The media has shifted in a Paulwise direction

[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.

 

[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!