PDA

View Full Version : Lawsuit Against Media for Censoring Ron Paul




interpaul
08-25-2007, 10:06 AM
This is a class action suit and i want in, i hate big brothers media, peace...

NEWS ALERT!!! READ THIS!!!! criminal charges against the media conspiracy against Dr. Ron Paul and the American People

(straight from Clarence Malcom, posted as a comment.)

NEWS ALERT: Private Criminal Investigators Ted L. Gunderson and Clarence Malcolm execute formal criminal charges against discovered felons in the mainstream media.

ESTABLISHED MEDIA IS FORMALLY ACCUSED OF FELONY RICO AND CONSPIRACY against Dr. Ron Paul and the American People.

What the public needs to understand is that FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, NSNBC and the other established *mainstream mass media/news sources [*see definition @ Wikipedia.org] are perpetrating criminal fraud (via omissions and/or distortions and/or outright lies) and deliberate censorship of Dr. Ron Paul—with malice and aforethought and evil intent to influence the 2008 presidential elections. This is an outrage and “We the People” need to organize against this dangerous plot and TAKE ACTION by filing “class action” criminal charges and civil suits against the owners and executives of these news sources. This illegal censorship is not only harming Americans…it constitutes an unAmerican and anti-American criminal enterprise; not to fail to mention the violation of the first amendment/freedom of the press. These accused individuals exercise monopolized Fascist-control over media/news sources with intent to get the candidate preferred by them—the elitist media executives—elected…while simultaneously wrongfully hiding and/or playing down the true facts, popularity and success of the Ron Paul campaign.

Please spread this message and let’s get criminal charges and a class action lawsuit executed against this dangerous organized crime syndicate identified as the present mainstream media outlets which are collaborating in a RICO conspiracy to censor Dr. Ron Paul and control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election. This is definitely “RICO” if it can be shown that any of the accused media executives have donated money to any of the other presidential candidates, directly or indirectly…and of course they have, I reasonably presume! The accused individuals herein have wrongfully utilized their MONOPOLY over the media across America to injure Dr. Ron Paul and his millions of supporters. These accused individuals need to go to prison upon conviction. They need to be criminally prosecuted and have their personal assets seized. They need to have their Federal FCC licenses revoked for participating in this criminal conspiracy. Help me spread this felony information far and wide. Let’s get these elitist outlaws criminally prosecuted and civilly sued.

I’ll get the ball rolling right now with my sworn affidavit, a criminal complaint:

Gage County
State of Nebraska
SWORN STATEMENT

I, Clarence Douglas Malcolm, a private criminal investigator, working with retired FBI Division Chief, Ted L. Gunderson [www.tedgunderson.com] hereby swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the United States of America that I have obtained personal and imputed knowledge that known and yet unknown owners and executives in the established mainstream media including but not limited to ABC, NSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald and The San Diego Herald-Tribune and, in fact, nearly all (if not all) news sources which have become monopolized, controlled and operated by a few wealthy individuals who are intentionally and with evil intent acting as co-conspirators in perpetrating crime and the unlawful censorship of Dr. Ron Paul; and, these same individuals are participating in an illegal conspiracy rising to the level of RICO to control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Elections. The level of felony crime, corruption and conspiracy victimizing Dr. Ron Paul and the America people in these 2008 Presidential event is unprecedented in the history of the United States and needs to be investigated and prosecuted without further delay.

I am a bona fide Federal and State victim-witness to this crime along with countless millions of other defrauded Americans. The media owners and/or executives who are involved in this illegal monopoly, racketeering and RICO conspiracy include but are not limited to: David Rockefeller, Edgar Bronfman, Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone and Ted Turner. Known and yet unknown individuals working for these media barons including but not limited to their executives, legal consultants/representatives and news workers who are—more likely than not—actively involved in this felony crime and conspiracy and who should also be arrested and investigated for their participation. I also formally accuse these individuals of treason against the people of the United States of America…pursuant to Ted Gunderson’s extensive research and other information we have obtained…who individually and collectively—more likely than not—possess evil intent to overthrow the United States Republic form of government and our hard-won national sovereignty as established by our founders and for this diabolical purpose they have used their tremendous wealth, power, influence and illegally monopolized control over this nation’s media/news sources to facilitate this criminal conspiracy. For example, as documented in the February 9, 1917, United States Congressional Record wherein it was announced in pages 2947- 2948 that J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers and inserted their own editors in order to control the press. Ted Gunderson has proof that this conspiracy has tremendously escalated and expanded into all other media/news sources since that time. Moreover, Ted Gunderson has meritorious information which has led him and me to believe that these conspirators and/or their cohorts have controlled past elections through the felonious manipulation of electronic voting machines.

Further, I hereby formally accuse the Republican and Democratic Parties via known and yet unknown members—having membership in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, an organization I believe I can easily prove to be a subversive unAmerican and anti-American criminal organization via rogues therein—of actively participating in the aforementioned felony crime and conspiracy in direct or indirect collaboration with the accused aforementioned outlaws in the mass media.

