OMG FOX NEWS debate Live...UNREAL!!!

It wasn't totally clear to me why Fox would exclude Ron from the debate when they included Rudy who Ron beat by 2.5 times in Iowa, and Fred who isn't even campaigning in New Hampshire. I watched the first hour of the debate before starting my Fox boycott. Also, I had to go to Church tonight so I couldn't watch the rest. I don't believe in pre-emptive war and I don't believe in pre-emptive boycotts, but Fox has now fired the first shot and so I will fire back (figuratively, of course, via boycott.)
What became clear to me after reflecting on the debate is that Fox is in bed with McCain, or at the very least, they want him to win New Hampshire. About 50 minutes into the debate (I wish I could upload this via youtube) they asked McCain a question about his "amnesty" bill. McCain said that Romney previously said he supported the bill and that it wasn't amnesty. JUST AS HE WAS SAYING THIS, Fox news threw up a graphic showing a 2005 quote from Romney agreeing with McCain. This had the effect of making Romney look like a flip-flopper. Fox had to have had this planned to respond so quickly, and they had to know it would come up given yesterday's debate. I've never seen anything like that in all my years watching debates. The networks ONLY show the candidates and are supposed to let us decide. They NEVER flash graphics backing up one of the candidates. They are, in effect, saying McCain is right.
This gets me back to why Ron was excluded. Fox knows that McCain's biggest competition in Iowa besides Romney (whom even they couldn't leave out) is Ron Paul. New Hampshire is 41% independent and RON PAUL took 29% of the independents' votes in Iowa, the most of any Republican. So they are trying to marginalize Ron to throw the New Hampshire election to McCain. It was clear to me after the debates a few months ago before Huckabee's bogus surge that Fox was promoting the heck out of Huck. They didn't want Romney to win Iowa either.
Two possible reasons for this. 1, if Romney had won Iowa and New Hampshire, it would have nearly sewn up the nomination for him, deflating the interest in the Republican primaries and deflating Fox's ratings. However, if Huck wins Iowa, McCain New Hampshire, Romney Michigan (and Wyoming - how bogus was that?), Fred South Carolina, and Rudy Florida, people will be glued to the sets on Super Tuesday and Fox can charge a bundle for advertising. Ron needs to get a state or two before that, perhaps Nevada and/or Michigan? 2, Romney's company bought Clear Channel Communications. They own 141 radio stations or thereabouts. Could they be a competitor to Fox Radio (heavily publicized tonight during the debate)? My limited understanding of the radio business is that there are content providers (Fox Radio) and content distributors (radio stations.) Fox must be in fear of a Romney presidency favoring stations over syndicators. Sounds a little farfetched I know, but we all saw how Halliburton thrived under a Cheney vice-presidency.

I've been looking at some NON-Ron Paul political commentary sites this evening, and Fox News' egregiously unfair exclusion of Ron Paul from their "forum" has purchased us millions of dollars in publicity and sympathy, even from (former?) non-supporters. Much smarter than sending Fox spit-spewing nastygrams---Send them THANK YOU notes; that'll REALLY torque their guts! I'll bet we'll pick up 3-5% of the NH vote out of sympathy and resentment of outside interference alone.

And, while you're at it, send you a THANK YOU to the NH GOP chairman for his fair treatment of us---we haven't received this at the hands of the GOP insiders almost anywhere else.

I just hope and pray no Ron Paul "supporter" (or neo-con mole) upsets our gravy train by disrupting the debate. Are we FOR Ron Paul--or do we just want to vent our bile, even if the excrement falls on Ron Paul?

Yes, I can agree corporations do not have rights. But corporations are business entities in effect owned by a number of individuals, the share holders. So indeed, property owned by corporations is at a final level owned by individuals. So to push this argument further, damaging Faux News property is inevitably hurting the owners of shares.

I do think the best strategies to date to harm Fox News is to boycott their advertisers and appeal to them to find other ways to advertise. This will force Faux to change through basic market forces of losing advertising money. Also, I did like the idea of getting the FCC on their butts. Nothing like getting a massive Federal agency against it's own interests.

by playing fair. Pat(riots) actually died for the cause. Really. What lengths are we willing to go to take back our country? What do we really need to do to get Ron Paul elected? This will not be child's play.

Is anybody watching FAUX NEWS anyway?!?!?!