Following the latest YouTube "debate", these are the times given to each candidate from MSNBC.
Here are our counts for how long each candidate spoke during the first part of the debate
Romney -- 7:03, during 9 times
McCain -- 5:09, during 4 times
Giuliani -- 5:08, during 9 times
Thompson -- 4:38, during 4 times
Huckabee -- 4:14, during 5 times
Paul -- 3:27, during 4 times
Tancredo -- 2:20, during 4 times
Hunter -- 2:16, during 3 times
One note -- Huckabee did not get a chance to speak until 26 minutes into the debate, and Paul did not get his chance until more than a half hour into
Given the FACT that Ron Paul is BY FAR the most popular candidate on YouTube, do these numbers not seem a bit strange to anyone else?
Seeing as how RP is, by most accounts, 4 to 10 times more popular and viewed on YouTube than any other candidate, wouldn't it make sense for him to,
AT THE VERY LEAST, be 1st or 2nd on that list? In a rational and unbiased world, logic would seem to dictate that as the case. Yet, the only two
people he beat were virtually non-entities.
How is that possible? The only logical explanation is that CNN CHOSE not to address RP anymore than they absolutely had to.
The mainstream media would LOVE for us to believe that the Ron Paul following is nothing more than a VERY select few whackjobs on the net who go above
and beyond to cheat all the online polls in RP's favor.
Yet, look at the comments in regards to this listing on MSNBC. Anyone else notice how nearly 100% of the comments are in support of Ron Paul?
Where are all of the Guiliani supporters? The Thompson supporters? The Romney supporters?
Could this support for Ron Paul REALLY be just some sort of "fantasy"? I think NOT!
The fact is, virtually ANY political story that allows comments these days seems to draw more comments in support of Ron Paul than ANY OTHER
Are we really to believe that there is a select few nutjobs spending 24/7 on the news sites creating new accounts and trying to create "fake"
support for RP? Or, perhaps a "bot" is to blame?
I don't know, based on the OVERWHELMING amount of support that I have seen for Ron Paul on the net, I MUST believe that this support is NOT something
that has been manufactured.
Is it really so hard to believe that a great number of us want a CHANGE? Is it so hard to believe that a great number of us want a candidate who wants
to close the borders? Get rid of the Federal Reserve? Stop the U.S. policy of policing the globe? End the Iraq War?
Seeing the tremendous following that RP has online (and increasingly in REAL LIFE), I can't see how anyone can POSSIBLY come to a LOGICAL conclusion
that there is NO MM bias toward RP.
Though, I have noticed a bit of a trend amongst the RP deniers.
Most of them use a TON of "Limbaughisms" or "Beckisms" or "Savageisms" in their posts.
Could this be the REAL reason they don't see the support for RP?
I would say yes! It seems to be that most of the population that put their undying faith in Rush, Glenn, Sean or Michael have absolutely NO idea of
what's going on amongst the "real" populace. And why should they? They get their news from idiots with a VERY obvious agenda.
All of these guys claim to be ultra conservative, yet, they show ZERO support for any of the TRUE conservatives who are running.
Instead, they go above and beyond to make sure that faux-Conservative idiots like Guiliani get as much exposure as possible.
Perhaps some of you guys should step back and wonder why it is that Hillary or Barack get 100x more exposure from the above than Ron Paul, who
actually IS conservative.
Sure, you might be saying, "Well, they bash Hillary and Barack, as they should!!!"
True, they do that. But, wouldn't a more effective means be to NOT MENTION THEM AT ALL? That is, if you HONESTLY didn't want them in office?
The certainly seem to be using this tactic against Ron Paul!
With that, I leave you with this.
Some of the absolute BEST forms of advertisement at times are: Criticism. Controversy. Name Repetition.