I have acquired much evidence to prove my meritorious criminal allegations. Moreover, henceforth, any officers, employees and/or contractors who become aware of these felony allegations and information who refuses, neglects or otherwise fails to perform their duty to uniformly enforced the rule of law pursuant to this formal criminal complaint shall be deemed by this Federal/State victim-witness to be co-conspirators in said felony crime

Executed this 23rd day of August, 2007, with intent that an immediate criminal investigation is started and that all accused criminals and their cohorts be arrested and prosecuted pursuant to clearly established law.

Mark: Clarence Douglas Malcolm, Federal and State Victim-Witness.
justiceranger@mail.com
www.1-free-dvd.com
www.tedgunderson.com

PUBLIC NOTICE: Please help us publicize this formal criminal complaint across the internet. After reading this affidavit/felony presentment, if anyone believes it to be true, they (“you”) have the right to copy it and affix your own name as an affiant. We need tens of thousands of Americans who are “victims-witnesses” to the aforementioned accused criminals/enterprises to join us in our formal criminal complaints and to become co-plaintiffs in a historical class action lawsuit. Here’s Ted Gunderson’s criminal complaint via affidavit to show you how easy it is to execute your own presentment.

Gage County
State of Nebraska
SWORN STATEMENT

I, Ted L. Gunderson, a retired FBI Senior Special Agent in Charge [www.tedgunderson.com], hereby swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the United States of America that I have obtained personal and imputed knowledge that known and yet unknown owners and executives in the established mainstream media including but not limited to ABC, NSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald and The San Diego Herald-Tribune and, in fact, nearly all (if not all) news sources which have become monopolized, controlled and operated by a few wealthy individuals who are intentionally and with evil intent acting as co-conspirators in perpetrating crime and the unlawful censorship of Dr. Ron Paul; and, these same individuals are participating in an illegal conspiracy rising to the level of RICO to control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Elections. The level of felony crime, corruption and conspiracy victimizing Dr. Ron Paul and the America people in these 2008 Presidential event is unprecedented in the history of the United States and needs to be investigated and prosecuted without further delay.

I, too, am a bona fide Federal and State victim-witness to this crime along with countless millions of other defrauded Americans. The media owners and/or executives who are involved in this illegal monopoly, racketeering and RICO conspiracy include but are not limited to: David Rockefeller, Edgar Bronfman, Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone and Ted Turner. Known and yet unknown individuals working for these media barons including but not limited to their executives, legal consultants/representatives and news workers who are—more likely than not—actively involved in this felony crime and conspiracy and who should also be arrested and investigated for their participation. I also formally accuse these individuals of treason against the people of the United States of America…pursuant to my extensive research and other information I have obtained… who individually and collectively—more likely than not—possess evil intent to overthrow the United States Republic form of government and our hard-won national sovereignty as established by our founders and for this diabolical purpose they have used their tremendous wealth, power, influence and illegally monopolized control over this nation’s media/news sources to facilitate this criminal conspiracy. For example, as documented in the February 9, 1917, United States Congressional Record wherein it was announced in pages 2947- 2948 that J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers and inserted their own editors in order to control the press. I believe I can prove that this conspiracy has tremendously escalated and expanded into all other media/news sources since that time. Moreover, I possess meritorious information which has led me to believe that these conspirators and/or their cohorts have controlled past elections through the felonious manipulation of electronic voting machines.

Further, I hereby formally accuse the Republican and Democratic Parties via known and yet unknown members—having membership in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, an organization I believe I can easily prove to be a subversive unAmerican and anti-American criminal organization via rogues therein—of actively participating in the aforementioned felony crime and conspiracy in direct or indirect collaboration with the accused aforementioned outlaws in the mass media.

I have acquired much evidence to prove my meritorious criminal allegations. Moreover, henceforth, any officers, employees and/or contractors who become aware of these felony allegations and information who refuses, neglects or otherwise fails to perform their duty to uniformly enforced the rule of law pursuant to this formal criminal complaint shall be deemed by this Federal/State victim-witness to be co-conspirators in said felony crime

Executed this 23rd day of August, 2007, with intent that an immediate criminal investigation is started and that all accused criminals and their cohorts be arrested and prosecuted pursuant to clearly established law.

Mark: Ted L. Gunderson, Federal and State Victim-Witness.
tedgunderson@email.com
www.tedgunderson.com
www.1-free-dvd.com

August 23rd, 2007
Categories: iran, iraq, bush, 9/11, ron paul, cheney, thoughts, politics, blogging, personal, news, life, media, random . Author: daredevil92103

james1906
08-25-2007, 10:09 AM
Nsnbc?

0zzy
08-25-2007, 10:10 AM
Is this real? I can't read that all ;). Also, I'd sue for misinformation for discrediting his name. They have freedom of speech, though, so they have the power to ignore them.

pwnsey
08-25-2007, 10:11 AM
W-T-F Talk about sour grapes. Dude this just makes us look stupid.

