The media has shifted in a Paulwise direction

[febo]

RP is now a "power broker"
RP now gets RP friendly debates
RP gets mentioned alongside Romney

Pauls great perfomance in the debate was facilitated in every way by the debate format - this was no mistake, it can only have been planned.

So they must know that something unignorable is happening.

[freneticentropy]

Wonder what happened to the troll the other day who was bitching about Paul running ads attacking Santorum.

[Tyler_Durden]

Something happening - They listened to Jack Welch's advice.

[azxd]

I'll need many months ... NAY, years, before I will believe a real shift has occured.

[gb13]

I sincerely hope you are correct.

[brendan.orourke]

I really think it is, Santorum had his moment. Paul's time to rise....er something like that.

[Margo37]

Unfortunately not according to know it all chris matthews........repeats at 7pm EST at MSNBC

[gerryb]

I'll need many months ... NAY, years, before I will believe a real shift has occured.

Why not go to a unit/committee meeting yourself with a bunch of friends, and see first-hand the change you did?

[Danan]

Why not go to a unit/committee meeting yourself with a bunch of friends, and see first-hand the change you did?

I guess he talks about a shift in the media.

[kathy88]

Unfortunately not according to know it all chris matthews........repeats at 7pm EST at MSNBC

That guy makes my blood boil.

[Rudeman]

Unfortunately not according to know it all chris matthews........repeats at 7pm EST at MSNBC

What did he say? I have no interest in wasting time watching his show.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I would say shifted into a Paulwise direction is a fallacy. However, I will say that Ron Paul being confirmed with 2nd place, forces the media to give him coverage or it would be to obvious that he's being silenced.

[Margo37]

What did he say? I have no interest in wasting time watching his show.

Starting with why are we even TALKING about RP? He'll never be president blah blah blah The vile comments were sprinkled thruout
the first segment anyway, too much to do a video, the whole lineup at MSNBC makes my blood boil too but I believe on keeping an eye on the enemy. Can't decide which one of their shows is the most vicious.

[TheTexan]

It's an illusion. Don't buy into it. The media has proven time and time again that they are the enemy. I used to think that the media was just made up of individuals who like most of America don't fully understand Dr. Paul's positions. They understand. I haven't yet determined their motive for lying & manipulating, as the financial motive is hard to pin down, but their behavior sure as F*#$ isn't from a lack of understanding. Don't let them trick you.

[TheGrinch]

It's hard to say. I really think we're getting to threshold to where they simply can't stifle it anymore and have to adapt. The Civil Rights movement comes to mind, but hopefully we can do even better!

Now we all know they can't buy Dr. Paul, but they're going to have to do something. These people are going to be kicking and screaming all the way, but they have to see that the more they ignore and slander himwith baseless lies, the mroe people who wake up and see that the media is even more full of it than they thought. I've long that that when we get to this point, it will then be counterproductive for them to put out blatant hit pieces and not adapt.

Expect mroe subtle hit pieces like the Romney alliance, and perhaps a shift in rhetoric, as hollow as well know it is, to counter the progress of the movement by hijacking it... But jsut looking at the difference between Dr. Paul's coverage in the debate last night and today compared to the past, shows a clear change in tactics on the part of the media, knowing they can't hide us anymore and they have to respect him or alienate alot of people... But this is long from over, and should continue to be a dirty political battle...

[Margo37]

I haven't yet determined their motive for lying & manipulating, as the financial motive is hard to pin down, but their behavior sure as F*#$ isn't from a lack of understanding. Don't let them trick you.

Their ownership benefits from the Status Quo. I do not believe one thing any of these news shows say anymore and wonder, was it always this way? Cable has to go but after the election.

[D.A.S.]

Unfortunately not according to know it all chris matthews........repeats at 7pm EST at MSNBC

Poor Chris cannot for the life of him understand why his kids are supporting Ron Paul. So he mad.

[Chainspell]

what fucking media?

these are fucking traitors serving corporate interests

[thoughtomator]

the blowback from refusing to cover Ron Paul is exposing the media's Orwellian nature to millions

[Margo37]

Register at www.ronpaulcountry.com/user/register & Get Involved.

NICE!

[CJLauderdale4]

That guy makes my blood boil.

If you ever can build up the stomach to listen to Sean Insanity, you'd think there was only 3 people left in the race.
He's back to the "Denial" phase of his Neo-cons Anonymous Program - regressing methinks...

[Vanilluxe]

I don't like how the media is now saying Ron Paul thinks Romney will win, so he will support Romney just to spread his message.

[azxd]

Why not go to a unit/committee meeting yourself with a bunch of friends, and see first-hand the change you did?


I guess he talks about a shift in the media.
YES, I was referring to the media shift ... That's what I thought this thread was about.

[azxd]

I would say shifted into a Paulwise direction is a fallacy. However, I will say that Ron Paul being confirmed with 2nd place, forces the media to give him coverage or it would be to obvious that he's being silenced.
That's all I have seen thus far.

They learned in 08 that we are not going to go away, and we learned to call them on the obvious bias against Paul.

If they had their way, his name would never be mentioned.
The MSM is the propaganda arm of the invisible government which controls everything.


THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
Bernays - 1928

[Chainspell]

I will NEVER forgive and I will NEVER forget how f***ing corrupt the corporate media has been.

[green73]

The MSM are Establishment. Anytime it sounds like they are being fair you can bet it's duplicitous.

[Chainspell]

I dont even know what duplicitous means. I had to look it up in the dictionary! RP supporters are so smart! I need to catch up..

[Gray Fullbuster]

I never bought into the media "pushing a candidate."

If a candidate is in the lead in polls, or wins a state, people obviously chose that candidate.

News reports on who gets the most support of the people or who does well in debates.

Naturally, Paul getting albeit more coverage at a time like this is natural.

[ninepointfive]

I don't have cable tv to watch the news, but it is indeed becoming apparent that Ron is moving past Santorum and Gingrich. Those guys seem like mere placeholders to serve as a buffer between Ron Paul and Romney.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Their ownership benefits from the Status Quo. I do not believe one thing any of these news shows say anymore and wonder, was it always this way?


Yeah, same here. Before the internet, everyone had the same few news sources and I wonder if they were always so screwed up.

[Liberty74]

Unfortunately not according to know it all chris matthews........repeats at 7pm EST at MSNBC

Chris "My Leg Tingles" Matthew -----> The admitted anti-American "Socialist." Nah, he has no anti-human collectivist propaganda from his show. :rolleyes:

[TheGrinch]

I never bought into the media "pushing a candidate."

If a candidate is in the lead in polls, or wins a state, people obviously chose that candidate.

News reports on who gets the most support of the people or who does well in debates.

