no media bias against ron paul?

[freddyv]

seanx said:

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

you're making some pretty big assumptions there. given that you don't know anything about me other than what you've seen me type on this message board, how exactly do you know what I do outside of this?

you don't. might be something to think about, for future reference.

[seanx]

freddyv said:

seanx said:

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

you're making some pretty big assumptions there. given that you don't know anything about me other than what you've seen me type on this message board, how exactly do you know what I do outside of this?

you don't. might be something to think about, for future reference.

you are right I was assuming......you know what they say about assuming: makes an ass out of you and them, not me

I hope you are doing something extra-special-secret to save this country which you aren't letting us in on..........

[freddyv]

This doesn't necessarily speak to bias, but is somewhat related and somewhat interesting...

Clinton Finishes Third in Battle for Campaign Coverage (But it’s Bill!!!)

“I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” said Barack Obama last week. It was a reference to the aggressive campaigning before the Jan. 26 South Carolina Democratic primary by both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Last week’s election coverage suggests he had a point. Although the landslide winner in South Carolina was the leading newsmaker of the week, he was certainly outdone in the race for media exposure by the Clinton tag team.

Obama edged Hillary Clinton by the narrowest of margins. But her surrogate and husband—whose aggressive attacks on Obama and increasingly conspicuous role have been manna for political pundits—was the third-most prominent newsmaker in the race for President last week, January 21 through 27. That period began two days after the Nevada caucuses and ended the day after the Democrats’ South Carolina primary.

The man who would be First Spouse made more news last week than any Republican, or than the other Democratic contender, John Edwards.

Among GOP rivals, Mitt Romney, a co-leader in many Florida polls, dropped precipitously in the race for exposure. So did Mike Huckabee, whose candidacy the media now appear to discount.

And Rudolph Giuliani was back, his coverage more than tripling from the week before, despite plunging in the polls—a sign that media coverage and poll numbers do not necessarily track.

Media Exposure by Candidate


Main Newsmaker
Significant Presence
Total Percent of Campaign Stories

Barack Obama (D)
27.9%
13.4%
41.3%

Hillary Clinton (D)
22.0
18.3
40.3

Bill Clinton
13.2
5.1
18.3

John McCain (R)
7.1
9.8
16.9

Rudy Giuliani (R)
7.1
6.6
13.7

Mitt Romney (R)
4.9
6.8
11.7

John Edwards (D)
3.9
7.3
11.2

Mike Huckabee (R)
1.2
5.2
6.4

Fred Thompson (R)
3.7
1.2
4.9

Dennis Kucinich (D)
2.4
0.3
2.7

Ron Paul (R)
0
0.2
0.2

Bill Richardson (D)
0.2
0
0.2

Total Number of Campaign Stories = 409




Top Overall Stories of the Week

Rank
Story
Percent of Newshole

1
2008 Campaign
39%

2
U.S. Economy
19

3
Heath Ledger Dies
4

4
NFL Playoffs
2

5
Events in Iraq
2

6
Egypt Allows Palestinians to Cross Border
2

7
Iran
1

8
Iraq Homefront
1

9
Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday
1

10
Oscar Awards
1

read the rest at www.journalism.org/node/9512

[freddyv]

Underreporting Ron Paul

Several readers have brought to my attention a very interesting National Public Radio interview with Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. A caller to the program, Andrew, asked Rosenstiel a question about coverage of Ron Paul and the power of the press to decide which candidates are “viable.” This is what Rosenstiel had to say:

It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.

Andrew is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. The fundraising success that he’s having is one of the traditional metrics that journalists use to test viability. If someone is raising money, usually that translates into some attention.

For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate.

You can hear the interview for yourself at NPR’s site.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18881616

Andrew’s question and Rosenstiel’s response occur about five minutes in.

The media news isn’t all so daunting. We’ve been working hard, particularly with local media, to get Dr. Paul’s name out. Our media presence increased over the last three months: in November, we had 2638 broadcast media mentions of Ron Paul; about 2768 hits in December; and 6291 in January, at the height of the primary season. Our print media exposure also increased from December to January, from 2400 hits to 4425 hits. These hits don’t necessarily cover everything, but they’re reflective of trends.

