>> ^newtboy:


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,


Well, my reading must be broken then, because I missed the bit where he won anything.


>> ^newtboy:

contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention.


So basically what you're saying is that Paul is working to subvert the will of the electorate and get in with backroom deals? Wow, what a great candidate.

He lost. Romney is the candidate. Get over it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is everything a grand conspiracy in the eyes of a Ron Paul supporter? For a group of people so interested in 'personal responsibility' they don't seem very interested in taking responsibility for their own failings. Don't blame the media. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate who does a perfectly fine job of marginalizing himself.


Your statement implies that the other Retardican candidates did not marginalize themselves... but each and every one of them has, (including the front runner) yet they all continue to get air time. At the same time Ron Paul won some primaries (no air time) did exceedingly well in others (ignored), and MAY actually have the most delegates at the convention (his supporters stayed and voted for the delegates, so he may actually be ahead in numbers, people). The media has consistently ignored the Ron Paul campaign from the beginning of the campaign, except when they were taking the time to denigrate and downgrade it.
Why? I have no idea, but they certainly have been singling out Paul to ignore. I still hear them speaking about Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, even Bachman on national news, daily. Talk about marginalized candidates, they are all out of the race completely but are still getting tons of air time. Paul is still running, maybe even winning (probably not, but there's no real way of knowing right now), but never gets mentioned, even when he wins primaries. You can try to make the argument it's because he isn't a winning candidate, but you have to ignore ALL the facts to try to make that argument stick.
If, as you imply, Paul is a terrible candidate, why does he not get the air time that all the other terrible candidates got? Please, I'm looking for a real answer if there is one, not another meaningless, denigrating quip about Paul's inadequacy.

Suggest swapping embed with the backup from the dupe... that one is straight from CSPAN and not blocked.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cspanjunkiedotorg, cspanjunkie, cspan junkie, mox news' to 'cspanjunkiedotorg, cspanjunkie, cspan junkie, mox news, Christopher JohnMonfort' - edited by blankfist

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cspanjunkiedotorg cspanjunkie cspan junkie mox news' to 'cspanjunkiedotorg, cspanjunkie, cspan junkie, mox news' - edited by lucky760

best drama is real drama. GO CSPAN!

UPVOTE For cspan

I'm sure it was just the "customer is always right" mentality; Don't argue, just let them make their complaints. Even though somebody ought to tell this guy off, CSPAN isn't in the business of preaching.

I do love the way he says "George Bwoosh", though.
>> ^peggedbea:

wait.... he appreciates this input??????

>> ^xxovercastxx:
That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.


Sure, they'll give you the surgery, if you survive the delays in getting around to it. And you're responsible for a bill that you have absolutely no way to pay. Then guess what, you get to declare bankruptcy.

And that's not even beginning to ask -why- we want the hospital to be supplying medical care that -could- have been handled for a tenth the cost by a GP at his office. But the GP won't see anyone who doesn't have either insurance or cash...and if he does, the pharmacy sure as hell isn't going to give you your meds unless you can pay.

So we get tens of thousands of people dying each year because they don't have insurance and can't afford care. But that's okay, because hospitals are required to treat them.

Every other industrialized country in the world can do it...but the richest one is too stupid or too incompetent to provide even minimal health care to all its citizens. It blows my mind that people can be so pessimistic about our country.

That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.
>> ^ghark:
Quite honestly, medical receptionist must be one of the worst jobs in America right now, turning away dieing people because they don't have an insurance card would have to do something to your soul.

actually don't like this vid coz i love cspan

I really wanted to come up with some kind of comprehensive analysis of this.
If not that, I wanted to pluck out one aspect of it and refute it.

But the problem with listening to these two chit-chat is that I quickly became overwhelmed with their bullshit. I think my problem was trying to draft something mid video but I kept catching myself stopping and saying "HEY that's not true!"

So my new direction with my comment is this: The truth leaves you no outs. Lies on the other hand always leave you something to fall back on, you can always tell another lie. It's really interesting watching these to dance through a conversation together.

I can point out numerous contradictions in the 6 minutes I just watched (and I will if asked) but to be honest I really dont want to. The only reason I even bother to watch this crap anymore is because I feel like I have a social obligation to understand opposing views on politics. The only trouble is I really dont understand what the fuck these guys are talking about because the facts have gone through some kind of bullshit filter before they were put back on the air.

And then I see it, the whirlwind of facts and bullshit intermingle so frequently it's exhausting even trying to really understand what these idiots are blabering about even within the context of what i consider to be objective facts (i get my news from a variety of sources including NPR, cspan, the associated press, cnn, and google news to name a few) -- But now I'm thinking about the man who watches nothing but Fox news. And I remember Fox has the highest ratings of them all.

We're fucked.

Republicans are bad at government? Pot meet the kettle!
A more accurate statement would be Politicians are bad at government!
Seems like he just wasted 2 minutes of his life to make a statement in front of the 3 representatives that showed up to see him and the few people that saw it on CSPAN and put it here for us to see.
Drivel. Pure pointless drivel.
He should be spending more time worrying about how to run our country and less time worrying about politicking.

The Iraq war had 70% support when it began.

Public opinion on policy is almost completely divorced from the merits of that policy. The stimulus looks like kind of a dud, but was widely perceived as necessary (outside strong conservative circles) when it passed. The TARP is universally reviled, but it probably saved us from a depression. Policies are unpopular when the opponents do a better job yelling about it than the proponents. Only 4-5 years down the line will the public be able to make an informed decision about whether it was a good or bad policy, because there will be more or fewer people getting better or worse healthcare for more or less money.

Bush did a pretty good job selling his policies, even getting reelected. Obama has not been a good salesman relative to the conservative media, but that doesn't mean his policies are bad ideas. They might be great, or they might be disastrous. We'll know in a few years.

Telling him to give people what they WANT is useless. People want less taxes, lower deficits and no cuts to big entitlements. They want less regulation but fewer corporate abuses. They probably couldn't care less about whether the conference is on CSPAN since they wouldn't watch it anyway.