Naturally, Paul getting albeit more coverage at a time like this is natural.
No, it's not when they put out nothing but hit pieces out every time he does well with blatant lies because they have no real dirt on the honest man. They haven't just changed ignoring and marginalizing him for no reason, and they're already perpetuating a Romney/Ron/Rand backdoor deal to discredit him.

I suppose you also believe that all the indications of massive voter fraud are just coincidences, and the same financial giants who own the media don't back Dr. Paul and back the other candidates on both sides of the aisle.

My apologies if you're new and not jsut trolling, but we're well past skepticism here. The establishment in this country are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they let Dr. Paul get elected.

[Gray Fullbuster]

No, it's not when they put out nothing but hit pieces out every time he does well with blatant lies because they have no real dirt on the honest man. They haven't just changed ignoring and marginalizing him for no reason, and they're already perpetuating a Romney/Ron/Rand backdoor deal to discredit him.

I suppose you also believe that all the indications of massive voter fraud are just coincidences, and the same financial giants who own the media don't back Dr. Paul and back the other candidates on both sides of the aisle.

My apologies if you're new and not jsut trolling, but we're well past skepticism here. The establishment in this country are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they let Dr. Paul get elected.

No need to go overboard there. Just said what was on my mind.

[Chainspell]

I never bought into the media "pushing a candidate."

If a candidate is in the lead in polls, or wins a state, people obviously chose that candidate.

News reports on who gets the most support of the people or who does well in debates.

Naturally, Paul getting albeit more coverage at a time like this is natural.
No, it's not when they put out nothing but hit pieces out every time he does well with blatant lies because they have no real dirt on the honest man. They haven't just changed ignoring and marginalizing him for no reason, and they're already perpetuating a Romney/Ron/Rand backdoor deal to discredit him.

I suppose you also believe that all the indications of massive voter fraud are just coincidences, and the same financial giants who own the media don't back Dr. Paul and back the other candidates on both sides of the aisle.

My apologies if you're new and not jsut trolling, but we're well past skepticism here. The establishment in this country are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming before they let Dr. Paul get elected.
looks like someone still needs a little more waking up to do huh? lol

[Gray Fullbuster]

looks like someone still needs a little more waking up to do huh? lol

Naw. Voter fraud was rampant in Maine, NV.

NH and SC had dead people discrepancies which could be debated if fraud was involved.

Iowa I want to believe was an earnest mistake, but we were talking about the media thing. I just like I'd to defend myself on those accusations.

[TheGrinch]

No need to go overboard there. Just said what was on my mind.
Apologize if that was excessive, but it was more to educate you. We see everyday the way this election is being distorted. It's much easier to see when you're inside of the story (or lack thereof liek the DC soldiers march) and on the victim side of it...

I really do think the media is starting to see it backfire, hence why they're being more subtle, claiming things like a conspiracy-theory-laden "alliance" (and they try to call us kooks?) that Wead just went on record to vehemently deny and explain.

[wgadget]

Did you guys notice all the times during the debate that they got a pic of all of them but Paul? I guess it was convenient that they parked him on the end farthest from the moderator, eh?

[Tyler_Durden]

NY Times Article:
"Santorum’s Record Is Used Against Him"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/politics/after-debate-santorum-finds-himself-on-the-defensive.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

They mention Everybody but Paul.........Back to normal.

[Gray Fullbuster]

Apologize if that was excessive, but it was more to educate you. We see everyday the way this election is being distorted. It's much easier to see when you're inside of the story (or lack thereof liek the DC soldiers march) and on the victim side of it...

I really do think the media is starting to see it backfire, hence why they're being more subtle, claiming things like a conspiracy-theory-laden "alliance" (and they try to call us kooks?) that Wead just went on record to vehemently deny and explain.

Yeah, refer to my last post. Foul play is in some areas...I'm just trying to believe that in some areas it's unintentional, like media blackouts.

[TheGrinch]

Yeah, refer to my last post. Foul play is in some areas...I'm just trying to believe that in some areas it's unintentional, like media blackouts.
It's a lovely thought, but this is not something new with Paul. Media and politics were a large focus of my major, and the "press" as it used to be called is long since a check-and-balance fourth estate it was intended to be. It is owned by billionaires with a clear conflict of interest, when they own or make deals with the ones who own pretty much everything, and preferential treatment is given to the media outlets who follow the official narrative of the military too. The military-industrila-complex, media, and establishment are completely interest driven, and they don't like Dr. Paul because he's a threat to the control they have over things to do what they please with no check-and-balance.

They own everything and have bought all the politicians, so you absolutely cannot believe what you hear from the corporate media. The way they've treated Dr. Paul is only the most blatant example to us, but it happens every single day in the way they choose which narratives get created and what gets ignored.

Okay, now I'm going overboard, but it's all too true...

[Chainspell]

It's a lovely thought, but this is not something new with Paul. Media and politics were a large focus of my major, and the "press" as it used to be called is long since a check-and-balance fourth estate it was intended to be. It is owned by billionaires with a clear conflict of interest, when they own or make deals with the ones who own pretty much everything, and preferential treatment is given to the media outlets who follow the official narrative of the military too. The military-industrila-complex, media, and establishment are completely interest driven, and they don't like Dr. Paul because he's a threat to the control they have over things to do what they please with no check-and-balance.

They own everything and have bought all the politicians, so you absolutely cannot believe what you hear from the corporate media. The way they've treated Dr. Paul is only the most blatant example to us, but it happens every single day in the way they choose which narratives get created and what gets ignored.

Okay, now I'm going overboard, but it's all too true...
thanks for explaining that, I was too tired to be explaining it. But I do understand that not a lot of people have insights on why the media is corrupt. I guess... and it's hard not to say "you cant blame them for not knowing". But everybody should know. this is why we're in such a deep s***hole right now.

[TheGrinch]

thanks for explaining that, I was too tired to be explaining it. But I do understand that not a lot of people have insights on why the media is corrupt. I guess... and it's hard not to say "you cant blame them for not knowing". But everybody should know. this is why we're in such a deep s***hole right now.
No problem.

I guess I should mention that the media does also exist for ratings, that's how they make their legitimate money, so if there's enough of us they do have an interest in throwing us a bone with coverage, even if heavily biased or distorted, but they don't do this at the expense of their employers unless a story is simply too big to contain like the SOPA blackout by the internet big guys that forced them to finally cover it (and of course now it's just become an international treaty anyway ACTA, so it doesn't in any way stop them unfortunately). But it was really funny to have CNN cover it, and have to mention that they're owned by Time-Warner to downplay the clear conflict of interest that isn't usually so clear (such as GE and NBC).

But there also exists a threshold, especially when so many of us don't buy into what they're selling anymore, when they're forced to adapt.... We'll never stop fighting for liberty, but at the same time, they're not going to stop fighting for control either (and they're far far far dirtier).

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

It's S.S.D.D. on the Fox prime time shows. O'Reilly singled out Dr. Paul for criticism despite not wanting to talk about the debate. Both Ed Rollins and Kimberly Guilfoyle were talking trash about him on Hannity.

