Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul
Aug 16, 2011

Stewart reviewed the Sunday morning talk show talking points, and found that, universally, Bachmann, Romney, and Perry were considered the “top tier.” “You’re not forgetting anyone?” Stewart asked, referring to Rep. Paul, who had come in second.

Rep. Paul managed to be ignored over Rick Santorum– “he lost to the guy who lost so bad he dropped out of the race”– and Jon Huntsman, who got 69 votes. “If all of Jon Huntsman’s supporters met at the Ames, Iowa Quiznos, the fire marshal would say, ‘yeah, that’s fine, here are some more seats.’”

Stewart found it bewildering that Rep. Paul had become “the 13th floor of a hotel,” culminating with a clip of a CNN anchor requesting a reporter leave out the Ron Paul reporting if they found any juicy Sarah Palin stuff– saying, in Stewart’s words, “I mean, f*ck that guy, right?”


 Jon Stewart exposes media censorship of Ron Paul



Vote for Ron Paul 2012

Infowars: Reuters Edits Iowa Poll Reality According to Globalist Agenda

Triple-A Idiots – Bankers Launch Next Leg Of Planned Economic Collapse

NATO-backed Kosovo government murders Serbs to steal their organs

Savage and the fall of the U.K.

7 Responses to Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul

  1. […] Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul Like this:Свиђа ми сеБудите први коме ће се свиђати ово . […]

  2. Varagić Nikola каже:

    Ron Paul Deserves More Respect

    by Ivan Eland, August 16, 2011

    Although Ron Paul placed second in the Iowa straw poll, behind Michele Bachmann by the slimmest of margins, most media commentators — both left and right — refused to anoint him as one of the “big three” candidates remaining in the Republican presidential contest. Translated, the media gatekeepers, as they did in his 2008 campaign, are telling the American people that Paul should not be regarded as a serious candidate. Apparently, only Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have somehow earned this exalted designation.

    Although the Iowa straw poll does not represent a cross section of the Republican Party, at least some likely voters participated in it. Romney and Perry, both of whom did miserably in the poll, seem to have earned their place in the elite candidates club merely on the basis of media conjecture as to their future viability — based mostly on “political buzz” or fundraising potential.

    When candidates are effectively cut out of most media coverage because they are deemed “not serious” or are predicted to have “no chance of winning,” this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite his impressive showing in the Iowa poll, Paul is receiving the same ill treatment by the media this go-around as last. An example of media disparagement of Paul’s views could be seen a couple of days earlier in the behavior of Fox’s Chris Wallace, who was moderating the Republican debate. Wallace zeroed in on Paul’s previous statements on Iran and nuclear weapons, including his opposition to sanctions against that country and this remark: “One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.” Wallace asked Paul if his policy was really that President Obama was too tough, not too soft, on Iran.

    In responding to Wallace’s question, Paul cast aside the conventional wisdom on U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran and cogently opined against sanctions, arguing the historically accurate case that they can often lead to war with the sanctioned country — for example, sanctions preceded U.S. wars with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Manuel Noriega in Panama. Unbelievably (in the eyes of the nearly always sanctimoniously interventionist American media), Paul had the temerity to actually empathize with another country’s feelings of insecurity and to argue for negotiating, even with odious regimes.

    Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries — China has nuclear weapons.

    Incredulous that he was hearing someone actually say that another country might try to develop nuclear weapons for the same reason that the United States had developed them — to enhance its security — Wallace gave Paul another 15 seconds to explain this seemingly astonishing position, saying, “I just want to make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that’s their right, no sanctions, no effort to stop them?”

    Paul calmly replied that trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only makes its feelings of insecurity worse. He added that “we tolerated the Soviets [getting nuclear weapons]; we didn’t attack them. And they were a much greater danger [than Iran] — they were the greatest danger to us in our whole history.” Paul could have added that the United States also declined to bomb the even more radical communist Mao Zedong as he took China into the nuclear club in the 1960s and threatened nuclear war with America. Iran has never made such threats to the United States.

    Paul’s yes-to-negotiations-and-no-to-sanctions-and-war-with-Iran position holds up well when all the hype about Iran’s threat to the United States is brushed away and the facts are uncovered:

    * Iran is a relatively poor country compared to the United States, and, even if it got nuclear weapons, it would have only a few warheads. Developing a long-range missile to carry those warheads half a world away is also difficult. In contrast, the United States already has such long-range missiles and also has the most capable nuclear arsenal on the planet, containing thousands of warheads. That huge arsenal and those missiles would likely deter, with a threat to Iran’s existence, any contemplated Iranian nuclear attack. With its small number of warheads, Iran could not similarly threaten the existence of the United States.
    * A nuclear Iran may be more of a threat to nearby Israel, but Israel has 200-400 nuclear weapons and can also deter any potential Iranian attack with such a hefty atomic response capability.
    * Although Iran’s regime has spouted Islamist rhetoric, its government usually behaves pragmatically, especially when dealing with much stronger countries, such as the United States and Israel.

    Thus, Paul’s position on Iran is just one example of his opposition to interventionist and jingoistic U.S. foreign policies — about which the media either is astonished (à la Chris Wallace) or exhibits disdain. Yet the reason Paul has such resonance with a certain segment of the American people, despite the media’s derision, is because those people take the time to go beyond political slogans and conventional wisdom and listen to Paul’s facts, analysis, and cogent explanations of and solutions to policy problems

  3. Varagić Nikola каже:

    Ron Paul Takes New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll With 45% of Vote

    Aug 21, 2011

    Ron Paul Takes New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll With 45% of Vote 110810 ron paul ap 328

    LAKE JACKSON, Texas — It’s been a good week for Ron Paul: a statistical tie at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa last Saturday, a thousand New Hampshire voters at the Concord, New Hampshire office opening Wednesday night, and today, a resounding victory in the New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll in New Castle.

    With 45% of the vote, Paul soundly beat his closest rivals at this traditional lobster bake, with Mitt Romney earning 10% of the vote, followed by Thaddeus McCotter and Rick Perry, tied at 8%.

    “Ron Paul’s message of traditional conservatism — fiscal restraint, limited government, and strong national defense — is clearly the future of the Republican Party,” said NH Chairman and State Senator Jim Forsythe, who spoke on behalf of Congressman Paul at the Straw Poll. “The other candidates know that and sound more like him every day. But there are convenient copies, and there’s the real thing.

    “It takes more than a sound bite and a flip-flop to fool New Hampshire voters. That’s why there’s real momentum here for Ron Paul.”

    Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2012 PCC.

  4. […] све три држваве остану на власти, имају глобализатори (Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul). др Miсhael Savage, како ствари стоје, подржава Rick Perry-a. И Rick […]

  5. […] Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul […]

  6. […] Jon Stewart Destroys Media For Ignoring Ron Paul […]

Оставите одговор

Попуните детаље испод или притисните на иконицу да бисте се пријавили: лого

Коментаришет користећи свој налог. Одјавите се /  Промени )

Google photo

Коментаришет користећи свој Google налог. Одјавите се /  Промени )

Слика на Твитеру

Коментаришет користећи свој Twitter налог. Одјавите се /  Промени )

Фејсбукова фотографија

Коментаришет користећи свој Facebook налог. Одјавите се /  Промени )

Повезивање са %s

%d bloggers like this: