It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faux (Fox) News trys to oust Ron Paul..AGAIN

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by LwSiX

The total lack of common sense displayed here is why my hope for this country dwindles on a daily basis.


People are cowards man, what can I say. Ron Paul came out with nothing but integrity for himself and for the constitution. Look how people talk about him. "He think's he's scaring the government he think's he's a revolutionary BLAH I'm not even going to give him a chance."

People are afraid to reason that the revolutionaries are right in almost every situation in history. They're afraid to admit that doing the right thing itself is a revolutionary act. The result? A nation of cowards. They will happily submit to the televisions mockery of Ron Paul if it means they have an excuse to avoid changing themself or their world for the better.

As far as hope for this country: all hope is NOT lost. We only need 10% of this country to wake up and start battling the other 10% which is misleading everyone. If 10% of us can manage to pull the 80% of undecided people in the right direction, we win. Even if Ron Paul doesn't get elected president, the number of people fighting for him are IN on this 10% idea . If the 80% doesn't catch on soon... it'll be too late for them.

The 10% of us need to stick together, and if it comes to it, let's just openly say it: the rest of them are hopeless. I believe God himself said that's how it was going to be.


First, to LWSix, did you actually have anything to say or did you just feel like taking a stab at me? Not only was that a one liner, but it was an attack. I thought that neither was allowed here.

Now then, in response to your 10% statement, I'm on board with most of Ron Paul's ideas like I said. If the spokesman for the movement didn't personally strike me as a total nutjob I'd vote for him. Get a person up for office that is calm and acts reasonably and you have my vote.




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


I dont think any of us are going to be doing any name calling here..you are here to discuss a topic with us..no more no less. I just dont see Ron Paul as being loud or seeming threatening at all...He has been called "the uncle people try to avoid" or something close to that by media...I get a kick outta that!! I would much rather discuss how to better our Nation and get back to basics with "my old uncle" then to hear about Jessica Simpson, Brittany, Madonna etc. etc. It just floors me that people act like what those ding bat, trashy girls (and guys) in Hollywierd are doing is more interesting and newsworthy than someone who wants to bring our Nation out of the sink hole it is falling into. I want a President who says what he means and backs it up..and does not back down to be politically correct so to speak.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Interestingly enough one of mostly read daily papers in Denmark had an overview of the different candidates today.
They showed approval ratings and shortly mentioned pros and cons about the candidates.
However... for some reason Ron Paul was never mentioned anywhere in the 2 page spread.
I would think that if the Paul hype is more than just words a paper like this would be interested in following him. It's a strange world we live in, it almost seems that the more outrageous or radical you are the more coverage you get and the more likely you are to be the chosen one instead of putting some interest into people who have more down to Earth suggestions and views upon his or her society.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
i just wanted to say that i also don't see RP as loud or agitated in his tone... he just doesn't mince words or evade talking points. anyway, i personally don't give a damn what the guy looks like. he has morals and sticks to principles. he's exactly the type of person we need in the hot seat. even if you disagree with some of his ideas, you can't argue against his integrity.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I do see that Ron Paul gets a look like "I can't believe you people are so uneducated about the Constitution" or "I can't believe you people are so lacking in commen sense" look on his face...It is the same look my dad used to give me when I had said or done something stupid as a teen. I think he is just a very smart man who has worked hard to get where he is and gotten their honestly without cheating and he understands how this country was to be maintained. Im sure it must frustrate him when people just dont grasp the concepts of the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think Ron Paul presents himself as a gentleman,he doesn't mince words unlike his foe,and as far as looking presidential,what about Hillary Clinton? she looks and acts like a fool,with the cackling,her and Juliani should share a ticket,their mannerism is the same,I sent an E mail to Fox news regarding snub of Ron Paul,can't wait to hear back



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


I dont see why this should seem any more interesting than the fact that rite here in the USA the main stream media and most widely read papers and news people wont hardly mention Ron Paul.....Thats why the Ron PAul supporters are online so much...the main stream media folks have been bought and paid for.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Oldtimer2
 


LOL...The Hillary cackling thing ...lmbo
Dont be holding your breath on a reply from FOX...youll probably get some automated email response back.
They are a joke. How can they even call themeselves NEWS....the NEWS is Fox is a leftist bunch of bungleheads who are owned by big money socialists.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I guess the media must be getting through to me. A month or so ago I was considering a vote for Ron Paul. After hearing him constantly cry that there's some conspiracy against him and making comments like "they're scared of me" no way would I cast a vote for him. I agree with many of his policies, but the man himself isn't Presidential and frankly, seeing the way he acts in public, I don't think he's fit for the job.

