# Convervative news channels censoring Ron Paul **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467 "2007-05-09T23:19:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/81 "2007-05-13T17:46:08Z")
[QUOTE=ForumBot] [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) should be a good start. Intentionally misleading information for personal gain is pretty straightforward. A lie in America is still a lie in any other place. Punishment comes from the government, of course. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but viewing a centralized food- or aviation- safety body as an undesirable thing is (charitably) bugshit crazy. How do you possibly imagine a scenario in which a privatized, _ad hoc_ approach to either of these scenarios could lead to anything other than greater expense and increased disaster? Honesty, I don’t understand how some people manage to adhere so tenaciously to ideological approaches in spite of the obvious requirements of the problem in front of them. Free-market Air Traffic Control makes as much sense as socialized fast food. For food safety, you honestly think that fraud legislation is sufficient to protect the public interest? Labelling laws and standardized food safety regulations are an unreasonable restriction on freedoms? It’s beliefs like this that put libertarian candidates on the fringe, and nobody blinks when they’re ignored. Your ideals are all well and good, but anyone with a lick of sense knows that electing someone who honestly thinks that way will lead to annoyances like planes falling out of the sky and devastating e. coli outbreaks. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/82 "2007-05-13T17:54:02Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd] Sorry, but viewing a centralized food- or aviation- safety body as an undesirable thing is (charitably) bugshit crazy. How do you possibly imagine a scenario in which a privatized, _ad hoc_ approach to either of these scenarios could lead to anything other than greater expense and increased disaster? Honesty, I don’t understand how some people manage to adhere so tenaciously to ideological approaches in spite of the obvious requirements of the problem in front of them. Free-market Air Traffic Control makes as much sense as socialized fast food. For food safety, you honestly think that fraud legislation is sufficient to protect the public interest? Labelling laws and standardized food safety regulations are an unreasonable restriction on freedoms? It’s beliefs like this that put libertarian candidates on the fringe, and nobody blinks when they’re ignored. Your ideals are all well and good, but anyone with a lick of sense knows that electing someone who honestly thinks that way will lead to annoyances like planes falling out of the sky and devastating e. coli outbreaks. [/QUOTE] I didn’t want to go this way in this thread, as it’s kind of a hijack. But when I heard Paul expressing this view, and then heard he was being marginalized after the debate, I thought, “Ok. He’s batshit crazy anyway.” ---
**Author:** ![ForumBot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@ForumBot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumBot)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/83 "2007-05-13T18:03:34Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd] How do you possibly imagine a scenario in which a privatized, _ad hoc_ approach to either of these scenarios could lead to anything other than greater expense and increased disaster? [/quote] I don’t know about expense, but I don’t want government interfering in anything unless it is absolutely necessary. I don’t see anything about routing planes which requires force, and thus, I think it should be privatized. If the cost goes up, then its value to society is obviously greater than it’s currently being assigned. > [@](#): > > Free-market Air Traffic Control makes as much sense as socialized fast food. Nice soundbyte. But care to explain why a private organization can’t route air traffic just as well? > [@](#): > > For food safety, you honestly think that fraud legislation is sufficient to protect the public interest? Labelling laws and standardized food safety regulations are an unreasonable restriction on freedoms? I could see a case for labeling laws for ingredients. > [@](#): > > It’s beliefs like this that put libertarian candidates on the fringe, and nobody blinks when they’re ignored. Your ideals are all well and good, but anyone with a lick of sense knows that electing someone who honestly thinks that way will lead to annoyances like planes falling out of the sky and devastating e. coli outbreaks. 😕 You don’t honestly believe that having the government routing planes instead of Boeing is all that’s keeping planes in the air, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/84 "2007-05-13T18:09:15Z")
[QUOTE=ForumBot] … 😕 You don’t honestly believe that having the government routing planes instead of Boeing is all that’s keeping planes in the air, do you? [/QUOTE] Oh, who gets to pick Boeing? What it United and American decide to set up competing systems? Who ensures that Jet Blue pays any attention to any of them? Use of force? Damn straight this requires force. Not military force, but economic at least, and police powers (arrest and incarceration) may be needed too. ---
**Author:** ![ForumBot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@ForumBot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumBot)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/85 "2007-05-13T18:20:04Z")
I just threw out a name. It could be anyone, you’re correct. I imagine the way it would work is private airports make the airlines play by their rules if they want to land at that airport. Anyone not following the rules is unwelcome to land at that airport and will be punished with trespassing or some similar crime. A standardization of protocol would most likely develop out of necessity. Try again. > [@](#): > > Use of force? Damn straight this requires force. Not military force, but economic at least, and police powers (arrest and incarceration) may be needed too. Economic pressure is there regardless and I never advocated the abolishment of the police force. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/86 "2007-05-13T18:31:06Z")
