|
|
Post by Mickulz on Dec 18, 2007 23:27:40 GMT -5
Hahaha..Stop stirring shit up, and where have you been hiding?
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Dec 19, 2007 6:53:33 GMT -5
....we've had to finish packaging up surgical instruments and supplies to go to sterilization in New Jersey for business.......and having to find a new attorney to fight and/or negotiate with the IRS which is continuing to suck the life out of us (updated figures: we have now reimbursed the embezzled payroll taxes to the sum of $31,000 out of an estimated $37,000. Yet the IRS is saying that we "defaulted" on the payment agreement because a 941 in 2004 that I filled out did not correspond with the Social Security from that time period. If anything I erred in their favor. Now they want between $50-60,000 in penalties and interest, and at least $13,000 in a lump payment for that error. The field officer also said he has a new "boss" and he "doesn't like what he sees" about our payment arangement (whatever the hell that means. We have never been late yet).........I'll rant about this another time.......shouldn't they be bothering people who aren't paying instead of people who are? fuckin' immoral scoundrels)
|
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Dec 19, 2007 22:15:18 GMT -5
and they wonder why shit gets blowed up
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 2, 2008 8:53:12 GMT -5
just to update the story, for those that may be interested.
Press Releases › Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?
December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.
“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”
Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 2, 2008 8:55:15 GMT -5
Press Releases › Ron Paul Supporters Donate Nearly $20 Million in Fourth Quarter
January 1, 2008 9:55 am EST
Message of freedom, peace and prosperity rallies record support
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA –Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising quarter, exceeding its original goal of $12 million by over 50 percent when it raised nearly $20 million during the months of October, November and December.
“Only Dr. Paul has the ability to inspire Americans to contribute and take action that is necessary if Republicans want to defeat the Democrats in November,” said campaign chairman Kent Snyder.
In two 24-hour periods on November 5 and December 16, the campaign raised over $10 million dollars. The total of over $19.5 million represents an increase of nearly 300 percent from its third quarter total of $5.28 million.
For the quarter, the campaign had over 130,000 donors, including over 107,000 new donors. The total was reached with an average donation size that was just under $90.
Of the other Republican candidates, only Mike Huckabee – who reported $5.04 million this quarter – discloses his fundraising total online. However, Dr. Paul’s total is over $9 million more than any Republican candidate raised in the third quarter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 2, 2008 10:28:37 GMT -5
This is what I am talking about, and why internet news sites need to be watched.
1. This is not a Fox News forum.
2. This is the New Hampshire GOP forum that Fox New/Radio will be covering.
3. Fox news did NOT decide who is or is not invited, the NH GOP did.
There are what, 9, GOP candidates in the primaries? That would mean each person would get 10 mins (if that) for the 90 min show. There has to be limits. Look at Hunter, he has been excluded from pretty much everything...
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 2, 2008 11:03:27 GMT -5
Are you sure? Here is an AP Report, along with an article regarding the New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman's statement on the matter. I don't think this is a case of internet rumors running awry. As an aside, Ron Paul is reported as a major candidate on polling averages advertised on FoxNews.com. Oddly enough, the other five major candidates listed are the people that will be participating in this forum. Seems odd that Ron Paul would be left out, no?
GOP candidates to meet in N.H. forum
Associated Press | December 27, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) — The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary.
The forum, where the candidates will be questioned by Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, will be held a day after ABC holds back to back Democratic and Republican presidential debates.
"Never underestimate New Hampshire voters' appetite for politics," said Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the state Republican Party.
Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H.. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio.
NH GOP to FOX: Don't chill the debate
by Jason George
CONCORD – In light of FOX News' planned cut-off of Republican Ron Paul from an upcoming presidential primary campaign debate, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement regarding weekend debates:
“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all serious candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.
“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.
