Dana Bash ‘Snowballed’

By on January 14, 2012 in News 20

CNN reporter Dana Bash receives some choice words from Ron Paul supporters who object to her consistently negative and biased coverage of Dr. Paul during the 2012 presidential primary race. The title of this film references the blowback that Sean Hannity received during the 2008 race. No actual snowballs were thrown.

, , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Do you not notice how the narcissist talking head is oh so bored by all this. She gets paid to say what she is told to say, nothing more nothing less. It’s not before she starts to realise how bad she is starting to look that she shows some politeness up for the camera.
    Yes, sweety, some of do realise what a empty headed mouth piece you really are.

  • Kenvallario

    a good video…another example of corrupt journalism…

    i am a long time fan of disinfo, love this site, i’ve made a few posts myself…but i am often disappointed by the Ron Paul support I sense here…maybe confused is a better word…

    myself, i think the whole representative democracy thing has seen its best days, and I am ready for a more direct democratic experiment….given our present technological power, there is no reason, anymore for us to have these ‘leaders’ playing this very slow and high stakes game…but that is an aside…

    Ron Paul is making all sorts of promises…many of which are problematic, not because of his own logical system, but because the system itself does not allow for the very things he’s promising, which begs the question, how can you trust him?  how can we trust these people anymore to drive a machine that needs more flexible, more local, more dynamic democratic systems?

    so, to be concise, what’s the connection between disinfo and Ron Paul?  i love the site, but i hope it is open to a discussion on this topic…

  • Kenvallario

    a good video…another example of corrupt journalism…

    i am a long time fan of disinfo, love this site, i’ve made a few posts myself…but i am often disappointed by the Ron Paul support I sense here…maybe confused is a better word…

    myself, i think the whole representative democracy thing has seen its best days, and I am ready for a more direct democratic experiment….given our present technological power, there is no reason, anymore for us to have these ‘leaders’ playing this very slow and high stakes game…but that is an aside…

    Ron Paul is making all sorts of promises…many of which are problematic, not because of his own logical system, but because the system itself does not allow for the very things he’s promising, which begs the question, how can you trust him?  how can we trust these people anymore to drive a machine that needs more flexible, more local, more dynamic democratic systems?

    so, to be concise, what’s the connection between disinfo and Ron Paul?  i love the site, but i hope it is open to a discussion on this topic…

  • Anonymous

    Well put. I share your confusion. The most appealing things about Ron Paul are his desires to end both the war on drugs and our military debacles overseas–neither of which he has a snowball’s chance in hell of doing, president or not. Abolishing every social safety net and relaxing regulations on wall street are, however, the policies that he could conceivably ram through successfully given our current corporate owned congress. I’d love to hear what is so great about that if anyone would indulge me. 

  • Anonymous

    As Commander and Chief he could immediately recall the troops, it would probably be the first thing he did.

    He hasn’t promised to achieve every goal of his presidential plan, but he has promised to TRY. Luckily he has been speaking out about these issues and has been consistent for a very long time, so there is no reason to doubt his intentions or his motivations, especially after researching his voting record.

    It is true he does not agree with the unconstitutional welfare programs and over reaching powers of the federal government, but as he has stated in his plan to restore america, no social programs would be cut.
    The cuts will be made to overseas spending and the elimination of some federal bureaucracies.

  • Mr Willow

    I’ll bite. 

    Ron Paul’s generic platform is one that I can certainly get behind—with an emphasis on personal freedom to do as we please unless our actions were to harm another, as well as his urge for we, as a nation, to end our reckless pursuit of being the world’s police—but it is supported by a laissez faire free-market capitalist attitude that is almost in no way conducive to a free society, because under such a system one’s inherent freedom is measurable only by the amount of money they possess. 

