PDA

View Full Version : What the censorship might really be about




AceNZ
01-11-2008, 01:56 AM
I hate Frank Luntz as much as anyone. However, if you listen to the first few seconds of the video of him that was taken in NH, he says something that could be an important clue about what's really going on here, and why the censorship is happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJaxDt0EbY

Question: "How can you say that Ron Paul will never win the nomination? You never say that Duncan Hunter will never win the nomination."

Answer: "Because the Republican Party will not vote for someone who wants to leave Iraq now."


In other words, if you're anti-war, you can't win. But polls show that 70% of the country is anti-war (and they believe in polls, even if we don't). So is the real message that the media (not the GOP) won't let someone who is anti-war win? Is RP being marginalized entirely because of his anti-war position?

Agent CSL
01-11-2008, 02:00 AM
I believe, yes. Back up a bit.... Look at the big picture (which, is actually still a small picture).

Fox news gets a huge, extreme, extensive, amazingly humongous amount of viewers from the war. If the war wasn't happening, FOX reporters would be out of work. Fox has something invested in the war - their ratings. When you understand this, you can see why Fox, and other media giants are blacking Paul out and smearing him. They can't risk having an anti-war President. They wouldn't have anything to report on.

unloud
01-11-2008, 02:01 AM
I hate Frank Luntz as much as anyone. However, if you listen to the first few seconds of the video of him that was taken in NH, he says something that could be an important clue about what's really going on here, and why the censorship is happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJaxDt0EbY

Question: "How can you say that Ron Paul will never win the nomination? You never say that Duncan Hunter will never win the nomination."

Answer: "Because the Republican Party will not vote for someone who wants to leave Iraq now."


In other words, if you're anti-war, you can't win. But polls show that 70% of the country is anti-war (and they believe in polls, even if we don't). So is the real message that the media (not the GOP) won't let someone who is anti-war win? Is RP being marginalized entirely because of his anti-war position?

The real message is that the people who want out of the war are looking (falsely) to the Democratic party to do it... that is the reason for the high democratic turnout.

AceNZ
01-11-2008, 02:08 AM
The real message is that the people who want out of the war are looking (falsely) to the Democratic party to do it... that is the reason for the high democratic turnout.

Yes, agreed.

Isn't Kucinich against the war? And wasn't he excluded from the ABC debate?

ddoggphx
01-11-2008, 03:51 AM
"Because the Republican Party will not vote for someone who wants to leave Iraq now."

Guess what, douche...the Republican Party doesn't elect someone president. Indies and moderates do.

And if Obama wins the primary, he will stomp all these fake ass republicans. If Hillary wins, it will be tight.

Only Ron has a shot against Obama or HillBill.

If the choices are a) leave Iraq, cut taxes and slash spending, b) leave Iraq, raise taxes and spending or c) leave Iraq, raise taxes and spending...

Well guess who the Republicans will vote for.

It's pretty simple.

AceNZ
01-11-2008, 04:10 AM
Guess what, douche...the Republican Party doesn't elect someone president. Indies and moderates do.

I hope you understand that that quote came from Luntz and not me. I couldn't agree with you more -- and yes, if there ever was someone who deserved to be called a douche, it's definitely FU Frank.

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 04:11 AM
Hasn't it always been about the war? Who said it wasn't??????

Even Obama won't do a damn thing about the war.

Logistics
01-11-2008, 04:11 AM
Send this video to CNN's Wolf Blitzer or Keith Olbermann, that guy would definitely show that video.

ddoggphx
01-11-2008, 04:16 AM
I hope you understand that that quote came from Luntz and not me. I couldn't agree with you more -- and yes, if there ever was someone who deserved to be called a douche, it's definitely FU Frank.

Oh, absolutely...you aren't the douche...Frank is.

I thought "I'm sure he'll know I'm not talking about him"

Sorry if you thought I was..even for a second...I was not.

my bad

AceNZ
01-11-2008, 04:22 AM
Hasn't it always been about the war? Who said it wasn't??????

I agree that the war is THE issue. However, the MSM seems to want the American public to consider the war to be a given, and have us choose candidates based a bunch of other issues (which are really mostly non-issues). So the message is: "the war is not the issue; everyone knows we need to be at war".

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 04:26 AM
And 50% are Democrats, so 20% out of 50% of Republicans are anti-war.

So 40% of Republicans are anti-war. Which means 60% disagree ON A FUNDAMENTAL CAMPAIGN POINT of Paul's. It's why 57% of Republicans gave him an unfavorable rating.

Well that's not actually true at all because there are more INDEPENDENTS(i.e. people who have left the dems and pubs) than any other group currently. This has been mentioned on all the networks. Both parties have become failures so people are leaving those parties. But I do think between the dems and pubs, there ARE more dems than pubs.

The anti war types are more independent. Sanity is always in the middle anyway.

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 04:27 AM
I agree that the war is THE issue. However, the MSM seems to want the American public to consider the war to be a given, and have us choose candidates based a bunch of other issues (which are really mostly non-issues). So the message is: "the war is not the issue; everyone knows we need to be at war".

Without a doubt. Which is why people have been leaving both the dems and pubs and why the MSM is corrupt on all channels. Even Cnn. Cnn pretends to be open minded but they're not. Blitzer is a die-had israel supporter and a member of AIPAC.

