PDA

View Full Version : Very Important Ron Paul Petition!!!




lapi7
06-11-2007, 03:00 AM
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!!!
VERY IMPORTANT RON PAUL PETITION!!!
Please read & sign this: Petition for Fair and Equal Treatment in the Media of Dr Ron Paul's Presidential Election Campaign
They need 10,000 signatures. As of this writing they have approx.3300

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487443841

sandersondavis
06-11-2007, 03:52 AM
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!!!
VERY IMPORTANT RON PAUL PETITION!!!
Please read & sign this: Petition for Fair and Equal Treatment in the Media of Dr Ron Paul's Presidential Election Campaign
They need 10,000 signatures. As of this writing they have approx.3300

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487443841

Please consider carefully before you sign.
This petition threatens the media with the power of government.
This petition is actually harmful to the cause of liberty and the campaign of Ron Paul.
We don't go to congress and whine because there are people who are not talking they we want them to.
How would you feel if RP was the ONLY candidate MSM supported and the democrats started running around saying, "there ought to be a law?"
Libertarians want less government involvement. Not more.

Here is the last paragraph of the petition:

=========
Finally, should the named news agencies continue to slander, mischaracterize, and denigrate Dr. Paul and to continue to under-report or hide the true results of their own polling data to this point and from this point, the undersigned will call upon their Congressional representatives for Special Joint Hearings to be done well before the Republican primiray season begins with regard to these matters, such hearings to take place within the United States Congress and to be of sufficient scope and duration to ascertain proper remedies to the damage that has already been done as a result of the actions of the named news agencies to the democratic process.
=========

Again please don't sign.

lapi7
06-11-2007, 05:16 AM
Please consider carefully before you sign.
This petition threatens the media with the power of government.
This petition is actually harmful to the cause of liberty and the campaign of Ron Paul.
We don't go to congress and whine because there are people who are not talking they we want them to.
How would you feel if RP was the ONLY candidate MSM supported and the democrats started running around saying, "there ought to be a law?"
Libertarians want less government involvement. Not more.

Here is the last paragraph of the petition:

=========
Finally, should the named news agencies continue to slander, mischaracterize, and denigrate Dr. Paul and to continue to under-report or hide the true results of their own polling data to this point and from this point, the undersigned will call upon their Congressional representatives for Special Joint Hearings to be done well before the Republican primiray season begins with regard to these matters, such hearings to take place within the United States Congress and to be of sufficient scope and duration to ascertain proper remedies to the damage that has already been done as a result of the actions of the named news agencies to the democratic process.
=========

Again please don't sign.


I strongly disagree!
Please people, read it for yourselves.
Relative petitions are part of the democratic process.
Signing this petition is absolutely in no way "harmful" to the cause of liberty or to Dr. Paul. Just the opposite.
These supporters of Dr. Paul are simply asking the main stream media to be fair in their coverage of Dr. Paul by offering him the same amount of coverage time that they would to any candidate who has earned it...not just the "top tier" candidates or the one's that THEY would prefer to promote themselves!
Dr. Paul stands for "less gonvernment"...NOT "NO government!"
The argument here is not that of "less government"
The message is one of propritial fairness to any and all Presidential candidates whom might be mistreated by the MSM.
Please read it and decide the issue for yourselves!

sandersondavis
06-11-2007, 07:11 AM
I strongly disagree!
Please people, read it for yourselves.
Relative petitions are part of the democratic process.
Signing this petition is absolutely in no way "harmful" to the cause of liberty or to Dr. Paul. Just the opposite.
These supporters of Dr. Paul are simply asking the main stream media to be fair in their coverage of Dr. Paul by offering him the same amount of coverage time that they would to any candidate who has earned it...not just the "top tier" candidates or the one's that THEY would prefer to promote themselves!
Dr. Paul stands for "less gonvernment"...NOT "NO government!"
The argument here is not that of "less government"
The message is one of propritial fairness to any and all Presidential candidates whom might be mistreated by the MSM.
Please read it and decide the issue for yourselves!

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I hope that your view is in the minority on this forum.