Sorry folks, I don't know who's getting my Primary vote yet but it won't be Mr. Paul.


WOW!
Sounds VERY carefully thought out. "I agree with many of his policies, but the man himself isn't Presidential and frankly, seeing the way he acts in public, I don't think he's fit for the job."

So, I need to try to wrap my head around this - Please define what is "Presidential" and how a president should act in public?
Should they be more New World Orderly and act more like a CFR mouthpiece like the other candidates? Are you saying that you are foresaking a candidate with whom you agree due to the way he acts in order to select a candidate with whom you do NOT agree but acts more "Presidential?"

So, yeah I guess the media did get through to you - and accomplished EXACTLY what they had hoped to accomplish - by getting you to sell out on your principles for a candidate more in tune with their liking. Congratulations - you have brainwashed by the MSM!



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


It would really behoove you to actually do a little research on the guy. Why not look at his impeccable voting record in comparison to your "presidential" candidates? Why not check out RP's history? A volunteer Doctor and Flight Surgeon in the USAF (to whom they just don't hand a job like that too by the way).

Just because RP displays passion for what he believes, you make him out to be a nut-job. How sad. Those other individuals are just regurgitating lines and sound-clips, when you run for president, you kinda need to bring something to the table other than acting skills, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
i consider myself to have libertarian viewpoints on many issues. mostly on things that i feel as though government intervention makes life much more difficult for american citizens on the whole. ron paul seems to be drawing the "man, my life would be so much better if i didn't have to pay taxes" crowd, as well as the internet nerd population, as can be seen by constant spam for him on websites such as digg.

other than running on a platform that is completely out of touch with economic reality (he wants to abolish taxes and return to the gold standard, two things that make absolutely no sense, especially not to anyone with a knowledge of how fiat currency works), dude is a massive racist. check out these awesome quotes from his newsletter circa 1992:

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

he also wants to deport all illegal immigrants. a conservative estimate of illegal immigrants in the united states is 12 million people. that's at least 7% of our population. how can he do that without establishing a massive government bureaucracy? not to mention the social and economic problems that would cause after there wouldn't be a source of cheap labor for basically everything. then he went on to say that he would be okay with a 1% casualty rate (i can't find my source on this again, but if you look it up you can find it). so his argument comes down to saying that he's okay with the united states government killing 120,000 hispanics. AWESOME.

on abolishing taxes.........

if you have an issue with taxes, you must also have an issue with social and infrastructural services, being available to all citizens, as well as government-run overseeing bodies, such as the FDA. and as i'm sure you will agree, there are a number of services that the government provides that are for the greater good of society that cannot be mooched off of.

for example, compulsory K-12 public education. if there were no taxes, how would public schools be funded, if they were to exist at all? even if no one in the united states had to pay taxes, there would still be a substantial amount of individuals in the united states who could not afford to send their children to a private school, which would not necessarily be held to any sort of educational standard. assuming these individuals would decide to send their children to school in the first place.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
WOW!
Sounds VERY carefully thought out. "I agree with many of his policies, but the man himself isn't Presidential and frankly, seeing the way he acts in public, I don't think he's fit for the job."

So, I need to try to wrap my head around this - Please define what is "Presidential" and how a president should act in public?
Should they be more New World Orderly and act more like a CFR mouthpiece like the other candidates? Are you saying that you are foresaking a candidate with whom you agree due to the way he acts in order to select a candidate with whom you do NOT agree but acts more "Presidential?"

So, yeah I guess the media did get through to you - and accomplished EXACTLY what they had hoped to accomplish - by getting you to sell out on your principles for a candidate more in tune with their liking. Congratulations - you have brainwashed by the MSM!