[Mark37snj]

Their ratings are down. They have been heaping such huge loads of crap and people have tuned out.

[randomname]

Now that they've surged every single candidate and Santorum is starting to deflate, I'd like to see them surge Paul, just for giggles

[DerickVonD]

Maybe they realize they can't win without Paul, so they've given up on a black out and are not going to try and Ronald Reagan him(corrupt him, once in office).

[ryanmkeisling]

Their ownership benefits from the Status Quo. I do not believe one thing any of these news shows say anymore and wonder, was it always this way? Cable has to go but after the election.

Yes it has been this way since day one. You make a good point. Cable should go now, I have been cable free for 5 years now and I cannot believe I ever gave them a dime for it. Everyone who owns a television, is addicted to its meaningless entertainment and pays a cable company is supporting this shit.

[Matthanuf06]

I actually don't think it's some sinister plot. I don't think it's corruption. I don't think there are some crazy marching orders. I don't think there is some conspiracy. I don't think anyone is bought.

I think it's far more simpler and less sinister.

Owners of these media channels set a line up to achieve ratings or to hit on their ideology. Those folks hired do not share Paul's ideology; in fact are nowhere near Paul. They think he has no chance of winning. So since he can't win and they don't agree with him they don't talk about him. Now you can argue its self fulfilling. I just don't think there is some memo passed around telling them to shut us out. I'd say its similar to how ESPN over-reports northeast sports. It's where they are located and they hire lots of fans from those teams. It's not some über conspiracy to shut out other parts of the country.

[TheGrinch]

I actually don't think it's some sinister plot. I don't think it's corruption. I don't think there are some crazy marching orders. I don't think there is some conspiracy. I don't think anyone is bought.

I think it's far more simpler and less sinister.

Owners of these media channels set a line up to achieve ratings or to hit on their ideology. Those folks hired do not share Paul's ideology; in fact are nowhere near Paul. They think he has no chance of winning. So since he can't win and they don't agree with him they don't talk about him. Now you can argue its self fulfilling. I just don't think there is some memo passed around telling them to shut us out. I'd say its similar to how ESPN over-reports northeast sports. It's where they are located and they hire lots of fans from those teams. It's not some über conspiracy to shut out other parts of the country.
It's not a conspiracy. It's on the news all the time. They can't even hide it all because corruption is everywhere, and in fact people are brought up on actual conspiracy charges all the time. Call it corruption if you prefer that term, but you don't seem to be very familiar with Dr. Paul if you think everything is just rosey and well-intentioned. Do you know why we chant End the Fed? Why Ron uses the terms establishment, status quo, military-industrial-complex?

Please educate yourself on Dr. Paul before you go "think"ing things about the media that I've studied quite a bit. That's how real conspiracy theories are started, when you don't take regard to the facts.

(ETA: Sorry if I'm being harsh again, but it gets a little old to write out a million reasons why something's the case, and then the next reply is "yeah, well, I don't think", with little regard to the facts. Too many people who don't seem to understand Dr. Paul and the movement having too big of opinions around here.)

[digitaldean]

Right now I would like them to build on the word consistent and show the other 3 as flip floppers and give examples. I think airing an ad like that would make people trust Ron Paul more and give people the impression that he is not someone who lies like the rest.

[deputydon]

All I have to say is that I hope this surge is enough to allow him to win Washington state. Arizona is impossible. But if he can win Washington, he should have some good momentum for Super Tuesday.

[Suzu]

I used to think that the media was just made up of individuals who like most of America don't fully understand Dr. Paul's positions. They understand. I haven't yet determined their motive for lying & manipulating, as the financial motive is hard to pin down, but their behavior sure as F*#$ isn't from a lack of understanding.
Motive is easy: They want Obama to win again, and they know that Paul is the only one who can bring him down.

[Rudeman]

Motive is easy: They want Obama to win again, and they know that Paul is the only one who can bring him down.

Other people are noticing that Paul is the only one that can beat Obama as well. I'm talking about people who were absolutely opposed to him months back when I brought him up. I guess persistence pays off and it helps when Ron Paul does as well as he did the other night. Hopefully there are many more like this and the momentum builds for Super Tuesday.

[Dianne]

I'll need many months ... NAY, years, before I will believe a real shift has occured.

Same... other than the debates; I still refuse to watch FOX, MSNBC, or CNN .

[Matthew Zak]

I never bought into the media "pushing a candidate."

If a candidate is in the lead in polls, or wins a state, people obviously chose that candidate.

News reports on who gets the most support of the people or who does well in debates.

Naturally, Paul getting albeit more coverage at a time like this is natural.

You never bought in to that?

Ahhhhh... brand new. welcome!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo

[Chainspell]

You never bought in to that?

Ahhhhh... brand new. welcome!

lol I love our reaction :) we're all so nice to him because we all know we've been in his shoes before ;)

[digitaldean]

It might have shifted but its not going to last for long. I think Ron Paul needs an ad that shows how the others are all the same (flip/flopers) using the word consistent that was used in the debate and that word was picked up by the media.

Below is a link for one of the pacs who makes ads to give them this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GOTTb6M1T8

I am 100% lost as to why they are making a Social Security ad. Ron Paul needs to air ads that groups the 3 together and why he is better/different. Also why the polls show he gets the most support from Independents/Young Voters/Democrats.

I don't think any more ads about just one person/one issue is worth it and that Ron Paul need to focus on why he is the right choice.

[WilliamC]

Yes it has been this way since day one. You make a good point. Cable should go now, I have been cable free for 5 years now and I cannot believe I ever gave them a dime for it. Everyone who owns a television, is addicted to its meaningless entertainment and pays a cable company is supporting this shit.

YES!

One of my biggest problems in life right now is that, as I go on, I find myself less and less able and willing to even want to talk to people who watch television.

It's bad enough that, when I am visiting with the very few friends I actually have and am forced to watch TV because that's what they are doing, I almost don't want to be with those friends, but it seems that every single person I talk to wants to talk about some TV program THAT IS FICTION and they treat this FICTION as if it is more important than what's going on in their real life.

That's the insidious effect of mass media, it makes people blur reality with their make-believe entertainment world. The more I disconnect from TV/mass entertainment, the more everyone else seems to be only half-awake and half-alive.

AND THEY PAY FOR THIS CRAP!

Unreal.

[pacelli]

Don't worry, they have another day to up their "Paul coverage" numbers before they start pumping up whoever the fuck they want to win the elections on 2/28.

They have pulled this shit after every debate where there's a day or two before another primary.

Don't be fooled.