[QUOTE=ForumBot] I just threw out a name. It could be anyone, you’re correct. I imagine the way it would work is private airports make the airlines play by their rules if they want to land at that airport. Anyone not following the rules is unwelcome to land at that airport and will be punished with trespassing or some similar crime. A standardization of protocol would most likely develop out of necessity. Try again. Economic pressure is there regardless and I never advocated the abolishment of the police force. [/QUOTE] This is not all about takeoffs and landings. This is about air traffic, issueing instructions for aircraft separation, rules for required maintenance, standard frequencies for commuications, etc? And the economic pressures I’m referring to are not marketplace pressures, they’re about fines and penalties (up to and including imprisonment if necessary) to enforce the rules. Thes are things that simply cannot be left to voluntary cooperation. Glad to see the police will still be around on Planet Forumbot, but who makes the rules they enforce? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/87 "2007-05-13T18:35:20Z")
Oh, and would private landowners have the right to shoot down airliners that “tresspass” over their property? ---
**Author:** ![ForumBot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@ForumBot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumBot)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/88 "2007-05-13T18:39:37Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] rules for required maintenance, [/quote] Think any airline with a penchant for crashing their planes would survive in a real market? No, the economic advantage of providing a safe experience is very strong. > [@](#): > > standard frequencies for commuications, etc? That would also probably develop out of necessity. Communication is vital to air travel and no one is going to decide “fuck you Jet Blue, I’ll land wherever I want, and if I hit your plane, whoops.” > [@](#): > > Glad to see the police will still be around on Planet Forumbot, but who makes the rules they enforce? I don’t see much of a problem with the American system of government. Only my world would have a much stricter constitution. [QUOTE=Boyo Jim] Oh, and would private landowners have the right to shoot down airliners that “tresspass” over their property? [/QUOTE] No. The right to use force except in self-defense is solely restricted to the government. I imagine that property rights function the same way now, in that your use of your airspace extend to your need for it. You wouldn’t have any more right to shoot down planes in your airspace then as you have right to shoot down planes now. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/89 "2007-05-13T18:41:42Z")
I must apologize. I have hijacked this thread, and though I stand by my statements, that’s not what this thread is about. And in general I share your concern about the media marginalizing candidates who might be good choices for president, though I don’t think Paul is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/90 "2007-05-13T20:17:11Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] According to the OP, FOX and ABC in regards to the subject of Ron Paul. If you’re asking which major American news channels lean to the right in general, all of 'em. [/QUOTE] They all seem from mild to far left to me, with the one exception of Fox. Wasn’t there even some statement made by members of the democrat party back during some of the debates to this effect? Something like “well, we’ll let them (the righties) have Fox”? I can’t remember where I read it though, sorry I don’t have a cite, merely a question. ---
**Author:** ![Khampelf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Khampelf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khampelf)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/91 "2007-05-14T03:06:45Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] In Iraq, you could “vote” for Saddam Hussein. Come November 2008 we’ll “vote” either Dem or Pub. Man, we are so much better than Iraq! Like, two times better, right? [/QUOTE] It seems so. The only choices are Coke or Pepsi. Dr. Pepper drinkers can go pound sand. There aren’t enough of us to matter. Last time around, my Dem. friends told me I had to give up third party pipe dreams/protest votes and ‘hold my nose and vote for Kerry’ because it really, really mattered this time. It did, but it wasn’t enough help, as it turned out. To help Ron Paul, Libertarians would have to register en masse as Republicans and vote in the primaries. Just as their own candidates are getting enough recognition to be listed in some state’s primaries. I tend to like the Lib candidates, despite my recognition for the need and even desirability of some government regulation, due to the paucity of Pro-Choice, Pro-2nd Amendment candidates. Both at the same time, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2007, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/92 "2007-05-14T12:57:02Z")
[QUOTE=The Sonoran Lizard King] I tend to like the Lib candidates, despite my recognition for the need and even desirability of some government regulation, due to the paucity of Pro-Choice, Pro-2nd Amendment candidates. Both at the same time, anyway. [/QUOTE] Even there, Paul fails. An anti-abortion rights libertarian is the worst of both worlds. ---
**Author:** ![Khampelf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Khampelf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khampelf)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/93 "2007-05-16T05:18:41Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] Even there, Paul fails. An anti-abortion rights libertarian is the worst of both worlds. [/QUOTE] Cheeze Louise, but you’re right, **jsgodess**. He’s all over the map, but he did vote for the partial birth abortion ban, and that’s him right out, then. That was probably the sop that let him fly under republican colors. But he also voted to decriminalize transporting a minor from a state that disallows abortion to one that allows it, against making a federal crime to harm a fetus during the course of a crime, and for stem cell research. NARAL gives him 0% anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/94 "2007-05-16T05:49:31Z")
[QUOTE=CanvasShoes] They all seem from mild to far left to me, with the one exception of Fox. Wasn’t there even some statement made by members of the democrat party back during some of the debates to this effect? Something like “well, we’ll let them (the righties) have Fox”? I can’t remember where I read it though, sorry I don’t have a cite, merely a question. [/QUOTE] I think you mean Democratic Party. The “democrat party” construction is awkward, incorrect, and makes you sound like a dick. I’m sure you can find someone who self-identifies as a Democrat and has made a dipshit statement like that. I can most likely find a statement from a self-identified Republican to the effect that Fox is a “loyal Bushie” or something similar. But it would mean nothing more than that people sometimes say stupid things, and we should take them with a grain of salt. Now, if say the guy who runs the company were to be a big fan of one party or the other and make public statements that his network was being run in a way that promulgated a certain agenda, that would mean something. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/95 "2007-05-16T11:15:16Z")
