Why is main stream media ignoring Ron Paul

[hdc00hdc]

You hear about the others but nothing on Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo. Why is the subject of immigration off limits? It should be the main platform. We need to write all the major networks and newspapers and demand more mention of Ron Paul.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

Primarily its because they think its not worth reporting on someone who doesn't have a lot of money or preexisting name recognition. Pretty sad, huh?

 

[furface]

In a world envisioned by Ron Paul, about 90% of what the main stream media reports would disappear. No big bucks political scandals, no foreign wars, massively reduced crime because of no war on drugs. It would put all the talking heads and reporters out of business. Of course they won't support him. I'm serious. The mainstream media supports politics that keep them in business, and that means conflict driven by idiotic policies.

 

[MsDoodahs]

"Illegal" immigration will not be stopped because it is needed by the gov't in order to keep the SS system from bankrupting the gov't. UN data shows we are not replacing ourselves at a fast enough rate to do it WITHOUT immigration.

I did not see it, but I read about a recent Bill Moyers special that exposed how "owned" the media is BY THE GOV'T. Major reporters admitted to Moyers that they did NOT investigate the claims by the gov't pre-invasion, and they all admitted that was a mistake. NOW, they are free to do so because we're already in Iraq just as the gov't wanted us to be.

We all know the media is owned, at least we know this at some level, don't we?

I mean, think about it. The press has a role in "reporting" on gov't, and that role is SIMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF GOV'T PRESS RELEASES. Any true investigation will result in that organization or individual being SHUT OFF from the official flow of information.

Let's say you write for a newspaper and you cover the White House. If you report negative stuff, you won't be called on at the "press conferences." You'll never get to ask your questions after you ask the first few.

If you own a television network and you employ a reporter that covers Congress, and your guy puts congresscritters* on the spot in every interview, then congresscritters* will stop giving your guy interviews. What are you going to do? Tell your guy "put them on the spot, I don't care if we NEVER get another interview" or are you going to say "go up to the line but never EVER cross it." Seriously. What would you do?

That's how the gov't controls the mainstream media.

And that's WHY the gov't wants to get control over the internet.

The net allows too much truth to slip out to the people.

This is, to the gov't, UNACCEPTABLE.

This is also why you younger ones who have grown up with the internet are going to have to fight to protect it. If you fail, the net will become just another tool for the distribution of gov't press releases.

*congresscritter: tips the hat to Ms. Claire Wolf and her excellent (and I think now out of print) book, 101 Things to Do Til the Revolution, where I first heard this term.

 

[jsharpe]

upcoming debates

The next two debates: Brit Hume will moderate for Fox News, and then Wolf Blitzer will moderate for CNN. I've emailed both and requested more time given to Ron Paul to discuss the proper role of government, Iraq war, illegal alien invasion, taxes, spending. It may be worth emailing these networks and demanding more time for Ron Paul in the debates and for more television appearances in general.

Without Ron Paul in the debates, the GOP will never have a serious conversation about the future of the party. As far as I can tell, only Ron Paul is honestly asking for a return to traditional GOP positions on limited government, foreign policy, individual liberty, respect for national sovereignty etc.

 

[furface]

>>>"Illegal" immigration will not be stopped because it is needed by the gov't in order to keep the SS system from bankrupting the gov't. UN data shows we are not replacing ourselves at a fast enough rate to do it WITHOUT immigration.<<<

We just need to switch from an economy that is dependent on growth to one that is sustainable without growth or even with negative population growth. It's possible, but a lot of wealthy people who make their billions from population growth and destroying the environment don't want it.


Social security will do just fine if seniors don't have to compete for scarce resources and services that are being gobbled up by the flood of illegal immigrants.

 

[Hancock1776]

Sustainable economy

There is only one kind of economy that is infinitely sustainable, with or without immigration, with or without population growth, with or without "economic" growth.

A Free one. And in order to achieve that, I must point out we need the government to get out of the business of manipulating the money supply. A liberated monetary system is the linchpin for a free economy and a free market. When the government gets to participate in legalized counterfeiting, the whole economy suffers, and must "grow" to outpace this theft called "inflation" just to tread water.

Market-based monetary policy is the only way to achieve a free market. We had this with the silver and gold standard and America became the economic powerhouse of planet earth. Now, less than 40 years after ditching the gold standard, third-world countries make us tremble, and communists across the Pacific smile at us with a dagger to America's jugular. China alone holds enough US debt to crash our stock markets in minutes.

