PDA

View Full Version : Why the MSM is Against Ron Paul




mikelovesgod
06-12-2007, 12:17 AM
Ok, we can always sum it up in one word -- MONEY -- but's let's analyze the undertones of what it means from all perspectives because people call Paul the Dems Howard Dean, but that's false because Dean had huge MSM exposure.

I. FOX can't run Murdock's big corporate bandwagon into gross profits on the "war on whatever we want to call it next", bashing liberals, have pundits promote their books, and analysts to perpetual croneyism in the name of saving America from socialism while creating their own soft socialist views.

A. Hannity would be lost at sea. No monsters to slay, no president to attack. I frankly believe deep down inside he wants a liberal over Ron Paul. Otherwise his entire financial structure is gone in a matter of minutes and his only venue would be to attack liberals in Congress that he finds relevant. The only problem is that he would lose his relevance and his career would take a huge down-turn as the man simply cannot think or articulate without a false premise.

B. Rush is playing it cool while diminishing Paul's chances without hurting his Paul's followers with a far more intelligent sophistry. He just laughs and says "he's got no chance" while promoting his men. Hence, he will continue in his power, but I think he will embrace Paul when he's nominated. I really believe he will follow, but it will take Paul winning the nomination of the party. Then we will hear about "Reagan II". Rush is an enemy until we win the nomination. After that I can guarantee he will be on our side so let's not entirely write him off. Hannity isn't changing.

C. Neo-con upstarts Coulter and Malkin, et al. are over. They know it so they fight it with every ounce of their being despite speaking gross lies. Watch how much worse it gets.


II. CNN, ABC, NBC and affiliates do not get it's NWO president who want to socialize the country to the delight of Ted Turner. Of course he would keep his exemptions from being taxed by the gov't so he can keep his soap-box going so he can sermonize the world on feeding the poor aloft in his castle and pretending to give donations for world peace which are really more profitable by tax implications.

A. They lose an easy target in another republican who makes fodder for stations daily with mistakes in the Middle East, corporate connections in his cabinet, and connections to oil. Who knows, they might actually look for true world news someday.

B. They destroy the possibility of socialized medicine by having a Reactionary (rightfully so) against gov't medicine and over-taxation to compensate for the lack of true economic freedom in the system. They lose face on their agendas and therefore will risk losing this power for 20 years or more. They will be on a rampage as they find stories of women eating cat food to villanize the man.


III. All stations lose 80% of the opportunity to report White House improprieties. Let's face it Ron Paul is boring. He has no lobby groups to report to, no huge connection to large oil, Wal-Mart, or weird/unethical connections to something scandalous. What will they do???

A. Pretend the terrorists are attacking us and we are slowly being undermined (Fox)

B. Show the nation starving by going to Tennessee in the Ozarks and blaming it on the president (other networks)

C. Do hit pieces on the oppression of the poor from 3rd world countries (cough, cough... Mexico) because we need immigrants to work jobs Americans won't do for 2 cents an hour.

D. Show how state gov'ts are not equipped to deal with federally funded programs and are not savvy enough to use Constitutional principles to guide them. Hence blame poor guidance and prudence by the president.

If what Ron Paul really says is true -- give states back their power -- which governor wouldn't want this? What state senator wouldn't be salivating? It makes sense logically but in reality it's the party that matters not the good of the citizens. That's why we should fear when they give a lunatic like Dean so much air time and Paul little to nothing, and when they do it's hit pieces.

We have a much bigger problem than most 99% of American realize. I really think the face of MSM will be changed forever if he wins. Let's hope and pray.

angrydragon
06-12-2007, 01:15 AM
Seeing if Paris Hilton's dog pooped or not is important news to the MSM.

MsDoodahs
06-12-2007, 08:46 AM
I believe your initial premise is flawed.

It is NOT about money.

The MSM is a TOOL OF THE STATE.

The MSM is doing what it is told to do - REGARDLESS of money.


The powers that be are against RP.

ElGreco
06-12-2007, 09:23 AM
Seeing if Paris Hilton's dog pooped or not is important news to the MSM.

That's not important to you? I scoff at you!

Carl
06-12-2007, 10:28 AM
I do believe that you've mischaracterized Ann Colter, she is not a Neo-con, she just isn't fully awake yet but she's getting there.

BUSH'S AMERICA: ROACH MOTEL (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi)

.

wecandoit
06-12-2007, 10:42 AM
I believe your initial premise is flawed.

It is NOT about money.

The MSM is a TOOL OF THE STATE.

The MSM is doing what it is told to do - REGARDLESS of money.


The powers that be are against RP.

what she said...hammer meet nail

mdh
06-12-2007, 11:01 AM
He's less wrong than you guys give him credit for, he just hasn't connected the money dot and the control dot. Money is a tool of control.

Spatch67
06-12-2007, 11:35 AM
Howard Dean = Tool

Ron Paul = Not Tool

If you fall in line with the marching orders of the establishment, the fame and fortune are yours do with what you wish

Swmorgan77
06-12-2007, 11:51 AM
The media opposes Ron Paul because they are CFR manipulated to reinforce the current false political paradigm.

That paradigm is a political spectrum of Socialist Democracy on the Left, and an ever-compromising "Conservatism" on the Right which includes the non-conservative notions of military interventionism and monopoly capitalism.

By only showing "debate" and "criticism" of one side that comes from the very narrow view of the other, the people become bitterly divided into factional camps that actually differ very little in their end results, the CFR moves progressively towards its objectives.

Gee
06-12-2007, 12:06 PM
Meh, the mainstream media just appeals to their viewers, the lowest common demonator. Or at least, what it thinks its viewers are. Big companies tend to be a bit slow on the uptake when confronted with disruptive technologies like the internet. Any "established" power resists change, and it does this out of self-interest. No type of conspiracy is needed for it to act in this way.

mdh
06-12-2007, 12:17 PM
That paradigm is a political spectrum of Socialist Democracy on the Left, and an ever-compromising "Conservatism" on the Right which includes the non-conservative notions of military interventionism and monopoly capitalism.

Dr. Paul called this corporatism and I think we should help with the uptake of that term, it seems like a useful and good one.

surf
06-12-2007, 12:24 PM
The "mainstream media" regurgitates government propoganda. The reason, in my opinion, is that it's simple, it's plentiful, and it's cheap.
From a cynical viewpoint, it could be argued that MSM have become addicts, and the government serves as their methodone clinic.
We all know this. Yet ironoically we also want the MSM to cover Ron's points in a similar, low-iq manor. Will coverage of a freedom-message wean the media and let the market decide? i'd hope so.