapped that one together in a rush. Here's the drawn out version:
            We all know that some laws are named deceptively, that some laws are bloated and that some laws are not likely to achieve their stated goal. Just because he votes against a law which has a name or intent that seems noble or appropriate, critics should not assume that he has made a bad decision.

            When Ron Paul says there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to rule on abortion, just as the federal government does not regulate murder and rape, he is acknowledging that the issue is emotionally charged, and that each state and local community should decide for itself how to handle it...from regulation to the enforcement of those regulations. You're right though, the lollipops thing was a bit ham-fisted.
        • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -10/+8Dear Mactaggart,

          To have an argument you need to refute the other person's points.
          I haven't sensationalized anything and believe me, even though I think he's a ***** and I don't watch him I'm sure Hannity is in love with overturning Roe vs. Wade.

          What I stated were facts:

          He doesn't support net neutrality. He supports state's rights. So in a state like MA where Comcast is the only player in the g ame. A lack of any sort of anti-trust could cause them to run amock in the state by paying off public figures. It's not like they are above this.

          He opposed Roe vs. Wade: If the states can choose then in Alabama when a girl gets raped, she can either carry to term OR get the back alley treatment. That's a GREAT idea. Obviously you were once considered for abortion.

          He doesn't support a union. Oh he does but it's up to the CORPORATION to recognize it. That's great. Hey ***** the New Deal! FDR was a putz!!!!111

          Stem Cell research, again, up to the states. Why is this not a problem? Let's go to the bible belt to find out.

          mactaggart, it's not that I'm missing the point, it's that I'm proving one. Ron Paul isn't some ***** angel out to save the US.

          He wants to do away with farm subsidies, remember reading about the dust bowl in the 30s?

          He wants to go back to a gold standard. The multiple depressions in the 1800s remind me of those days.

          He wants to tax consumption not income. That's great. The rich still benefit since they save the most! the poor are the ones buying up new ***** CONSTANTLY.

          If Ron Paul gets elected (Which, fortunately there aren't enough bat *****, I'm proud to be apart of something different, crazy people to get him into office) prepare for a class war. it's repellant and is a shortcut to make robber barons richer and increase the class divide in a more open way then the slow degrade that the republicans have done.

          In short mac, stop being a ***** sheep.

          I'm not affiliated with ANY candidate. They are all crooks. Somehow you people have all been brainwashed into thinking Ron Paul is the next political messiah. I equate you to the middle America folks who stilll support Bush.
          • mactaggart, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6Here's the boiled down version of your post: All politicians are crooks, but once their legislation gets passed, I am too glad to justify it...even if it oversteps its bounds.

            As far as your missing the point goes, just as I originally suggested your elaboration proves that you understand the real arguments, but find it easier to dumb them down to "Ron Paul doesn't believe in Net Neutrality!!! Ron Paul wants to take away a woman's right to choose!" No. He's the only guy trying to limit the power of the federal government and executive branch. If liking that concept makes me a sheep, then BAA, BAA, bitches.
      • TLAKABM, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Oh you stupid *****

        You poor moron.
    • fonguleverybody, on 12/10/2007, -9/+24He is against passing a law of net neutrality because he doesn't believe its any of the governments business either way. If they pass the law, then that means they have the final say so. His position (the Constitutional one) is that they have no authority to legislate on this issue period. He is all for net neutrality in the literal sense.
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -4/+13If the government doesn't get involved in SOME items, corporations take it upon themselves to do what they please.
        • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -4/+4They are so stupid that they believe that monopoly behavior and actions are impossible without government endorsement and "regulation".
      • halligan00, on 12/10/2007, -3/+8The government would have to regulate interstate communications lines. Can't have right of ways crossing this country every which way: there are only so many physical places the lines can run. Those corps who have them, have monopoly pricing privileges; to have competition, the battle-cry of the libertarians, you'd have to regulate these little monopolies.
        • matador3, on 12/10/2007, -6/+2Satellite internet. Look at that, five seconds and I just solved the entire problem using the free market. It's already pretty cheap.
          • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5Are you seriously that ignorant? You just don't get it.
          • TLAKABM, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1The market is not omnipotent, and it certainly is not benevolent.
          • fonguleverybody, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1You're confusing the punishment of monopolies with blanket authority to regulate. They are not the same thing. One is very dangerous to the free market. The other is necessary to keep it free.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/10/2007, -14/+19Way to get it wrong.
      RP is against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING THE STATES HOW TO RULE. RP WANTS THE STATES TO DECIDE THESE ISSUES.
      I don't usually use caps like that but evidently YOU DON"T HAVE YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -7/+12The states shouldn't decide if a woman doesn't want to give her rights up. The states should decide if a union can form. Net Neutrality shouldn't be a state's issue either.