So, we’re fighting back, but as Rosenstiel’s remarks show, we’re up against national media that have already made up their minds about Ron Paul and have decided not to cover him to the extent that his fundraising and his following merit.

(And ideas should count for something too, right? Unfortunately, as the endless hours of TV coverage dedicated to celebrities, celebrity overdoses, and hearings about steroids in baseball indicate, serious issues like the war in Iraq, the declining dollar and tumbling economy, and the growth of ever more intrusive government are just not on the agenda of many “news” sources.)

[freddyv]

This is really beating a dead horse here, but I'd like you (Mickulz especially) to watch this video:

Censorship of Ron Paul

Part 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXCkgz1Y-Bk&feature=related

Part 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4QO7zXTljE&feature=related

It's like 18 minutes of video documented evidence, but it speaks volumes.

[Mickulz]

I watched.

I am not one for chopped youtube videos.

The guy actually lost me 1:20 in to the first video when he said (and I am paraphrasing) that the media bias in this election is worse than any other in history. He obviously did not do his homework, because in the 20-40's media coverage was all but hateful to a lot of canidates.

I agree that that he gets less press than most, but so did Ross Perot. And honestly, his tactics when he ran the first time soured a lot of people, and they hold on to that "kook" mentality.

I think he has some good ideas and some bad ideas. Pretty much like every other candidates.

The one part in the video which I think it totally out of context is the eclipp.com part with the fox news guys getting voice over video. If you look at the video that aired from that clip on Fox, they wanted shots of people going about dauly business, and not political activism. It is my opinion, that his statement (the fox editor) was about not getting the Ron Paul sign holders in the shot, because it did not fit the video they were looking for. At that point Paul supporters were the only ones there holding signs.

The part about the two photos is lame too. To me it made the Romney people look like idiots and the picture of the sole Paul support was actually kind of moving, seeing how he was in uniform.

Again, I take youtube.com with a grain of salt.

[freddyv]

I thought the polling conducted by phone clip towards the end was telling. They didn't even list Ron Paul as an option on the poll, and if you selected other (i.e. the "Ron Paul" option) it acted as if you selected the "Please remove me from the list section," so it neither a)counts you vote nor b)allows you to participate in any future polling.

did you happen to catch that?

The FoxNews rep saying he didn't want any Ron Paul people in the frame was a different section. He was talking about people that were in the room eating and stuff. When they went to the sign waving and all, that was a different thing.

Did you happen to notice the New York Times not including Ron Paul's second place finish when reporting Nevada Caucus results? Guess FoxNews wasn't the only one pulling that trick.

Most of the other stuff I had already seen or known about to some degree, so I probably had a different appreciation for it and was able to take it in context. I don't think it was a "chop job" to skew the facts, more so just to capture a lot of information in a small amount of time (to fit into the program length).

Also, I watched the clips from 1988 of Ron Paul on the Morten Downy Jr show. I'm not really sure how that would sour anybody on the guy. The audience and the host basically screamed at him the whole time. He had to raise his voice to even be heard, and he was cut off half the time. It was a completely hostile environment, and I think even the most reasonable of people wouldn't fair very well in it.

If you actually listened to what he was saying though, he didn't say anything crazy or wrong. He supported his opinions with facts and historical precedents. And like I said before...this was 20 years ago. He seems to have mellowed out a good deal since. And I'm sure the time he spent away from politics and in "the real world" had an effect on him.

[freddyv]

you probably won't enjoy this either, but I'd like your opinion on this video. it's half as long as the other one.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzEc8u-M9k

foxnews just doesn't like the guy.

[Mickulz]

Yeah, that video does nothing for me. Just because Ron Paul supports text slammed the vote lines doesn't mean he won the debate. It is the same problem I have with American Idol voting. They do not limit it to one vote per number. Now, you show me the data that says with one number per vote, Ron Paul won that debate, then I would say it means something.

The chop and rewind effect (like..Spin Room...Spin Room...Spin Room) was lame too.

My WHOLE point about this is, if you take the editing (and I mean editing, not the piecing together part of different clips) and the video overlays off, does it send the same message?

The easiest test for the above part for me is the section when they first introduce Frank Lutz (who I agree is a tool). The overlay say "he is smirking because his....". If you take that overlay off, would the average person say he is smirking because of his goon, or because anytime you hear someone called insane in public it is rather funny?

