Menu

Home › Forums › Other › CNBC Anchors Mortified that Ron Paul Was Allowed Air Time

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 28, 2009 at 7:05 PM #15188
    SD Transplant
    Participant

    Yes, the media is unbias and free……..NOT

    Read & Watch the video:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnbc-anchors-mortified-that-ron-paul-was-allowed-air-time.html

    CNBC anchors were left dumbfounded and acted overtly cantankerous yesterday after Congressman Ron Paul’s opening statement at the House Financial Services Committee was broadcast live to an audience of millions.

    CNBC went live to the House, clearly without knowing that the Texas Congressman had the initial Republican statement at the hearing of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    After the Congressman spent two and a half minutes lecturing Bernanke on sound money principles, warning that the financial crisis cannot be solved by merely creating credit out of thin air, CNBC cut back to the studio.

    Anchors Erin Burnett and Mark Haines were so perturbed by what they had just heard that they immediately cut to a commercial break…..”

    March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM #357530
    CA renter
    Participant

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

    March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM #357832
    CA renter
    Participant

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

    March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM #357973
    CA renter
    Participant

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

    March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM #358004
    CA renter
    Participant

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

    March 1, 2009 at 1:39 AM #358110
    CA renter
    Participant

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

    March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM #357565
    drboom
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn’t speak volumes…[/quote]

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM #357867
    drboom
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn’t speak volumes…[/quote]

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM #358008
    drboom
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn’t speak volumes…[/quote]

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM #358039
    drboom
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn’t speak volumes…[/quote]

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM #358145
    drboom
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Wow. Did they really say that in that context? If that doesn’t speak volumes…[/quote]

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM #357585
    34f3f3f
    Participant

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM #357887
    34f3f3f
    Participant

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM #358028
    34f3f3f
    Participant

    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.

    March 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM #358059
    34f3f3f
    Participant

    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.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.