Mr. White
08-25-2007, 10:12 AM
...oh good god. That'll be interesting.

BLS
08-25-2007, 10:13 AM
Hey man, if you can make this stick, I'll help you track down numerous examples of censorship. The Amercian public needs to know this is going on.

risiusj
08-25-2007, 10:14 AM
It seems kind of tough to sue a news corporation for not reporting what they want. I'm pretty sure that they know they are immune to lawsuits for what they're doing.

Good luck anyway whomever is involved.

Johnnybags
08-25-2007, 10:15 AM
He seems to win alot of online polls, national debates, yet you never see him on tv or tv stations saying how surprising it is he won. Its all CFR whores on either side they show who they themselves nominated as the candidates.

pwnsey
08-25-2007, 10:16 AM
The media is free and they can report on whoever they want to report on. Whatever sells they will report on, this lawsuit will do nothing but make us get ridiculed by MSM

james1906
08-25-2007, 10:16 AM
W-T-F Talk about sour grapes. Dude this just makes us look stupid.

It also looks stupid when a supporter of the candidate for less government wants government to regulate private business.

pwnsey
08-25-2007, 10:18 AM
It also looks stupid when a supporter of the candidate for less government wants government to regulate private business.

Good call.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 10:18 AM
Kucinich actually hasn't raised nearly the money that Ron Paul has.

If this can happen, I'm on board. **** the media, they deserve this.

cujothekitten
08-25-2007, 10:21 AM
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the media has slandered Ron than the only person that can sue is Ron. This lawsuit is a horrible idea.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 10:21 AM
It also looks stupid when a supporter of the candidate for less government wants government to regulate private business.

It's called using the tools available to make a difference. I don't think going outside their building and holding a sign is going to do any difference.

Also, if you're preaching Ron Paul philosophy, then Ron Paul supports all individuals. These men are individuals, and therefore have the right to do this if they please. I wish them the best of luck, personally. And yeah, the media can spin it, but they'll probably touch it with a 10-ft poll, because who really likes lawsuits? anybody? lol

LibertyEagle
08-25-2007, 10:21 AM
You know, it might be an interesting move, but why on earth, couldn't they do it by talking about 2nd tier candidates in general, without highlighting Dr. Paul?

0zzy
08-25-2007, 10:23 AM
I guess we can all agree that DON'T DO THIS. Regulation on private businesses for a small government less regulation candidate? What?

However, you COULD get something IF you stated FALSE INFORMATION that discredited Ron Paul. But not by simply ignoring.

interpaul
08-25-2007, 10:26 AM
Remember,

The lawsuit probably has no merit BUT it'll get people's attention. Just like the possible impeachment of Bush: It probably won't happen BUT it gets attention. That's what we need: to spread the word about the censorship of Ron Paul regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is valid.

I went ahead and requested to be part of the class action lawsuit. I'm always up for a little fun. :D

Johnnybags
08-25-2007, 10:28 AM
Kucinich actually hasn't raised nearly the money that Ron Paul has.

If this can happen, I'm on board. **** the media, they deserve this.

My only point is he does well in debates, even the union ranks liked him in Detroit but the leaders are Hillbama supporters. He wins online polls and the media still covers Hillbama. Its all a fix.

kern802
08-25-2007, 10:40 AM
A few years ago some Fox news reporters were fired because they didn't want to air a deceptive piece about RBGH in milk. They sued, but the courts decided that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Don't know how relevant that is to this case, but it shows that the government approves of a corrupt mainstream media.

Kuldebar
08-25-2007, 10:45 AM
Lawsuit = lame idea.

Despite the idea that people have regarding the Media being mouth pieces of the government...suing companies and corporations to force them to cater to you is really a hokey idea.

It's why we have Alternative Media. Vote with your dollars and your time and don't try to use the courts to be your hired thugs. Not that the case has any legal standing, anyway.

Slugg
08-25-2007, 10:46 AM
I think y'all are missing the crux of the lawsuit. It's saying that the media is assisting in a plan to 'rig' the next elections. Their part is to silence Ron Paul (and others). So, they are not going after the media for mis-representing Paul directly. But assisting in 'rigging' the 2008 presidential elections.
That's the RICO clauses, conspiracy. And I think it's freaking ingenious!!!

Again, the lawsuit isn't because they haven't reported Ron Paul; it's because the people involved say they have proof that the MSM is trying to rig the elections (news flash huh?).

AdamT
08-25-2007, 10:46 AM
The MSM is the enemy and should be treated as such. If anything, this RICO suit will bring attention to the issue, and to RP.

Brasil Branco
08-25-2007, 10:48 AM
To be fair, you can find LOADS of evidence to support it.

The number of times the media reports a Romnye/Thompson straw poll victory verus the number of times they report a Ron Paul one.

The mentioning of Ron Paul's debate "victories" verse the victories of other candidates.

The amount of airtime Ron Paul recieves during telivised debates: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/candidates-silenced-abc-news-republican-iowa-debate-flawed.html Duncan Hunter actually recieved more air-time than Ron Paul.

