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.
Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
It's a great point but then they will start blaming everything on internet hacking and even if Ron Paul starts getting results in the media through polls they probably would say anon hacked it. It's a slippery slope with these tricksters.
They will do whatever they can to steer the popular vote. After all most of them are backstabbers that would turn in their own grandmother if they knew they could gain a percentage point.
Oh and the verdict is still out on anon. I have to see some pretty serious revolution from them before I decide who's side they are on. What have they actually changed? It's just like Wikileaks, they are just enough of a thorn in the side to cause more internet security to be placed web wide. Are they good or bad for us? I don't know.edit on 15-8-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by texas thinker
I was thinking about the media black balling of Ron Paul earlier so your thread caught my attention. Don't know about Anon but somehow the MSM gotta get a slap down. Not that it matters but I spent about a half hour emailing every major cable and network news I could think of complaining of this matter.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Watts
So you think the media should be forced to cover the candidate that YOU think is the best candidate? And you think hackers should force them to do this???
I wonder what people who support a different candidate would think about that?
I think you need to just realize that the media doesn't owe you anything, they are private companies that can choose to cover whatever they want. If you don't like what they cover, don't watch/listen/read what they produce.
I think your idea that hackers should illegally try to force a private company to talk about what YOU want them to talk about is very very un-American.
I bet Ron Paul would be disgusted by your idea...bravo for the irony.
Originally posted by BeyondPerception
Maybe not Ron Paul specifically, but news in general.
There is tons of information the media censors and neglects, Paul is just the tip of the iceberg.
There should be no bias in news.edit on 8/15/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Watts
Originally posted by BeyondPerception
Maybe not Ron Paul specifically, but news in general.
There is tons of information the media censors and neglects, Paul is just the tip of the iceberg.
There should be no bias in news.edit on 8/15/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)
ESPECIALLY when it comes to elections. There's literally no room for that. Nothing good can come out of it.
Well, news should be news. If there isn't news, repeat other news. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
The whole platform is a completely diseased.
And yet you're still here..... hmmm I smell a musty troll.
Originally posted by readytorevolt
I might be giving anon more credit than they deserve here but I have thought about this before and came to the conclusion that it might really hurt their cause.
while the media is portraying them as cyber-terrorists they are atleast getting attention. If they joined the RP bandwagon they risk being blacklisted by the media.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by BeyondPerception
Well, news should be news. If there isn't news, repeat other news. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
The whole platform is a completely diseased.
What you and the OP are talking about is commentary...not "news".
There is no "news" in political campaigns...it is all commentary.
If you don't like the commentary, then don't listen to it...simple solution.