        It opens up the state to corruption as well. Is Ron Paul going to place new governors in every state as well?

        • tao52nyc, on 12/10/2007, -9/+8You assume that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, ALL states would summarily ban abortion in all contingencies. I've never liked Roe V. Wade, not necessarily because of the outcome, but because it establishes and continues the practice of high court justices "making law from the bench". That is NOT their job, under the Constitution - their job is to interpret laws passed by Congress and rule on their Constitutionality. By definition, then, they should be "strict constructionists". Very few states would pass an outright "ban" on all abortion, and an unwanted pregnancy in those states could certainly be terminated in neighboring states. (No one said access to abortion-on-demand had to be "convenient"). Or simply vote with your feet and move to the more "liberal" states before the fact.

          The issue is not whether the States OR Feds should decide whether or not a union "should form" - that's up to the individuals forming it, and whether employers will recognize it as a collective bargaining unit. The real issue is whether or not States/Feds will take sides in labor disputes, as they have done in the past. An intermediary of last resort, perhaps, but nothing more.

          An argument for Federal legislation regarding net neutrality could be made under the Commerce Clause, but whether that has the votes in the Congress is an open question.

          Bottom line: There is nothing in Ron Paul's policy prescriptions that should be a show-stopper for anyone considering him.
          • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -3/+4you are assuming that state's would follow along with this thought process.
            By pauls policy the state can decide to do what they want. your assumption is that they will not change much but who is to say they wouldn't? you and more importantly Paul has no real clue what the states would do if they had the power.
            I can tell you what i think though- it would be like having 50 federal goverments as the corruption would fall to the state level.
      • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -8/+10So basic rights are now going to be decided on a state by state basis?
        • dortiis, on 12/10/2007, -9/+6As it was in the beginning. That's why this country worked so well in the beginning, different people have different views, and putting rules in place based on the majority of a state is going to be more successful than putting rules based on a larger population base.
          • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -2/+7yeah the country worked great.
            cars were cheap and jobs at the factory paid well. People respected one another on who they were and not the color of thier skin.
            why did we ever change? it worked so well and there were no problems. no one tried to take advantage of another person or make money off of slave labor. Nope didnt happen
        • tao52nyc, on 12/10/2007, -6/+7Go back to the first 10 Amendments, particularly the 9th and 10th. It left a very open interpretation of defined "rights". However, I think the Founders would agree that by definition, any "rights" you can claim as a human being are things that were given you at birth, like life, liberty, property, self-defense, etc. You cannot, however, claim as a "right" anything that someone else must provide for you - that would make those people essentially slaves. So you don't have a "right" to a specific job, health care, housing, shoes, or a guaranteed minimum income.
        • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -8/+8Yes, this is FREEDOM and LIBERTY in Rontopia. Homosexuality and immorality banned from state to state.
        • mooseontheloose, on 12/10/2007, -6/+4Your basic rights are defined in the Constitution, which Ron Paul fully supports, by the way, so no, they won't be decided on by the states. Although you clearly have an arbitrary and unfounded idea of what your rights are.

          Also, it's funny seeing so many Diggers get so worked up about abortion laws considering they never even have sex, let alone have to worry about dealing with a pregnancy.
        • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -4/+5"Your basic rights are defined in the Constitution, which Ron Paul fully supports, by the way, so no, they won't be decided on by the states"

          It's called sarcasm.

          "Although you clearly have an arbitrary and unfounded idea of what your rights are."

          No I'm 100% sure that I (or anyone) have a right to privacy and choice.

          "Also, it's funny seeing so many Diggers get so worked up about abortion laws considering they never even have sex, let alone have to worry about dealing with a pregnancy."

          Speak for yourself you sick *****.
      • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -9/+9Ya, lets turn back the clock! Hell why stop at the states? Lets give all the power back to each County in the states! Then we can have even more sets of laws, and lots of places where civil rights are ***** on!
    • ZachSka87, on 12/10/2007, -15/+10Where the heck did you get that bit about him being against Net Neutrality? In fact, he is totally FOR Net Neutrality....one of the reasons he is so popular among us computer-literate folk.
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -7/+14You're obviously not literate at all, from your own precious Digg.com history.

        http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Opposes_Net_Neut ...