“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 2, 2008 11:21:00 GMT -5
You will also notice that Fox is saying the same thing about the GOP. There is a to of finger pointing going on. It seems to me after the Paul and Hunter camps go pissed, everyone went in to damage control.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 2, 2008 11:29:47 GMT -5
You will also notice that Fox is saying the same thing about the GOP. So perhaps your knee-jerk reaction was wrong? By the way, I can't find a single article with such a statement being made by FoxNews. If you have one, post a link as I would like to read it. Plenty of articles pointing the finger at FoxNews though. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 2, 2008 11:42:17 GMT -5
It is possible. I am not saying their isn't a bias but I don't think the media is the sole ones responsible. I will look for the link I saw with it. It was from a Ron Paul site actually. Give me a bit..
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 2, 2008 17:15:35 GMT -5
just to update the story, for those that may be interested. Press Releases › Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul? December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST ...........ah, young Skywalker. you have much to learn.................. Happy New Year to all ........ and to all a good fight ............ Does the Supreme Court have the morals and the balls to put a stop to the corruption?....... |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 7, 2008 8:26:24 GMT -5
I read an article on foxnews this morning stating that the republican forum last night included the candidates polling over 10% nationally. It's sounding more and more like the final decision was on foxnews after all.
Instead of watching the foxnews program, I watched the replay of the abc/facebook debate on cnn since I missed the first run. Anyone else catch either of the debates?
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 21, 2008 11:41:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 21, 2008 18:40:46 GMT -5
still don't believe? check out this video that showed up in my myspace bulletin space today... I rarely get involved in politics and this isn't really all that surprising but never the less it's still bullshit and should be brought to light. Paul clearly gets second place in Nevada and they don't even bother to mention his name once with 16% of the vote...If this isn't proof the many media outlets have 100% bias (on both sides of the fence mind you) I don't know what is. As a private corporation they have a right not to mention him (remember free speech), but their motto "fair and balanced" is flagrant false advertising. People should be held accountable for lies like that and the public should be outraged when they are lied to by the people they expect unbiased truth from. www.youtube.com/v/OsoSX_b4lSo |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 21, 2008 18:53:04 GMT -5
That report makes sense to me. You have two other people who won other primaries. Had Paul gotten more than 15% of the vote (like 30%) I could see it being news worthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 21, 2008 20:05:50 GMT -5
That report makes sense to me. are you talking about the video? if so, I don't understand where you are coming from on that one. have you ever seen election coverage where they list the third and fourth place candidates and make no mention whatsoever of the second place candidate? Paul had double the votes of Huckabee! I would feel the same way regardless of whom it was that finished second. if giuliani finished second in nevada instead of last, do you think they would have neglected to mention that he placed second in the state? it wouldn't happen! they might as well have just removed ron paul's name from the ticker rolling at the bottom of the screen. watch the video in my "is ron paul electable?" post. foxnews obviously doesn't like the guy. when has any moderator at a debate ever asked a candidate if they felt like they were electable? of course they do, or they wouldn't be running! the whole thing is absurd...I don't think I've ever seen anything so blatantly rude and disrespectful from a supposed respected news organization. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 21, 2008 20:06:57 GMT -5
p.s. - that was live coverage! the votes were still being counted at that point...it's not like it was even the next day!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 21, 2008 23:37:50 GMT -5
Then you obviously have not been around politics much. It makes perfect election coverage sense.
Again, I want to point out that this not a Paul issue for me. It is the way the media works. It is basic media 101.
I will even try to put it this way:
You have 3 race car drivers who are assumed to be the top 3 going for the yearly championship.
Driver 1 wins race #1. Driver #2 wins race #2 and Driver 3 wins race #3.
When the results come in, you want to know where 1,2 and 3 placed. If driver 23 places second, and gets 20 points it really is not that big of a deal. You want to know what the spread is with #1 - #3.
It is great that Paul got second, but it only got him 4 delegates. And you have to remember that it is based on votes, not position. If Paul would have gotten 38% he would have gotten something like 18 delegates.
Now, had the result about Paul not even been published, I would cry foul.
People want to know where the top 3 were finishing. Honestly, if it was not for Guilianis high profile, no one would care about him either.
