Fox News Excluding Ron Paul from the January 6th GOP Debate.

[Martrae]

I emailed too. Did you get the same daisy chain of "I'm out of the office contact soandso if you need assistance" that I did? I emailed all those addresses, too.

[araby]

yes! I emailed those too, got two more..then emailed those and only had one return out of them all. Bill O'Reilly's email came back.

[KILL]

Hmm, so who won the debate?

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/01/05/who-2/#comment-302565




And for those who still think FOX is fair and balanced, this link is to an AP article reprinted by FOX. They removed any mention of Ron Paul - read the comments.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/03/wyoming-to-hold-fogotten-caucus-between-iowa-new-hampshire-primaries/#comment-22133

[Lueyen]

And for those who still think FOX is fair and balanced, this link is to an AP article reprinted by FOX. They removed any mention of Ron Paul - read the comments.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/03/wyoming-to-hold-fogotten-caucus-between-iowa-new-hampshire-primaries/#comment-22133

If you read all the comments someone stated there were supposedly two versions of the A.P. article, and that Fox posted the first version which was later corrected.

[KILL]

And for those who still think FOX is fair and balanced, this link is to an AP article reprinted by FOX. They removed any mention of Ron Paul - read the comments.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/03/wyoming-to-hold-fogotten-caucus-between-iowa-new-hampshire-primaries/#comment-22133

If you read all the comments someone stated there were supposedly two versions of the A.P. article, and that Fox posted the first version which was later corrected.

Supposedly... meh, either way FOX has already proven it's bias against Paul.

[Arlos]

Someone claimed it, but there has not been 1 shred of proof offered for that contention. Even if there was a correction made, it behooves everyone who slurps off a newsfeed to correct their own versions. Fox has had plenty of time to correct their story yet have neglected to do so. Indeed, it is possible they are subject to copyright violations for reposting a modified version of copyrighted material without permission from the original author.

Would LOVE to see the AP sue Fox, it would make my year.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Yet there are quite a few other news sites that published the same content as Fox, are we to believe they are all copying fox? Why are they all copying off of fox rather then AP, and if that is the case why must it be fox that is the original source, and not fox copying off someone else? Yes I find it doubtful that Fox would be copying off of copy when it can go directly to the source, but just as much as I find it preposterous to think other news agencies are doing the same. So the only logical explanation when multiple news agencies have posted virtually the same articles with subtle differences is that the source changed, unless of course you think that all of these other news agencies are out to silence Ron Paul... in which case here's your shinny hat.

You brought up an interesting point though Arlos, if AP's article were modified by fox and a slew of other news agencies, yet the article was attributed to AP, why hasn't AP sued? As a formal publication, if you are going to quote a source you'd better make sure you quote is accurate. Yet we haven't heard about AP suing. No all evidence points to a revision unless you are jumping on the bash fox conspiracy band wagon. The most you can charge fox with is failure to update after the revision, when it is in effect at this point old news. If it were a week before the Wyoming primary, sure a change would have significance, but at this point it doesn't. It isn't going to be influencing votes that have already been cast, yes there was a time that it might, but that time has passed and with it any real pressing reason to change it.

[araby]

thanks for that post!!!

I just posted my own "I did not watch, you did not allow Ron Paul to debate" and scrolled down to find SO MANY PEOPLE did the same thing!! Hell yesss!

[Yamori]

thanks for that post!!!

I just posted my own "I did not watch, you did not allow Ron Paul to debate" and scrolled down to find SO MANY PEOPLE did the same thing!! Hell yesss!

Same with me. I was a bit surprised but happy that there are so many complaints. ^_^

Good thing we took our orders from the immaculately organized Ron Paul campaign HQ to bombard internet polls to skew reality. ;p

I'm glad he'll be getting some publicity for this, but it still probably won't be as effective as if he'd been in the debates. I'm sure a lot of primary voters in NH don't scour the newspapers and just tuned in to that debate to get a feel for the candidates.

[Gypsiyee]

I wasn't sure where to post my disdain, so I figure I'd piggyback here

How lame. I go to make my donation for Ron Paul, and then I see

4. I am not a federal government contractor.

I'm not even eligible to donate. What kind of cockamamey rule decided that if you work for the government under a contract you can't donate to support your candidate?! I don't see any federal government employees not being allowed to donate, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me o.O

[Lueyen]

I wasn't sure where to post my disdain, so I figure I'd piggyback here

How lame. I go to make my donation for Ron Paul, and then I see

4. I am not a federal government contractor.

I'm not even eligible to donate. What kind of cockamamey rule decided that if you work for the government under a contract you can't donate to support your candidate?! I don't see any federal government employees not being allowed to donate, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me o.O

It's the Law (Federal Elections Campaign Act).