In fact, you could write a pretty compelling piece on this.

To quote Chomsky- this is the "manufacturing of consent". It is REAL, and it is OUT THERE.

thehittgirl
08-25-2007, 10:49 AM
What about protesting outside their studios?

Also, Ron Paul has been on MSNBC a few times. I seriously hope you reconsider, I think it will hurt us.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2007, 10:50 AM
A few years ago some Fox news reporters were fired because they didn't want to air a deceptive piece about RBGH in milk. They sued, but the courts decided that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Don't know how relevant that is to this case, but it shows that the government approves of a corrupt mainstream media.

Yup, I remember seeing that. I was flabbergasted! :eek:

JosephTheLibertarian
08-25-2007, 11:19 AM
Corporations are really not natural elements of a true free market, therefore, I have no problem with it :D

Dave Wood
08-25-2007, 11:21 AM
Folks, you are missing the point on this. It isnt about RP. This case is about racketeering and fraud. If the executives gave any memos to any editors telling them to restrict coverage of any candidate and that particular executive has given money in support of a candidate running in this election, that is fraud.

If they can prove that more than one executive has done this than that is considered to be a type of racketeering especially if the executives expect something in return from the candidate they sent money to.

I am no lawyer but there has to be one on these boards, maybe they can clarify this.

This could turn in to something that might open all of our eyes. We think we know how deep this censorship goes but I am sure we would be blown away if it was actually investigated by law enforcement.

rodent
08-25-2007, 11:23 AM
The media is free and they can report on whoever they want to report on. Whatever sells they will report on, this lawsuit will do nothing but make us get ridiculed by MSM

Why don't anti-trust laws apply to a lot of the media networks?

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:29 AM
Ohhh..... I understand now ....


I think y'all are missing the crux of the lawsuit. It's saying that the media is assisting in a plan to 'rig' the next elections. Their part is to silence Ron Paul (and others). So, they are not going after the media for mis-representing Paul directly. But assisting in 'rigging' the 2008 presidential elections.
That's the RICO clauses, conspiracy. And I think it's freaking ingenious!!!

Again, the lawsuit isn't because they haven't reported Ron Paul; it's because the people involved say they have proof that the MSM is trying to rig the elections (news flash huh?).

JosephTheLibertarian
08-25-2007, 11:30 AM
corporation: a business firm whose articles of incorporation have been approved in some state

therefore, it is a merger of state, this means that a government sanctioned and regulated business is censoring Ron Paul.

Slugg
08-25-2007, 11:31 AM
corporation: a business firm whose articles of incorporation have been approved in some state

therefore, it is a merger of state, this means that a government sanctioned and regulated business is censoring Ron Paul.

I like it!!! Good angle.

constituent
08-25-2007, 11:32 AM
racketeering, that's right.

and all those front corporations that have been funneling money to terrorist organizations, and the puppet masters behind those schemes need to be brought up on

terrorism charges in accordance with the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The co-conspirators, ideological or otherwise, also need relevant charges pressed against them. this would include the parties named in the OP.

ButchHowdy
08-25-2007, 11:36 AM
I hope they deliberately misspelled 'NSNBC' because Tucker and Scarborough have been MORE than fair to Ron Paul.

Don't y'all think?

born2drv
08-25-2007, 12:07 PM
To be fair, you can find LOADS of evidence to support it.

The number of times the media reports a Romnye/Thompson straw poll victory verus the number of times they report a Ron Paul one.

The mentioning of Ron Paul's debate "victories" verse the victories of other candidates.

The amount of airtime Ron Paul recieves during telivised debates: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/candidates-silenced-abc-news-republican-iowa-debate-flawed.html Duncan Hunter actually recieved more air-time than Ron Paul.

In fact, you could write a pretty compelling piece on this.

To quote Chomsky- this is the "manufacturing of consent". It is REAL, and it is OUT THERE.

Don't forget that "Fair and Balanced" Iowa Straw Poll Ranking List!!! :) That's the most damning evidence by far!

njandrewg
08-25-2007, 12:15 PM
Don't forget that "Fair and Balanced" Iowa Straw Poll Ranking List!!! :) That's the most damning evidence by far!

http://razmear.us/rp/storm.jpg

Brasil Branco
08-25-2007, 12:18 PM
You could seriously analyse this...

Simply gather the number of times the media mentions Ron Paul verse. the number of times blogs do.

Compare with other candidates- you could get this from Google News.

Okay, get this:
72,681 blog mentions for Ron Paul
134,000 blog mentions for Barack Obama
86,595 for "Mitt Romney"
87,810 for "Rudy Giuliani"

2,974 New Pieces on Ron Paul
21,475 News Pieces on Barack Obama
12,349 for Mitt-Romney
11,145 for Rudy-Giuliani.

leipo
08-25-2007, 12:21 PM
Worst idea ever. How would this help Ron Paul?

akovacs
08-25-2007, 12:22 PM
I will comment that I think this is a bad idea: It can backfire in several ways.