    What he wishes to implement, from a business perspective, is a system identical to the one we currently have, except without the regulatory bodies that—at least in theory—were put into place to protect the interests and safety of both the people who purchase the products and services of the manufacturers of the products and users of the services (or ‘consumers’) and the actual people assigned to manufacture the products or service the consumer (or ‘workers’). If such a thing were to happen then we would find ourselves in even more of an oppressive situation than we currently live, where those that own the intellectual property and patents of the products we all consume—entertainment and news media, electronics, automobiles, tools, toys—would assume place as the new leaders (which, in an indirect way, they already are, considering they have purchased not only their regulators, but also the congress in near totality). 

    Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
    –Bertrand Russel

    I have said this once before: Turning over control to the ‘free-market’ is simply exchanging a dictatorship of government to a dictatorship of industry. 

    Power, I think, should be spread as evenly as possible. In our current system, it is difficult because of its susceptibility to being corrupted. In our current situation, it has been accomplished via businessmen who value their profits over the lives of their customers, but in a ‘free market’ system, it would be utterly impossible because we would place our trust in the businessmen directly. 

    The less-than-enthusiastic response (I think) stems not from a reäctionary hatred of the man himself, or the fact that he’s a Republican, but from an analysis of his ideas—which, anyone will admit, he is not completely devoid of positive ones—and a realisation that those ideas (if implemented) would spell enslavement to the monied aristocracy in a way more overt and complete than we are currently. 

    Open discussion is always encouraged, but I imagine another aspect about his candidacy that annoys some around here is the tendency of his supporters to interpret any criticism of Mr. Paul as a witch hunt of some sort, so they hear one argument against him, and they automatically assert said detractor as being ‘against freedom’ (or some such thing), which makes them even more reäctionary than most conservatives. 

  • Mr Willow

    None can escape the cult of Ron Paul. 

  • Luna

    You have a nice long statement there but it is nothing but an assumption. When you give people a free market and you enforce the rule of law (nothing is perfect), then you are creating a system in which the economy is driven more so by an incentive to immpress and innovate, rather then a fake incentive for just money, which is what the government socialist model is all about anyway. What you are insinuating is that when people have freedom and a government that protects their rights, that infact they have the opposite. This is a strange type of double think that people like you seem to gravitate towards.. Everything that you complained about here in regards the the free market is exactly what is happening today specifically BECAUSE of big government. Trust me, a free market with sound money is something we have never tried and is infact heading in a direction of improvement because in all cases a system that grants its people the most freedom is a system that has the most innovation and the most unique and best economies.

    The entire foundation of our country has been stolen by government. All of the problems we see today are the ones you are claiming we would have after free markets occurred. And they are all caused by government. In fact the reason that you think the way that you do is because of the government and corporations coming together and violating the law and influencing your education to bend you to this type of thinking.

    It is clear that government forced is not something that helps anyone at all. It is the regulations which cause the struggles of our time… not the people being free.

    And by the way, the cult comment is so worn out. It is your crowd who comes on and arrogantly preaches in favor of the new world system that we see today that are cult like…. And in fact it is us who cannot escape you. But thankfully that’s why we have this political process. Getting rid of our central bank and practicing free market economics is exactly what this country needs and what we haven’t had for the past 100 years. In all cases rapid growth is followed by a huge economic bust because the policies first create a false sense of well being followed by a large dose of reality when people lose their money and prices fluctuate rapidly.

    Free markets is not something we have today.

    The very idea that you would argue to continue with the status quo policies is antithetical to economic reality. You would argue against the only candidate that woudl eliminate the debt and release regulations that prevent free people from engaging in certain productive activities in order to protect the interest of very powerful people and it makes no sense. The very think you dislike you are simultaneously endorsing by denying the only candidate who speaks out against these things.

  • Camron Wiltshire

    Are there any other candidates who have a 30 year track record of consistently sticking to Constitutional principles?  Any of them happen to be running for President?  Anyone else talking about,
    1. Ending the Federal Reserve (You know your $LaveMa$ter)
    2. Ending the Immoral Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
    3. Rescinding the Patriot Act.
    4. Rescinding of NDAA.