The other fact is, if I took the time to chop all the old Ron Paul clips together about giving airlines the right to have weapons on board (and unregulated by the government), the legalizing of all drugs, and so on..I would be called out by the Paul supporters as editing things out of context. Much like the who racial issue was. And I DO still have a problem with that whole episode. If I am in public office and a newsletter is going out from MY STAFF with MY NAME, you are damn sure I am going to read it and makes sure there is nothing like what was put in it.

The sad part is, all the YouTube shit, and internet forums and nut jobs (and I am not saying all of RP supporters are nut jobs) has really turned me off to him.

The honest truth is right now, I am not even paying attention to him (or any Republican) because I do not have a say on that side. This is between ya'll :-). Once it comes down to who is running against who, then I will decided.

The only reason I may come off as a RP basher is because everyone (for the most part) has treated him like everything his says or does is the perfect answer. That is never a good idea. I am trying to force people to look at everything. We all know the faults and issues that Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee have because they are so public. I honestly have just as many concerns about them as I do Paul.

[freddyv]

airlines allowing their pilots to have weapons on board is not necessarily a bad thing. dr. paul went into this in the candidates@google video I posted. the argument is along the lines of: if google wants to have a policy that there are no weapons allowed on google property, that is perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do; it's a COMPANY POLICY. we have a second amendment right to bear arms, and if the airline sees fit to allow their pilots to carry weapons in the cockpit (a locked cabin that passengers can't freely enter) as a precautionary measure, there is no violation of constitutional law taking place. ever heard of armed security guards? one could argue this is a similar principle.

decriminalizing drugs (which dr. paul also went into on candidates@google)...you have to look at prohibition to see why this makes sense. you don't see people bootlegging/trafficking alcohol rampantly because it is legal, and often times state regulated (i.e. pa state stores for liquor). if you legalize drugs, suddenly there is no incentive for drug dealers to sell. it's easier for kids to get drugs then it is for them to get alcohol because alcohol is legal and regulated. besides, alcohol is a drug too...it just so happens to be legal.

drug use is a personal choice. I don't use, that doesn't mean I should have the right to tell someone else what they can and can not put into their body.

I personally do not blindly accept everything Ron Paul says. I do happen to see the logic in his arguments though, and in most cases his views align with my own.

here's another example of the media bias...read this article in newsweek, and then read the next (much shorter) article that shows how the newsweek stuff is completely taken out of context and flat out false in some areas:

newsweek article:
www.newsweek.com/id/110803

the other article:
www.americanchronicle.com/articles/52312

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

Just because Ron Paul supports text slammed the vote lines doesn't mean he won the debate.

I actually agree with you on this. I think who "won" the debate is a pretty subjective thing anyway. But what about the passage in the two videos I presented earlier where the internet polling showed that according to viewers Ron Paul won the debate...a similar argument was used that his supporters just voted a whole bunch of times each...but the site actually limited you to one vote per IP address? Do you think all of his supporters were out downloading IP masking software and "rigging" the poll? Probably not.

You didn't really respond to my comment about the fraudulent phone polling either. There's really shady stuff going on. I don't expect you to necessarily support the guy if you don't agree with him, but you have to admit that there is a mainstream media blackout going on and downright shady tactics being used otherwise. It seems so obvious to me.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

airlines allowing their pilots to have weapons on board is not necessarily a bad thing. dr. paul went into this in the candidates@google video I posted. the argument is along the lines of: if google wants to have a policy that there are no weapons allowed on google property, that is perfectly legal and acceptable for them to do; it's a COMPANY POLICY. we have a second amendment right to bear arms, and if the airline sees fit to allow their pilots to carry weapons in the cockpit (a locked cabin that passengers can't freely enter) as a precautionary measure, there is no violation of constitutional law taking place. ever heard of armed security guards? one could argue this is a similar principle.

OK, so let me ask you this. Would you rather have Joe min. wage sitting on a plane with a gun, protecting you or would you rather have a federal officer?

We are not talking about protecting money, we are talking about protecting human life.

It would not be left to just the pilots. It could be ANY employee the airlines want.