First, it will make us look like children. Second, if it actually goes through, the media can simply retaliate by reporting distorted information about him. You cannot win this.

Honestly, I think the media blackout is a good thing right now. They're not spreading disinformation and lets us work under the radar. It will make any primary victory that much more spectacular and everyone will suddenly want to talk about him positively.

njandrewg
08-25-2007, 12:27 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/01/us/politics/0802-nat-web-subFOX.gif


And these are interview times...doesn't count all the free publicity they get in their stories. "Romney issued a new advertising!, here is a 20 minute detailed report, and a free airing of the ad...we will even air it 3 times and analyze what a great American Romney is"

ThePieSwindler
08-25-2007, 12:30 PM
WHY DOES MCCAIN GET SO MUCH TIME? WHAT THE FUCK LAWL? AND JOE BIDEN??????? HUH????????????????????????????

Oh THAT joe biden, the gun banning, Rave act, shit eating asshat? Niec.

stevedasbach
08-25-2007, 12:34 PM
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech & freedom of the press. We don't want government stepping in and telling the press how they should cover the news (that really would be censorship). This lawsuit is a really bad idea.

American
08-25-2007, 12:34 PM
FOX news already won in court saying there is no law that requires them to report the truth. In Florida, I believe in 99 .....I'll see if I can find the transcripts.

They are a private business, SPAM the FCC for allowing this to happen, this is where the problem lies - Govt managed communication control

fj45lvr
08-25-2007, 12:43 PM
is there a meet-up group called the "cry babies" out there??


waaaaa waaaaa it's not fair waaa waaa we're going to sue you waaa waaaa.

they've just given up and decided to portray Paul supporters as "sore LOSERS"....go out and do something constructive instead whiny little babies.....haven't you ever heard that you cannot make a horse's ass drink water no matter how hard you try. They're just exercizing their LIBERTY!!!! hypocrites

mrchubbs
08-25-2007, 12:44 PM
I think this is a very bad idea. The last thing to do if we want more media attention is to sue the media organizations that provide that attention.

It doesn't matter the details of the suit. All that matters is that people will hear "those Ron Paul lunatics are suing the main stream media now". This WILL lose
him votes, whether or not that makes sense or not. Votes WILL be lost over this.

It only hurts the campaign. And I am not for hurting the campaign. Do you want Ron Paul to be elected or not?

Killing them with kindness is the way to go. Sending flowers to Julie Banderas for her FOX interview with Ron Paul was a good example of this. Emailing reporters/correspondents after reporting favorable and accurate stories on Ron Paul over and over and over again is the answer. Not a lawsuit.

And that's how I feel about it, for what it's worth.

Johnnybags
08-25-2007, 12:51 PM
that are being robbed of time should simply call the moderator out on it, all the candidates should get equal time or close and should be able to answer all questions. Ghouliani and Romney and to some extent McCain are being given preferential treatment. The others should demand equal time or complain during the debate on a break. Watch when FRED jumps in, it'll be even more ridiculous. The silver lining is its so obvious only the dumbest of dumb do not realize it.

ecliptic
08-25-2007, 01:17 PM
I realize I'm like a broken record on this... but there really is a simple and highly effective solution to the problem of blatant media distortion... BOYCOTT!

The Fox news case a few of you have mentioned is covered as part of the outstanding movie The Corporation (http://www.thecorporation.com/). Every Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter should watch this film.... twice. Support the filmmakers and purchase a two-disc special edition - you will want this in your collection I can assure you... watch the film on Google Video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&q=the+corporation&total=8141&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
I completely support the RICO lawsuit against the liars / whores of mainstream media. It is a diabolically ingenious idea which will effect positive change regardless of the outcome.


... learn the truth about high level sexual blackmail which Ted Gunderson (http://tedgunderson.com/Index.htm) has helped to expose. It explains a lot of HOW the silent coup of our government was accomplished. See also The Franklin Files (http://franklinfiles.org/) ( recently hacked.... )


"you don't catch flack unless you are over the target"

max
08-25-2007, 01:46 PM
is there a meet-up group called the "cry babies" out there??


waaaaa waaaaa it's not fair waaa waaa we're going to sue you waaa waaaa.

they've just given up and decided to portray Paul supporters as "sore LOSERS"....go out and do something constructive instead whiny little babies.....haven't you ever heard that you cannot make a horse's ass drink water no matter how hard you try. They're just exercizing their LIBERTY!!!! hypocrites


We have to fight with whatever weapons we have. Even if it means using lawsuits against our enemy. You are DREAMING if you think RP is going to win simply based on Meetup activities and some TV commercials.

There is no "right" to deleiberately commit fraud against the American electorate. I cant make false statements to con you out of your money can I? So why should the press be able to lie in order to con us out of our country? The media is CRIMINAL! Subversion is a crime under our constitution is it not? Ever hear of treason?

Something has to be done to crack the media blockade. It's not being hypocritical. All is fair in war. This could generate some great publicity.