To my way of thinking this petition tells the world that Ron Paul supporters in particular, and libertarian in general, have little regard for the free market and damn little respect for free speech. The petition gives "the media" "fair" notice that we will call on our government to "ascertain proper remedies to the damage (done to the Ron Paul Campaign). In other words we want to be treated in a way that we say is fair and we will do all we can to make sure that appropriate laws, rules, sanctions. regulations and penalties are written and enforced to insure that the free press in this country is required to write and report "the news" in a manner in which we approve.

The constitution does not grant the federal government any power to regulate the reporting of the news.

This petition is using the threat of force and violence to archive political goals. I reject that . It makes us no better than a petty dictator. To put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel if Guliana supporters. tried to get laws passed to limit the amount and type of coverage that Ron Paul, a politician they never even heard of, receives? Maybe McCain supporters feel that this forumn is not treating John McCain, a war hero, fairly and they want us to start being fair. I hope you would be furious, I would be.

It's not up to the MSM to promote Ron Paul. That job lies with Ron Paul and his supporters.

As far as "propritial fairness to any and all Presidential candidates" goes -- do you really want to require that all the media outlets are required to treat ALL presidential candidates the same? Hell there are probably over two dozen of them that nobody ever heard of. (And just what the heck does 'propritial' mean? It's not in my dictionary.)

No this petition is a bad one. Not because it supports the Ron Paul campaign, but because of the threats it makes if the if the media does not agree that "from this point forward Dr. Paul be given the status that he has earned of being referred to as a "first-tier candidate" in the reporting done by all named television news agencies, that he be issued a public apology for the aggregious acts of slander, disrespect and false reporting to which he has thus far been submitted, and that he be given equal time and equal treatment in all future Republican debates with the candidates that were previously annointed as the "Republican frontrunners" by the same named news agencies."

I may be mistaken, but I truly believe that Ron Paul would say that NO government involvement in the reporting of the news is the right position.

Come on now, this is all just silly. It is just absurd that Freedom loving libertarians want to micro manage the news business.

Yes please read it and decide for yourselves and let that little voice on the inside ask, "Would a free person, who is respectful of liberty and the rights of others make a threat like this?"

BLS
06-11-2007, 07:56 AM
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I hope that your view is in the minority on this forum.

To my way of thinking this petition tells the world that Ron Paul supporters in particular, and libertarian in general, have little regard for the free market and damn little respect for free speech. The petition gives "the media" "fair" notice that we will call on our government to "ascertain proper remedies to the damage (done to the Ron Paul Campaign). In other words we want to be treated in a way that we say is fair and we will do all we can to make sure that appropriate laws, rules, sanctions. regulations and penalties are written and enforced to insure that the free press in this country is required to write and report "the news" in a manner in which we approve.

The constitution does not grant the federal government any power to regulate the reporting of the news.

This petition is using the threat of force and violence to archive political goals. I reject that . It makes us no better than a petty dictator. To put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel if Guliana supporters. tried to get laws passed to limit the amount and type of coverage that Ron Paul, a politician they never even heard of, receives? Maybe McCain supporters feel that this forumn is not treating John McCain, a war hero, fairly and they want us to start being fair. I hope you would be furious, I would be.

It's not up to the MSM to promote Ron Paul. That job lies with Ron Paul and his supporters.

As far as "propritial fairness to any and all Presidential candidates" goes -- do you really want to require that all the media outlets are required to treat ALL presidential candidates the same? Hell there are probably over two dozen of them that nobody ever heard of. (And just what the heck does 'propritial' mean? It's not in my dictionary.)

No this petition is a bad one. Not because it supports the Ron Paul campaign, but because of the threats it makes if the if the media does not agree that "from this point forward Dr. Paul be given the status that he has earned of being referred to as a "first-tier candidate" in the reporting done by all named television news agencies, that he be issued a public apology for the aggregious acts of slander, disrespect and false reporting to which he has thus far been submitted, and that he be given equal time and equal treatment in all future Republican debates with the candidates that were previously annointed as the "Republican frontrunners" by the same named news agencies."

