Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by aldante on August 16, 2011 - 12:53pm

Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all "serious" media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames....and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-t...

Submitted by harvey on August 16, 2011 - 1:00pm.

The media sells stories, stories have to be "fresh" to get the typical viewer's attention, and the Ron Paul story just hasn't changed in years.

Plus he just doesn't have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

Since when did the media provide coverage based on merit?

Submitted by aldante on August 16, 2011 - 1:12pm.

That is some real world feedback for sure. However I thought the news was supposed to kinda report the news! Instead it seems like they are picking winners. Why don't they just step up and say something like: Eventhough RP came in second by less then 200 votes and had twice as many as the next candidate, our analysis says RP has no chance of winning becasue he is an "also ran". Instead they just ignore him.
Speaking of news: who has recieved more donations from Active Duty military then all other Republican candidates combined? RP. You know that crazy guy that saysIRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, PAKISTAN have no possible way of chanllenging us militarily and we are wasting our time over there. Makes it kinda seem like the military folk think he is right instead of all the other warmongers. Don't you think?

Submitted by briansd1 on August 16, 2011 - 1:24pm.

aldante wrote:
RP. You know that crazy guy that saysIRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, PAKISTAN have no possible way of chanllenging us militarily and we are wasting our time over there. Makes it kinda seem like the military folk think he is right instead of all the other warmongers. Don't you think?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, said from the beginning that the wars cannot be won because they are wrong wars at the wrong time in history.

After 10 years, the military is learning its lesson.

But you know what? If you're a general and the president asks you if you can go to war and win, your answer would be "yes, of course, give me what I need." The general probably wants to test his strategy and toys.

Submitted by briansd1 on August 16, 2011 - 1:28pm.

pri_dk wrote:
.

Plus he just doesn't have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

Some of his ideas like legalizing drugs do make sense.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold-standard don't make much sense, IMHO.

I don't follow RP so I don't really know what his platform is. How does Ron Paul compare to his Tea Party son, Rand Paul?

Submitted by jpinpb on August 16, 2011 - 1:43pm.

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I'm sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it's illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on August 16, 2011 - 2:11pm.

I think Ron Paul published weird newsletters on the 70s which he now claims he didn't write or even edit.

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 2:28pm.

RP wants to institute, bitterly resisted, 19th century capitalism. While he seems to genuinely understand the moral issues with imperialism, he does not seem to understand how it's tied into America's "wealth". Then again, most don't.

Submitted by harvey on August 16, 2011 - 2:33pm.

Once again:

The Fed has been around since 1913.

How has the US economy done since then?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 16, 2011 - 2:34pm.

Arraya wrote:
RP wants to institute, bitterly resisted, 19th century capitalism. While he seems to genuinely understand the moral issues with imperialism, he does not seem to understand how it's tied into America's "wealth". Then again, most don't.

Arraya: When are we gonna quit effin' around and get some Marx going in these various threads/discussions?

I'm frickin' primed, dude! I've got my dialectic all polished up, and some fresh rubric, and am even ready to throw some anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism into the mix, too.

Rosa Luxemburg, "Red" Emma and Trotsky! What could be better?

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 2:38pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Arraya wrote:
RP wants to institute, bitterly resisted, 19th century capitalism. While he seems to genuinely understand the moral issues with imperialism, he does not seem to understand how it's tied into America's "wealth". Then again, most don't.

Arraya: When are we gonna quit effin' around and get some Marx going in these various threads/discussions?

I'm frickin' primed, dude! I've got my dialectic all polished up, and some fresh rubric, and am even ready to throw some anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism into the mix, too.

Rosa Luxemburg, "Red" Emma and Trotsky! What could be better?

LOL.. I can't help it! Understanding the language and view of "Marxism" gives clarity on some things. I'm sorry, it does.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 16, 2011 - 2:55pm.

Arraya wrote:

LOL.. I can't help it! Understanding the language and view of "Marxism" gives clarity on some things. I'm sorry, it does.

Arraya: No need to apologize, because I wasn't kidding. I had asked Brian about when he graduated college for a reason: One of the things that gives me fits, is seeing that tired post-structuralist Leftist BS trotted out again and again.

I would actually welcome a serious discourse using Marxian terminology, as a counterpoint and counterweight to the fetishization of the unbridled/unfettered capitalism that has gotten us into this fine mess.

I believe that Marx was truly right on/in a lot of areas, but the "pure" Marx was diluted/polluted by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

A pure Marxian dialectic would provide a reflective surface to American capitalism and would also allow for the inclusion of Hegelian determinism. Personally, it would shut some of these moronic Leftist fellow-travelers up, especially those that don't realize their "version" of Leftism is vacuous, morally bankrupt palaver.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 16, 2011 - 3:31pm.

