HollyforRP
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 525
Maybe the media just doesn't want our money anymore? Maybe they want us to get rid of cable and stop watching them all together. They just don't like us anymore.
I threatened ABC that they were LIABLE...
- Thread starter Highland
- Start date
Media is about Calling the Rule Set
The media is in the mind-control business. These 'people' know how human psychology works and they work it quite masterfully. Using the tools of psychology they can manipulate the audience to think and believe just about anything - even what we used to know as insanity. One of the ways they do this is to re-write the governing "Rule Set". In simple terms the Rule Set is the rules of whatever game or project is underway. He who calls the Rule Set is in control. For instance when in a poker game the dealer gets to call the game. The dealer sets the tune so to speak that everyone playing dances to. Each game has a Rule Set. Five Card Stud has a different Rule Set from Seven Card Stud. All players are expected to know the Rule Set for each game called. Life is a set of Rule Sets. We are taught in school (especially group sports) to OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION the rules of the Rule Set of whatever game is being played. And it is usually someone in authority who calls the game.
So the media gets to call the game and change the Rule Set as per their directives to rule and control the audience. Bush et al the Neocons used 911 to rewrite the Rule Sets and they continue doing so. The Ron Paul movement is an empty movement until and unless we get to call our own game with its new Rule Set. The movement has been attempting to resurrect the old game of Constitutional Patriotism which has largely been forgotten and is opposed by those who wish to call their own game of Rule Set of world-domination.
You can see them doing it in this astonishing video linked here:
http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=3216#3216
The media is in the mind-control business. These 'people' know how human psychology works and they work it quite masterfully. Using the tools of psychology they can manipulate the audience to think and believe just about anything - even what we used to know as insanity. One of the ways they do this is to re-write the governing "Rule Set". In simple terms the Rule Set is the rules of whatever game or project is underway. He who calls the Rule Set is in control. For instance when in a poker game the dealer gets to call the game. The dealer sets the tune so to speak that everyone playing dances to. Each game has a Rule Set. Five Card Stud has a different Rule Set from Seven Card Stud. All players are expected to know the Rule Set for each game called. Life is a set of Rule Sets. We are taught in school (especially group sports) to OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION the rules of the Rule Set of whatever game is being played. And it is usually someone in authority who calls the game.
So the media gets to call the game and change the Rule Set as per their directives to rule and control the audience. Bush et al the Neocons used 911 to rewrite the Rule Sets and they continue doing so. The Ron Paul movement is an empty movement until and unless we get to call our own game with its new Rule Set. The movement has been attempting to resurrect the old game of Constitutional Patriotism which has largely been forgotten and is opposed by those who wish to call their own game of Rule Set of world-domination.
You can see them doing it in this astonishing video linked here:
http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=3216#3216
IANAL, but I understand there's two possible angles:
1) libel- I know that precedents are against us, but it bears bringing the case before the court to test whether it is really OK to be so casual with reporting when there is so much at stake. We can argue that he never said "drop out", and ABC tried to to put that word in his mouth, and thus is a libel.
2) Someone said earlier there is a law against manipulating the election... if that's the case, then that'd be far more easier than a libel suit.
Either way, bringing the suit would be very good, and if we can get a court to hear it, it is a significant victory in that we get to legitimate the "blackout" which several outsiders think is entirely our perception and hopefully make other people think twice about what news they're getting from.
Julian Sanchez
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9
Look, I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm familiar enough with media law to know that the only people who benefit from a libel suit on the theory you're advancing are the attorney unethical enough to take your money and the judge who gets to have a nice, long laugh before showing you the door. Misreporting Paul's statement as a claim that he's dropping out doesn't fit any legal definition of libel, even assuming you could directly show harm. But let's pretend it did. Next you'd need to prove that the news organizations acted with "actual malice": That they knew their claim was false and used the specific language they did with the intention of harming Paul. Problem one is that it's commonplace to use language like "dropping out" when candidates are, strictly speaking "suspending their campaign" as Mitt Romney did. It wouldn't even be clear, in that context, that the claim was "false" (since it's consistent with a common use of the term), never mind that they knew it was false and that they made it maliciously. (Maybe you think this is "obvious," but that doesn't mean you can prove it in a court of law. Everyone knew Al Capone was a gangster, but they convicted him on tax evasion.)
In any event, since Paul is the purported injured party here, he's the one who'd have standing to bring a suit. And if he has anyone remotely competent advising him, he's not going to be interested in embarrassing himself this way.
As for electoral manipulation, this just isn't covered by those laws -- they're about stuff like vote fraud.
In any event, since Paul is the purported injured party here, he's the one who'd have standing to bring a suit. And if he has anyone remotely competent advising him, he's not going to be interested in embarrassing himself this way.
As for electoral manipulation, this just isn't covered by those laws -- they're about stuff like vote fraud.
PaulTriumph
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 64
In any event, since Paul is the purported injured party here, he's the one who'd have standing to bring a suit. And if he has anyone remotely competent advising him, he's not going to be interested in embarrassing himself this way.
QUOTE]
Julian, this seems pretty reasonable- it boils down to whether RP would launch such a suit, and I don't see that coming from him at this time. If anyone with legal expertise has something to add, though, I'd be interested to learn more.
The larger problem is that the MSM covers elections like a 'horse race', only reporting on their idea of who's up, who's down. (Really only a step away from TMZ-like celebrity coverage...) They don't have interest or experience in delving into real policy discussions. Therefore, they hear the words "winding down" (especially coming from RP's communications staff), and automatically make the jump to "dropping out". They take their cues from what Romney, Huck, etc. have done, and think RP is doing the same.
To them, there's no difference. But WE know that RP is not a conventional candidate running a conventional campaign, expecting conventional results- the man said so himself!
PaulTriumph, you hit it on the nail.
I really wish they would actually do news, you know, reporting nothing but bare facts and leaving it up to people to connect the dots for themselves and wonder if we need stronger libel laws (i.e. British libel laws).
Julian,
You are correct about standing- I had forgotten that one tiny but important point so I guess this is entirely academic at this point, and Ron Paul is more likely to have some lawyer advising him so he'd know more than you and I.
That said, it is really sad to see them run amok with statements and throwing around conjectures so casually. You can almost see the stark contrast between for example, a report on murderer facing a trial and a report on campaign trail; numbers of word "alleged" and synonyms, quoting people and detailing facts and whether they are in dispute.
I really wish they would actually do news, you know, reporting nothing but bare facts and leaving it up to people to connect the dots for themselves and wonder if we need stronger libel laws (i.e. British libel laws).
Julian,
You are correct about standing- I had forgotten that one tiny but important point so I guess this is entirely academic at this point, and Ron Paul is more likely to have some lawyer advising him so he'd know more than you and I.
That said, it is really sad to see them run amok with statements and throwing around conjectures so casually. You can almost see the stark contrast between for example, a report on murderer facing a trial and a report on campaign trail; numbers of word "alleged" and synonyms, quoting people and detailing facts and whether they are in dispute.
Similar threads