[time4change]

It's a lovely thought, but this is not something new with Paul. Media and politics were a large focus of my major, and the "press" as it used to be called is long since a check-and-balance fourth estate it was intended to be. It is owned by billionaires with a clear conflict of interest, when they own or make deals with the ones who own pretty much everything, and preferential treatment is given to the media outlets who follow the official narrative of the military too. The military-industrila-complex, media, and establishment are completely interest driven, and they don't like Dr. Paul because he's a threat to the control they have over things to do what they please with no check-and-balance.

They own everything and have bought all the politicians, so you absolutely cannot believe what you hear from the corporate media. The way they've treated Dr. Paul is only the most blatant example to us, but it happens every single day in the way they choose which narratives get created and what gets ignored.Good post.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ocJn_V6qyU

[Revolution9]

No need to go overboard there. Just said what was on my mind.

Yeah..right. I was gone for a week and yer still up to your shenanigans.

Rev9

[Matthanuf06]

It's not a conspiracy. It's on the news all the time. They can't even hide it all because corruption is everywhere, and in fact people are brought up on actual conspiracy charges all the time. Call it corruption if you prefer that term, but you don't seem to be very familiar with Dr. Paul if you think everything is just rosey and well-intentioned. Do you know why we chant End the Fed? Why Ron uses the terms establishment, status quo, military-industrial-complex?

Please educate yourself on Dr. Paul before you go "think"ing things about the media that I've studied quite a bit. That's how real conspiracy theories are started, when you don't take regard to the facts.

(ETA: Sorry if I'm being harsh again, but it gets a little old to write out a million reasons why something's the case, and then the next reply is "yeah, well, I don't think", with little regard to the facts. Too many people who don't seem to understand Dr. Paul and the movement having too big of opinions around here.)

I voted for Ron Paul because he is the closest in line with my ideology. It is as simple as that. To me, this isn't about promoting Ron Paul. This isn't about promoting Ron Paul supporters. This is about freedom and liberty. I'm not a part of your "movement" that consists of some shadowy underworld, big conspiracies, and the illuminati. The movement I'm a part of is about freedom and liberty, period. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul is leading the charge or some green martian is leading the charge.

If you really think Murdoch has pow-wows and sends memos telling people to ignore and bash Ron Paul, well then have at it. I find it ridiculous. I also find it ridiculous to think that some super secret shadow organizations controls all our banks. It is also ridiculous. Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all. Sure, I want some of those things to end, but I don't blame companies for doing their best within the game as it currently stands.

And of course, you are going to say that is my "opinion". But of course your "fact" is merely an opinion as well. Do you have any proof of this shadowy underworld? In fact, I'd say my "opinion" has more fact in it given what I do for a living. But that is neither here nor there.

But why does Ron use those terms? It is a loaded question. Firstly, it is to feed it to people like you. Young people love the conspiracy stories.

Secondly, because it does exist. That doesn't mean the companies are acting irrationally. They are trying to boost the value of their firms. The issue is that the political system can be bought.

And I'm a believer in Occams' Razor. When it comes to the "media blackout" I find it far more likely the firms in question are donig what they deem best for their value. Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young. These media firms are built to appeal to certain demographics, which appeal to certain advertisers, which makes them money. It is called free market capitalism. I certainly find it a lot less likely that there is some super shadowy underworld controlled by the illuminati.

By the way, what is all your evidence building up your "facts". I find it absolutely hilarious that you are willing to "believe" something that flies in the face of the exact reason why you probably like Ron Paul in the first place: liberty.

It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.

[TheGrinch]

Shadowy underworld? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm an academic. Well before I ever even listened to alternative medias, I took coursework that included Media and Politics, Media and The War on Terror, Rhetoric of Images of Twentieth Century Warfare, Rhetoric of Social Movements, so please stop with what you think, because what I know is backed up by what Dr. Paul knows... I mean, by you claiming there are no "conspiracies", you're pretty much saying that no one behind the scenes has a plan and talks to other people. What we're doing right now could be a conspiracy if we were collaborating on a private campaign strategy. It doesn't have to be sinsiter, but obviously can be when corruption runs rampant.

Yes, you apply Ocham's razor in cases where you don't have any proof, just a theory, but who says we don't have any proof about the way media and politics work? Stop trying to paint us as all conspiracy theorists, and go read Dr. Paul's books, because again, there's a reason we chant End the Fed, and want to take the power out of the unaccountable federal government's hands to do whatever they please with little check and balance.

'By your reputation, I assume you're jsut trolling, so I'm not sure why I bother, other than you're not going to succeed in your futile effort to divide the movement based on a bunk "theory" that Dr. Paul knows for certain is false. Also, it hasn't jsut been a media blakcout. They've put oout hit-pieces every time dR. Paul does well, and you're making yourself look foolish and like a COINTELPRO by trying to deny it. You're not convincing anyone.


I voted for Ron Paul because he is the closest in line with my ideology. It is as simple as that. To me, this isn't about promoting Ron Paul. This isn't about promoting Ron Paul supporters. This is about freedom and liberty. I'm not a part of your "movement" that consists of some shadowy underworld, big conspiracies, and the illuminati. The movement I'm a part of is about freedom and liberty, period. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul is leading the charge or some green martian is leading the charge.

If you really think Murdoch has pow-wows and sends memos telling people to ignore and bash Ron Paul, well then have at it. I find it ridiculous. I also find it ridiculous to think that some super secret shadow organizations controls all our banks. It is also ridiculous. Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all. Sure, I want some of those things to end, but I don't blame companies for doing their best within the game as it currently stands.

And of course, you are going to say that is my "opinion". But of course your "fact" is merely an opinion as well. Do you have any proof of this shadowy underworld? In fact, I'd say my "opinion" has more fact in it given what I do for a living. But that is neither here nor there.

But why does Ron use those terms? It is a loaded question. Firstly, it is to feed it to people like you. Young people love the conspiracy stories.

Secondly, because it does exist. That doesn't mean the companies are acting irrationally. They are trying to boost the value of their firms. The issue is that the political system can be bought.

And I'm a believer in Occams' Razor. When it comes to the "media blackout" I find it far more likely the firms in question are donig what they deem best for their value. Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young. These media firms are built to appeal to certain demographics, which appeal to certain advertisers, which makes them money. It is called free market capitalism. I certainly find it a lot less likely that there is some super shadowy underworld controlled by the illuminati.

By the way, what is all your evidence building up your "facts". I find it absolutely hilarious that you are willing to "believe" something that flies in the face of the exact reason why you probably like Ron Paul in the first place: liberty.

It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.

[ryanmkeisling]

I voted for Ron Paul because he is the closest in line with my ideology. It is as simple as that. To me, this isn't about promoting Ron Paul. This isn't about promoting Ron Paul supporters. This is about freedom and liberty. I'm not a part of your "movement" that consists of some shadowy underworld, big conspiracies, and the illuminati. The movement I'm a part of is about freedom and liberty, period. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul is leading the charge or some green martian is leading the charge.