As far as drugs and prohibition, again...Facts are missed. In the 10 years of Prohibition:

1) The death rate due to alcohol decreased 42%.
2) The death rate due to cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 70%.
3) Crime decreased by 54%.
4) Insanity decreased by 66%
5) 1914 the per-capita use of alcoholic beverages was 22.80 gallons. In 1934, the first year after repeal, the amount was 8.96 gallons. It took almost 20 years to get the levels back up to where they were (thanks to heavey marketing and pushes).
6) Since the repeal, alcohol related crime has gone up almost 60%.

I am not say prohibition was right, but to use ot make the argument about legalizing drugs can actually hurt.

Here is a great link on the topic:
www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/cifas/Drugsandsociety/resources/inciardi1.html

[freddyv]

Let's use some common sense here. Airlines would not just have any minimum wage schmo wielding a gun on an airplane.

I don't have time to research the prohibition stuff right now, but the stats seem off. I watched a program on organized crime in Chicago during that time. It basically all came about and grew in size and power as a result of their bootlegging efforts.

Also, you still didn't comment on the phone polling.

What about the newsweek article? Clearly a hit job on Dr. Paul.

[Mickulz]

I honestly did not pay enough attention to the clip about the end polling. I will go back and watch.

As far as the numbers being off, you have to remember that Chicago was one city in the nation. The crime rate there and New York rose (although it not as much as you may think), we are talking national average.

As far as this line: "Let's use some common sense here. Airlines would not just have any minimum wage schmo wielding a gun on an airplane."

You are talking about a bankrupt industry, that as been using sub-par workers for every aspect of their business. Do you really think this would change them? Campus police at HACC can carry a gun now, that is all I am saying.....

I did not catch the Newsweek part either.

Look, I think it boils to this. It is not so much Paul they are blacking out. I think if you put any other person (ie Ross Perot) in that position, then they would be blackballed, left out, etc. The only reason that Perot got as much screen time as he did is because he waiting until each group picked their person then got in the mix.

[seanx]

.....double-talk and disinformation.........both are typical Masonic traits.........."not in my lodge"

by the way, Mickulz, you didn't address your comment about trying to tell the truth all the time........how about just doing it? or is truth subjective to you and your kind?.............while you wait for Armor to respond to your question....I will wait for you to respond to mine - you've lost my vote for messageboard vicepresident

(on a side note, how is your favorite President of your life time (Reagan) a member of Bohemian Grove??? by endorsing him you are endorsing his activities and the Grove's.....much like you do with your corrupt Masonic ties)

....I'm crushing you and your credibility ........ tell us your oaths ....what were they word for word? were you hoodwinked yet? did you get led around the chamber blindfolded? what did these little rituals teach you about yourself? except that you need other numbskulls to lead you around blindly. the same mason that told me that monetary crimes are not a big deal, said that the rituals are corny and he felt stupid doing them.........you?
knocking on doors and being led around a room a bunch of times by some squirrels-without-nuts is hardly a basis for a system of religion/government.........knock knock.....who goes there? it's me Mickles.........Mickles who?

exactly

[seanx]

heh heh heh

[freddyv]

I gotta give the devil his due. Kudos to the NY Times for this video piece on Ron Paul.

Purple States: Ron Paul Considered

video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8cf689588ac9e279703e54bbf8173c7897dab4cc

p.s. - Just because the media bias is what you expect for a candidate like Ron Paul does not dismiss the fact that it is happening...and it doesn not make it right.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

As far as this line: "Let's use some common sense here. Airlines would not just have any minimum wage schmo wielding a gun on an airplane."

I get your point, but why wouldn't they just have the pilot do it? Wouldn't that save them money by using someone that already HAS to be on the plane instead of paying someone else to do it? Would that make too much sense?

[Mickulz]

Dude, there are a million threads going on right now..What truth part are you talking about?

Your logic is so messed up at times. Just because I like or support a President does not mean I endorse or like everything about him. For god sake man, no one is perfect. So since you endorsed Ron Paul, I guess that makes you part of the Christian faith, and all the atrocities that happened during the crusades you agree with. Give me a break.

So to answer the questions asked:

NO I DO NOT ENDORSE, SUPPORT, OR ENCOURAGE ANYTHING ABOUT Bohemian Grove.