        I could flood this reply with other links but you know how to use Google, right?
      • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -12/+9Wow some of you ***** spamming Paultards scare me. You game this ***** to the homepage and suck his ***** like he is the second coming, but you are totally ***** clueless as to what his policies are. Holy ***** kid, you need to wake the ***** up and talk to someone before its to late.

        NN is the last ***** thing RP would be in favor of, since it hurts the large companies that he worships.
        • ZachSka87, on 12/10/2007, -6/+8He is NOT opposed to net neutrality. He IS opposed to regulating the internet.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c76yeqQY2ms

          There is a difference.
          • BabyWookie, on 12/10/2007, -2/+6Uh... Regulation is neccessary to ensure its neutrality.
          • artemus, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2No, the strength of the internet is that it is NOT regulated. You give the government the power to regulate the net, you give them the power to control what content appears on the internet. In other words, the government can censor anything that does not conform to their policies, or threatens to expose their foul deeds. Do you really want that kind of power in the hands of the feds?
        • Nodaki, on 12/10/2007, -5/+4So it appears as if Mike is against the Constitution and for Imperialistic America...I hope Rudy/McCain draft you to fight against China for Taiwan.
        • deadmann, on 12/10/2007, -4/+4Those companies have their monopolies through government contracts! Personally I think it should be public infrastructure, but actual competition would be far better than the current system.
    • haruchai, on 12/10/2007, -11/+9He is for Net Neutrality. He is against government regulation where it is not needed. Government regulation created the telecommunications mess by regulating and subsidizing carriers. If there were open competition there would be no need for Net Neutrality regulation since you would be able to get connections for a choice of carriers. In a competitive industry, the carrier who tries to contol access to services will lose all their business to the competition.
      • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -6/+10How do you propose we keep the industry competitive if he does away with anti trust bills. Of course he can't do that but most of what he wants to do isn't based in reality either.
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -4/+9It's not needed? Ok, we'll see how the states do when ATT, Comcats, Cox, Adelphia and whoever else start tacking on terms to your access to the internet.

        'Cause once he is elected the states will do EXACTLY what everyone wants them to do.
        • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -5/+5He is perfectly fine with this. Free Market at work!
        • TLAKABM, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Don't you know? States are immune to the kind of corruption that plagues the federal government.
    • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -9/+11What also thrills me is you people think he's some angel who isn't a politician but is just a regular dude who's going to what's right.

      They ALL have a personal agenda.
    • Uggamugg, on 12/10/2007, -3/+5When has he said he wants to disolve unions? Please give a source.
  • ivandir, on 12/10/2007, -15/+132The headline hits the nail right in the head.

    Ron Paul is not welcomed by the press, which is another way of saying: The press does not welcome individual liberty, only individual obedience.
    • div2n, on 12/10/2007, -7/+21I like Ron Paul, but let's at least be honest about this. Ron Paul is not specifically for individual liberty, but rather state's rights which is _not_ the same thing. His approach puts the power to make decisions that affect personal liberty in the hands of the states.

      Although not perfect, that's a much better approach than the federal government making such decisions because there are very distinct differences for what the majority of Californians prefer versus the people in Alabama for example.

      This would mean that personal liberties would still be at risk of being impeded by the states and it doesn't directly affect that danger. It does, however, make your personal vote more important in your daily life since the power of an individual's vote on the state level carries much more weight than those at the national level.
      • Nodaki, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Well said div...the alternative is more war, more taxes, less freedom, less of a voice in government.
      • JS9000, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2The reason why he takes that position is because of this:
        Amendment X
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
      • WilliamDavis, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1If he were running for state government, he would be for individual liberty. He's just operating where he can.
  • tomservo51, on 12/10/2007, -58/+19Ron Paul has NO shot. That's why he was omitted. Welcome to reality!
    • jsm9153, on 12/10/2007, -4/+11How stupid of Ron Paul supporters to spread the word and vote for who they think would make a good president. You know, instead of voting for the person they think is going to win...

      Exactly when did the presidential election become a horse race?
      • amoro99, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10"Exactly when did the presidential election become a horse race?"
        Around 1789
      • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -11/+5Yes, I agree! 10 homepage stories a day (about 3x all other canidates combined) is perfectly reasonable!

        I also have something I am trying to "spread the word about", its a miracle drug called Viagra. Please click on my link at www.*****.com to read about how you can purchase some from me.

