Why Is The Mainstream Media Scared Of Ron Paul?

My Opinion

Why even bother watching news or reading the papers?

All media outlets censor everything that comes across their desk.

Even the internet websites censor stuff.

Don't believe the hype from anyone or anything.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

Oh, okay, but not nearly as irreparable as being 9 trillion dollars in debt, national parks and land tracts that now belong to China, and the unbacked currency that's spends .036 cents it's original value.

Yeah, looks like we have things ALL figured out.

Great point.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

So, since I disagree with Ron Paul, you assume that I don't believe that changes need to be made? I thought it was DENY ignorance, not embrace it... my bad.

The Gold standard is no longer workable. It was at one point, but it no longer works for an economy that needs to be as agile as possible.

If the Govt wants to add money to the system at this point, it can be done it a hundred different ways. Just lower the discount rate a bit, and boom, more money into the system. Lower the reserve requirements, sell bonds on the Market, and you have plenty of liquid cash to go around. With the gold standard, if you wish to increase the level of money available, you must acquire the gold, transport it, print the cash, send it out to the Reserve banks, etc etc. Is that an oversimplification of either process? Certainly, but the fact is, to move from fiat currency to gold currency is not a viable option going forward. Not in a fluid, global economy.

Paul's plan for private currencies is just about the most wacked out idea I've heard of in a long time.

Just out of pure curiosity, do you know why China owns so many dollars? Goodness of their heart perhaps? Big US fans? NO. They own so much debt because for the longest time they pegged the value of their yuan to that of the dollar (about 8.27 yuan to the dollar). To keep their currency from appreciating too much against the dollar, and thus lessening their trade advantage, the Chinese bought up HUGE sums of dollar denominated assets. Biggest seller on the market of such securities would be the US Federal Govt. Now, the Chinese are sitting on mountains of dollars, and like any good investor, are attempting to diversify away the risk. Is it an inherently bad thing that China owns so much of our debt? Not really, no. Think they are out to try and tank the economy of their best trading partner? I severely doubt it, unless they are eager for a global economic depression of massive proportions. They only reason why so many people are freaking out about something that they probably don't really understand is because Politicians are fear mongers. They are playing upon people's Nationalistic tendencies. "China can't possibly own American debt! How unthinkable!"

Lastly, where did you get your figure from?

.036 cents it's original value

What year dollars are you speaking about? For instance, a current dollar is worth $.67 of a dollar in 1992. What are you talking about here?

reply to post by mek12

The night I decided to vote for Ron Paul was during the Fox News debate where folks could text their vote in, thus eliminating any chance of someone casting two votes.

You are seriously kidding us right? You really dont believe that do you????

That is a big fat joke. Seriously. That system is seriously flawed.

So, if I wanted to have cast a vote that night. I could EASILY have casted my vote a number of times. I could have used our 3 cell phones. I also could have used a number of my friends and families cell phones. Therefore, me as 1 individual, could have cast a dozen or so votes EASILY.

Why do you think that some of the winners of "American Idol" are horrible horrible HORRIBLE singers? LMAO.

Because the "phone text" voting system is flawed and can EASILY be manipulated.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]

The reason mainstream media ph34rz Ron Paul is because they know hes the most popular candidate among the 18-26 year old age range of voters.

He's dangerous. He's on the Republican docket, yet has liberal standpoints that some may say would go further left than some of the points that are made by the leading Democratic nominees.

And then you see him win every single user poll by a bizillion percent after the debates.. and despite all this .. the mainstream news casters like Chris Matthews on MSNBC will still try to twist the post-debate chat into something that has nothing to do with R.P., sometimes outright discrediting him even though he won the debate.

I have never voted Republican in my life! And if Ron Paul became Republican nominee versus Hillary Clinton, I'd vote for Ron Paul! That is a big step for me! You're talking to someone who voted Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by BloodthirstyCapitalist

Originally posted by captainplanet
Check out Fox News getting caught in the act:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but exactly HOW does the person taping this know these guys are FNC people? I can't see any identification to support that claim in the vid, so perhaps its an assumption (see also the title "Fox????"). In which case, thanks for the opinion presented as fact.
Also, why don't we see the RP ppl in the video? Is it not possible that there is some reason WHY a major cable broadcaster wouldn't want to show them on air? Just wondering....