You state in one post "I rarely get involved in politics" but then you throw out all these things about "when has any moderator at a debate ever asked a candidate if they felt like they were electable?" In fact this is an OLD term that was used against Reagan the first time he ran for President (and lost the primary). It was asked of Perot. It was asked of Mondale.
The problem is everyone is acting like everything going on in this election is new, when in fact it is old hat.
A great non-Paul example of this is the religion issue with Romney. When JFK was running for office, it was a HUGE ordeal that he was Catholic. Most people felt like the Pope would then be running the US.
Reagan was a union head at one point. People felt like the Unions would run things.
Eisenhower was a military guy, people thought that the US would become a military state.
The problem is people do not take the time to research things, and with the boom of the internet, people take too much things as fact. I would venture a guess that maybe 3% of the people on this board understand how delegates and super-delegates work. That is not a big deal because this is a music/entertainment site.
I am very glad people are involved and getting informed, but I feel too many people are trying to pin things on everything and everyone, but not studying the history of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 21, 2008 23:55:35 GMT -5
And I know that most of this board is republican, but some VERY interesting things could happen on the democratic side of things. it is possible that Obama wins all the major primaries and loses the bid because of the super-delegates (which include BOTH Clintons').
Super-delegates count for over 40% of the the 51% percent needed to get the nod. Obama could get the state votes and still lose (Florida anyone).
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 8:36:57 GMT -5
When the results come in, you want to know where 1,2 and 3 placed. If driver 23 places second, and gets 20 points it really is not that big of a deal. You want to know what the spread is with #1 - #3. You state in one post "I rarely get involved in politics" but then you throw out all these things about "when has any moderator at a debate ever asked a candidate if they felt like they were electable?" In fact this is an OLD term that was used against Reagan the first time he ran for President (and lost the primary). A great non-Paul example of this is the religion issue with Romney. to speak to point one...any time that a tremendous underdog finishes at a high position in sports, they make a big deal out of it. If the 23rd ranked guy finished 2nd in the Daytona 500, you can bet your ass that ESPN wouldn't just ignore that. They'd probably do a feel-good piece on it. to speak to point two...if you will re-read that post, you will see that I was re-posting something that someone else had posted, and I was quoting them. Also, I posted a link to an article in a recent post of mine that stated that Gerald Ford came out and initially said that he felt that Ronald Reagan was not electable. To my knowledge, a moderator in a debate did not say this to Ronald Reagan. to speak to point three...obviously the coverage is skewed. Have you not heard Huckabee's recent sound byte? Here's a transcript in case you missed it (which you probably did as the media for some reason gave him a pass on this one): "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." Now why wouldn't the media call him out on this? Huckabee came out of nowhere and was somehow thrust into frontrunner status...but what has he really done to merit that? And why is he getting a pass on statements like the aforementioned when anyone else would get crucified (no pun intended) for making such a remark? My being a Ron Paul guy has no bearing on the fact that the media coverage is absolutely bizarre. I may not be a big history buff, but common sense should kick in for you when things like this keep happening over and over again. And if FoxNews didn't do anything shady, then why didn't they show the "electability" question in the rebroadcast of the debate? I'm sure you'll come back with some lame excuse like "it was probably cut short due to time constraints." |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 9:55:48 GMT -5
I do not know why they did not show it, but the fact is who cares. The point is you are not going to get news on every single thing at every single debate. The question was lame (I admit that) and the response was boring, so who wants to see it again?
And yes I head the Hickabees comment. I do not trust him one bit. I admit that.
As far as the Reagan comment, there were FAR worst questions brought up at the time because of his union ties.
And second place underdogs do not always get the press. If it was close to an upset maybe, but that election was not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 12:31:26 GMT -5
And second place underdogs do not always get the press. I think you misunderstand my expectation. My expectation is that if someone finishes second in a contest, the network covering that contest, when recapping the election results for that particular contest, mentions that said candidate finished second. To do anything else is unusual to say the least. Did you notice that at no point in that clip did they even mention Ron Paul's name? Doesn't that strike you as odd? I don't expect them to run a story on the guy or do anything out of the ordinary just because he finished a distant second in an unimportant state. Having said that, their reporting of the Nevada Caucus didn't seem particularly "fair and balanced" to me. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 12:33:37 GMT -5
The point is you are not going to get news on every single thing at every single debate. It wasn't a news report, it was a rebroadcast of a debate. To my knowledge, they didn't edit out any of the other questions. Guess that is just a coincidence, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 12:37:40 GMT -5
I can not answer that.