Sound monetary policy would make this impossible, and that is why we must get Ron Paul into office.

 

[MsDoodahs]

To get that issue to resonate, it has to be broken waaaaay down.

 

[Hancock1776]

Yes. Yes it does. And quitting this problem cold-turkey would hurt A LOT.

You can break it down into modules.

Module 1) Curtail government spending to end "deficit spending." Deficit spending hurts us all, end of story. That one's really simple.

Module 2) Don't badmouth the economy (you'll get attacked and ignored for that) but insist the Federal Reserve System represents "playing with fire" economically because the Fed does not provide enough stability and isn't held accountable enough. Better, simpler monetary policy will improve stability and growth. Phase in alternative government-backed debt-free currency gradually and let the market take care of the rest. Maybe even a domestic gold-backed currency.

Module 3) Introduce the idea of market-driven interest rates. Investors already understand the superiority of market forces, and they are the ones most influenced by the arbitrary decisions of the Fed. Market-driven interest rates are a better barometer of the economy's performance anyway, so in the interest of diagnosing the economy in the best way possible to better inform future policy, we should phase that in, diminishing the power of the Fed to regulate interest rates.

Module 4) End the "black box economy". The Fed is too opaque and the market wastes too much intellectual energy trying to predict the whims of a gang of old men in a board room. This is another argument for relinquishing the powers of the Fed back to Congress and the free market.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I was thinking more along the lines of attention grabbers for campaign literature.

Specifically, I'm thinking about a couple of charts. You probably know the ones I'm thinking of already.

One showing how the federal debt goes up up up after the tie to gold was severed by RMN. Also, another one that might work is a consumer price index chart; I think it also goes up in similar dramatic fashion.

I think those charts help demonstrate that once the requirement of backing the money with something of value (gold) was gone, spending by the gov't could spiral out of control, and has continued to do so to this day.

And almost everyone rejects the out of control spending that the gov't does. Well, unless it is spending that benefits them personally - then they like it

 

[Hancock1776]

If we returned to a sound money system, I think the place we would find the fastest improvement would be in science and scholarship. Too many "scholarly" works are written just because somebody could get a government grant for doing it. Without the fountain of free government money flowing into frivolous and stupid science projects, America's intellectual efforts will focus again on things that are actually productive. No more "OMG Global Warming LOL" bullshit from "scientists" just because a crisis gets you more funding.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

tips the hat to Ms. Claire Wolf and her excellent (and I think now out of print) book, 101 Things to Do Til the Revolution, where I first heard this term.

I just ordered that book off half.com for $10. I'm sure that's being added to my FBI file. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Hancock1776]

I was trying to find ways to break it down into various soundbites. Hopefully they'll be compatible with any brochure-style literature you come up with.

In retrospect "module" was a weird word to pick.

 

[wraft]

The main stream media wants to ignore Ron because they believe, with some justification, that outcomes are rigged by insiders. Ron first has to show that he can reach the people and bypass the insiders. This is a very tall order. Libertarian issues are not enough. Ron needs 9/11 Truth to reach the popular mind.

 

[Mattsa]

Why is the mainstram media shortchanging Ron Paul????

That's easy!

The big media channels are all owned by people whose best interests (eyewatering greed) will not be served by Ron Paul

So............

It's up to the better informed people to do their job for them.

It's gonna be tough!


WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH.......THE TOUGH GET GOING!

So it is!

 

[rg17]

The media is now also ignoring Rand Paul.

 

[anaconda]

The media is now also ignoring Rand Paul.

Many here were saying a year ago that "They will not be able to ignore Rand Paul! He's a Senator!" Actually, I had expected the media to try to vilify him far more than they have. I had thought they would take a more active hostile approach, but the alternative of minimizing him and ignoring him has worked beautifully and easily for the establishment. They barely had to break a sweat to remove Rand from the playing field. At least so far.

 

[phill4paul]

Many here were saying a year ago that "They will not be able to ignore Rand Paul! He's a Senator!" Actually, I had expected the media to try to vilify him far more than they have. I had thought they would take a more active hostile approach, but the alternative of minimizing him and ignoring him has worked beautifully and easily for the establishment. They barely had to break a sweat to remove Rand from the playing field. At least so far.

As before the only way it is countered is with social media. There is no doubt they are censoring.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Him being low in the rankings isn't helping anything either. They aren't giving Huckaboo or even Bush much coverage either, that I've seen.

 

[TheTexan]

Why is the subject of immigration off limits?

Trump seems to be doing well with the subject