[edit on 1-11-2007 by BloodthirstyCapitalist]

The fact is the person who says this is the host of "Off the Record" which is a review show of Michigan politics that is shown on PBS. His name is Tim Skubick and he has never worked for FNC. He is as liberal as they come and would likely not be scared by Ron Paul. The asses who made this video would be well served with some fact checking. These morons who post this kind of disinfo are just as bad as the people they are against. Lets set a new standard; a standard based on proven fact! That will bring more people and awareness to Ron Paul and his desires for a better America.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by BennyHill]

I don't think that the mainstream media is afraid of Ron Paul. I think they're afraid of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but not Ron Paul.

What I hear from the media is that Ron Paul does not now, nor will he ever, have the base to win the election and that he will be a spoiler for the Republican Party, just as some others have been in the past, most notably Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Splitting the vote is a tactic as old as democracy itself.

Those who are old enough to remember, however, know that these same things were said of Bill Clinton countless times before he finally won the nomination for Democratic candidate for president in 1992, I believe it was.


[edit on 2007/11/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Ignore this post

refresh error sorry

[edit on 1-11-2007 by nobodyv2]

Originally posted by Copernicus
reply to post by an0maly33

 

Ah, you meant the things Ron Paul said? Yeah his message has been the same for a long time. And now that the US government is totally out of control, people start to listen to him. Back in 1998 things werent that bad in the US... but things have really changed since then.

9/11 changed the US forever...do not forget that. Alot has changed. 1998 was nearly a decade ago... Its a new era, newer threats have emerged. Gone are the days where communism was feared, in its place, a new enemy has been born. My biggest fear with Ron Paul is how tough will he be against terrorists? Why ron paul wont make it to the white house? September 11th 2001 happened. the American ppl want someone who is strong on defence spending, someone who will not pussy foot around with terrorists. Ron paul is a wonderful, yet unrealistic idea that just so happens to be about a decade to a decade and a half to short. We live in a different era, we need someone who is willing to adapt to change. We are in a world war RIGHT NOW. Its called the war on Terror. and its going to last a long time.

Originally posted by West Coast
pussy foot

TEEHEE

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist

Paul is advocating the creation of private currencies, backed with precious metals, in order to take the power of currency creation away from the government. Seriously bad idea.
-BloodthirstyCapitalist

Paul is also advocating pulling out of the WTO, the UN, NATO, and the IMF. These are all international trading regimes that are meant to foster free trade. They resolve trade disputes in some cases, and facilitate currency exchange in others. The UN is also the best, unfortunately, organization for the Nations of the World to interact in at the moment. As the global hegemon, its incumbent upon us to have a significant presence in such an organization. By pulling out of such important partnerships, we are slowing down our own ability to trade and remain competitive in an increasingly globalized world. Ron Paul wants to shove his own head in the sand, and pretend the world isn't changing, let him. I, and many others like me, disagree with his position.
-BloodthirstyCapitalist

That second to last sentence was a bit of an exaggeration, but ok.

Lastly, Ron Paul is a big supporter of the Classical School of Economics. If you have studied economics, you are probably aware of how well this economic system has worked, or not, in the past. I am still a staunch supporter of Keynesian Economics, and think that Ron Paul is a dangerous guy when it comes to the economy.

I have read his policies, and what he intends to do. That fact doesn't change my opinion that he is dead wrong, and would cause irreparable damage to his nation, and its people, if elected.
-BloodthirstyCapitalist

All good and understanding points. But you know what the best thing about Ron Paul is?

He doesn’t presume to have the authority to make all those changes on his decision alone.

That means he is going to be pushing for strong reforms in all those programs and they need them. If his plans are indeed no good, they wont happen but at least they will be working on fixing it. In fact, I’d say he is the only Republican who is not a threat to cause irreparable damage to this nation, or its people, because he is the only one trying to do away with all the new presidential powers. He is a REPUBLICan. He’s no Bush, we shouldn‘t even have to worry about presidents doing whatever they want and every other person on that side is in favor of too much presidential control. We NEED Ron Paul to at least win the republican ticket because those are some crazy old white people over there. They are truly dangerous to the whole world. I forget where I heard it but “cowboy” politics is right, we need someone who is at least not a troll. I’d be happy with a Ron Paul v.s. any democrat election, then at the very least I‘d know none of those other douche bags are going to win.

reply to post by West Coast


And if terrorists popped up tomorrow anywhere but Iraq, who would the other republicans presume we send? Blackwater? Yea…that’s legal…..

Ron Paul wants to regroup and strengthen our country, being in Iraq isn’t really stopping any terrorists.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by captainplanet]

Originally posted by captainplanet

And if terrorists popped up tomorrow anywhere but Iraq, who would the other republicans presume we send? Blackwater? Yea…that’s legal…..

