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.

 

Complete Cover-up of Ron Paul!!!!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Is anyone watching NBC right now!?!?!? They said that the presidential race was down to the "final four" Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Romney. This has been a 10 minute story and NOT ONE MENTION of Ron Paul. NOT ONE!!!!!!




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I guess Ron Paul lost then.

Meh.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
No surprise there... If Ron Paul got in office he would dismantle the Federal Reserve. The same people who run the FR have ties to the media... You don't need to be a genius to figure that one out.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Did you watch the Romney-Mccain debate? Huckabee and Paul were kicked to the side and cut off on all of their questions.... Ron Paul literally had probably 4 minutes of a 85 minute debate. Totally unfair



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by racerzeke
 


4 minutes of an 85 minute debate is equal to around 4.7% if my math does not fail me....

Ron Paul has been averaging around 3 to 6% of the vote...

Seems fair to me...

He has 3 to 6% popularity, no matter how popular you may want him to be, he gets 4.7% of the debate time and currently has 5.8% overall of the popular vote. Fair? Yep. I believe these figures are exact, again if my math is correct..
NY Times
So he got the short end there by 1.1%

According to CNN as of Jan. 30 there have been 195 delegates commit. Ron Paul has 6. That works out to just over 3%, so his 4.7% of time is actually a little unfair to the other candidates... Using those figures.
CNN
He got the plus end here by 1.7%

Looks like statistically he is still getting more coverage than he has earned...

Semper



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

and what you don't seem to understand is that
a caucus win does not make a president
it's the total population who make a president
so let's just wait til November
cuz a lot of RP supporters can't make the cuaucus
due to constraints but will show up on that November day



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Nope...

Nothing to not understand...

You're mixing apples and oranges....

This thread was not about Caucus's or Cactus's...

It was about equal time.... Read the OP please...

My post was SPOT ON...

Yours? Slightly off topic...

Semper

[edit on 1/31/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Sorry Semper... cause and effect. Ron Paul has been getting ~5% of debate and 'interview' exposure from the beginning. That's why he polls similarly. No one gets to listen to him. No one gets to know who he is.

In marketing frequency of exposure is key to the success of a product. Same with politics. Suggesting that he should only get 4% of a debate because he polls at 4% is just wrong. Debates, by their very definition are structured around equal time for all participants.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
it's obvious that ron paul is a non-candidate at this point...and he wasn't even a good candidate in the first place (both in terms of popularity and policy, but go to the candidate advocacy section and slug it out in the thread i started there if you want to talk about that)

he really doesn't have much support. sure, he may seem popular on the internet...but that's the internet, it isn't real life. less than 10% of americans support ron paul, that's not because he isn't getting a fair chance, it's because he isn't a good candidate.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Gee Madness... I'm dying to hear what you believe constitutes a 'good' candidate if Ron Paul is a bad one. Do enlighten us.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


i think the topic of this thread is about an alleged cover-up....
look at my sig, there's a thread where i've posted the reasons i have for not voting for ron paul.

here's a teaser: ron paul endorsed a candidate with the position that homosexual acts should be outlawed

a good candidate wouldn't have even dreamed of doing that....



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Ron Paul has been getting ~5% of debate and 'interview' exposure from the beginning. That's why he polls similarly.


So what your basing your political opinion on is this...

The amount of votes a candidate gets, is exactly related to the number of interviews and amount of time they are allowed in a debate?

So the TV advertisement, Magazines, and your oh so often touted internet, means what? (0)?

That's a stretch even for someone that thinks Paul is a valid candidate...

WOW

With a political strategy like that, it's no wonder Paul is doing so poorly...

Look...

The simple fact is he gets exactly, or close to exactly the amount of coverage time as his popularity equates him. I showed you the numbers, EXACT numbers and you still cry...

I guess if you found out he was really a mutant reptile, with Nazi leanings, you would all have an excuse for that too? That would all be someone else's fault as well...

The excuses are wearing as thin as his campaign is. He is NOT getting any significant numbers, because the American public wants someone else. YOU may say they are stupid, but that's what we call "Sour Grapes". Everyone that loses thinks the public is stupid. It's the winners that agree with the votes, remember?

Romney is not beating McCain either, but you don't see me crying foul at every misbegotten opportunity. I just figure more people voted for McCain than voted for Romney.. See how easy that was? No conspiracy, no cover up, no secret meeting or missed debate time, just more votes...

