MSM VS. Ron Paul... Anon should focus on things that matter.

reply to post by BeyondPerception


I guess its being implied that Fox NEWS should be called Fox COMMENTARY

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Report me all you want, reposting is as simple as hitting back.

"Lol you didn't pose an argument. That's not what "disruptive posters" (we know the real word) do. All you did was come into my "joke of a thread" and complain about my pointing out that people like Fox News are making a pointed effort to blacklist Ron Paul. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. There's nothing to argue.

And it was my opinion that instead of wasting time on things like BART, Anon should concern itself with things that have a major effect on the country they're trying to act all patriotic for. That's my opinion and I sincerely could not care any less what you think about it.

And once again, you're hanging around a "joke of a thread" with a "joke idea"... exactly what "disruptive posters" do.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Watts

 

Ummm...yeah, I read your little rant and all your crying about the "MSM" not giving Ron Paul enough coverage.


But nice dodge there buddy...just ignore the fact that you are advocating illegal activities to promote the candidate YOU think is the best.

Honestly, this whole thread and your whole idea is a joke.

And yet you're still here..... hmmm I smell a "disruptive poster".

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Watts

 

100% agree with your last thought. All we can do is get the word out about Dr. Paul. He's gaining ground out the gate just like he did last elections. Over the last 3 years he's stayed steady appearing more and more in the media voicing his true honest opinions which mirrored most of the American's peoples values as well. More people recognize who he is and what he's about and we are so tired of the same drivel they've been feeding us.

Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama are all guilty for this countries downfall. Some more than others.

edit on 15-8-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

Other than the blacklisting, do you think he has any political downfalls that could hurt his chances or this the only hurdle he needs to overcome?

reply to post by Watts


No I don't think he does have any major faults. I think the media tends to set the questions up trying to twist what he says. For example they ask him if he advocates for Heroin or Prostitution to be legal when all he is saying is let we the people decide, not the Federal Government.
He's not advocating anything but Liberty of choice.
How can anyone argue with that?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Hi OutKast -

And btw, the thread is a joke because you obviously don't see the irony and contradictions in advocating a hacking group to use illegal activities to force a private business to do something and also your support of Ron Paul.

While I definitely agree with private business being able to do what it wants, I have to admit I'm also apalled at what's going on here, and would be about willing to make an allowance when the private business involved presents itself as news media and is more or less directly responsible for influencing elections by swaying public opinion.

As far as I can tell, it borders on election fraud as well as being misrepresentation of a consumer product (usually, but for some reason not in this case, regulated by the Federal Trade Commission) since these outlets market themselves as unbiased, fair & balanced, "your news source", what-have-you. It's the media's version of price-fixing as well, which is illegal in other sectors.

I by no means advocate any preferential treatment of one (or some) candidate(s) over another, but I believe the media's feet should be held to the fire to accurately report the news impartially if they present themselves as such and are also such a large part of actively forming public opinion. And, if regulatory agencies aren't going to do the job...well, there are some cases in which I can somewhat approve of vigilante activity.

Then again, I know there have been court cases outright confirming the media's right to lie to people - but this is simply wrong in my opinion, yet they openly admit it at times.

Now to address the question of the thread itself, unless you're going to also speak against Anonymous carrying out its other activities (some maybe 'righteous' in goal, some perhaps less so...?), then I would have to agree with the OP that working to ensure media impartiality in general reporting as well as election cycle influence as a worthy use of their time, given the media's claimed goals and power over the country.

Take care, just my thoughts here.

reply to post by Praetorius


A private business has no obligation to equally cover all candidates that are running for president. In this case, these people aren't even running for president...they are running for the Republican nomination.

If I decide I want to run for president...should all media outlets be required to talk about me as much as they do about all the other candidates? And then what if you decide to also run? Where does it end?

Besides the fact that Ron Paul is ALL OVER THE MEDIA and that these claims are completely baseless...I just don't think Ron Paul would agree with these complaints over forcing private businesses to do something.

Let me show you a little bit of this "Media Blackout". These are all videos from the past week after the Iowa debate and straw poll.

















Yep...that sure does look like a "Media Blackout"



And just for the record, I don't support any of Anon's activities...I don't support any illegal activities...period.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Fair enough, and thanks for the videos to media coverage - appreciated.

A private business has no obligation to equally cover all candidates that are running for president. In this case, these people aren't even running for president...they are running for the Republican nomination.

First off, everyone running for a party nomination IS running for the presidency by extension, but I suppose I should appreciate the distinction.

When comes to "media" outlets that advertise themselves as I mentioned previously, yes, they should be held to standard of fairness and impartiality, as they are a major component of framing national discussions and deciding outcomes. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war? Think that would have gone the same way had the media not readily-toed White House talking points/directives and made themselves complicit in reporting exaggerations and outright falsehoods that had previously been discredited? You mention not supporting anything that's illegal, but don't seem at all worried about this and related issues, although they come very close as they're a misrepresentation to a consumer market and LEAD to illegalities and abuses...

If I decide I want to run for president...should all media outlets be required to talk about me as much as they do about all the other candidates? And then what if you decide to also run? Where does it end?

They should cover us impartially and report accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less. When two candidates have an almost equal finish, this should not magically shove one into a new tier and relegate another to the memory hole of dismissal and ridicule, especially when other factors are taking into account. They should live up to their marketing hype "Fair & Balanced" et. al, or be held accountable by groups that deal with consumer marketing and self-representation issues.

As far as the issue this thread is getting at and Ron Paul being all over the media, though - well, first off, you might want to watch Piers' opening statements on the first video you posted and then rebut him as well...but, we're mainly aiming at the blatant cases of partiality and different treatment despite similar outcomes as I mention, such as Bachmann now being announced as a member of the top-tier, along with Perry and Romney (although Paul is polling ahead of her nationally, polling more competitively with Obama than she does, and not having a home-state advantage in Iowa but almost beating Bachmann) while Paul's various successes and increases are simply dismissed and excused - instead of just being reported on; headlines mentioning "Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Pawlenty Third!" and a whole host of other examples.

It just strongly bothers me since they present themselves as news outlets instead of salesmen pushing for specific outcomes or establishment party players with an agenda. And if it doesn't start bothering a lot of other people, they will continue to frame national debates and outcomes of events in ways that don't do any of us any good. We could have not gone to Iraq in the first place. We could have not been sold a bill of goods on the "War on Drugs" that has ruined countless lives to no good effect. The list goes on, and it's all wrong. They push agendas, which are usually bad.

I agree with the thread author.
In fact, I was thinking the same thing.

It's not right. It shouldn't just be Ron Paul though - but any candidate that gets treated THIS unfairly for THIS long.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Watts

 

And yet you're still here..... hmmm I smell a musty troll.

I smell someone dodging an argument that they have no response for.


Just tell me...what do you think Ron Paul would think of you wanting a hacker group to use illegal activities to force a private business to do something???

Seems like a fair question to me, that has yet to be answered. OP, why won't you just answer the question and move on?

If Ron Paul becomes associated with Anon AT ALL it will damage his public image, perhaps extremely so. I can think of no quicker way to derail a Paul campaign than to associate him with a force known for criminality and anarchy.

I want Ron Paul too but this election has been decided awhile ago, Rick Perry is your new president. Not a big follower of Alex Jones but in his film he talks about Perry going to the Bilderburg Group meeting, he has been chosen. I will still write in Ron Paul on the ballot because its the right thing to do tho