Pg 78.
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

I believe you will find something similar for all candidates so that they comply with the law.

Oh and to answer your question it's an issue of ethics, the idea being that you can't buy government contracts via donating to an elected or potentially elected official who could make the decision on who gets the contract awarded to them.


Now that being said do you personally have or pursue a government contract, or merely work for an employer who does?

[Gypsiyee]

oh I know it's the law, I'm not blaming his site in particular; it just kind of took me back that I can't even back my own candidate via monetary support due to my employment

and I work for a contracting company that hires for my position; the contract gets sold every couple years to the better bidder, but my position goes with it. like if someone else buys the contract, I don't lose my job - I simply go under another employer.

[Lyion]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/l ... 08330.html

Paul is invited to the SC debate.

[Lueyen]

oh I know it's the law, I'm not blaming his site in particular; it just kind of took me back that I can't even back my own candidate via monetary support due to my employment

and I work for a contracting company that hires for my position; the contract gets sold every couple years to the better bidder, but my position goes with it. like if someone else buys the contract, I don't lose my job - I simply go under another employer.

I'd contact a lawyer or one of the head of the donations department if you are really concerned about it. While you might have an interest in which company gets the contract by virtue of who might be a better employer you do not stand to make a direct financial gain from a contract award. Since you don't personally hold the contract, don't own the companies that bid on it, or have a controlling interest in those companies I would be surprised if you were considered a government contractor under the law. The spirit of the law MIGHT be to prevent you from donating, although I think that is a stretch, but my guess would be that for the purposes of campaign donations you would not fall under the heading of government contractor.

Did you at any point enter into a contract with the government, and are you paid directly by congressional appropriation or by your employer? On the surface who pays you might seem transparent, but keep in mind even if your wages are mandated in the government contract to your employer, if the employer receives the lump sum appropriation then pays you over time, it is the employer and not you who is the contractor, and the employer is getting the benefits, you are not. Think of this example, if at the beginning of the contract your employer receives your total wages for the duration of the contract and then pays out those wages over the length of the contract, your employer is almost certainly putting those funds into an interest baring account of some sort combined with other employees payroll, the interest earned is significant. If you are having any taxes withheld those taxes are not payed each pay check, but are paid when they come due (most likely quarterly). During that the time that taxes are withheld and actually paid, the employer has the opportunity to gain interest off of those funds as well. These are all benefits that would be yours if you were the contractor, but I suspect you simply work for the contractor.

[Gypsiyee]

Technically I work for the contractor for all intents and purposes, but speaking to a few people including my dad and my boss here who are both working directly for the federal government, no one who works on base is allowed to (civilians, anyway. don't know about active duty.) It's a matter of the ethics training that we have to take every year. Apparently we aren't allowed to donate volunteer time either; doing anything aside from voting supposedly violates our ethics rules.

[Evermore]

wait the government has ethics?

[araby]

Chris Wallace called WTMA yesterday and was talking to Richard Todd on the Morning Buzz. he was on a plane from NH to SC. I wonder if there are any seats left, I wanna go. Probably not.

[Martrae]

You could stand outside and wave Ron Paul signs!

[araby]

if I leave now I can make it...it's only an hour and a half away!! but I have to work tomorrow morning. gonna go to HQ I think though =)

tickets were $150...good LORD.

[Martrae]

Anyone else think that anytime the other candidates opened their mouth last night they reinforced what Ron Paul's been preaching?

[Lyion]

Anyone else think that anytime the other candidates opened their mouth last night they reinforced what Ron Paul's been preaching?

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but his point about the Iranian speedboats around the Navy Destroyer made me lolzer, because it's so true.

I'm weighing voting for Paul in the primary just because he is the only one who isn't pro Status Quo. I disagree with some of his positions, but really I disagree with some of all the candidates positions.

I need to weigh that versus voting for Obama here in Ohio. Too bad that race will probably be over before the primary here. Idiotic election setup that it is.

[Martrae]

I was snickering to myself when they started in with where did the $12b we gave Musharref go to. That played so well with everything Paul was saying about meddling and propping up governments.

[Gypsiyee]

Do my eyes deceive me, or did I just read LYION say that he was leaning toward voting for Obama or Paul?!

[Martrae]

The world's a crazy place, eh?

[Gypsiyee]

I reckon so!