        Spam is spam. And all this RP ***** is spam.
        • Uggamugg, on 12/10/2007, -3/+5Didn't know someone was forcing you to click on the links
        • slenderdog, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4never mind, he's a clickbot.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/10/2007, -4/+12That must be why so many people are spending energy saying that he has no chance...
    • tao52nyc, on 12/10/2007, -2/+9He certainly has a shot if all those people giving him money actually follow that up and get out and VOTE for the man in the primaries! It's the "voting" that matters. Rudy and Hillary are cratering. While the media like to think they can anoint whom they please, 2008 is going to prove that imperious view mistaken.
    • kreneskyp, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5He has no shot because the MSM deliberately excludes him. I talk to people who have no idea who he is. Then when i explain what he is about i almost always have an instant supporter.
      • BabyWookie, on 12/10/2007, -6/+3That's BS. He doesn't have a shot because the majority of America does not agree with some of his right-wing extremist views.
    • slenderdog, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Two words: Stephen Colbert.
  • radink360, on 12/10/2007, -1/+28I think all media outlets should just stop reporting on candidates period. New is supposed to be unbiased, and the media companies now just push whomever is in charge likes.
    • eminem213486, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3omg someone knows about the fourth estate? Media was supposed to be the fourth branch. A system of checks and balances for the people by the people on their government.
    • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1 "now"?
  • babcat, on 12/10/2007, -41/+167WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

    We have LESS THAN ONE WEEK LEFT before the Tea Party of 2007 on Dec. 16th!

    That's right, less than ONE WEEK!

    This means we need to get ON THE BALL and have an all out PUSH to spread the word about the Tea Party of 2007! We need to remind current supporters that the Tea Party is IMMINENT, introduce those who are not yet supporters to the Tea Party of 2007, and urge EVERYONE to donate!

    There are COUNTLESS ways to spread the word about the Tea Party!

    For example....

    You could send out a Facebook, Myspace, Digg, or Youtube alert/message to all of your online friends urging them to support the Tea Party!

    You could make a post on another forum, email list, or message board you participate on letting them know about the Tea Party!

    You could make several calls or even visits to friends, family members, neighbors, co-workers, or other real-life individuals encouraging them to support the Tea Party!

    You could send a message to your MEETUP group reminding everyone to PARTICIPATE and go ALL OUT for the Tea Party of 2007!

    Additionally, it's VITALLY important that we ALL use this week to find ways to INCREASE the amount we will donate on Dec. 16th! If we all ACTIVELY WORK towards finding reasons we can go ABOVE AND BEYOND the Tea Party of 2007 can be more successful than our wildest dreams!

    Can we decide to work some over-time to support the Tea Party of 2007? What about selling some item of value? Is eating at home for a few weeks instead of eating out a possibility? How about doing the UNTHINKABLE and dipping into that savings account, 401K, or retirement account?

    Imagine a world where our FREEDOMS have been restored, a world where the INCOME TAX has been abolished and replaced with NOTHING, a world in which the government stays OUT of our lives, and a world where LIBERTY is a word that really MEANS SOMETHING!

    If we all UNITE together in support of the Tea Party we can STUN THE WORLD and prove RON PAUL CAN WIN!


    Have you done all of the following?

    ( ) I have sent messages and alerts to all my Facebook, Myspace, Digg, Youtube, and other social networking friends and associates telling them about the Tea Party!

    ( ) I have mentioned the Tea Party of 2007 on every other message board and forum I participate on and have encouraged them to donate!

    ( ) I have told every person in my immediate and extended family about the Tea Party of 2007 and have encouraged them to make a donation!

    ( ) I have told my all of my real-life friends and associates about the Tea Party of 2007 and encouraged them to make a donation!

    ( ) I have told my neighbors or room mates about the Tea Party and encouraged them to make a donation!

    ( ) I have sent a message to each person in my Meetup group and encouraged them to support the Tea Party, spread the word about the Tea Party, and to find ways to increase the size of their personal donations!