Suppose I was opposed to NFL players wearing helmets. Would it make me a hypocrite if sent my team on the field with helmets? What would you have me do? Play helmetless against a helmeted team? See my point?

We have to bust down the media blocake by any and all means necessary. Better that people should call us "babies" than to not even know we exist.

Hook
08-25-2007, 02:05 PM
No worries, the case will get tossed before even one hearing.

fedup100
08-25-2007, 02:12 PM
The MSM has become the 5th branch of the government. They have a duty to its citizens to report the truth. We no longer have a free press which means we no longer have free elections.

A press that will not tell the people the truth is a threat to national security.

This is not stupid, thsi should have been done a long time ago. You really want to do something, get off your butt's and put thousands of these affidavits together and TRY!!

ecliptic
08-25-2007, 02:13 PM
No worries, the case will get tossed before even one hearing.

Holodeck Law (http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-5.htm)

... welcome to your nightmare!

Thunderbolt
08-25-2007, 02:22 PM
...

Green Mountain Boy
08-25-2007, 02:23 PM
It also looks stupid when a supporter of the candidate for less government wants government to regulate private business.

I'm pretty sure this lawsuit is a lame idea. But, how does a lawsuit equal government regulation? Lawsuits are the alternative to government regulation.

ecliptic
08-25-2007, 02:43 PM
If you want to affect the media, stop watching. Tell your friends to stop watching. Stop buying papers. There is no reason to fill your head with that lying junk anyway. Not a word is true, or totally true.

The MSM is private. They have no duty to do anything. What is the end game? What are you trying to accomplish? Government regulations for just want can be discussed and what can't? Forcing them to discuss the color of Ron Paul's toe nails? Will that give you the equal time you want?

It certainly is an interesting case, but what can be gained by it? The Constitution itself seems to forbid this kind of action. But we can certainly talk about the issue in articles and blogs.

Incorrect.

The MSM are in COLLUSION against the American People and are committing daily TREASON. I have to say that the Libertarian arguments for free markets fail to account for the excessive power and psychopathic nature of the modern corporation. Simply taking a "hands off" approach to all things business will result in our total enslavement. This problem has not been properly addressed by Libertarians and Ron Paul in my opinion and it needs to be dealt with very soon. Here is my proposal:

1. All corporate charters shall have as their first item this statement:

" The health and well-being of life on Earth shall be the foremost consideration by this corporation."

Violation of this shall result in the immediate dissolution of the corporation and furthermore the board members shall be prohibited from EVER participating in another corporation. Incorporating USED to be a privilege.... used to achieve public good...

2. Completely eliminate the ability of one corporation to buy another.

3. Completely eliminate corporate "personhood".

4. Completely eliminate multiple news-outlet ownership. One station... one owner. Period.

For more on the decay of mass media... Google "Operation Mockingbird"

Dave Wood
08-25-2007, 02:47 PM
You guys should check out what Brasil Blanco just put together over at the thread "Manufacter of consent" The graphs are all too telling about what is going on here!:mad:

SJohnsson
08-25-2007, 04:31 PM
Incorrect.

The MSM are in COLLUSION against the American People and are committing daily TREASON. I have to say that the Libertarian arguments for free markets fail to account for the excessive power and psychopathic nature of the modern corporation. Simply taking a "hands off" approach to all things business will result in our total enslavement. This problem has not been properly addressed by Libertarians and Ron Paul in my opinion and it needs to be dealt with very soon. Here is my proposal:

1. All corporate charters shall have as their first item this statement:

" The health and well-being of life on Earth shall be the foremost consideration by this corporation."

Violation of this shall result in the immediate dissolution of the corporation and furthermore the board members shall be prohibited from EVER participating in another corporation. Incorporating USED to be a privilege.... used to achieve public good...

2. Completely eliminate the ability of one corporation to buy another.

3. Completely eliminate corporate "personhood".

4. Completely eliminate multiple news-outlet ownership. One station... one owner. Period.

For more on the decay of mass media... Google "Operation Mockingbird"

woah there killer... let's not get out of control now. think about it, who decides what violates your charter? there could be some pretty broad definitions of 'well-being', etc.

the beauty of the free market, and especially the information age that we all live in currently, is that we are now able to see the truth behind the curtains and now we can make the voluntary CHOICE to not participate in supporting them.

cmon now...lets not lose sight of our principles

paulitics
08-25-2007, 04:35 PM
Wait a minute. There may actually be a leg to stand on with the debates. They may have to put out a disclaimer that they do NOT give equal time to second tier candidates. There are debate procedures and regulations, and I think they do have to abide by a reasonable amount a fairness. I'm pretty sure that there is a legal case with this. The rest I would say not, because it is a free market and they can do what they please.

constituent
08-25-2007, 04:40 PM
but if we're worried about FEC violations here at a rinky dink discussion board (no offense), how is Roger Ailes and fox news (murdoch, etc.) innocent?

another thing is that i thought broadcasting gov't propaganda was illegal??? am i wrong on that?

jj111
08-25-2007, 04:50 PM
A few years ago some Fox news reporters were fired because they didn't want to air a deceptive piece about RBGH in milk. They sued, but the courts decided that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Don't know how relevant that is to this case, but it shows that the government approves of a corrupt mainstream media.