If you really think Murdoch has pow-wows and sends memos telling people to ignore and bash Ron Paul, well then have at it. I find it ridiculous. I also find it ridiculous to think that some super secret shadow organizations controls all our banks. It is also ridiculous. Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all. Sure, I want some of those things to end, but I don't blame companies for doing their best within the game as it currently stands.

And of course, you are going to say that is my "opinion". But of course your "fact" is merely an opinion as well. Do you have any proof of this shadowy underworld? In fact, I'd say my "opinion" has more fact in it given what I do for a living. But that is neither here nor there.

But why does Ron use those terms? It is a loaded question. Firstly, it is to feed it to people like you. Young people love the conspiracy stories.

Secondly, because it does exist. That doesn't mean the companies are acting irrationally. They are trying to boost the value of their firms. The issue is that the political system can be bought.

And I'm a believer in Occams' Razor. When it comes to the "media blackout" I find it far more likely the firms in question are donig what they deem best for their value. Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young. These media firms are built to appeal to certain demographics, which appeal to certain advertisers, which makes them money. It is called free market capitalism. I certainly find it a lot less likely that there is some super shadowy underworld controlled by the illuminati.

By the way, what is all your evidence building up your "facts". I find it absolutely hilarious that you are willing to "believe" something that flies in the face of the exact reason why you probably like Ron Paul in the first place: liberty.

It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.
I applaud your consistency. I don't know how old you are but your perspective leads me to think pretty young. When have you ever experienced a true free market? When was the last time the free market in the broadest sense was really free?

If that is true, the only thing your really consistent in is being delusional about the world around you? The only people who are unaware of the corruption, collusion, and conspiracy in our government are the willfully ignorant and self deluded(no offense intended.)

Take a look at when free markets actually existed, take a look at when freedom and liberty actually existed, then take a look at what happened over time to make those things non existent. It was not just business as usual. Soon it will be time to wake up; you are halfway there, don't hit the snooze button.

[Matthanuf06]

And I dislike the Fed cause I'm a free market capitalist. I dislike gov or quasi gov intrusion into the economy. It has nothing to do with the meme that they are some secret org bent on controlling the world. They have their mandate, have well intentions managing to that mandate, and frankly do well given that mandate. I just disagree with the mandate, which is the root of my opposition there.

[Gray Fullbuster]

Yeah..right. I was gone for a week and yer still up to your shenanigans.

Rev9

I don't get what's so shenanigany about trying to see the better in the so called MSM. In fact, I was defending the OP.
In fact there's another thread about Pauls debate surge that is getting a good bit of attention, my whole point was, if you do well, you get coverage. That's what's happening.
You seem to have a vendetta for me that won't go away. :eek:

[TheGrinch]

And I dislike the Fed cause I'm a free market capitalist. I dislike gov or quasi gov intrusion into the economy. It has nothing to do with the meme that they are some secret org bent on controlling the world. They have their mandate, have well intentions managing to that mandate, and frankly do well given that mandate. I just disagree with the mandate, which is the root of my opposition there.
Cool, I'm glad that people still see Dr. Paul has the right answers without necessarily needing to wake up to what's going on in this country (and no, again, that doesn't not include what some think is happening, it has to do with the things that are evidently happening. History does not lie, even the history written by the winners).

But please do your homework before you come in here trying to tell people they're wrong abuot something you're either unable or unwilling to understand. Go read Dr. Paul's books and you will understand far better why we feel the way we do... It's not about soem "conspiracy", it's about being informed about how the world works, so we can change it for the better.

When word gets out about corruption it is not an isolated incident. It's not coincidence that the banks buy all the candidates on both sides (not a conspiracy, look at the campaign contributions). It's not coincidence the meida never covered SOPA until the internet blackout, because more than ever, it showed a clear conflict of interesst on their part, and made both them and the government look extremely bad. They did not cover it once prior to it being forced into public discourse. If you've ever been part of a story before, you'll see that it doesn't even have to sinister to be distorted coverage. The media exists to push narratives, and no longer as the check-and-balance it was intended to be.

Moreover, it's not a conspiracy that absolute power corrupts. It is evident throughout history, and this control has justified some absolutely brutal acts.

[TheGrinch]

Seriously, I'd like to hope these are just COINTELPROs, because if they're really trying to divide us, they're doing a terrible job. All it does is force us to put up a far better argument than jsut what one "thinks".... I live in the world where things are based on evidence, not opinion. It seems these folks are the real theorists.

[jllundqu]

There is more proof of the federal government's treachery than can be listed in a single post. We do not have free markets, we have an oligarchy/technocracy whereby central planners do what they do best... consolidate money and power at all costs. Ron Paul is anathema to these ends; therefore the powers that be do all in their power to stifle the growth of the liberty movement. Sounds simple enough, huh?

[TheGrinch]

I mean, just look at the Paul/Romney alliance they're pushing hard now, even as Wead vehemently denies and they have no evidence to go on. This would be an example of a true conspiracy theory, as it is not based on fact, yet they push it anyway... So again, who are the theorists here? Who's making baseless accusations with an agenda?

Very convenient indeed that these hit-pieces jsut conveninetly pop up every single time Dr. Paul does well.


Also, why then do so many different publications have the exact same narrative, if they aren't collaborating to enforce the narrative. You see it all the time, that once a narrative is created, it gets pushed by all of the outlets, until it's been repeated so many times that it doesn't even get disputed.

[WilliamC]

Seriously, I'd like to hope these are just COINTELPROs, because if they're really trying to divide us, they're doing a terrible job. All it does is force us to put up a far better argument than jsut what one "thinks".... I live in the world where things are based on evidence, not opinion. It seems these folks are the real theorists.

Oh they are out there, and in here too.

But the internet has put so much information at the hands of anyone who cares to look for it that those who pretend to be naive about globalism are almost certainly faking it for the sake of lulling others into not doing their own research.

There really are folks who want nothing more than to control the world, and they actively work towards that goal all the time, and many of them lie about their objectives.

Then there are far more who don't want to control the world but think that somebody needs to be in charge or else bad things will happen, that's where a lot of apologists come from.

I still haven't figured out if this second group outnumbers those of us who simply want to live and let live as much as possible, but it's close.

[Gray Fullbuster]

I mean, just look at the Paul/Romney alliance they're pushing hard now, even as Wead vehemently denies and they have no evidence to go on. This would be an example of a true conspiracy theory, as it is not based on fact, yet they push it anyway... So again, who are the theorists here? Who's making baseless accusations with an agenda?

Very convenient indeed that these hit-pieces jsut conveninetly pop up every single time Dr. Paul does well.


Also, why then do so many different publications have the exact same narrative, if they aren't collaborating to enforce the narrative. You see it all the time, that once a narrative is created, it gets pushed by all of the outlets, until it's been repeated so many times that it doesn't even get disputed.

Everyone gets knocked down a peg when they are doing well, more coverage = more digging into the past.