I know you're being sarcastic, but YES, it is very well thought out. I take this very seriously. I cannot in good conscience vote for a man that has, every time I've ever seen him speak, acted like a brash person who would quickly act without even considering the consequences. Maybe I read him wrong, but that's how he strikes me. I will gladly vote for a candidate who sways a little farther from my beliefs than Mr. Paul if he shows himself to have what I consider to be the proper demeanor to represent the US. Would you vote for somebody that rubs you the wrong way just because their ideas are similar to yours?

Also, as I said in a previous post, I have basically ZERO exposure to the MSM so your comments about me being brainwashed hold about as much water as a bucket with no bottom. If you took all of my MSM exposure in the last 3 months, it MIGHT total an hour. It's all gut instinct and my gut tells me that he's not the right guy.

Edit: I should add as well, since a few of the reponses to my post refer to this mythical thing called "my candidates" that I have not made a decision at this point. Although a few months ago I was a likely voter for Mr. Paul, I am no longer favoring anybody and considering not even voting in the primary.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by BlueTriangle]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by inferno
 


Just an observation on the "illegals=cheap labor" comment in your post...These illegals DO NOT help the American peoples pocketbook in ANY WAY..if you research the cost to the average American citizen to have illegals here you will find that cutting a few penny's off the price of a tomato no where near adds up to what it cost to pay welfare, social security, medical costs, free lunches, special teachers to teach their kids etc.etc. The only people who MAY make any money off the illegals are the guys on top getting the cheap labor. AND if these people were not here..the big guy would have to pay U.S. citizens a decent $$$ adding up to more jobs and more $$$ here in the U.S...Most all illegals will tell you they send a large chunk of their money BACK to their native country. Ron Paul is correct when he says cut off the welfare to illegals and they wont want to come here so bad. If someone wants to live here then do it the LEGAL way.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Very well said....(will post in 2 posts..not enough room on just 1)

www.newswithviews.com...

"FAIR & BALANCED" NETWORK LIMITS CHOICE

By Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
January 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Fox News Channel's exclusion of Texas Congressman Ron Paul from an upcoming Republican presidential debate is creating a ripple effect throughout the country, especially on the Internet.

This important Fox debate is scheduled for January 6 in New Hampshire, less than one day after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates are being held at the same location sponsored by ABC News and the Internet's Facebook.com.

According to Ron Paul supporters, rallies will be held, letters to newspaper editors written, boycotts of Fox sponsors initiated, and telephone calls to Fox News' headquarters, located in the News Corp building in Manhattan, to voice complaints regarding the shabby treatment of candidates such as Rep. Ron Paul and his fellow Republican, Ambassador Alan Keyes. Keyes has been practically ignored by the news reporters covering the presidential races in both major political parties.

"The fact that, in 2004, windbags such as Rev. Al Sharpton were included in all of the Democrat presidential debates should tell Americans -- especially those calling themselves conservatives -- that Fox is no different than the rest of the liberal-left news media," claims former NYPD detective and US Marine Sid Francis, himself an African-American.

"Why is the news media so quick to accept contrary viewpoints from leftists, but demand conservatives tow 'the partyline?'" said Det. Francis.

Also, there is talk among Rep. Paul's workers and volunteers of contacting all shareholders of the company that owns the Fox News Channel -- Rupert Murdock's News Corp -- and they are advising stockholders to "dump their shares."

Ron Paul stated to members of the media: "They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will."

"They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative," said Rep. Paul.

"Congressman Paul is doing better than many other Republican candidates, yet he's the one being excluded from an important political event. Even the Democrat Party hasn't blackballed Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who many believe is a distraction at best, a clown at worst," claims political strategist Mike Baker.

"What is Fox [News Channel] afraid of? Why not allow a man who set a record for single-day campaign fundraising to participate in a debate with other so-called conservatives?" adds Baker.

Ron Paul told Boston Herald reporter James Pindell that the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.

"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a political stop at a New Hampshire diner. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

"Given Ron Paul's support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded," said Ron Paul's campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

"Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited." Snyder continued, "Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event."

NewsWithViews.com attempted to contact Fox News Channel's executive producer in charge of the Republican Presidential Debate, Marty Ryan. However, Mr. Ryan did not respond to requests for information about Ron Paul's exclusion from the debate.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
VERY WELL SAID (2)

www.newswithviews.com...