I think that McCain is an idiot and possibly the only candidate worse than he is is Hillary. I would vote for Paul over McCain, but only just barely. I'm sorry but I don't think Paul has what it takes. For some of the same reasons as Madness and more as well. Apparently America agrees with me and Madness and not you.
Again, no conspiracy, cover up or secret agenda, just the way it is.

Semper



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


No semper, I'm not saying we have a one-to-one correlation at all. What I am saying is that even when Ron Paul was soundly beating both Guliani and Thompson he was still getting a fraction of either's media coverage. Both those guys were media darling from the get go. This isn't about sour grapes. In the end, we'll get what we deserve. Clearly the almost half of the electorate that saw fit through their infinite wisdom to place Bush et al into the White House not once but twice have learned nothing. That's evident in the upswell of support for McCain. Clearly people want another 4-8yrs of spiraling economic decline and international unrest. People just don't get it.

I couldn't care if Ron Paul or Pee Wee Herman was elected President. I just want someone --- anyone --- who will acknowledge the situation we're in as a country. The recent focus on the economy was as if the problem suddenly jumped out from behind a tree a couple weeks ago. Are you serious? What kind of idiots are driving this bus? No one is dealing with reality. It's all politics-as-usual. But I fear we are in a precarious and dangerous situation. And if, as a country, we make as wise a choice as we did last time, we're crewed. Mark my word.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
You have you opinions and views and I have mine..

I do not happen to agree with your assessment, but you of course may think any way that you wish, as I...

However, soundly beating Thompson and Guilliani..
So what? I imagine that the write in Mickey Mouse beat them as well and he was not invited to the debate at all..

Regardless of how soundly he beat who when and where, the facts remain, he is a 3 to 6% candidate and not even close to the running for the serious contenders and he never has been..

He gets EXACTLY the right amount of coverage as per his station and popularity as indicated by actual votes..

The simple and quite clear fact is this.... HE IS NOT GOING TO BE PRESIDENT...

NO WAY NO HOW

In fact, I suddenly feel silly even wasting my time talking about a candidate that has no chance at all..

It was a fun time, but I really need to concentrate on possible nominees

See ya

Semper



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
In marketing frequency of exposure is key to the success of a product. Same with politics.


Your are correct and this is clearly what is wrong and corrupt in our system. We have Corporations deciding who will be put in front of the people. Using your analogy, thus which product will be available for sale. Setting up the illusion that you can't buy any product not on the list.

Regardless of whether or not Ron Paul can win or not the Major Media has decided for the American people who will be put in front of the people as candidates.

Clearly, this is unpaid free media exposure for candidates that those who own/operate and work for the Major Media have decided are worthy of their approval.

Obviously candidates need to have some kind of financial success in order to run for office as nobody is going to vote for those who are not successful in our system in the first place. At some point along the line rules need to be made & lines need to be drawn, but it's the people who should draw those lines not Corporate media who today just seem to take the reigns unopposed and decide for us who is valid or not at this point in the process.

The media is looked at by most of the population as the source of the truth and the providers of the information of who is running for office. Instead they use their position to tell half-truths whereas many Americans are not even aware other candidates exists and thus you have the direct manipulation of the public.

Tell me what good is a poll when your not even aware of the existence of the candidate until such time of the poll? The media has put itself in the position of being the legitimate source of information, yet it has mis-used that position in order to distort the playing field.

They attempt to justify their position of manipulation of our voting system by using inaccurate & contrived polls. Polls are a fraud, they are just as often a manipulation of statistics in order to sway opinion as they are valid meaningful statistics. Polls and dissemination of such should be illegal and any attempts to collect that type of data should be banned.

Polls have become a system of thought control and are used to either wake or put to sleep peoples ideas & opinions in order to manipulate the future results of our system.

Time on the air should be limited or equalized, so those in power cannot remain so just by controlling the opinions of voters by keeping their choices limited to those that the media corporations support.

Really - much of what the media does should be illegal. The media needs to be exposed and this thread is right on target. If one could expose those behind the scenes who believe their money trumps the original intent of our system - they should be exposed and jailed indefinitely.

Instead of conduits for truth, the major media have become conduits of the criminal elite who use thought control in order to increase their wealth & power. That's why the Internet is a threat, it's much more difficult to control an un-centralized entity. At some point in time they will attempt to control our views by eliminating or limiting what we can say & where we can say it.

By controlling who is elected they are in a sense controlling who will be at the head of the most influential country on the planet Earth today. We cannot allow this to continue - they must be exposed and destroyed.