    ( ) I have and will continue to make every reasonable effort to find ways to increase the amount of my personal donation to the Tea Party to help reach the goal of ten million dollars. This may include working extra hours, cutting non-essential personal expenditures, selling items of value, or raising funds in some other (legal and ethical) way!
    • Nananine, on 12/10/2007, -25/+9Jesu Christo, you've spammed this huge checklist in almost every political thread you've posted in.
      • EditorResponse, on 12/10/2007, -10/+4I think the list is hilarious. 75% or more involves seeing or talking to people you know or using email to get in touch with people you already know or have on a friends list. What you Ron Paul dumbasses don't get is that in traditional politics people get out and talk to strangers. Thats right keyboard anuses you must get out from behind your keyboard and go door to door to introduce Ron Paul to the world. And THAT is why I do not suffer you fools. You are all too young and inexperienced to go and do the right thing....you will fail. You have no leadership. I have seen NO leadership in the Ron Paul organization that even resembles that which the republicans and democrats will muster.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/10/2007, -24/+7Its already too late in the game for additional campaign funding to make a differece. It doesn't matter how much money you raise or how big your sign is (Ron Paul Blimp).
    • fakekevinrose, on 12/10/2007, -23/+7stop telling people to WAKE UP
      • holzp, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10Actually, it was appreciated, I slept through my alarm this morning.
    • Paydon, on 12/10/2007, -3/+58I was skeptical at first, but the exclamation points at the end of every sentence have made me a believer.
    • Kypt, on 12/10/2007, -3/+21Man, thanks for spreading the word of how to spread the word man! After reading your post about how to spread the word I still don't have any idea wtf this Tea Party is...I would've thought that you could've squeezed that in there, I mean, i thought the point was to tell people about it...
    • mike17032, on 12/10/2007, -24/+13So the checklist goes:

      Spam facebook, myspace, youtube, digg and any other site you can ruin with your dingbat messages.

      Then spam any forums and email lists you are on.

      ***** off the few people in your life that still talk to your stupid moonbat ass.

      Then go to the RP meetup circlejerk to find a bunch of other nutballs who are so far gone from real life that you wont feel so crazy any more.

      Great list. And Pualtards wonder why they are hated by just about everyone.
      • opowello, on 12/10/2007, -3/+0Exactly. I am behind RP and his message, but if a vote for RP means I support these lame spam networks, then I will second-guess my vote. Have some sense. Let me see ... so you are going to send this mail to all your "friends" to ask them to pour money into a person's campaign whom they may not even have heard of? And, they are going to do it because why? How about you pass on some constructive information on why you feel the candidate is superior and allow them to make a decision as to whether they want to give money and vote for him on their own terms? I understand that you feel your candidate is under- and mis-represented, but is this really the way you want to make up for it?
    • cambob76, on 12/10/2007, -4/+15Uhm... did you mention what the Tea Party is? I must have missed it.
      • RegalBegal, on 12/10/2007, -12/+4It's where all the Ron Paulites drink kool-aid and fly away into the sunset of a non-corrupt, anti-corporation, president. haHA
    • catfish182, on 12/10/2007, -14/+5when do you guys get the cross burning in?
      what about brain washing therapy on thursdays?
      what about "re-education camp" for those non-believers?
      what about coming to the realization that this guy is just another guy in politics who has his own agenda? this guys gimmick is he is your friend and he doesnt think the establishment is the way to go.
    • cusoman, on 12/10/2007, -2/+13Would you people PLEASE stop using the endless "wake up!" diatribe?
    • Thedarklord187, on 12/10/2007, -11/+1Your all cultists
    • elcaminos, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3I'm donating on the 16th, but some of the crap you suggest is ridiculous. Tap my 401k for a political contribution? No ***** way.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 12/10/2007, -49/+16Well, maybe Ron Paul isn't worth talking to. He is a liar (know I will be dugg down for this) about wanting more freedom and a return to Constitutionalist policies. He is against the separation of church and state. Yet, he claims to be for the Constitution as written. People that back the guy without thinking, just like all the other candidates. Ron Paul's ***** does stink. Alas, Paulites are like 2 girls and a cup.
    • adwarereport, on 12/10/2007, -7/+18"He is against the separation of church and state"

      Explain or shut up
      • dcormier, on 12/10/2007, -3/+12"He is a liar [...] about wanting more freedom and a return to Constitutionalist policies."

        Better explain that, too. His voting record says otherwise.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -5/+8"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion." — Ron Paul

        "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty... Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.
        I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." — Thomas Jefferson

        Who is wrong?
        • mortinmaxwell, on 12/10/2007, -3/+5Ron Paul?
        • matador3, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10Yeah read the whole article. He was complaining about laws banning voluntary religious expression. He is correct, the Constitution does not say anything about a rigid separation of church and state, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That applies to government institutions as well. Congress shall make no law ether favoring OR restricting religious expression. The fact that Jefferson was not a Christian in his personal beliefs has no bearing, he probably would be aghast at government hostility toward religion because it infringes on personal liberty.
        • mooseontheloose, on 12/10/2007, -5/+2How many slaves did Thomas Jefferson own? What about Ron Paul?

