The contempt for Dr. Ron Paul by the media

[sigmtnman]

It's laughable. They are very afraid of him and it shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ISg6u7tPRU

[mikegideon]

I don't know if it's fear, but there's definately bias. It's not just Fox either. Seems to be most of them.

[daddyo]

I'll tell you - the more I listen to Ron Paul, the more I agree with, respect, and like the man. He may just get my vote next year.

[sigmtnman]

I don't know if it's fear, but there's definately bias. It's not just Fox either. Seems to be most of them.

Yes there is a unilateral bias. The only possible reason I can imagine is because they do not want him to get elected. The media is not supposed to agree or disagree with policies or views, so something is up.

The continually make snarky comments, make faces while he talks and call him names. They attempt to make him seem as though he is out of touch, but whenever he speaks I am unable to find fault in what he says.

Most of the directors who sit on the boards of the 6 main media companies also sit on the boards of companies who would stand to lose a lot of $$$ if he were able to accomplish his goals of reducing the size of the federal government. So it that is why I say they are afraid of him.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Ron Paul is our man for president in 2012. You may not agree with everything he has to say, but he's still a far better candidate than the others in the GOP field.

[sigmtnman]

I'll tell you - the more I listen to Ron Paul, the more I agree with, respect, and like the man. He may just get my vote next year.

Before taking the time to understand his stances, I was very critical of him. Regardless of how I tried to refute his positions, his logic was solid and he wound up swaying me. To accept some of his ideas and principals requires an honest dialogue with yourself. It requires accepting more responsibility as a citizen, which most folks would rather relegate to the Fed.

[Guest drv2fst]

I have agreed with him since his last run for the nomination. I would love to see him win. I doubt it will happen. But it would be really great if it did.

[daddyo]

I have always struggled with the "wasted vote" concept. In past years, I have been guilty of not voting my conscience, and I'm going to change that in 2012.

[mikegideon]

Yes there is a unilateral bias. The only possible reason I can imagine is because they do not want him to get elected. The media is not supposed to agree or disagree with policies or views, so something is up.

The continually make snarky comments, make faces while he talks and call him names. They attempt to make him seem as though he is out of touch, but whenever he speaks I am unable to find fault in what he says.

Most of the directors who sit on the boards of the 6 main media companies also sit on the boards of companies who would stand to lose a lot of $$$ if he were able to accomplish his goals of reducing the size of the federal government. So it that is why I say they are afraid of him.

I don't know if it's coming from the top. I kinda doubt it. Since media companies are federally regulated, the smaller the government, the better off they are. I think a lot of folks believe he can't win. I'm one of them... doesn't matter how much I like him. The deck is really stacked against him, with the media as one part.

[sigmtnman]

I don't know if it's coming from the top. I kinda doubt it. Since media companies are federally regulated, the smaller the government, the better off they are. I think a lot of folks believe he can't win. I'm one of them... doesn't matter how much I like him. The deck is really stacked against him, with the media as one part.

The regulation of media has changed a lot over the last 20 years and you would be surprised what little there actually is. Not that it is a bad thing as I don't believe in much regulation. This does however require a tireless populace that is willing to dig deeper and question the statements and ideas presented by the media. This is a whole additional discussion that delves into corporate personhood.

I've posted up a site that allows folks to see the incestuous connections between the board members of most multinational corporations that are required to provide said information. If you have a chance, go to http://www.theyrule.net/ and pick a large company and start drilling around. It is very interesting.

As far as how much control they have, ask Hank.

Edited October 5, 2011 by sigmtnman

[mikegideon]

The regulation of media has changed a lot over the last 20 years and you would be surprised what little there actually is. Not that it is a bad thing as I don't believe in much regulation. This does however require a tireless populace that is willing to dig deeper and question the statements and ideas presented by the media. This is a whole additional discussion that delves into corporate personhood.

I've posted up a site that allows folks to see the incestuous connections between the board members of most multinational corporations that are required to provide said information. If you have a chance, go to http://www.theyrule.net/ and pick a large company and start drilling around. It is very interesting.

As far as how much control they have, ask Hank.

I wouldn't be surprised. I've been in the media for over 30 years.

[Guest TresOsos]

The simple fact that the main stream media ignores him for the most part and does not want him elected should tell you all you need to know.

[mav]

Before taking the time to understand his stances, I was very critical of him. Regardless of how I tried to refute his positions, his logic was solid and he wound up swaying me. To accept some of his ideas and principals requires an honest dialogue with yourself. It requires accepting more responsibility as a citizen, which most folks would rather relegate to the Fed.

I think you are absolutely correct. During the 2008 elections, there is no way I would have voted for Ron Paul. I thought he was a kook on foreign policy. Over the last couple of years, I have been slowly disengaging myself from the tv news media and started studying a little bit of our history, especially our founding. What I have come to realize is that Paul is not a kook, but it was my thinking and understanding that were flawed.

This whole financial mess has me worried, and it seems to me that there is only one candidate out there who is trying to be honest with how bad things are and how bad they can possibly become. That candidate is Dr. Paul. All I hear from other candidates, including Cain, is how they are going to fix government. They are going to make government work by such and such a plan. What they fail to realize is it is the overly large federal government that has created most of the problems (including foreign issues). Cutting a failed program and replacing it with another program isn't going to solve the problem; the government will stay the same size. The only way to fix it is by cutting and making it smaller. There is only one candidate (outside of Johnson) advocated such a position.