So what you are saying is they edited out a shitty question that upset you, but now you are upset that is was edited out.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 13:11:02 GMT -5
on the matter of media bias, the what isn't always as important as the why. their coverage of the nevada caucus as well as their manner of rebroadcasting the south carolina debate speaks further to my contention of media bias.
you can trivialize it if it makes you feel better, but you seem like an intelligent guy and I have a hard time believing that you're not seeing any of this. I've shown the inequality over and over in this thread and in others, and I will continue to put it out there every time I see additional tangible pieces of evidence indicative of media bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 22, 2008 13:19:29 GMT -5
The problem is people do not take the time to research things, and with the boom of the internet, people take too much things as fact. I would venture a guess that maybe 3% of the people on this board understand how delegates and super-delegates work. That is not a big deal because this is a music/entertainment site. I am very glad people are involved and getting informed, but I feel too many people are trying to pin things on everything and everyone, but not studying the history of things. .....so learn these peeps some politics, Mickulz...explain delegates and superdelegates........ and by the way freddy, I cannot believe that you are still going on and on about the media.........look who owns the media outlets....look what happens to anchors or reporters when they say too much the elite don't want exposed.....you're telling me that ron paul finishing second in nevada is a bigger story than the Bown holdout in New Hampshire or the Monsanto milk scandal or about a million other stories which get a slight mention and are then buried each year? (sometimes with only a mention at 3am so they can say they covered it).....I understand your frustration but you act like this is something new and you are shocked by it........get used to it or do something about it (nonviolently would be my suggestion).......outsmart the f*ckers. start your own news site or team or something. hell, if you did, I bet we can talk (trick) Mickulz and Big Jim into helping out somehow (advisor/consultant/democratic pundit/Hillary-licker) |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 14:57:23 GMT -5
and by the way freddy, I cannot believe that you are still going on and on about the media you're telling me that ron paul finishing second in nevada is a bigger story than the Bown holdout in New Hampshire or the Monsanto milk scandal or about a million other stories which get a slight mention and are then buried each year? I understand your frustration but you act like this is something new and you are shocked by it........get used to it or do something about it Is the Nevada Caucus the most important story out there? No. Did I ever claim that the Nevada Caucus was the most important story out there? No. There are people that contend that there is no media bias against Ron Paul. I came across some video evidence of the bias that is so obvious that I actually found it kind of funny, so I wanted to put it out there for other people that are interested. As far as doing something about it...I think that disseminating the information qualifies as doing something about it. It's not an earth-shattering step, but every little bit helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 15:31:51 GMT -5
I also am curious as to why you have not brought up the fact that the electability question was asked of Huckabee before Paul was asked. If you are offended, then I am assume you are upset they ask Huckabee also.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 19:42:53 GMT -5
Not sure how I missed it, but I hadn't heard about that one. I think it's a jackass kind of question. If it was posed to Huckabee the same way that it was presented to Paul, I would be equally annoyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 23, 2008 7:08:54 GMT -5
As far as doing something about it...I think that disseminating the information qualifies as doing something about it. It's not an earth-shattering step, but every little bit helps. freddy, to whom are you disseminating information? to the 8 of us who read the politics section of this messageboard? I guess if that makes you feel like you are doing something then stick with it........if you actually want to make a difference (DO something......don't talk/type about it). Sorry, it is hard to see complaining about stuff, if the person complaining doesn't at least attempt to change things ...... be part of the solution on a side note.....I'm actually on freddy's side here .....(he's like most petite bourgeoisie in this country).........actions speak louder than words |
|
