Ron Paul fans have a problem. For whatever reason they always severely overestimate their man's appeal. So when they then see he's getting no attention they have to rationalize that somehow.
Ron Paul fans have a problem. For whatever reason they always severely overestimate their man's appeal. So when they then see he's getting no attention they have to rationalize that somehow.
Thats hard for me to grasp seeing as how some member of the media have actually come out and said shame on us for ignoring him in the past. What I do agree with you on (being a RP supporter myself) is that his base does speak louder than it actually is. With that said the Iowa caucus is coming up January 3rd and the most recent poll has him within at least tied for second place, and RP has really not lost any ground but rather gained since October. The Iowa caucus allows both republicans and independants vote which can be very favorable for Ron Paul.
Paul's campaign is blowing money as hard as he can in Iowa though. Its not like he can keep it up.
A valid critism, he has spent a lot, but remember those RP Zealots are willing to give a lot to the RP campaign. We'll see how much power he'll actually have after the Boston Teaparty Moneybomb that the campaign is running on the 16th.
Just one more thing to add to this point, he received quite a bit of critism himself his last presidential campaign for not spending enough money, so mabey hes trying to do that this time, food for thought.
Last edited by Jdman; 2011-12-13 at 08:30 PM.
I wouldn't call him fanatical (although I'm a biased christian here) mainly because his arguments are always constructed without bringing up his religious beliefs at all. If you want to see his views on something, just go search "Ron Paul on Gay Rights" on youtube (or whatever you're looking for).
When the RNC convention was taking place last time around he held his the same day and they had a media black out of the event even though he had more people attend and overall support.
There you go arguing wording again.
If you look at the video the OP probably means media Bias, not censorship. The video is clearly full of media bias.
OT: The best evidence I have ever seen on media bias is the Fox News reporting the CPAC poll and using the 2010 clip rather than the 2011. There is definitely a noticeable media bias against him, which leads to the question of why.
Last edited by TheVadar; 2011-12-13 at 08:47 PM.
Because Fox is a far right wing neo conservative group and Ron Paul isn't a neo conservative?
Its true, especially places like Florida and SC he is still further behind, but many of the candidates havent even focused on those areas yet and caucus results from other states can affect those numbers.
As for Iowa, I think the numbers are much closer than people realize, these are results from today, I will say its only one source that I quickly found from a google search so you can take it for what its worth.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-gingrich.html
This one is putting Gingrich 22% to Pauls 21%, note this article has no margin of error listed (which it should)
That link is exciting Jdman!
Its because social conservatives hate Gingrich.
Through empirical observation, I am convinced that the amount of corrupted bias manipulation on any given media about things directly relating to their region of origin is directly proportional to the square of their revenue.
That means double the revenue, quadruple the bullshit.
American media houses are BIG and USA has their spoon in pretty much every soup on the planet.
I was responding to this
Recognize the name? Vazar_da_priest? He's the OP that you referenced. You accuse me of arguing wording? The word "hint" was the OP's wording not mine. I can see how you may have missed it, it was the 4th post of the thread, maybe you didn't get that far.
You think he meant bias instead of censorship? Let's see, he titled the thread "Ron Paul is censored by the media", he linked to a video titled "Ron Paul 2012 Exposed Media Censorship of Ron Paul and His Supporters " (which is a strange title for a video with footage from 2008), and he used the world censorship or one of it's variants 3 times in his post.
I can take the criticism when it's warranted ,but not by people too lazy to read the thread.
You asked him for evidence of censorship because their is little or no censorship in that video. I can only conclude you are trying to prove him wrong by proving he's wrong on moot points as you have done in so many other threads.
The implication obviously contains bias as well as censorship, as the video is full of bias. Why go out of your way to argue, when you could of just said "Well that's mostly Media Bias, with little censorship, but I see your point" You were starting an argument as to say "You are wrong OP, Censorship is not media Bias, I'm Right, Discussion over". As you have done in most other threads you have been part of. Please, for the sake of the thread, keep on topic.
I went out of my way to stop pointless downward-spiralling comments from you.
Last edited by TheVadar; 2011-12-13 at 09:55 PM.