I am not telling you what we do in the lodge because I believe I have the right to privacy. You can believe what you want, because it is obvious that you and I will never come to common ground. And the fact that your "friend" is telling how he felt (about being corny) just goes to show you his lack of understanding in the role all the rituals take.

You can crush my credibility all you want, the fact is I treat my Masonic family like my family, and I stand up for what I believe in. I have my own beliefs and I am not spoon fed by anyone. So if to you that makes me un-credible, then so be it. I hope you ask every special ops person who takes and oath, and maintains privacy the same way. I hope that you treat any person of the cloth who takes and oath to God and secrecy the same way.


As far as the truth question, I do not even remember seeing, so I will go back and look so I can answer. Then maybe you can sleep better tonight.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

mickulz said:

As far as this line: "Let's use some common sense here. Airlines would not just have any minimum wage schmo wielding a gun on an airplane."

I get your point, but why wouldn't they just have the pilot do it? Wouldn't that save them money by using someone that already HAS to be on the plane instead of paying someone else to do it? Would that make too much sense?

Maybe it is just me, but I think I would rather have my pilots in the cockpit flying the plane instead of getting shot and and possibly killed mid-air.

[Mickulz]

So yeah...it could be that I am drunk...but I can not find your question. Repost it fool.

[seanx]

....Mickulz.....I'm just fuckin' with ya........it's fun.......

now answer the damned question!!!!!!!!

[sayten]

I think that this image is horrible.... looks like your covered in manglaze

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

Maybe it is just me, but I think I would rather have my pilots in the cockpit flying the plane instead of getting shot and and possibly killed mid-air.

of course...but you're forgetting a few things:

1) there is a pilot, and a co-pilot (and auto-pilot...I don't think they're physically "flying" the plane most of the time)
2) I'd imagine most if not all commercial airline pilots are ex-military, and have been trained to use a firearm (I'd need to look that up for confirmation)
3) perhaps if it were common knowledge that pilots had weapons, people would be less likely to try to hijack airplanes. it's a deterrent, just like the possibility of having an undercover federal marshall on the plane is a deterrent, except it would be more effective if pilots had guns because that would be a guarantee that every single flight would have armed protection.

back to prohibition...I still haven't looked up the info, but I have a few more thoughts...

prohibition made the use and sale of alcohol a federal crime, as there was a constitutional amendment. people bootlegged alcohol left and right (I think the kennedy's made their fortune doing this) and there were speakeasies all over. all of these people were committing crimes, even if they weren't caught. also marijuana wasn't illegal back then, and I'm sure many people turned to that instead of alcohol. that would be even more of an argument to decriminalize marijuana if your crime and alcoholism statistics are in fact correct.

my thought process is that it's probably similar to how marijuana is now. to be honest, I probably know more people that use than don't. even friends of mine have parents who use...we're talking fifty and sixty year old people. so it's not just kids experimenting. I happen to have met a few dealers too...all of these people are breaking the law. they're not getting caught, so their law-breaking isn't being capture in the crime statistics.

this is all besides the point...it's about personal freedom (and with that, personal responsibility). I don't think the government should be telling you that you can't eat trans-fats or smoke either. I don't do any of these things, mind you, because they are horrible for you. that's the whole point...we don't need the government acting as the "nanny state." we're all adults, and we can make decisions for ourselves. and if we make bad decisions, it's our right to do so.

what's next? telling people they're going to be thrown in jail for being fat? where does it end?

don't forget about the newsweek thing...or the phone polling. the phone polling thing really irritated me.

[freddyv]

I read the link. It's 12 years old, so I don't know how accurate the information is/how reflective it is of today's society.

Although drug prohibition policies have been problematic, it would appear that they have managed to keep drugs away from most people. High school and general population surveys indicate that most Americans don't use drugs, have never even tried them, and don't know where to get them. Thus, the numbers "at risk" are dramatically fewer than is the case with the legal drugs. Or stated differently, there is a rather large population that might be at risk if illicit drugs were suddenly available.

this is just not true. there was just a report in the newspaper within the last few years that students were selling heroin in the cafeteria at the new CD Highschool in Linglestown. we are no longer just talking about kids experimenting with a little pot. again, my personal experience tells me that most people have at least tried one drug or another, if not multiple drugs. and they've probably done it more than just one time.