It happened with Herman Cain and the so called "sex scandal" which I don't think was a reality.

Happened with Romneys "poor people" quote, and his Bain Capital misadventures, along with his flip-flopping even Fox anchors have reported on. They also reported on his millions on an island to avoid taxation at one point.

The Gingrich wife thing became REALLY relevant when he was surging pre-Iowa and fucked him up.

and now Santorum has gotten knocked down a few pegs by well...everyone, especially his contenders.

Obamas birth thing was also pretty relevant awhile ago.

No ones out to get Dr.Paul and Dr.Paul alone. I just think a lot of people are cynical and dirt on anyone is always entertainment to the masses.

[Matthanuf06]

Cool, I'm glad that people still see Dr. Paul has the right answers without necessarily needing to wake up to what's going on in this country (and no, again, that doesn't not include what some think is happening, it has to do with the things that are evidently happening. History does not lie, even the history written by the winners).

But please do your homework before you come in here trying to tell people they're wrong abuot something you're either unable or unwilling to understand. Go read Dr. Paul's books and you will understand far better why we feel the way we do... It's not about soem "conspiracy", it's about being informed about how the world works, so we can change it for the better.

When word gets out about corruption it is not an isolated incident. It's not coincidence that the banks buy all the candidates on both sides (not a conspiracy, look at the campaign contributions). It's not coincidence the meida never covered SOPA until the internet blackout, because more than ever, it showed a clear conflict of interesst on their part, and made both them and the government look extremely bad. They did not cover it once prior to it being forced into public discourse. If you've ever been part of a story before, you'll see that it doesn't even have to sinister to be distorted coverage. The media exists to push narratives, and no longer as the check-and-balance it was intended to be.

Moreover, it's not a conspiracy that absolute power corrupts. It is evident throughout history, and this control has justified some absolutely brutal acts.

Ah so rich. The academic with "facts" just shooting a bunch of personal attacks.

Again, what is your evidence?

I have a feeling that you don't seem to totally grasp how the free market works and that you don't seem to understand what the Fed does. It also appears that you are distorting what Paul preaches. What do you think the army of Phds at the FED do everyday? Seriously, I'd like to know.

And you keep talking about "facts" and "how the world works". Well please explain it to me. Because it looks like your world view is quite a bit different than Paul's. I certainly do not see Paul doing much attacking of the individuals, or even really questioning an individuals behavior. He fights against a screwed up system, that forces people to behave in certain ways. In many cases these people are merely pawns in a system. And I'm sorry, I certainly do not think Paul believes the people at the FED are some evil super conspiratorial group that is out to take over the world. I don't get that from Paul at all. Frankly, he is firmly in my camp. He thinks the mission and the mandate has disastrous results and simply not worth it. That is a far cry from some network of power brokers controlling the world.

And to your last point? So freaking what. Why does a for-profit media company have to cover what you want? Are you for the free market, or are you against the free market. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[TheGrinch]

Everyone gets knocked down a peg when they are doing well, more coverage = more digging into the past.

It happened with Herman Cain and the so called "sex scandal" which I don't think was a reality.

Happened with Romneys "poor people" quote, and his Bain Capital misadventures, along with his flip-flopping even Fox anchors have reported on. They also reported on his millions on an island to avoid taxation at one point.

The Gingrich wife thing became REALLY relevant when he was surging pre-Iowa and fucked him up.

and now Santorum has gotten knocked down a few pegs by well...everyone, especially his contenders.

Obamas birth thing was also pretty relevant awhile ago.

No ones out to get Dr.Paul and Dr.Paul alone. I just think a lot of people are cynical and dirt on anyone is always entertainment to the masses.

Yes, gotcha journalism does exist. The media exists for ratings too, and the ones who who are in charge of reporting are not necessarily corrupt. However, they still have to answer to what their employers want, and that's where massive conflicts of interest come into play.. Then you take into account that in many cases they have no choice but to report the official narrative (since you often have to simply go by what you've been told is the story, particularly on overseas reporting), and that's when you get things like the mistranslation of "Amadinejhad wants to wipe Israel of the map" and it gets repeated until it takes a life of it's own as a talking point.

The difference between Dr. Paul is those others were "gotcha" slight mis-characterizations at best (people like Maddow do still have an interest in catering to their audience and demographics of course), but the ones about Dr. Paul were outright lies, evident by the fact that they have to keep trying to come up with new "dirt" because he simply doesn't have any... Calling someone a racist with ties to Nazi groups, and lying about them "signing off" on remarks is very dirty pool, and goes beyond real character concerns you can call into question.

No not everything is sinister, but the proof is in the pudding of what always gets ommitted or distorted into 1 narrative. The media is actually less biased than it used to be, and the reason is simple: the only party they really care about is the green party (no, not that one...)

[Aigik]

RP is now a "power broker"
RP now gets RP friendly debates
RP gets mentioned alongside Romney

Pauls great perfomance in the debate was facilitated in every way by the debate format - this was no mistake, it can only have been planned.

So they must know that something unignorable is happening.

I don't buy it. The media is still no friend of Paul. From what I've seen on the media lately, their newest spin is that Paul doesn't want to be president, and instead wants a spot in Romney's administration, and that's why the two have "teamed up". Basically convincing viewers that they should just vote for Romney because that's what Paul wants. And from some comments I've seen around the internet, it's working, on some people at least.

[Matthanuf06]

Yes, gotcha journalism does exist. The media exists for ratings too, and the ones who who are in charge of reporting are not necessarily corrupt. However, they still have to answer to what their employers want, and that's where massive conflicts of interest come into play.. Then you take into account that in many cases they have no choice but to report the official narrative (since you often have to simply go by what you've been told is the story, particularly on overseas reporting), and that's when you get things like the mistranslation of "Amadinejhad wants to wipe Israel of the map" and it gets repeated until it takes a life of it's own as a talking point.

The difference between Dr. Paul is those others were "gotcha" slight mis-characterizations at best (people like Maddow do still have an interest in catering to their audience and demographics of course), but the ones about Dr. Paul were outright lies, evident by the fact that they have to keep trying to come up with new "dirt" because he simply doesn't have any... Calling someone a racist with ties to Nazi groups, and lying about them "signing off" on remarks is very dirty pool, and goes beyond real character concerns you can call into question.

No not everything is sinister, but the proof is in the pudding of what always gets ommitted or distorted into 1 narrative. The media is actually less biased than it used to be, and the reason is simple: the only party they really care about is the green party (no, not that one...)

Isn't this exactly what I said a few posts back? The difference is I'm for the free market

[TheGrinch]

Ah so rich. The academic with "facts" just shooting a bunch of personal attacks.

Again, what is your evidence?

I have a feeling that you don't seem to totally grasp how the free market works and that you don't seem to understand what the Fed does. It also appears that you are distorting what Paul preaches. What do you think the army of Phds at the FED do everyday? Seriously, I'd like to know.