NewsWithViews.com also contacted Fox public relations manager Irena Briganti about Rep. Paul's impending absence from the January 6 debate. One person from Fox News' Manhattan headquarters stated the event is "not a debate, but a forum." However, she failed to explain the difference.

"Fair and Balanced" Fox News is all out promoting a liberal Republican like Rudy Guiliani who is anti gun, pro-gay rights, and pro-abortion, a Manchurian candidate like John McCain a proponent of illegal immigration, a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney, and a phony preacher like Mike Huckabee a politician that never meet a tax he didn't like, they blackball Ron Paul and Alan Keyes, said a police officer in New York who supports Ron Paul.

According to CNN.com, ABC and Fox News Channel are limiting the number of Republican candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary. Fox News claims it has limited space in its studio, which leaves Rep. Ron Paul out of the weekend debate, according to the AP/CNN story.

"They must think we're all morons if they expect us to believe that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Fox can't accommodate all legitimate presidential candidates. I think Fox's executives are in for a shock," added Mike Baker.

Fox invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire this Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines, according to Fox News Channel's biggest competitor, Cable News Network (CNN).

This proves that Fox News is neither Fair or Balanced. Fox News wants to limit the people's choices. Does Fox News think the people are stupid and can't come to a sensible conclusion on whom to vote for? Is this why they are keeping Ron Paul and Alan Keyes from the debates? Or, is there something else? Like an agenda perhaps?" said the veteran New York City cop.

"Fox News will decide on who the Republican candidate will be and CNN will decide who the Democratic candidate will be. By blackballing those two fine men (Ron Paul & Alan Keyes) proves to me that the whole thing is rigged from the get-go. At the end you will have two choices, Tweedly Dee and Tweedly Dumb, promoting the same globalist's agenda" the police veteran added.

Police Times Magazine -- which is published by the American Federation of Police -- recently praised Congressman Ron Paul for his legislative assistance to the law enforcement community. For instance, Rep. Paul introduced a bill (HR 3304) that would provide top-notch body armor for US police officers.

AFP president Dennis Wise said," I would like to applaud [Rep.Ron] Paul for his support and forward thinking in trying to help make law enforcement officers across our nation safer each day."



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The Fox stocks are feeling the Ron Paul supporter boycott.
very interesting!:

SOURCE




From the look of the 3 day chart on yahoo.com it seems that the NWS stock dump and boycott is having an effect already.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by inferno
on abolishing taxes.........

if you have an issue with taxes, you must also have an issue with social and infrastructural services, being available to all citizens, as well as government-run overseeing bodies, such as the FDA. and as i'm sure you will agree, there are a number of services that the government provides that are for the greater good of society that cannot be mooched off of.

for example, compulsory K-12 public education. if there were no taxes, how would public schools be funded, if they were to exist at all? even if no one in the united states had to pay taxes, there would still be a substantial amount of individuals in the united states who could not afford to send their children to a private school, which would not necessarily be held to any sort of educational standard. assuming these individuals would decide to send their children to school in the first place.


Ron Paul is not for abolishing taxes. He is for abolishing the Federal Income Tax system.

The current system has too many loophopes that allow too many people to pay little or no taxes, leaving the middle class with a higher tax burden than others.

He proposes a federal sales tax to replace the federal income tax. This way everyone, from individuals to big business, all pay the same percentage in tax.

Also, most money for education does not come from federal money, but from state and local taxes.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Here's a posting I made this morning on AbovePolitics. Dr. Paul is in a statistical tie for 3rd in Iowa:

Today's Zogby poll shows:



Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is in third place in the Republican race at 11 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain slipped two points to 10 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul also registered 10 percent.



Reuters

So Dr. Paul is out of 3rd place by 1%? That is clearly within the poll's margin of error so he is effectively in a 3-way tie for 3rd. And they want to exclude him from the debate because?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by craig732
 


no.

the federal government funds the states with money for education. this was the whole point behind the no child left behind act. why are teachers so terrified of their students failing b.s. tests? because first, they can lose their job, and second, the lower the scores the less money the government is going to give to that state.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
They are starting to figure it out???!!!

www.prisonplanet.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join