It's a First Amendment-protected rights issue. You don't have to approve of the corrupt mainstream media to approve of the concept of the right to freedom of speech.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2007, 05:01 PM
Here's the thing.... I think these guys are correct in what they are saying, but the primaries are a few short months away. There is no way in Hades that this lawsuit is going to accomplish anything before we either succeed, or we fail.

We need to face the fact that the media is biased and realize that if the word is going to be spread, WE are going to have to do it. Through paid advertisements, our work on the web and by getting out of our comfort zones, going OUTSIDE, and putting campaign literature, Paul speeches/articles and DVDs of same, IN THEIR HANDS.

It's up to us to win or to lose.

Joe Knows
08-25-2007, 05:14 PM
I posted a thread on this a while back. Here is the link and I also bumped it up so you can read about the court case.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=11095

paulitics
08-25-2007, 05:33 PM
but if we're worried about FEC violations here at a rinky dink discussion board (no offense), how is Roger Ailes and fox news (murdoch, etc.) innocent?

another thing is that i thought broadcasting gov't propaganda was illegal??? am i wrong on that?

I think the distinction is between news reporting (which to some extent is always subjective, and will always be left or right biased) and the handling of a debate. The debate is part of our election process, and the host cannot mislead the public about being fair without some sort of disclaimer that they are not. The time alotment is measurable and provable, whereas spins distortions, or omissions are are practically impossible to measure or prove. The media does not have to report anything it does not want to. It can give half of a story, put spin on it, disseminate propoganda. And they should be able to because they are private property. But, in an election, there are some regulations, and is a national issue that supercedes private interests.

Scribbler de Stebbing
08-25-2007, 05:37 PM
To be fair, you can find LOADS of evidence to support it.

The number of times the media reports a Romnye/Thompson straw poll victory verus the number of times they report a Ron Paul one.

The mentioning of Ron Paul's debate "victories" verse the victories of other candidates.

The amount of airtime Ron Paul recieves during telivised debates: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/candidates-silenced-abc-news-republican-iowa-debate-flawed.html Duncan Hunter actually recieved more air-time than Ron Paul.

In fact, you could write a pretty compelling piece on this.

Then to that, write a pretty compelling article. Go get that professor who is interested in this to write a pretty compelling article.

As it has been said, the antidote to bad speech (in this case, the lack of speech) is more speech.

Not a lawsuit.

axiomata
08-25-2007, 05:47 PM
Conservatives will love this frivolous lawsuit. Way to go.


And in case it wasn't obvious: yes, the MSM does suck.

dude58677
08-25-2007, 06:48 PM
The lawsuit has merit(they are giving money to other candiates while limiting air time to other candidates) but it will backfire because the media will just call us take this as another "Howard Dean scream".

Why don't we just make a suggestion to the media such as getting Al Michaels to host the debates without making reference to Ron Paul and just tell them we think it might boost their ratings?

micahnelson
08-25-2007, 06:51 PM
The only way is possibly to apply McCain Feingold on them, since the coverage is only covering certain candidates predominately.

Tie the news executive's donations to the amount of coverage the candidates get. I'm sure the numbers are there.

Just a Thought...

fj45lvr
08-25-2007, 09:07 PM
I guess these types of people will just advocate going down to the tv station transmitters and shooting the hell out of them....or comadeering a broadcast station and play RP stuff for as long as they can hold the facilities....that my folks would be a REVOLUTION....it would definetly get the medias attention....these people are nuts aren't they??

Go rent the movie USED CARS....now there is some awesome stuff there!!!

kickzman
08-25-2007, 09:30 PM
What freedom of SPEECH??? Does that give you the right to go out and convince millions of unsuspecting people reasons to go to war w/ Iraq, Iran, etc??? And claiming it as undeniably true w/o questioning anything this President duz??? This is treason and I think these communist fucktards like Rupert Murdoch Fox News's owners need to be in prison!

axiomata
08-25-2007, 09:56 PM
What freedom of SPEECH??? Does that give you the right to go out and convince millions of unsuspecting people reasons to go to war w/ Iraq, Iran, etc??? And claiming it as undeniably true w/o questioning anything this President duz??? This is treason and I think these communist fucktards like Rupert Murdoch Fox News's owners need to be in prison!

Yes, it does.

max
08-25-2007, 10:18 PM
Yes, it does.

Treason is not protected by the first amendement or any other portion of the constitution..

some of you Libertarians are a bit too rigid in your thinking

axiomata
08-25-2007, 10:49 PM
Treason is not protected by the first amendement or any other portion of the constitution..

some of you Libertarians are a bit too rigid in your thinking
My oh my how easy it is for you to throw around indictments of treason. You are probably a fan of the Sedition Act as well.

drpiotrowski
08-25-2007, 11:06 PM
Treason is not protected by the first amendement or any other portion of the constitution..

some of you Libertarians are a bit too rigid in your thinking

No, treason is not protected by the first amendment. But, while the MSM's actions are indeed atrocious, it would be hard to classify them as treasonous. As far as law goes, at least.