And you keep talking about "facts" and "how the world works". Well please explain it to me. Because it looks like your world view is quite a bit different than Paul's. I certainly do not see Paul doing much attacking of the individuals, or even really questioning an individuals behavior. He fights against a screwed up system, that forces people to behave in certain ways. In many cases these people are merely pawns in a system. And I'm sorry, I certainly do not think Paul believes the people at the FED are some evil super conspiratorial group that is out to take over the world. I don't get that from Paul at all. Frankly, he is firmly in my camp. He thinks the mission and the mandate has disastrous results and simply not worth it. That is a far cry from some network of power brokers controlling the world.

And to your last point? So freaking what. Why does a for-profit media company have to cover what you want? Are you for the free market, or are you against the free market. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is so laughable, I'm tempted not to address it.

Go read Dr. Paul's books, because you seem to understand that "He fights against a screwed up system", "in many cases these people are merely pawns in a system", both of which are very true. The system breeds corruption when you don't have proper checks-and-balances or a more accountable state/local government in place. The government does what it does, and the big companies expect to be bailed out for being irresponsible because they've bought the system and eliminated the risk and accountability of their irresponsible actions. What consequences have any of them seen from the financial bubble, from GM's inefficient vehicles that caused their demise?

You said, so freaking what that absolute power corrupts? Are you kidding me? That's what we're trying to fight here before it bankrupts us all with everyone lobbying for their particular interest, and not what's best for this country. If Dr. Paul thought that these people were benevolent, he'd have no problem taking money from the bankers and big interests. The reason he gets money from you and me and not the banks is because they know he can't be bought.

Anyways, please continue in making yourself look extremely foolish to the people here, who are not so naive to think that powerful people don't act according to their own personal interest instead of the publics. It's so evident, I'm not even going to waste my time.

[TheGrinch]

Isn't this exactly what I said a few posts back? The difference is I'm for the free market
I'm for the free market too, not ones who suck up to the federal government so that they can skirt around the free market. A free market wouldn't have allowed bailouts, it would have let them go bankrupt and be bought. It is because of the corrupt system that we have that there was no risk for them. They could lend to whoever they want, even risky loans to people who couldn't afford it, and then turn around for their bailout when they're irresponsibility came back to bite them, leaving the mortgagees as the only ones with any consequence... So umm, when Freddy and Fanny are working with the Feds, cause a financial bubble, then paint the bialouts as a good necessary thing in the media (do you remember anyone but Dr. Paul who was against the bailouts?), this is the crux of the problem.

I don't think people are evil, but when you allwo them power to do what they wish without consequence, then well,. that's as far from a free market as it gets, and breeds corruption and a necessity for the media to help you hide your wrongdoings.

[Gray Fullbuster]

Obv. we should all use RT!

[time4change]

Obv. we should all use RT!

:rolleyes:

[time4change]

For those who still believe that the media treats Paul the same as other candidates, take a look at some facts. Here is one study done by the University of Minnesota last October which analyzed debate time allotted to each candidate:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/10/equal_time_romney_records_one.php

http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2011/10/14/scientific-study-confirms-ron-paul-being-given-least-face-time-in-debates/


The fact that Congressman Paul has received less than half the amount of speaking time as Romney (and less than any other candidate) is curious considering the libertarian firebrand has run third or fourth in most polls throughout the last several months.Yes, I did find that to be curious.

http://50.56.28.37/talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Time-Allotted-In-GOP-Debate-Chart.jpg

[time4change]

And I'm sorry, I certainly do not think Paul believes the people at the FED are some evil super conspiratorial group that is out to take over the world. I don't get that from Paul at all. Frankly, he is firmly in my camp. He thinks the mission and the mandate has disastrous results and simply not worth it. That is a far cry from some network of power brokers controlling the world.As he is firmly in your camp, I assume you agree with the following statement made by him on the Bilderberg Group:

"Well they probably get together and talk about how they're going to control the banking systems of the world and natural resources."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo

[TheGrinch]

As he is firmly in your camp, I assume you agree with the following statement made by him on the Bilderberg Group:

"Well they probably get together and talk about how they're going to control the banking systems of the world and natural resources."

Pwned! :D

Thank you... It's bad enough wasting my time arguing with trolls who seek to persuade people that the world is all sunshine and rainbows with no facts to back it up, but I wasn't going to waste my time because he hasn't done his homework.

If you're going to challenge the well-documented ideas of people in this movement, then you best not bring a water gun to a gunfight. We aren't just some idealistic OWSers who don't understand the issues. We're as informed (not just on alternative ideas but straight from the horses mouth) as any group you'll find.

[Gray Fullbuster]

but I like sunshine and rainbows. :*(

[The Free Hornet]

I actually don't think it's some sinister plot. I don't think it's corruption. I don't think there are some crazy marching orders. I don't think there is some conspiracy. I don't think anyone is bought.

I would like better and more examples, but here is one:


General Electric (which owns, but is in the process of divesting, 49% of NBC) is a subcontractor for the Tomahawk cruise missile and Patriot II missile both of which were used extensively during the Persian Gulf War.[1] General Electric also manufactures components for the B-2 stealth bomber and B-52 bomber and the E-3 AWACS aircraft which were also used extensively during the conflict. During the first Gulf War, General Electric received $2 billion dollars in defense contracts related to weapons which would be used in Gulf War and the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial%E2%80%93media_complex

Provide a Ron Paul reference calling things a "sinister plot" or "crazy marching orders" or "some conspiracy". Most of what we know is in the open and we can follow the money. Another example like the above is CBS and Westinghouse (http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/). If you are a media empire owned by another corporation, it is a damn good bet your editorial content is bought and paid in full. Think Disney (ABC owner) and any issue related to the internet and/or copyrights. Again, if you want to work at ABC, you are not going to speak out against draconian copyright protection (which used to be far more toothless and like 14 years).

You will not find "sinister plot", "crazy marching orders", or "some conspiracy" because none of these things are needed. I too believe in Occam's razor and it cuts your weak-ass BS to effing shreds. I don't know your definition of "corruption" but these things would fall under mine:

http://www.infowars.com/study-confirms-establishment-is-terrified-of-ron-paul/
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=ron+paul,+gingrich,+romney,+santorum&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0

As Howard Kurtz (CBS host) said regarding the issue, "We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race". Simply, although individuals are given free reign and many would scoff at a marching order - rightly so - these individuals are selected based on their past. You don't need to give Bill Kristol marching orders. If you know Bill, you know his father, you know history, then you know what putting Bill on a panel is going to get you. If you want a different voice, get the Judge. You don't have to tell Napolitano what to say. He is a known quantity.


I think it's far more simpler and less sinister.

Owners of these media channels set a line up to achieve ratings or to hit on their ideology.

