San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn't speak volumes...

After watching the video, I got the impression that they were expecting much shorter statements and had limited time for the story.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but there's nothing to this one.

Well, this sort of thing happens. The oddest things is when the reporter says we'll be back when something really "substandard" is happening. I don't think he meant to say "substantial", because he would have corrected himself. He must have been referring to the declining situation in the current crisis. Unfortunate choice of words. Very amusing.

Again, I watched the video and didn't rely on someone else's interpetation or bad transcript. It wasn't that hard to make out: he actually said "substantive".

From a news perspective, the fact that Ron Paul was (correctly) ranting yet again about the Fed isn't exactly the scoop of the century, so I don't blame the CNBC guy for the "substantive" comment.

Moral of the story: go to the source and make up your own mind.

The press has become an embittered biased organization that no longer reports the facts of the news but instead favors blatant propaganda.

While I think RP has been marginalized by the MSM, I don't think this is strong evidence to support that. Given the source, an Alex Jones site, is not the best journalistically. Although, the may have some interesting, undiscussed by the MSM, information the conclusions they extrapolate are often stupid.

The press has become an embittered biased organization that no longer reports the facts of the news but instead favors blatant propaganda.

Exactly!

Ron Paul is a true American hero of the finest caliber.

I was so pissed off when later in those hearings, Barney Frank cut off Ron Paul's brilliant questioning of Bernanke in a manner that was insulting to Ron Paul.

Barney Frank has long been in bed with the banking industry. Barney Frank helped create the financial crisis and economic depression.

It's time to start a PAC to rid us of Frank, Dodd, and Schumer. Since we can't vote them out, maybe we can help fund someone who can beat them.

I like your thinking, mike!

For every $1 that PAC receives, $1,000 would go to funds to re-elect these folks. People who believe in the kind of governmental financial probity that Ron Paul advocates are a (small) minority in the USA. Most people want a government that will bail them out when they are hurting, regardless of the bigger consequences.

I would want all the PAC money going to advertising to point out all the money those crooks received from the banks before the crises occurred. A relentless attack with that tactic might work. Like our version of the "swift boat ad". At that point who cares how much money they have.

Also, I think the PAC should single one of them out at a time. A "divide and conquer" strategy.

2010 could be the Libertarian Party's big chance to oust 1 or 2 incumbent House members. If they target wisely and fund the campaign well. People are fed up with both major parties.

I agree w/Arraya, I don't really see how it was Ron Paul that caused the cantankerousness. It looked like they just had one of those segments where people on the set were on different pages. In fact, Ron Paul got to get his whole opening statement in, it was the guy after him that got cut off.

There are a number of Ron Paul-minded people running for office or coming out of the wood work:

1. Rand Paul (Senator, Kentucky): http://rand2010.com/

2. Peter Schiff (Senator, Connecticut): http://www.schiff2010.com/

3. RJ Harris (Congressman, Oklahoma): http://www.rjharris2010.com/default.asp

4. Judge Andrew Napolitano (not sure, New Jersey):
http://www.judgenapolitano.com/

5. Rick Santelli: http://www.reteaparty.com/

Is Santelli going to run under a new party: The Tea Party? As a big fan of tea, I'd vote for him if he promised free tea for all.