    Let’s just start there.
    If “Disinfo” (do you mean all the individuals who post here?) has a bias, I would say it’s in actually want to support the squelched voice.  I don’t know why this is hard to consider really.  I understand it’s seemingly vogue to be anti-everything, but sadly this can make people inert and ineffectual as they ironically adhere to nothing while claiming to care.  Intellectually at least.

    America is at a massive crossroads. Dr. Paul is not perfect, but in my lifetime I’ve never met a politician with his views and integrity who ever came anywhere near this level of power.  The ignorance by the media is showing ever more clearly how jacked up the system is and exactly why we need people like Dr. Paul to remind us of what our system is supposed to be about.
    The American experiment is on going.  Please consider we may not get another opportunity like this and yes when Dr. Paul win’s he will be beset by those who wish to prevent his every measure.  At least he will be in the position to guide and uphold the positions of his platform which are most pressing.

    Thank you.

    Ron Paul 2012 or 4 more years of Obama selling this country to the Banks, Big Pharm, and Wall Street.

  • Kenvallario

    I’ve seen some good points raised as a result of my initial question, concerning the consistent defense of Ron Paul on this site…a site i really like…

    1.  As a result of my own question I wikied Ron Paul’s policy ideas…and like a lot of you, i can support an end to war, and the critique of our security policies…BUT…like all the candidates, he maintains some positions that are completely frightening…now i will move onto #2 to address these.

    2.  Further deregulation of the markets has the following consequence – empowering those with the most market power (money) to exercise said freedom with the most force…in other words, those who have acted criminally, will be empowered by a further reduction of sensible regulation…let’s not forget that regulatory agencies create jobs, jobs people can be proud of…

    3.  But debating policy decisions is not my main point, because I agreed with a lot of Obama’s policy ideas when I voted for him…but guess what, I got screwed…and the real question I am raising has to do with being baffled by people who still think campaign promises mean anything…not because these people won’t exercise their opinions, when in office, but the offices themselves have been hindered by an organized corporate effort to make our government completely ineffectual by nurturing oppositional viewpoints to take advantage of the very thing our founding fathers used as a strength.  the system of ‘checks and balances’ has become a weakness, the corporations have found a way to destroy our government.

    4.  so, while some of you pursue yet another candidate, in the hopes that he will deliver some new bipartisan dream…i have surrendered to the idea that our government is washed up, and that the great American experiment was a wild ride, but that it is time for a global direct democratic awakening…that is the flavor of Kool-Aid I am drinking…admittedly, i am about as sure as you are that i am right, meaning, i don’t know jack…but, it seems that having a stable and virtuous government is a great way to conduct the business of law and management of the market, but once such a thing is destroyed by willful corruption, that we must accept the necessity to self-organize and create new structures that will ensure a sustainable future…that’s why i’ve been putting my political energy into the occupy movement, since i feel my vote is utterly useless.

    lastly, all of our associations can be called cults…it is an inflammatory word that can be thrown against any people who happen to believe in something…it is better to argue for your own cult, to make the best argument…and to always maintain, together, that none of us really have an answer that we can safely call true.  democracy depends upon a unity in the process of finding the truth, and the willingness to surrender to a better argument.  this has been missing for a long time, it is the virtue that makes democracy possible.

  • Mr Willow

    1. Ending the Federal Reserve (You know your $LaveMa$ter)
    2. Ending the Immoral Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
    3. Rescinding the Patriot Act.
    4. Rescinding of NDAA.

    I support every single one of those initiatives, and for those reasons, along with the one you forgot (ending the complete farce that is the War on Drugs) I am in support of him, but his stances on labour (factory owners over factory workers), the environment (the free market will take care of it), and regulations (there shouldn’t be any). make him unelectable for me. 

    I admire him for his consistency, as well as his honesty, and the fact that the media continually seeks to obscure him, and generally snubs him makes me root for him the same way one roots for an underdog. However, the way most people speak of him as some big revolutionary candidate that will change everything reminds me of the folks still clinging to the notion that if we just give Obama another term, he’ll do the same thing. 

    “Hope and Change is coming guys. . . you just gotta have faith!”

  • Kyle Newski

    Dana’s been doing a solid job. Even better now that I’ve seen the bullshit she puts up with daily.

