RoR: Forum

I do agree that he's not being censored by the media since they're not the government, but they can self-censor in the respect of restricting any reporter from covering or getting their reports about him on the headline rotation. In essence, the media has its fingers in its ears scream, "LALALALALA GHOULIANI!!! LALALALALA ROMNEY!!!!!" Yet, if you noticed, Ron Paul still moved from #5 in Iowa's strawpoll to #3 in Illinois' with Brownback following in the back and McCain next to invisible. Even Thompson has come back from the dead too with a #2 rank. I suspect this election will be the election of the upsets as it were. And the media will be forced into either accepting Ron Paul as a candidate or they'll probably continue to drink their own koolaid as it were.

-- Brede

Post 1

Friday, August 17, 2007 - 8:09am

Yes, it's evident that we are not at loss for an ability to get the numbers just because of a lack of media focus on Dr. Paul's campaign. Yesterday, I found out what was spent and by which canidate in the Iowa straw poll, the data was reported in the media. All of this information makes a difference.

Post 2

Friday, August 17, 2007 - 2:48pm

Ron Paul already signed his own political death warrant by saying this at a previous debate:

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East � I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.

Paul continued "They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary,"

Comparing the U.S. building bases and an embassy in Iraq to China building bases in America or the Gulf of Mexico? Come on Ronny. The American people don't agree it was America's fault the WTC was attacked by ruthless savages. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming President.

Post 3

Friday, August 17, 2007 - 8:48pm

I had a lot more respect for Ron Paul BEFORE he opened his mouth as a Presidential contender. He has some sound ideas economically speaking, but in terms of foreign policy he is out to lunch.
(Edited by Erik Christensen on 8/17, 8:48pm)

Post 4

Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 2:22pm

His statement is based on the 9/11 commission report and the CIA.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 8/19, 6:55am)

Post 5

Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 3:22pm

In 2001 and 7/27/2007 Ron Paul introduced the Constitutional tool of the Marque and Reprisal Act to target our enemies.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 8/19, 7:01am)

Post 6

Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 10:46pm

I do hope that you guys might look at the two Marque and Reprisal Acts that Dr. Paul introduced. You'll see that his economic policies and his defense policies are equally strong and go hand in hand. Thank you Dean.
(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 8/19, 7:04am)

Post 7

Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 11:40pm

The secret is you have to "post/preview" or "preview with spell check" once before you submit. So if you change the box, but don't hit preview, then your changes don't get applied. Also, you can delete the old "(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 8/18, 10:08pm)" message.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 8/18, 11:40pm)

Post 8

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:20am

Censorship? Yes. I find it funny to post on an alexa rank 650k website and expect any sort of traffic to view my comment, but most people don't seem to have the corporate experience to know what policies are. News Corp. (FOX) and many other companies are owned not by the government, but by corporate elite individuals with the power to set policies of what THEIR media can say.

Being said, there can easily be a censorship by the corporations who only want their presidential "top tier" candidates to get the coverage. If you have someone to be elected as your boss that helps you out, wouldn't you do all in your power to get him elected? Google search the candidates and compare the top results of news to all candidates. Ron Paul has made significant headway but is reported as a footnote. If a "top tier" candidate wins it makes 1000+ articles.

Lastly, the most humorous of all, is that with Ron Paul you can easily make decisions of his actions based on history. He alone out of the candidates has a record to show integrity. I challenge you to find out and make the same decisions against the other media selected "top tier" candidates and see if your results are as black and white.

Post 9

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 5:31pm

What's an "alexa rank 650k website?"

Sam

Post 10

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:14pm

First off Dwight D. Eisenhower, a GOP conservative warned of the military industrial complex. GE now owns NBC. A lot of military industrial complex companies own media outlets, or they are in the hands of oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch.

This is not a fringe concept or a conspiracy.

Please feel free to see who owns media outlets;
http://www.cjr.org/resources/

Anyways, yes, Ron Paul is being suppressed by media. Ron Paul is being suppressed by the GOP.

Given Ron's huge popularity, it should be quite obvious this is the case. Its also illegal to tamper with elections.

Did you know that GOP and Democrat laws for campaign finance reform screwed soft money. Ron Paul can only take $2300 per person. The fact he has a sizable warchest (larger than McCain's) means a LOT of **PEOPLE** donated. Ron takes no money from big business or the military industrial complex.

This is a sad day when the last hope for America is being derided as fringe, attacked by the GOP hounds of hell and trolls on the internet. Luckily, the Daily KOS types see a friend in Paul, his true conservatism and anti war platform doesn't conflict with a lot of liberal ideals, save guns, a pro life position (he voted NO on a law to prohibit interstate travel for an abortion, so he has a position but will not violate the 10th amendment to have his way), and possibly the environment.

