Even if you currently support a candidate do you think that Ron Paul should be afforded equal air time and exposure to explain his positions and the reasons and details of them?

It would reveal his extremism !

It's only fair.

he has already been on umteen dozen telivised debates so this has been fulfilleds

If he was an independent party candidate, certainly! No freebies for Willard's shoe shine boy!!

Even though he is a candidate and even though I would not vote for him, he should have equal on the air time.

All have the right to be heard.

yes

all candidates should be given equal time to express their views. This isn't just a popularity contest for the elite. This is an extremely important election.

I do not want to hear anything he has to say.

The way things are today we need all the suggestions we can get.

Refer to the "Equal Time Rule" 47 USC § 315

Ron Paul can have all the equal air time he cares to pay for. Programs on Fox News, MSNBC, etc. are exempt from § 315 under Amendments to the rule made in 1959 for:

(1) regularly scheduled newscasts
(2) news interviews shows
(3) documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate)
(4) on-the-spot news events

Its almost poetic that these exemptions were created under a Republican Administration and are now biting the azz of one of the Republican Candidates, don't you think?

I believe that to be factually true regarding SS315, and since they have control over so much media being used to fuel their agenda it only makes sense to me that that is why the wish to de-fund NPR. Sad bu true. Thanks for being a contributor here Fawkes!

Sucks Eisenhower had to come up with those exemptions, huh.

Don't think he could foresee the the distortion, division and an agenda reducing itself to this, maybe? Remember that peoples values, patriotism and human morals were more homogeneous at that time. I think? Not a socio-political historian of that specfic period

he has no chance and who is he.Never heard of him.

Yeah a study done found that the highest percentage of media coverage Ron Paul received during a month was 38%. And that was mostly negative.

The media now pretty much dictates elections, they give no coverage to third party candidates and the give little coverage to non-establishment candidates.

But luckily now people are starting to realize the media is nothing but a bunch of whores, there's only one news channel that get's over 1 million viewers a day. But it still has a strong effect, because the thousands of people that do watch it repeat their talking points to their friends. And that's the way the media controls elections, even if they have low ratings, the ones the do watch the media will talk to friends who don't watch.

And if we are ever going to stop the continual growth and power of the government, getting rid of the media industrial complex will be a challenge.

NO because his followers are kooks and willing to destroy the Republic in a temper tantrum

That snapshot of his followers you have must be from this site or fox news. If it was your intention to support a given candidate you would have a sustainable dialogue regarding all the issues individually, that are and should be important in the election. One may not get every issue they feel strongly about but on a more responsible note, weigh the sum of the whole for the good of the nation. Thanks.

FROM this site the mindset of the common paulpuke...

"I CANNOT and WILL NOT vote for Mitt Romney for president. If that elects Obama for a 2nd term so be it"

I don't think Ron Paul is going to be given a chance to have his ideas widely pubicized.
If they were, I think we would see a significant shift in his support.

It will be interesing what may happen if Ron Paul runs as an independent. Thats really the only chance President Obama has to be re-elected.

Thats why it's very important to;

I would like to urge all Americans to consider voting for TEA party recommended candidates in 2012 / 2014.

I'm not sure if i'm correct but i would avoid a connection with the TP. I believe they have moved from their original intent and have been subsequently hijacked by another party. Just my thoughts.

Ed, I understand but believe there has been an outstanding effort by BOTH political partys to make the TEA party seem extreme. The things that I know they support are what I believe most Americans would agree with.

If you consider their suggestions concerning tax reform, removing the power of Congress to grant ANYONE favors, this is what Congress fears more than anything. It is where their power and corruption are.

Hi Michael, initially my thoughts were similar to yours however, they see to think you can pull a plug and there will be not far reaching ramifications that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I also doubt that many if any understand the full intent of the underlying struggle that is going on and the reason why. IMO, their slash and burn approach is absent a "formal defined mission" that moves in a positive direction. When the GOP fell out of favor, primarily as a result of their actions, many opted to associate with this movement quickly before the movement could could organize and define itself and its goals. It has become more of a subjective and arbitrary movement lacking any regard for liberty, freedom and democracy that would result with an oligarchy driven government.

Well, while our opinions differ, the discussion has been good!

Thanks!

Enough already. The discussion is now between the candidates.

It all boils down to free speech. He deserves the same opportunity that every other candidate for elected office is afforded--To make his case to the American people.

Sure. I disagree with him but he has a significant following and, though I think he is waaaay off base, I see nothing wrong with giving him equal time.

He should have been honest from the beginning and run as an Independent instead of trying to fool people as if he belonged in the GOP primary.

I feel he has been ignored by the media and I also feel a lot of his votes have been ignored, and Im a democrat

He always drifts back to same few ranting points.

Apparently the majority in the states that Willard has won means it really doesn't matter what Paul says. He's taken over the delegate process, but that isn't what the people want. I really don't care what he has to say.

Perhaps you are aware of his agenda, I feel somewhat disadvantaged though. I'm at a place where i'm afraid to vote for him in the event his approach is too extreme.

I feel his approach IS too extreme however, he still has the right to be heard. The American people will be making the final decision. I'm not a supporter of his but right is right & wrong is wrong.

Thats my point.

I would never even consider voting for him.

That may be the case, If I were him i think I'd be meeting with Obama and the other candidate in an effort to move his agenda forward to some degree. Much of what I have heard seems to make sense on the surface, not that it is a solution.

He has no problem moving his agenda forward. His plan it to disrupt the republican convention---he'd love a brokered convention. I don't believe he'll ever get enough delegates to do much in Tampa. Some of the delegates Paul has won are bound delegates, they have to vote for Willard. Only in the second round of voting, if that should happen, can they vote for Paul.

I have not had an opurtunity to understand everthing behind his position and feel the system has excluded his perspective and explination.