  • Mr Willow

    When you give people a free market and you enforce the rule of law (nothing is perfect), then you are creating a system in which the economy is driven more so by an incentive to immpress and innovate, rather then a fake incentive for just money, which is what the government socialist model is all about anyway.

    Bull Shit. 

    A socialist economy would place the employees in any business in control of that business (you know, because that is what socialism is). As such, if a mine needed ventilation, it would get ventilation, because the individuals who actually work in the mine know they need ventilation; if some food additive were proved to be harmful (and I would preferably keep them out entirely), it would be removed because the people who ate the food would be the same ones adding the chemicals; if toys were found to contain lead, it would be removed immediately because the people assembling them would be the same who’s kids would be playing with them later—in other words, we probably wouldn’t need a government regulator so much because the only thing regulations do is protect the labourers of industry—and in most respects none of these problems would arise because every business (and therefore every worker within that business) would understand that any harmful action they would make would affect society negatively precisely because they themselves would continue to be members of society. They wouldn’t be utterly divorced from society through their separation by the private compounds in which they live or the circles of fellow corporate owners in which they all mingle. 

    Only then does government (beyond some sort of organisational entity) become unnecessary. 

    In fact the reason that you think the way that you do is because of the government and corporations coming together and violating the law and influencing your education to bend you to this type of thinking.  

    Who initiated that merger? Corporate CEOs in the 80’s. 

    The government is just as much to blame for the merger occurring for not having any sense of integrity, make no mistake, but it really isn’t all that surprising considering everyone’s emphasis on profit, profit, and more profit. 

    I do not absolve the politicians for allowing the plutocrats from taking power, but rather than having the republic wrestled from tired, weary hands, the politicians handed it over to them wholesale by allowing corporate lobbyists to write legislation to their benefit, and I wish that was a misrepresentation or exaggeration. 

    Free markets is not something we have today. 

    Technically true because ‘free markets’ are simply markets unrestrained by regulation. Without the various agencies that currently (and minimally, I regret) restrict corporate abuse of our system they would be completely free to control it overtly. 

    And they would not have to worry about public outcry because either the public wouldn’t know about it (they already own the media, the sole method the public has to learn of these injustices), or the public would have nowhere else to turn for product. The majority of everything we consume already belongs to a major corporation through patents on the methods by which products are assembled or intellectual property. And if you think the internet will be some refuge, may I remind you of SOPA (or the possibility of something similar). Without a government to answer to, they wouldn’t even need to ask our permission, or provide ‘just cause’ to effectively kill a site like this. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EAPUJHWIYQJWKN7HUCSCVHKVTQ David Meadows

    Selling this country?  This country was sold out a long time ago, Obama is just continuing the behind closed doors pact that was made a long time ago.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EAPUJHWIYQJWKN7HUCSCVHKVTQ David Meadows

    To many people confuse Fascism with Socialism.  They think those terms are interchangeable.

  • Mr Willow

    It’s dumbfounding, considering it takes all of five minutes to find out what socialism actually is. 

  • DeepCough

    Do NOT forget that Ron Paul is throwing his lot in with the Republican Party, a party that has ABSOLUTELY no interest in any of these principles, which are only outlandish because they are not advertised by the mainstream media. If he truly was a man of his word, he should’ve taken his chances as an independent candidate. It worked for Lieberman, why couldn’t it have worked for him.

  • Alzawahi

    Ron Paul supporters are Ron Paul’s biggest hindrance.

  • Jin (仁)

    sadly enough, the internet and all of it’s pedagogical and educational potential seems to have further entrenched people in their worldviews rather than challenge them.

  • PIss In Obama’s Ass

    Shes a cunt, and everyone knows it. Once her hooker face wares off, she’ll be just as useless as a potato bag with massive seamen stained holes in it. THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE MONEY is because of your whorish genetics. Your words and your opinions only strengthen mine, and convince me even further how retarded you mainstream fucks really are. Your inevitable death brings warmth and happiness to my heart.