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 04:55 AM
I mean in terms of primaries and voting. There is no (I) candidate, so everyone is split (R)/(D) somehow. And if there is more dems as you say, thats even worse. Say 60% go dem. 75% of Republicans then find Paul unelectable.

I know what you mean, I'm just saying that there are more independent type people in this country now than there are pubs and dems. Many of them have switched over to pubs, just to vote for paul. Others have become dems and the majority of them have probably just decided to not vote for either dems or pubs.

dkim68
01-11-2008, 05:00 AM
In other words, if you're anti-war, you can't win.
Yep. So in order to secure the Republican nomination Ron Paul would have to say something ludricous like say... "We'll be in Iraq for the next 100 years." Oh John McCain, you sly dog, you.

Thucydides
01-11-2008, 05:01 AM
I believe, yes. Back up a bit.... Look at the big picture (which, is actually still a small picture).

Fox news gets a huge, extreme, extensive, amazingly humongous amount of viewers from the war. If the war wasn't happening, FOX reporters would be out of work. Fox has something invested in the war - their ratings. When you understand this, you can see why Fox, and other media giants are blacking Paul out and smearing him. They can't risk having an anti-war President. They wouldn't have anything to report on.

They would still have things to report on. They just wouldn't get so much of their reporting done FOR them by the pentagon press relations folks.

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 07:15 AM
The sensible anti-IRAQ-war people are coming over to paul's side. I firmly believe that.

And I think the anti-iraq-war americans are more like about 80-85% not 70%. I've seen polls upwards of 85% so I think at least 80% is a very fair number.

I know some warhawk fathers who want their kids to come home sooner rather than later. Anyway.

So I think anyone with a brain is voting for Ron paul and not joining the dems because Obama sure as hell isn't bringing the troops home.

I think people voting for dems are truly just socialsts, neo-marxists or people that think illegal immigration and laraza is no big deal. Basically idiots. Honestly, who else besides Paul on the dems side would end the war? No one except kucinich and he's, (ding ding ding), pro illegals, anti 2nd ammendment. So as I said, idiots. Or badly informed people. Ron Paul really is the perfect package. A dream candidate.

PC_for_Paul
01-11-2008, 07:30 AM
I hate Frank Luntz as much as anyone. However, if you listen to the first few seconds of the video of him that was taken in NH, he says something that could be an important clue about what's really going on here, and why the censorship is happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJaxDt0EbY

Question: "How can you say that Ron Paul will never win the nomination? You never say that Duncan Hunter will never win the nomination."

Answer: "Because the Republican Party will not vote for someone who wants to leave Iraq now."


In other words, if you're anti-war, you can't win. But polls show that 70% of the country is anti-war (and they believe in polls, even if we don't). So is the real message that the media (not the GOP) won't let someone who is anti-war win? Is RP being marginalized entirely because of his anti-war position?

Nope sorry I don't think you get it. What he is saying is "they" don't want to leave Iraq. if you bring it up we will go for the cheap "emotional" political ploy. We will play on people's ego, sense of patriotism.

All the responses FU Frank does has has a purpose, he wants to garner a response, substance doesn't matter. Get a positive emotional response going that associates the voter with your candidate. Substance means nothin, truth means nothin.

This is pys ops here people. Fair has nothing to do with it, the truth got shot in Iowa before the voting started. This is war and we need to learn how they wage it. Only 10% of American can see this for what it is. How do we wake up more people?

GadsdenFlag
01-11-2008, 07:40 AM
Some of you think that this 60-70% of people actually have a genuine moral conviction against this War. It's all well and good to condemn the war in words, but if the great majority of these people had genuine moral opporsition to the war in the first place, it would have started off very unpopular. Hence, this leads to the overwhelming popularity of candidates that are able to persuide anti-war and people sympathetic to a quicker troop withdrawl into believing that they will take actual action on this matter once in office. A striking number of people buy into McCain, because his message on this matter is he will somehow manage and win the war, which people believe Bush has bungled. The anti-war crowd is highly unreliable to vote based strictly on conviction. Since the War in Iraq begun to turn ugly, apparently "anti-war" candidates get to take advantage of that selling point primarily because they come from the "opposite camp" and sweeten the deal by pandering with socialistic/compassionate rhetoric. So people, namely suburban liberals, can feel good and pretend that they're actually vehemently against the war. Like neocon-sympathetic conservatives, liberals DO NOT VOTE OUT OF PRINCIPLE Believe me, I have had this conversation dozens of times with my girlfriend, who most closely aligns with the views of Kucinich, but ended up voting for Obama and was kind of on the fence about Hillary. It's a vapid point of view which I find abhorrent, but you can see it is overwhelmingly dominant. Many of them are not worth trying to persuade because they are so hypocritical and will remain on a high horse indefinitely.

alexa doherty
01-11-2008, 07:46 AM
You're saying 60%? Many polls have it at 75% and upwards.

The war wasn't popular at all after 2004, in IRAQ.

The problem is that Americans are basically apathetic or powerless against it until an election comes around.

GadsdenFlag
01-11-2008, 09:01 AM
The problem is that Americans are basically apathetic or powerless against it until an election comes around.

That's right, and they "vote their conscience" through Obama and Hillary.