I like his Ideas about getting the heck out of these meaningless wars and just staying the heck out of the Middle East in general.
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.
Also while the fed did disastrous things in not preventing the recent housing bubble (I still say they knew exactly what they were and are doing and really it's their marching orders) although I am not quite sure why or what they are attempting to do.
(Really you honestly think Greenspan did not know exactly what he was doing ?)
But in reality The fed has presided over the most prosperous 100 years in any nation in history so…

Also I have no desire to go back to the robber baron days

Submitted by briansd1 on August 16, 2011 - 3:42pm.

Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:

But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.

I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.

China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.

During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 4:25pm.

Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:
I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.
Also while the fed did disastrous things in not preventing the recent housing bubble (I still say they knew exactly what they were and are doing and really it's their marching orders) although I am not quite sure why or what they are attempting to do.

I agree with this. The housing bubble was a pump and dump and scape goat to shield the fact that the US was gutted over the last 3 decades. A housing bubble, where everybody took place, gets the fingers pointing everywhere, and will be the blame for the destruction of the middle class, rather than 3 decades of policy. It was a very smooth move. It will also serve as a nice mechanism for wealth concentration, for those at the top, when all is said and done.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 16, 2011 - 4:30pm.

aldante wrote:
Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all "serious" media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames....and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/

Ummm...which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven't seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 5:31pm.

SK in CV wrote:

Ummm...which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven't seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

Come on Sk - he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.

Submitted by njtosd on August 16, 2011 - 5:40pm.

jpinpb wrote:
I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind.

FWIW - a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother's health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 16, 2011 - 6:03pm.

Arraya wrote:

Come on Sk - he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.

I'm absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he's continually showed up at the top of polls. I don't believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He's not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn't excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don't know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he'd get further.

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 6:08pm.

He was ignored in a coordinated fashion.

Looks likes he wins frequently
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul may be the single best straw poll candidate in the 2012 field.

Paul easily won the straw vote at this weekend’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, outdistancing the likes of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

That victory comes on the heels of Paul’s straw poll win at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year — a straw vote he also won at the 2010 CPAC gathering.

And yet, for all of Paul’s straw poll success, he remains a marginal figure — at best — in the 2012 field. What gives

Submitted by Aecetia on August 16, 2011 - 6:58pm.

Paul is the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich. Neither is particularly teleginic and both have some weirdness thrown in for good measure. The MSM reminds me of a high school, with its striations of cool and not cool.

I kind of like Paul, but I wonder why he even bothers.

Submitted by Arraya on August 16, 2011 - 7:41pm.

So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views - yes removing the military from around the world is big business - surely it has nothing to do with that.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 16, 2011 - 8:04pm.

Arraya wrote:
So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views - yes removing the military from around the world is big business - surely it has nothing to do with that.

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn't say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he's remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He's a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

Submitted by GH on August 16, 2011 - 8:58pm.

Ron Paul was the guy we needed 25 years ago to PREVENT the catastrophe we now face. His be fiscally responsible sales pitch is nice in hindsight, but under the circumstances most know even if only in their hearts that we cannot repay but a small percentage of our debts.

The fact is that even in bankruptcy, there are worse and even worse outcomes. We need to start looking at mitigating damage, not spouting about how we should not print more money etc...

I have always liked Ron Paul, but his close the barn doors approach is not going to work and he is not the right man for the job.

Submitted by patientrenter on August 16, 2011 - 8:59pm.

RP is not the most popular politician out there, nor are his positions universally acceptable. Yet he is very popular, and many do agree with some of his positions. Having said all that, what he advocates would badly dent the pockets of the (bipartisan) community that runs Wall Street and Washington DC. The media - and other Congressmen - don't bite the hand that feeds them.

Submitted by CA renter on August 17, 2011 - 2:39am.

Arraya wrote:
He was ignored in a coordinated fashion.

Looks likes he wins frequently
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul may be the single best straw poll candidate in the 2012 field.

Paul easily won the straw vote at this weekend’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, outdistancing the likes of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

That victory comes on the heels of Paul’s straw poll win at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year — a straw vote he also won at the 2010 CPAC gathering.

And yet, for all of Paul’s straw poll success, he remains a marginal figure — at best — in the 2012 field. What gives

You don't hear about Ron Paul for the same reasons you didn't see widespread coverage of the bailout protests on Wall Street -- the ORIGINAL motivation behind the Tea Party movement was to prevent a taxpayer bailout of various bondholders. The original, grassroots TP organization include people from all political parties, and had nothing to do with Republicans...or "Obamacare." Now, they've "magically" morphed into advocating on behalf of bondholders, and against seniors who receive SS and Medicare.