Article III. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

However, since I believe any government action repugnant to the constitution treasonous, I personally would consider almost all candidates besides Ron Paul guilty of treason (anyone who swears upon our constitution and then shows blatant disregard for it, in my opinion, is an enemy of the United States). Thus, the mainstream media giving aid and comfort to these enemies would make them guilty of treason... Unfortunately, that is not how a court of law would view it.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2007, 12:45 AM
Imagine, If you will, a respectable family farm, bordering on BLM land. The gov't leases this land to an international ag-corp, who proceeds to destroy the watershed irrigating the families fields. The destruction is due to pollutants.

How would RP suggest the farmer resolve this problem?

axiomata
08-26-2007, 12:53 AM
Imagine, If you will, a respectable family farm, bordering on BLM land. The gov't leases this land to an international ag-corp, who proceeds to destroy the watershed irrigating the families fields. The destruction is due to pollutants.

How would RP suggest the farmer resolve this problem?
Horrible analogy.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2007, 01:09 AM
Horrible analogy.

It is not an analogy as much as a question.

fj45lvr
08-26-2007, 02:09 AM
What state laws are applicable to this??

that is the answer.

SeanEdwards
08-26-2007, 02:21 AM
This idea is dumb as hell. Don't we have enough people attacking press freedom, without adding Ron Paul supporters to the mix? It's just embarrasing that people supporting an advocate of freedom could be so muddleheaded.

ronpaulhawaii
08-26-2007, 08:50 AM
What state laws are applicable to this??

that is the answer.

;)


This idea is dumb as hell. Don't we have enough people attacking press freedom, without adding Ron Paul supporters to the mix? It's just embarrasing that people supporting an advocate of freedom could be so muddleheaded.

On the "help/hurt" scale, I am still watching. Anyone care to list pro's and con's? I truly am a layman in many things...

Kuldebar
08-26-2007, 09:00 AM
By trying to force media coverage of our agenda we are doing the same thing that the establishment powers have been doing for decades. Coercion and seizing power over others is how we got in this mess in the first place.

The danger when you fight the system is that you may become the system.

fj45lvr
08-26-2007, 09:16 AM
By trying to force media coverage of our agenda we are doing the same thing that the establishment powers have been doing for decades. Coercion and seizing power over others is how we got in this mess in the first place.

The danger when you fight the system is that you may become the system.

Yeah...so true.

Just think.....instead of running over to dominate an internet "poll" other candidates run over and dominate the networks......puts the amount of influence in perspective doesn't it? amazing what money and power and connections does.

iamso910
08-26-2007, 09:34 AM
As much as the MSM is not a free press, such a lawsuit leaves open the possibility of action against pro-liberty sites that are prejudiced against warmongers and socialists.

The only solution is to continually shine a light on MSM and to reveal them for the frauds that they are.

They are facing increasingly tough competition for eyeballs with the emerging internet media. The only thing that can save them would be regulation of the internet and the freedom of press.

I think it is dangerous to put forward ideas that restrain freedom of press.

Kuldebar
08-26-2007, 09:35 AM
Yeah...so true.

Just think.....instead of running over to dominate an internet "poll" other candidates run over and dominate the networks......puts the amount of influence in perspective doesn't it? amazing what money and power and connections does.

Nothing is wrong with persuasion, but it is true that some people consider the political process to be just another form of coercion against others.

I take a more nuanced position. Controlling others is what politics is all about but I hope to contain its harm and decrease its power by supporting the philosophy of limited government and personal liberty. Like fire, I suppose.

The lawsuit idea goes against my sense of honor in regards to a political fight. If you break your principles just in order to win, how are you any better than your opponents?

Such is the corrupting nature of power and the pursuit of power over others.

EvilEngineer
08-26-2007, 10:51 AM
If you want to go after a network, go after the people funding it... the advertisers. Formalize a list of companies supporting the networks and put together a massive boycott. Once the advertisers start to feel it on their bottom line, then they will start complaining to the networks, and their say will go much further than ours towards convincing the network execs what to do.

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 11:02 AM
... put together a massive boycott.

This is how we prevail over a total mass media monopoly. Boycott all corporate media and spread the word like a nasty virus all over the place. Boycott the stations who lie and omit truth, boycott the advertisers who support the stations, and demand FCC and ownership reform. One station, one owner. End multiple media ownership altogether.

The "old media" are already losing far more viewers / subscribers than they will admit. The end is in sight for these whores. The Washington Post lost 3% last year alone. Let's join together and put these traitors out of business!

DeadheadForPaul
08-26-2007, 12:37 PM
You can't sue private companes for refusing to cover something. They aren't obligated to covr Ron Paul - like it or not

Ask what Ron Paul would do - not what YOU would do

This is a HORRIBLE idea and wll only piss off the media even more