Ron Paul wants to regroup and strengthen our country, being in Iraq isn’t really stopping any terrorists.

Its not the "being there" that im worried about. Its what would happen if we werent there that makes me a bit nervous. Another thing about Ron paul that I do not particularly like is how isolationist/protectionist he comes off as. Dont get me wrong, he has a certain appeal to him that I myself admire, but their are a few things that worry me about him. Pulling out of the WTO and killing free trade would be effectively putting a nail in the coffin in regards to the exponential growth of the interdependent world economy that is growing at about 5% a year.

The US is to powerful to go back to being an isolationist nation. If it were to just simply 'pack up and go home' russia, china, iran, north korea etc, would be waiting in the wings to take advantage of a retreating US. So if its not the US, its Russia/china ect.

if u are part the MINORITY who actually votes in U.S....i hope u don't get screwed like u did before in bro jebs territory...i also hope u realize that when u take the losing guys votes away ur left with a very small percentage of THE PEOPLE who actually supply a mandate to rule...so much for 'Democracy'...when u factor in the 'REAL' rulers, so much for Democracy...while humans continue to put their Faith in the world & not their Creator...things will continue to go from bads to worse...if u are hell bent of having a 'leader'....go for it...but don't forget to PRAY for them.....(& please don't call me a Christian)......GB

Originally posted by West Coast
9/11 changed the US forever...do not forget that. Alot has changed. 1998 was nearly a decade ago... Its a new era, newer threats have emerged. Gone are the days where communism was feared, in its place, a new enemy has been born. My biggest fear with Ron Paul is how tough will he be against terrorists? Why ron paul wont make it to the white house? September 11th 2001 happened. the American ppl want someone who is strong on defence spending, someone who will not pussy foot around with terrorists. Ron paul is a wonderful, yet unrealistic idea that just so happens to be about a decade to a decade and a half to short. We live in a different era, we need someone who is willing to adapt to change. We are in a world war RIGHT NOW. Its called the war on Terror. and its going to last a long time.

Well, if you really look into 9/11, you will find out that your current government let it happen or planned it itself. I know it sounds crazy, but sooner or later you will have to come to terms with it. 9/11 was a inside job, intended to transform America to what you have now.

False flag attacks have been made many times by governments since its so efficient in changing a country.

A good documentary about 9/11: 9/11 Coincidences.

it is not, who ron paul is, but rather what he represents to our biased clinton-loving, free thought despising news media, and elected government. ron paul epitomizes that deep down desire most rational, over taxed, under paid americans have within their psyche; to have a government, by the people, and for the people. to live in a place where we aren't being squeezed, poked and prodded, then told what to believe by the pablum serving media, who goes down the road to hell, hand in hand with our "elected representatives". unfortunately, most, if not practically all of the people in america, will not come to realize that the chance to take back what God gave us, and that which should never have been stolen away from us through our apathy and political greed, is indeed gone; the ability to govern, and think rationally for ourselves.

Ive been personally following the Ron Paul juggernaut closely from here in Australia as I see him as a pivital point in US politics and had held out some hope that honesty and integrity would rise up. Sadly the truth is stranger than fiction, I have come to the conclusion he is a masonic stooge and the final straw for me was his standing silent on that new HR Bill allowing authorities to jail people on inciting terrorism is they suggested over the airwaves to rise up.

reply to post by mazzroth


You have any more information about this? I have never heard of this. Got any documents, videos or anything to back up what you claim?



[edit on 2-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Anyone interested in Ron Paul saw the photo's on ATS here with him giving secret handshakes before it got pulled and the HR bill he abstained from voting on has also disappeared. I wonder if the conspiracy is so deep and complex we will never know the truth ever.

reply to post by mazzroth


So there is nothing to back up this claim then? It sounds like a classical case of character assassination to me. Creating rumors about someone can be efficient in making people turn away from someone, even when they are completely false.

So please dig up some source for this information so we can properly discuss it.



[edit on 2-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


www.govtrack.us...

reply to post by mazzroth


Yes, he seems to have not voted at all:

No Vote TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

I would be more worried if he had voted Yes. He didnt. But he didnt vote No either.

Im pretty sure Giulinai, Hillary and the other crooks would have voted Yes to this, arent you? 94% voted Yes to this... its incredible. Isnt this the bill that basically says you are a terrorist if you oppose the government propaganda?


[edit on 2-11-2007 by Copernicus]