Even though you didn't see the bailout protests (which were huge), you DID see plenty of media coverage of the supposed "Tea Party" movement consisting of anti-healthcare seniors at Town Hall Meetings (most of whom I think were paid plants). This is why I believe the healthcare bill was trotted out when it was -- it neutralized the REAL Tea Party, and gave Republicans control over the activists who were truly pissed, and the final bill ended up funnelling even more money to the FIRE sector because it forced practically everyone to buy PRIVATE insurance. It was an obviously intended to distract the angry masses from what the top 1% was doing -- which was, correctly, the original target of the anger. By having the Dems introduce it, and the Repubs fight against it, they managed to, once again, put citizens back into their neat, little, two-party, mind-control boxes.

You don't see the MSM coverage of protests against privatization of public assets, the protests against the demonization of union workers, etc. But you WILL see plenty of coverage showing the grandstanding b@stards as they rant about the need to cut SS and Medicare so that bondholders can be made whole.
----------------

During the convention's first three days, more than 300[3] individuals were detained by police,[54] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[55] healthcare workers and lawyer observers.[56] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[56] Of these felony arrests, many cases were dropped or reviewed, some times for lesser charges, and about 21 were found to be prosecutable.[3] About 102 persons were arrested for unlawful assembly at a Rage Against the Machine concert in downtown Minneapolis.[57]

Over the four days of the convention, more than 30 journalists were arrested while reporting on the protests. The arrests included journalists from national organizations such as AP and Democracy Now!, journalists from local radio and TV stations, as well as university journalism students and advisors.[58]

Three journalists from Democracy Now!—including principal host Amy Goodman—were detained by police during their reporting on the protests.[59] According to a press release by Democracy Now!, Goodman was arrested after confronting officers regarding the arrest of her colleagues. The officers were in the midst of crowd control, and ordered Goodman to move back. She was arrested after refusing the officer's orders.[60] all were held on charges of "probable cause for riot".[61] Several news sources have criticized the arrest as unlawful and a violation of the freedom of the press,[62] and warned of the "chilling effects" of such measures.[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republ...
-----------

And this:


Media Blackout: CNN Fox News and MSNBC Ignore 100,000 WI Protesters

Hundreds of thousands of Americans around the country march on their governments in an event that would be a perfect fit for the 24 hour cable news cycle. Even better, the protests were occurring during the news cycle dead zone of Saturday afternoon. The coverage should have been everywhere in the media, but if you turned on your television in hopes of watching the rally from Wisconsin live, you were disappointed.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/cnn-fox-m...
---------------

May 13, 2011

By Mark Brenner

Wall Street protest

Sick of bankers and corporate honchos making out like bandits, 15,000 people marched through the caverns of Wall Street yesterday. Unions and community groups rallied together against staggering layoffs and budget cuts.They aimed much of their fury at Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He plans brutal cuts to education and services for the poor, while millionaires will pay even less tax next year and banks continue to rack up huge tax breaks.

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/05/14/pay...

---------------

You didn't see this plastered all over the news, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPvYFMaDh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWhlgxIi...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XreAnHG8x...

Submitted by CA renter on August 17, 2011 - 2:31am.

jpinpb wrote:
I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I'm sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it's illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

Couldn't agree more with your entire post.

I think it's ironic that someone who supposedly stands for "small government" and "libertarian ideals" is so hell-bent on forcing laws on us that can dicate what happens to women's uteri.

Submitted by ucodegen on August 17, 2011 - 2:39am.

briansd1 wrote:
Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 wrote:

But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.

I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.

China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.

During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.


This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don't pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don't pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can't counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.

The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.

To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/0...

I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress...
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Te...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr...

Submitted by Navydoc on August 17, 2011 - 5:42am.

njtosd wrote:
jpinpb wrote:
I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind.

FWIW - a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother's health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.

Not quite true- there are two kinds of molar pregnancy. A complete mole is as you've described, no fetus, the pregnancy is made up entirely of chorion. The other type, a partial mole DOES include a fetus, usually abnormal with a triploid chromosome pattern. Both types of moles are potentially life threatening and need to be terminated, but the incomplete moles are much harder to convince a patient about the need to terminate, as she can often see a heartbeat on the ultrasound.

I realize RP was likely a general OB/GYN when he was practicing, but I would like to have introduced him to the patient I took care of with pulmonary hypertension with twins. She refused to terminate despite multiple warnings of her likely high mortality. I can't introduce her to him now, but I can point him at her tombstone. The babies didn't make it either.

This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 17, 2011 - 6:52am.

Even China uses inflation to it's advantage when it needs to.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 17, 2011 - 6:58am.

Also I think I just saw that china want us to focus on our economy,
Maybe print money and create job's ?
(really china is an expert at this)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.