Paul came in second in FoxNews’s American-Idol-type [post-debate vote](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html) last night, beating out Rudy Giuliani. ETA: He placed first early on, and apparently Sean Hannity wasn’t thrilled. > **[Fox Reports - Viewers Decide: Ron Paul Leads GOP Poll!](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-reports-viewers-decid_b_48566)** > > Fox Reports - Viewers Decide: Ron Paul Leads GOP Poll! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/96 "2007-05-16T14:30:48Z")
_ **PAUL/MALAKAR '08!** _ While I actually agree with his alternative to the popular “They hate our freedom!” theory (which has the advantage of being blindingly fucking obvious) it’s probably poison at the polls. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/97 "2007-05-16T16:08:13Z")
I just made a contribution to his campaign. I hope a lot of people do. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/98 "2007-05-16T16:48:00Z")
[QUOTE=Brainiac4] … I’m sure you can find someone who self-identifies as a Democrat and has made a dipshit statement like that. I can most likely find a statement from a self-identified Republican to the effect that Fox is a “loyal Bushie” or something similar. But it would mean nothing more than that people sometimes say stupid things, and we should take them with a grain of salt. Now, if say the guy who runs the company were to be a big fan of one party or the other and make public statements that his network was being run in a way that promulgated a certain agenda, that would mean something. [/QUOTE] John Edwards said so, and backed out of two Fox-run debates. > **[News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com](https://www.aol.com/news/)** > > Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL Harry Reid said so, and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) called Fox News a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. [http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0918742820070310](http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0918742820070310) It’s not just some isolated “self-identified Democrat” saying that Fox News leans hard to the right. [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) got 280,000 people to sign a petition asking the Democratic Party to step away from the Fox. If “_the guy who runs the company_,” Roger Ailes, conflates Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden, would that make it seem that he’s the GOP’s man? He did. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/99 "2007-05-16T16:51:01Z")
[Andrew Sullivan](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/palmetto_pundit.html#more) likes Paul (with some obvious reservations). Here are his impressions of last night: > [@](#): > > The Republicans, we learned, have absolutely no idea what to do about Iraq. The only two people with coherent positions were McCain and Paul. McCain supports a war without end, a permanent occupation of Iraq, regardless of whether a national government there can exist in the foreseeable future. He’s for empire, as are Cheney and Bush. I can see no reason for him to withdraw any troops in the next five years. The notion that a national Iraqi government, composed of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, will be able to defend itself and take the side of the West in the war in Jihadist terror is simply ludicrous in the imaginable future. That much we surely know by now. So empire is the new Republican consensus: an empire built entirely for security reasons, and an empire which somehow manages to make us less secure. Paul, in contrast, had the balls to state the classic Republican position, and to defend it in the wake of 9/11. Man, that guy has some brass cojones. He even invoked Ronald Reagan in urging withdrawal from the irrationality of Arab politics. Other than McCain and Paul, the others were risible in their soundbites and faux toughness… > > The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture…Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He’s a born-again Christian for torture… > > Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul’s position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback… > > For me, the moral question of torture in many ways settles this race. Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” was a brief moment of insight. I was glad that McCain called these hideous methods by their proper name, and that Paul described Hume’s weasel words as “newspeak.” I was surprised to see Romney so aggressively embrace torture and Gitmo. On reflection, however, I was being naive again. Romney aims to please. He knew where he was - South Carolina. You can largely determine his beliefs in advance by judging the audience he is attempting to win over. For me, then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467/100 "2007-05-16T17:35:51Z")
[More](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/misreading_ron_.html) from Sullivan: > [@](#): > > The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a “crackpot.” Hannity predictably savaged him last night (see above). The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I’m getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They’re scared, aren’t they? The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News’ own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for. Whether you agree with him or not ( and I know few outside doctrinaire libertarians who agree with everything he says), he has already elevated the debates by injecting into them a legitimate, if now suppressed, strain of conservatism that is actually deeper in this country than the neoconservative aggression that now captures the party elite and has trapped the US in the Iraq nightmare. Last night, Fox News tried to destroy him. Today the right-wing blogs will. My view is that the Beltway has this wrong again, as Byron York is finding out. Paul is saying things many Americans and many Republicans believe. On the war and spending, he is venting a vital part of conservative opinion - and, in my view, the conservative critique of this war and these Republicans is more damning than any liberal one. I may not agree with him on everything and he is far from a smooth operator. But he has more balls than most of them put together. Check this video montage from the first debate and this exchange from the second. Make your own mind up. Hang in there, Dr Ron. There are more of us out here wishing you the best than you know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convervative-news-channels-censoring-ron-paul/403467.md?page=6)