[edit on 31-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
NBC's stance doesn't shock me. I've seen this going on for the last year or so.

To all those who believe Paul wasn't blacklisted from the beginning, I don't know what to say. Maybe denial is rampant. Or Maybe the national intelligence levels of our population is lower then we think.

To think Poll numbers and delegate counts were not effected by this, your 100 percent wrong. You tell someone something on tv, people believe it. You tell people he's a loon, he's unelectable, he's a racist... People believe it. People believe anything that's drilled in their heads.

If you either do not even cover Paul or when you do just portray him as crazy, then people believe it. And it works. Sad but true. People lack cogitative skills.

He was blacklisted from the beginning, up until now. The problem is, since he is one of four left, its more apparent. Thus the move to exclude Huckabee and Paul in last nights Debate is really a shock to a lot of people. People think, hey there's four left, equal time. Then are shocked to see, the opposite.

The media is the only window for people to view the process. When that is compromised, then hope is lost. If you think different, your full of bull#. The media is supposed to keep in check the government, not foster its BS. That is unless its state controlled or worse, elite controlled (that it is).

This has happening from the beginning, until now. Even when he had more support in numbers then Guiliani and Thompson, he was downplayed. He outlasted both, whats that say?Go ahead, say its bad move on his part to stay this long, right... Say he is wasting money, right. That's what they've said for the last 3 months.

He is still here, because he has the support and campaign contribution from the people, everyday people. He is sticking with it because of the message, because he values the common man. Not the Corrupt Corporate Elite.

He still gets millions from normal people, even now, contributions are rolling in. So what does that say? His message is sound. His support is sound. Don't let the media fool you. Don't let the corrupt Primaries fool you.

Voting Booths are rigged, this has been proven. The Process is dead, this has been hidden. But his message remains, and that speaks volumes.

The problem is Media is supremely biased. The elite control it. They want you to believe it. This is not conspiracy or tin hat thought. This is fact.

It takes a intelligence to know this. Unfortunately 90 percent of America lack the smarts and go on to believe anything the TV, the newspaper, the radio babble about.

It is evident even on this website.

To counterpoint, your internet only stance on Paul's popularity: The only reason the web seems like its a Paul playground is due to the freedom of thought and speech that still exists on the web (at least on some websites, CNN Censored my comments last night on their debate commentary page). It's the last Bastian of free thought.

Elections have been bought before and this year is no different.

So yeah believing in the constitution is backwards right? Or is allowing the media to control politics backwards? Allowing the elite to control politics, sounds backwards to me.

What made our country great? CEOs or our freedoms and drive?

Obviously dumb people like dumb tv. And dumb people are oblivious to what blacklisting is, and just automatically call it tin hat thinking. Really....

Most importantly, Just because a man has a four percent approval rating, does not dictate the grounds for speaking time in a debate.

That is not how a debate is supposed to go. If it is, then that is grounds for corruption.

It's equal time regardless, he is one of four. That's 25 percent speaking time, not 4 percent. The 4 percent approval is due to the media silencing him 96 percent of the time.

To paraphrase a movie quote that seems fitting for the current state of America and this thinking that backs such biased political processes,

I'm surrounded by assholes.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
Did you watch the Romney-Mccain debate? Huckabee and Paul were kicked to the side and cut off on all of their questions.... Ron Paul literally had probably 4 minutes of a 85 minute debate. Totally unfair


At least Huckabee had a few funny lines about how little air time he had as well as paul... it was all back and forth McCain and Romeny

Romney tore McCain to shreads...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Maybe denial is rampant. Or Maybe the national intelligence levels of our population is lower then we think.


Or maybe, just maybe now, YOU are wrong and the rest of the country is right?

Just guessing now mind you.

Maybe you are smarter and more informed than the rest of us. Maybe the 3 to 6% that support Paul is in fact the most intelligent segment in the country.

I would not bet on that, but hey, anything is possible. Like you being wrong when the rest of the country disagrees...

Semper



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The MSM and especially the news channels are doing a great disservice to the American people and our democracy and the democratic process of not allowing all the candidates who are running to get an equal opportunity to address the American people on their issues. They have taken our democracy and thrown it out the freakin window and spit in the face and on the grave of those who have fought and sacrificed so much for it at home and abroad. IMO what they are doing is not very American to me.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by UScitizen
 


being good capitalists is unamerican now?

they're doing what they do because that's what will earn them money through ad revenue. that's what matters to them
they aren't in news for the sake of news, they're in the news BUSINESS



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join