I don't think Paul will get the nomination, but he will be getting my vote. I am glad he decided to run again. Hopefully, his message will wake some people up as it has done me.

[TM01]

Ill some it up as I see. The same corporate giants that own this country own the media. What the banking elite want they get from the media organizations that they own. I do not for a second think that any of them are concerned about regulations etc. This country on a much grander scale is still owned by the "Barons" that had control almost from the start. Croney Capitalism has been around for years. Heck where do we think lobbyists came from. Its all about the Benjamins these days. Ron Paul threatens that system so they dont give him the time of day.

[hornett22]

Tells me that is even more reason to vote for him.

[Pain103]

I like some of his views and stances on topics but just something about him I just think I don't know about this guy. I'm not counting him out and haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I'm going to do some more researching on him to see maybe if I just don't know enough about him. I agree on the media thing I think it has to do with he's not marketable on the media market. He really doesn't have the give and take during an interview maybe it's just he doesn't feel the need to BS like the rest of them.

[sigmtnman]

I like some of his views and stances on topics but just something about him I just think I don't know about this guy. I'm not counting him out and haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I'm going to do some more researching on him to see maybe if I just don't know enough about him. I agree on the media thing I think it has to do with he's not marketable on the media market. He really doesn't have the give and take during an interview maybe it's just he doesn't feel the need to BS like the rest of them.

The media tries to make him out as not marketable. The sneer at him, laugh at him and call him names.

Go to the federal record and check out how he has voted. Consistently and unwaveringly.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

This afternoon there was a fox news spot about a bloomberg poll showing Cain (20%), Paul (19%), Romney (18%), Gingrich (17%) in a statistical dead heat in Iowa.

Four top Republicans in a dead heat in Iowa - Politics - The Boston Globe

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rAlZLpulDeLk

After describing the poll results, the talking head discussion centered on "how and why Gingrich is gaining" and "why is Cain still in the running after the bad press" and "the inevitability of Romney". After first announcing the poll ranking, Ron Paul's name was not mentioned even once in the subsequent discussion. That is Fair and balanced fer ya!

Edited November 15, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[daddyo]

The media tries to make him out as not marketable. The sneer at him, laugh at him and call him names.

Go to the federal record and check out how he has voted. Consistently and unwaveringly.

Well, there ya go... the media hates anyone with true conviction and character.

[Guest mikedwood]

You can watch a youtube video of Ron Paul speaking 30 years ago and he is saying the same thing as today. The poll numbers could poll very high for war or worshiping the Federal Reserve and he still says the same stuff.

I like the whole Constitution thing and this crazy idea he has about liberty and true free markets.

He has my vote and he can win.

[greenego]

There is one in the media supporting Ron Paul.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Judge Napolitano, unless that is someone else. Didn't

watch your video.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest mikedwood]

Drudge has a link with the headline "Ron Paul moves into top tier"

So perhaps the impossible is possible.

New poll shows 4-way tie in Iowa as Ron Paul moves to top tier - - CBS News

[wjh2657]

Dr. Paul is pretty much a Jeffersonian in political and economic philosophy. The Jeffersonians went out of power under John Adams and have only had short flashes of return to power ( Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland ) and lost all power and influence at the Democratic Convention in 1896, when the Democratic Party also adopted the Hamiltonian “Strong Central Bank and strong Central Government” platform (witness the current Democratic President’s Central Government actions). I also tend to be Jeffersonian, although I am a Centrist Conservative. The problem for Dr. Paul is that he is “El Lobo” (a lone wolf ) and will never be accepted or supported by the mainstream Hamiltonian parties. If he did get elected he could accomplish nothing with the Congress, which would fight him all the way (as directed by their Corporate masters), and this includes both parties. After almost two centuries of Hamiltonian control by the wealthy elite we just have to recognize that we ( the common people) do not control or even really influence our Federal government. It is also unlikely that we ever will.

I really respect Dr, Paul for his courage and spirit but I am very afraid that he is jousting at windmills. There were two groups at the writing of the Constitution and the one representing the Elite Classes won. The Constitution was written and has been interpreted to give us the exact Federal Government we have. The "Strong Central Government" side won and thereby won the control by the Elite. “The People” in the Declaration of Independence” were “Free-holders, which were White, Land-owning (wealthy), Protestant men (no women!) These are ”The People” that the Constitution has come to protect. Almost all of the Bill of Rights has been made powerless by the infamous clauses of the Preamble and Section One of the main body of the Constitution ( placed there under the Hamilton faction’s pressure). Dr. Paul cannot change that. God Bless him for trying though.

Those that don't follow what I am saying need to take some time and read the real story behind the forming of our government. Do your own research or go to the site in my signature. All of the documents, explaining both sides' agenda, by the founding fathers in their own words are there. They are without any outside political comments and you can make your own decisions after reading them.

Edited November 17, 2011 by wjh2657

[sigmtnman]

You are correct, however Paul can have a major influence on the Federal Register, veto garbage and bring non-fantasy based dialog to the table for general consumption.