I may be mistaken, but I truly believe that Ron Paul would say that NO government involvement in the reporting of the news is the right position.

Come on now, this is all just silly. It is just absurd that Freedom loving libertarians want to micro manage the news business.

Yes please read it and decide for yourselves and let that little voice on the inside ask, "Would a free person, who is respectful of liberty and the rights of others make a threat like this?"


I happen to agree with your points here. I'm all about signing a petition to help Dr. Paul get adequate air time, especially during the debates, BUT...this is the antithesis of what he stands for.

In the future, I will continue to email, calll or text message anyone, anywhere, anytime to make sure my voice is heard about Ron Paul, and that alone CANNOT be ignored forever. We are not being ignored, in fact, 'we' are the 'buzz' on the internet, and soon it will be 'chic' for the media to cover the way we come out of the woodwork to support Dr. Paul. I think threatening with government intervention is the wrong way to go about it personally.

lapi7
06-11-2007, 04:12 PM
I happen to agree with your points here. I'm all about signing a petition to help Dr. Paul get adequate air time, especially during the debates, BUT...this is the antithesis of what he stands for.

In the future, I will continue to email, calll or text message anyone, anywhere, anytime to make sure my voice is heard about Ron Paul, and that alone CANNOT be ignored forever.

Agreed.
Let's keep the petition going.

CurtisLow
06-11-2007, 04:47 PM
signed. To not say anything and be ignored like the media has been, won't get us anywhere.

Shmuel Spade
06-11-2007, 04:53 PM
We don't use the government to institute "fairness", that's not what we're about.

lapi7
06-11-2007, 06:30 PM
We don't use the government to institute "fairness", that's not what we're about.

While that ultimate "ideal" may be true we must fight the battle within the confines of the arena we've been given. This is not a manner of "using the government" here. We are simply signing a petition directed at the main stream media requesting fair coverage of a Presidential candiate.
We must use the laws of praticallity and common sense to advance the message...not radical fanaticism!

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke

LibertyEagle
06-11-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not a libertarian, but even I don't like the last paragraph. I'm not into threats, especially for government force. The rest of it is fine. I won't sign it as long as it contains this last paragraph. Sorry.

BTW... you misspelled "primary" in the last paragraph.

lapi7
06-11-2007, 10:20 PM
Thank you for reading the petition and making an informed decision Liberty Eagle.:)

beerista
06-13-2007, 09:13 AM
I have a hard time imagining anything that comes closer to being a direct violation of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This proposed action clearly demands of congress that it violate both of those prohibitions. Now, granted, there are strict constructionists like myself and there are those who think the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted on whim. But even the most whimsical of legislators and judges would have a difficult time defending this position in light of the clear language of the Constitution on this point. That's not to say it hasn't been done in the past and that there aren't current laws on the books dealing with regulating that which the Constitution expressly denies congress the power to regulate. But to invoke such unconstitutional legislation in the name of the Defender of the Constitution seems to me more than a touch ironic.
That said, I also admire the enthusiasm of the supporters who have rushed to sign this. But let's not forget that one of Dr. Paul's greatest selling points is his consistency. Let's not be inconsistent to his principles in our support.
Do I think that the media's treatment of (and complete failure to engage) Dr. Paul is deplorable? Yes. But I steadfastly defend their Right to behave as a pack of petulant prats. Are we now advocating government-enforced censorship of privately owned media?
The hardest thing about living in a free society is refraining from using the force of government to get our way when the freedoms of others bear results we don't like or even detest. We live under an engorged government that is the unfortunate result of the people having forgotten that. Let's not exacerbate that error.
Having said all that, I think a petition of sorts is a good idea. We should start to find ways to demonstrate that we have real world support and that we will bring the pressures of the market to bear on those who engage in poor journalism. But we must not succumb to the temptation to rewrite the Constitution to do so.
I won't sign this petition and I plead with others not to. But if someone more computer savvy than I would kindly start one, I'd happily sign a petition that did not fly in the face of Dr. Paul's message.
Tony