Best Candidate in 2012 Race Is Being Ignored!

[The_Dude 1,142]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier?xrs=playershare_fb

[Obama 2012 1,714]

the media ignores anything that might stir up the establishment.

They are like little herded sheep who do what their masters tell them to do.

[The_Dude 1,142]

the media ignores anything that might stir up the establishment.

They are like little herded sheep who do what their masters tell them to do.

Even the teabaggers are ignoring him for Perry and Bachmann. Of all the people at the debate and Straw Poll, here is the only one with a triple digit IQ, and they ignore him. Sad.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the media ignores anything that might stir up the establishment.

The media IS the establishment. I heard about this on my way to work this morning. Sad, really, that the only thing one can find on TV that still resembles journalism is on Comedy Central. This is what you get when corporations and plutocrats rule the country. So, let's cut their taxes some more, maybe they can then buy John Stewart with the extra cash and remove the last bit of sanity on the screen.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The media IS the establishment. I heard about this on my way to work this morning. Sad, really, that the only thing one can find on TV that still resembles journalism is on Comedy Central. This is what you get when corporations and plutocrats rule the country. So, let's cut their taxes some more, maybe they can then buy John Stewart with the extra cash and remove the last bit of sanity on the screen.

The only "show" on anymore that does actual 'journalism' is FRONTLINE. They actual do in-depth reporting and it's relatively unbiased in the way they do it. Usually presenting both sides of a situation for anything political.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The only "show" on anymore that does actual 'journalism' is FRONTLINE. They actual do in-depth reporting and it's relatively unbiased in the way they do it. Usually presenting both sides of a situation for anything political.

That would have been long gone if Republicans had their way.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,783]

That would have been long gone if Republicans had their way.

Democrats, too.

[scandal 951]

Of all the people at the debate and Straw Poll, here is the only one with a triple digit IQ, and they ignore him. Sad.

You're talking about Newt Gingrich, right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Democrats, too.

The Democrats have been fighting to shut down PBS?

[The_Dude 1,142]

You're talking about Newt Gingrich, right?

If only purchased twitter followers counted for voters, then Newt would have a chance.

[Pooky 3,783]

The Democrats have been fighting to shut down PBS?

No and neither have the GOP. They only wanted to take away the Federal funding element. But then a little exaggeration never distorted the message, did it?

Whereas the Democrats, especially Pelosi and her cronies, have been actively seeking to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" whereby broadcasters can have at least part of their content dictated to them. Now that might actually do away with certain programming altogether, something the GOP hasn't even thought about yet (possibly because they really aren't that bright).

[Zero Sum 305]

The Democrats have been fighting to shut down PBS?

No and neither have the GOP. They only wanted to take away the Federal funding element. But then a little exaggeration never distorted the message, did it?

Whereas the Democrats, especially Pelosi and her cronies, have been actively seeking to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" whereby broadcasters can have at least part of their content dictated to them. Now that might actually do away with certain programming altogether, something the GOP hasn't even thought about yet (possibly because they really aren't that bright).

You may be right; although it could be argued the GOP would be very happy with doing away altogether with PBS.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No and neither have the GOP. They only wanted to take away the Federal funding element. But then a little exaggeration never distorted the message, did it?

Take away public funding from PBS and you'll end up with yet another corporate media #######. It might still be called PBS - though there wouldn't be any justification for that title anymore - but it would not be PBS. You know that, of course, but need to toe the line here. I understand.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,783]

Take away public funding from PBS and you'll end up with yet another corporate media #######. It might still be called PBS - though there wouldn't be any justification for that title anymore - but it would not be PBS. You know that, of course, but need to tow the line here. I understand.

I'm not towing anything, I leave that to trucks and the like. And my toes are fine right where they are, a long way from any imaginary political "lines".

As for PBS, nice to see you admit you were wrong.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for PBS, nice to see you admit you were wrong.

How so?