          Who is wrong?
        • Trykt, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5I don't understand how these two statements are supposed to contradictory. Jefferson is obviously hostile towards Christianity in that quote (verification, BTW?) and Ron Paul frequently discloses his Christian faith. Both men, in both statements you quoted, argue for making "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    • republicker, on 12/10/2007, -13/+5Yea Ron Paul is the liar...........................lol
    • vulcanius, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10While satan's comment is certainly biased what he has pointed out is very true. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter but being an atheist his religious views do give me cause for concern. I highly disagree with his views on banning abortion. Needless to say I have confidence in his judgement and his record and while he may be very religious man I think he'll do what's right for everyone.
      • eminem213486, on 12/10/2007, -8/+3someone hasnt learned from Bush. How long until Paul starts talking to God too?

        kucinich 08
      • sHockz, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4every candidate has something that doesnt sit well with everyone. There arent "perfect" candidates, they just dont exist. But if I had to choose....Ron Paul is the damned closest thing I have ever seen to anyone remotely representing what I think. Id take that any day.
  • agsinger, on 12/10/2007, -12/+58Meet the Press Producer - Michelle Jaconi - michelle.jaconi@nbc.com
    email her !
    • JohnFromChicago, on 12/10/2007, -4/+12Great! I was looking for address. Will post in the RP Forum
    • pkonink, on 12/10/2007, -12/+13Oh sure, e-mail the producer and keep making Ron Paul supporters look like idiots. I wonder if anyone bothered to see that the candidates they list are PART OF A SERIES. Meaning Paul may very well be on the show next week, the week after or the week after that.

      I'm voting Ron Paul, but it can be hard to convince others to do the same when so many of his supporters see stuff like this and immediately shout conspiracy. No wonder so many people think he's loony. Use your brains people.
      • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -4/+6Yes, please fill up her inbox, people LOVE that.
        • metapop, on 12/10/2007, -4/+10people have responded pretty well to it in the past. if reporters (and their bosses) know they're ***** off a large amount of people, generally things change.
      • dumbgunji, on 12/10/2007, -1/+0Just note that I attempted to contact MTP on their website, so i could get the criterion used for selecting candidates, instead of making wild assertions as many do here... BUT, the website doesn't allow you to send any emails, all my attempted messages crashed my browser...so sometimes people have to take extreme measures
      • pkonink, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I was a little snarky in this comment, but seriously, PLEASE, if you e-mail the producer be respectful and ASK that she include Dr. Paul in the show. Please do not be aggressive or talk about the MSM or stuff like that. Remember what grandma told you: honey will catch you more flies then vinegar.
    • hlcno, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2done and done.
    • extruder, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4email the executive producer, Betsy Fischer... betsy.fischer@nbcuni.com
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -21/+31The corporations fear Ron Paul. His ideas are a threat. He will never be allowed to get the nomination.
    • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -11/+9Do you even know what he believes in?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -5/+6More than enough.
        • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -3/+5Oh really, tell me why (using your words) "the corporations" would fear Ron Paul.
          • WilliamDavis, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2Some rely large govt. Although, I don't think they fear him at the moment.
          • Akronos, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1They lose the subsidies, and the market will be deregulated, giving them more competition. They won't be able to have their monopoly anymore.
        • matador3, on 12/10/2007, -4/+7Because corporations receive the vast majority of government welfare, both in the form of direct subsidies and tax breaks. Get it? The government takes your money and gives it to their corporate buddies which kills honest competition. You're paying for the privilege of paying higher prices. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would cut them off and upset the corporatist applecart. There's nothing they fear more than actual capitalism which is why they don't support him. Ask yourself why the corporate media ignores him while Lockheed-Martin holds fund raisers for Hillary. How much money do you think Halliburton would make without government policies that favor them?
        • Frei, on 12/10/2007, -6/+3"Because corporations receive the vast majority of government welfare, both in the form of direct subsidies and tax breaks. Get it? The government takes your money and gives it to their corporate buddies which kills honest competition"

          What in gods name have you been smoking? Seriously please try and explain that steaming pile of *****.

          After that apologize for the ridiculous conspiracy theory *****.

      • tjlemon, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks, Frei :) Ron Paul getting elected would be disastrous for a huge portion of the American population- and a huge number of his supporters fall into that demographic without even realizing it.