Full stop. News media promoting an idealogy could be the very definition of "sinister". If you think corporations have ideologies (Google's "Don't Be Evil" *snarf*), you are wrong and have been cut by Occam's razor again. Corporations have interests and only individuals have ideologies (like Ben and Jerry who run a corporation, Ben & Jerry's - they could be the exception to the rule). In some cases, an ideology is used to promote or market themselves.

In no case is a corporation having an ideology the simplest explanation. They have interests.


Those folks hired do not share Paul's ideology; in fact are nowhere near Paul. They think he has no chance of winning. So since he can't win and they don't agree with him they don't talk about him. Now you can argue its self fulfilling.

Research the bandwagon effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect) to understand what they are doing. Roughly, the media is worth 6% in an election. It could be more or less but it is not trivial especially in 4-way contests. You are getting (-1) here for saying "he can't win".

If every media personality, analyst, or journalist got fired for saying he "can't win" or "won't win", then I suspect half of the media insiders would lose their job. Here is the thing. They didn't say these things about Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, or Cain prior to Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, or Cain voluntarily withdrawing from the process. These long-shot-no-chance-in-hell types were treated with dignity, a dignity they do not give to Ron Paul. Nor do their corporate bosses demand they treat the process fairly. A smile-and-nod to the right people and a cancellation notice to the wrong people. No marching orders.


You have to be a fucking moron not to see this.



I just don't think there is some memo passed around telling them to shut us out.

It is called broadcasting. You don't pass a memo. You broadcast an opinion or put it out on the wire and dozens of outlets repeat it word-for-word as if they thought about it. See Conan or Jon Stewart for examples. I would say it is a normalization of plagaring too. A newspaper will attribute a story to AP but that does not happen in the broadcast world typically.



I'd say its similar to how ESPN over-reports northeast sports. It's where they are located and they hire lots of fans from those teams. It's not some über conspiracy to shut out other parts of the country.

Trite. Polticals is one hundred times more important - I would hardly call sports worthy of being in the news. I wager on and enjoy watching sporting events.

The trillions government spends and plans to spend are controlled by special interests that are heavily vested. You admit this yourself but somehow buying influence falls under your "free market" umbrella ("Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all.").



It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.

When you don't mention the FCC, that makes you ignorant not "consistent". Broadcast media is not a free market.



And I'm a believer in Occams' Razor. When it comes to the "media blackout" I find it far more likely the firms in question are donig what they deem best for their value. Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young. These media firms are built to appeal to certain demographics, which appeal to certain advertisers, which makes them money. It is called free market capitalism.

Promoting an ideology to control or steer government is not "free market capitalism". If we had "free market capitalism" we wouldn't be having this conversation. You don't understand the first thing about "free market capitalism" if you are ignorant of its absence in the equation.

What cable has done to the big-3 networks, the internet will do to cable networks:

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/niche-channels-take-bite-out-cable-ratings-135738

However, this is a process but the election is a race.


Ron Paul supporters are generally poor and young.

The young are the key marketing demographic. It is like the holy grail. As for "poor", well as someone closer to the 1% than the 90%, I can tell you that the poor spend more than me. My business isn't worth shit because I can afford to not spend money. Unless Ron Paul supporters are immune to the influence of advertising, there is no reason not to want them. I would be very surprised if Nielson breaks things down and discounts the value of a Ron Paul supporter. It could happen and it could make sense, but you went out on ledge with this one and you have shit to back it up.


I will repeat two more quote of yours:


Of course companies are going to play the game in order to boost their values, whether that is pulling strings withint he government, or stuff for the FED. I don't find that sinister at all.
...
It does suck when Ron gets blacked out. But that is how the free market works. I love the free market when it works in favor of things that I want. But I love it even when it doesn't. I'm consistent.

You may think yourself a libertarian or constitutional conservative (?) but you have a lot to learn about reality. As a taxpayer, can you tell me what it is like in one of these 49 seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps)? No? Nothing? You don't know shit but I sincerely hope you get that you have a lot to learn. Admiting ignorance can be the first step on the path to knowledge. I would like to read your links and supporting evidence, if you have some.

[febo]

...trolls who seek to persuade people that the world is all sunshine and rainbows with no facts to back it up....

Here's a fact - RP was given a guaranteed home run by the dastardly media in the debate. The only person the question - "Tell us what the biggest misconception of you is" - was designed for was RP, and he couldn't fail to knock it out of the park, and he did and its having an effect.

Of course the media - owned as it is by the elite - is trying to supress RP, but this is a retreat, to save face a little, in case ... . That must mean something serious is afoot, something they fear they cannot control. That's fact, that's exciting, paint me a rainbow.

[febo]

http://50.56.28.37/talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Time-Allotted-In-GOP-Debate-Chart.jpg

This doesn't matter - Romney has gone down since then, Bachman, Perry are out. Santorum and Paul have gone up. Having more time to speak is not necessarily an advantage. In fact, the stats imply the opposite - less time = better.

[TheGrinch]

+rep to The Free Hornet. You have far more patience than me to go through and debunk all of those statements.

The truly bizarre thing is his understanding that the media exists as a business, yet denies the clear conflicts of interest that prohibit them from reporting responsibly or more important truthfully... Can we change the media, probably not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize when they're feeding us a load of bull and protecting their interests.

I mean, think about it, if you owned a billion dollar company that is involved in all sorts of different sectors, are you going to place importance on what you say in the media over how it would affect your interests? No, much like SOPA as the most obvious example, this is discourse that doesn't get talked about. They were plenty hpapy to sweep it under the rug, until the bill that protected their interests (stopping piracy at the expense of a dangerous precedent on our habeus corpus rights and also targeting innocent internet companies for what their users do; hence why they allstarted backtracking when it got exposed to the public by Wiki, craigslist and Google). Similarly, it also hurts their interests to talk about Dr. Paul as they thrive in an environment where they lobby and write the regulations, often creating barriers of entry to keep the small companies out.

The free press was intended in part to be a check and balance of the government and make the people aware of what's being done in their name, but when you have billion dollar companies with confliting interest and also in bed with the Feds for preferential treatment, then it basically devolves down into a government mouthpiece where propaganda is repeated until it becomes truth (Paul is unelectable), because the truth is often only counterproductive to their interests.

Further, media also gets preferential treatment from the government by pushing their official narratives. Questioning what comes out of a press secretary's or even the AP's mouth is a great way to not get invited back to the White House and other inside access. So it's not only the conflict of interest with the big interests, it's also a clear conflict of interest with the government that they're supposed to be reporting on, not enforcing their official narrative with no regard to investigating the truth like a good journalist is supposed to. I don't think anyone denies anymore that real investigative journalism is dead (in the corporate media anyway), but I guess I'm just shocked that people would be so ignorant of why...

[febo]

+... pushing their official narratives.

Don't get caught in a narrative yourself.