The research literature on the criminal careers of heroin and other drug users have convincingly documented that while drug use tends to intensify and perpetuate criminal behavior, it usually does not initiate criminal careers. In fact, the evidence suggests that among the majority of street drug users who are involved in crime, their criminal careers were well established prior to the onset of either narcotics or cocaine use.

this suggests that there is not necessarily a connection between drug use and one's likeliness to commit a crime.

Drug control should remain within the criminal justice sector for some very good reasons. The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program clearly demonstrates that the majority of arrestees in urban areas are drug-involved. Moreover, recent research has demonstrated not only that drug abuse treatment works, but also that coerced treatment works best. The key variable most related to success in treatment is "length of stay in treatment, " and those who are forced into treatment remain longer than volunteers, and by remaining longer, they benefit more. As such, compulsory treatment efforts should be expanded for those who are dependent on drugs and are involved in drug-related crime.

the majority of arrestees in urban areas are drug involved because drugs are illegal!

[freddyv]

mickulz...any thoughts on the stuff I posted?

in the meantime...

Coke, Pepsi, or Ron Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An op-ed piece about the media's control of the candidates in the present election cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael McLaughlin
(Libertarian)

The combined holdings of only five major media corporations (News Corp-Fox, CBS, Disney-ABC, General Electric-NBC, TimeWarner-CNN) include well over 75 television stations, 150 magazines and 100 newspapers across the globe. Collectively known as the main stream media (MSM), these few corporations have insured the status quo in the upcoming election cycle. The media will not decide the election, but they have taken control of the choices.

An unmentionable in the main stream media, the quick-witted talk show host Michael Savage, many months ago described what he saw as "a choice between Coke and Pepsi." He then asked, almost prophetically, "What if I want orange juice?" Ron Paul's candidacy seems to have provided an answer (the media's answer in any case) — too bad. The media ignored Ron Paul's 2nd place finish in several states and gave his delegate wins, fundraising wins, and debate wins less play than Rudy Giuliani's decision to drop out of the race. Ron Paul was the "orange juice" in this election and the main stream media marginalized his candidacy at every turn.

To understand the motives here, one must understand the candidates. Every candidate the media anointed "viable" stood for one basic principle, a larger federal government. Only Ron Paul spoke to the brilliance of limited government. Only Ron Paul touched on what ought to be the core issue in this election — America is now a country of dependence. American citizens are dependent on the government (handouts, mortgage bailouts, universal healthcare). American corporations are also dependent on the government (illegal laborers, "stimulus" packages, exorbitant military contracts). Together the media, and the corporations that own them, have no interest in abandoning the status quo.

People must be reminded that dependency is the antithesis of independence. The main stream media will not spread this message. It is up to each of us. The media may have successfully controlled the choices to date, but the election cycle has not finished. Support Ron Paul's voice, even if you do not support his candidacy. Don't depend on the main stream media to guide your thinking. Dependency is the enemy of freedom.

[seanx]

did you see the debacle in Washington state where they just called the election and gave it to McCain whitout finishing counting a third of the votes.?.....it was something like 24% McaCain, 21% Huck, 20% Paul.............where the fuck is Arlen "the douche-bag" Specter on this one?

[Mickulz]

I just got back from Jersey, so give me time to read and look at it.

I will point out that that a commercial plane requires 2 people to effectively land. If one is dead, it would be one hell of a ride.

[freddyv]

as it currently stands, federal marshalls are not on every single flight. so your scenario could happen right now whether the pilots have guns or not, and the point is moot if someone has hijacked the plane and incapacitated both pilots. I still contend that if it were made known that pilots had guns, terrorists would not be able to try to hijack planes with boxcutters a la 9-11.

it's like the old saying goes...don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

besides...the point is that the government doesn't HAVE to be involved in this situation. I'm sure federal marshalls' salaries aren't cheap...our tax dollars are paying to fund something that the airline could handle effectively on their own at virtually no added cost.

thoughts?

[Mickulz]

Oh I know they are not on every flight. I am just stating that as a passenger I would feel safer with a government official on the flight than a Delta guy.

Same as if I was riding in an armored car. I would feel safer with US Marshall's than with Pinkertons.