Comments on: CNBC’s Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:04:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jeremy Parfitt http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-41280 Jeremy Parfitt Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:10:16 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-41280 It is a powerful and meaningful message when the supporters of a particular candidate are cross-party and aggressively more active about the candidates message. This is a signal of change and an inspired and increasing number of Americans. The media (most of the mainstream) belittles Paul. Why exactly can't they accept that Ron Paul DID win the debate. The media have made the decision for the American people already- Ron Paul isn't important and his message isn't worthy of their attention. This is deliberate and obvious bias. CNBC is looking more and more like Fox News. A the least, this poor treatment of Ron Paul will wake up some concerned individuals to the dangers and saturation of bias in our media. It is a powerful and meaningful message when the supporters of a particular candidate are cross-party and aggressively more active about the candidates message. This is a signal of change and an inspired and increasing number of Americans. The media (most of the mainstream) belittles Paul. Why exactly can’t they accept that Ron Paul DID win the debate. The media have made the decision for the American people already- Ron Paul isn’t important and his message isn’t worthy of their attention. This is deliberate and obvious bias. CNBC is looking more and more like Fox News.

A the least, this poor treatment of Ron Paul will wake up some concerned individuals to the dangers and saturation of bias in our media.

]]> By: Democracy, apathy, and loud minorities « Blunt Object http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39706 Democracy, apathy, and loud minorities « Blunt Object Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:52:01 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39706 [...] CNBC’s Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters (The Liberty Papers) [...] [...] CNBC’s Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters (The Liberty Papers) [...]

]]> By: Bob http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39701 Bob Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:24:15 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39701 CNBC set up a debate during which Rep. Paul was asked fewer questions and given less time to talk than most of the candidates. After the debate CNBC conducted a poll. The poll shows that Rep. Paul won the debate (despite the way that the debate was set up) and their response when they didn't get the result they wanted was to take the poll down. I don't usually believe in conspiracies or in media bias but it appears that the debate and the poll were conducted in less than an even handed manner. In their mind its not possible that Ron Paul won the debate. (After all they set up the debate in such a manner that it shouldn't be possible!) No, I don't think Ron Paul has a chance of being nominated but its not CNBC's job to make that determination. CNBC set up a debate during which Rep. Paul was asked fewer questions and given less time to talk than most of the candidates. After the debate CNBC conducted a poll. The poll shows that Rep. Paul won the debate (despite the way that the debate was set up) and their response when they didn’t get the result they wanted was to take the poll down. I don’t usually believe in conspiracies or in media bias but it appears that the debate and the poll were conducted in less than an even handed manner. In their mind its not possible that Ron Paul won the debate. (After all they set up the debate in such a manner that it shouldn’t be possible!) No, I don’t think Ron Paul has a chance of being nominated but its not CNBC’s job to make that determination.

]]> By: Rogel http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39628 Rogel Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:25:58 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39628 The assumption that grassroots will not flock such surveys is somewhat peculiar. The question the editor needed to ask him self was were are the activist of Romney, Giuliani and Thompson. The answer might indicate what they don't want to discuss. The assumption that grassroots will not flock such surveys is somewhat peculiar. The question the editor needed to ask him self was were are the activist of Romney, Giuliani and Thompson. The answer might indicate what they don’t want to discuss.

]]> By: Bill http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39626 Bill Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:21:17 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/12/cnbcs-open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-39626 "...the fact that he remains in the basement in the scientific polls,..." The word "scientific" is not synonymous with what you, and the rest of MSM, seem to identify as "legit". I think the word best used to describe conventional polling methods would be superannuated. The alleged "national polls" that consistently peg Paul somewhere in 2% - 4% range are conducted by calling only people who are registered GOPers with land lines, which smacks of 1970something. It seems to me that if the MSM were really interested in achieving an accurate pulse reading, they would find a way to bring their methods up to speed with the real world... but I don't believe that is their true objective. I hope the GOP, the DEMS and MSM are ready for some "domestic blowback" next year on election day. “…the fact that he remains in the basement in the scientific polls,…”

The word “scientific” is not synonymous with what you, and the rest of MSM, seem to identify as “legit”. I think the word best used to describe conventional polling methods would be superannuated. The alleged “national polls” that consistently peg Paul somewhere in 2% – 4% range are conducted by calling only people who are registered GOPers with land lines, which smacks of 1970something. It seems to me that if the MSM were really interested in achieving an accurate pulse reading, they would find a way to bring their methods up to speed with the real world… but I don’t believe that is their true objective. I hope the GOP, the DEMS and MSM are ready for some “domestic blowback” next year on election day.

]]>