Less government is better than the insanity we have today:

- 9 trillion in debt
- 850 billion trade deficit
- War in Iraq
- War in Afghanistan
- Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alive
- Fomenting War with Iran
- 12.25 trillion M3 money supply, and expanding (massive inflation)

Ron Paul�s record is crystal clean perfect and consistent. He takes no money from anyone but people and constituents. He is as pure as they come.

His consistency is UNSEEN in the last 100 years. This is the perfect guy to put in the white house.

McCain said it himself:
One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, �You�re working for the most honest man in Congress.� That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

Post 11

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 7:53pm

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/20, 11:31pm)

Post 12

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 8:17pm

I don't pay much attention to mainstream media or blogs that are overtly editorial ,so perhaps I don't care as much about the "media suppression". What I fear is the fellow Republicans who only get their info from editorialized sources and have concluded that they will only vote for a canidate if he is willingly to invite a nuclear holocaust. I am stunned that a liberal socialist site like daily kos is in support of Dr. Paul. He is not a statist. Dem trolls and hounds abound as well. "Less goverment' is not what I see liberals insisting for when they're demanding universal health coverage etc.etc.etc. But any vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the U.S.A.

Post 13

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 8:42pm

On a serious note, anyone who really wishes to follow politics can get all the information he wants about any candidate. It is only those who don't pay attention who get the major-media default pre-packaged hoopla. This isn't media suppression, it's audience self-castration. I somehow doubt that Ron Paul is going to get that portion of the mental eunuch vote.

Ted Keer

Post 14

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:07pm

Al Qaida doesn't Care how Weak a Horse we Back

Gigi, what do you mean by "if he is willingly to invite a nuclear holocaust?" I assume you mean "willing to engage in a nuclear exchange?" Surely you don't think electing Paul would somehow prevent our enemies from attacking us with nukes or otherwise? Do you fear a candidate like Reagan who refused to rule out the threat of nuclear attack against one of our enemies? Other than as wishful thinking I don't know how to interpret this notion that electing a pacifist like Paul will make us safe or invulnerable.

Al Qaida's enmity for us is not conditional.

He does speak to the West in terms that appeal to liberals - note Osama's recent endorsement of the Kyoto treaty! But when speaking to his fellow religionists, his aim to destroy the West by any means available is absolute and unwavering - as Raymond Ibrahim shows from Al Qaida's own documents - and does not depend on how mild-mannered our foreign policy might be. Whoever becomes our next president, her good intentions alone will not change global political reality. And I am not sure exactly who is running on a platform of nuke'm all on day one in any case.

Watch Ibrahim explain, in their own words, why Al Qaida doesn't care what our foreign policy is.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/20, 9:13pm)

Post 15

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:27pm

Ted, I have aquaintences who want us to initiate a nuclear strike. I loved Reagans responses. The fact is that we possess several thousand warheads. I have a couple of guns and I advertise that fact with a sticker on my door and on my vehicle. These warheads are not going to disappear when Ron Paul becomes President; but my guns may if we get a president who sues firearm manufacturers and blames guns for crimes.

Post 16

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 11:27pm

Presumably, Gigi, your nuke-happy friends aren't major candidates?

I'm still a bit confused as to what the issue is. I don't think there's anyone of influence who simply wants to, say, nuke Iran flat with 25-megaton yield H-bombs. There is, however, a good case for us taking out their nuclear program immediately, et que Dieu le benisse a M. Sarkozy for speaking openly of war with Iran if they do not toe the line. Would it count as going nuclear if we take out their nuclear plants using conventional bombs? Would it matter if we do so using nuclear bunker-busters? And rumors are swirling that the recent Israeli strikes against Syria were to take out North Korean weapons.

So far as I can tell, it is not the weapons of choice but the fact that we are already at war that really matters now. I understand that Paul wants no war without a declaration. As a member of Congress, has he submitted any such declaration? He need not wait til he's in the White House to do so. Is Paul calling for a declaration of war now? I don't like the fact that we haven't had a declared war since WWII, but the Supreme Court has upheld the "authorization of force" euphemism and thrown out every challenge to the various war powers acts. The fact is that while we have been shameful cowards afraid to use the proper name for the real thing, the President is still subject to Congressional oversight. It is that moribund body that needs to return to statecraft as its practice rather than the nannystate as its focus.

Unless circumstances change significantly, the choice a year from now will be between Giuliani, a proven budget cutting hawk who will not see war as a means to any other end, and Clinton, who will gladly be just as bi a hawk, riding the crest of popularity that will give her to push her domestic agenda through. Giuliani is not going to seize handguns any more than Reagan was ever going to outlaw abortion. I look at the idealistically pure (and since never tested, blameless) Ron Paul and think he's as appealing and squeaky clean as Jimmy Carter.

Ted Keer

Post 17

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 9:21am

            No, Ted, just people who refuse to see the forest for the trees after 9/11. How can you assure me that Giuliani wont outlaw Article II, when he says things like "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to a lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." ending with "You have free speach so that I can be heard.", among the actions he has taken.
           He supports the arrest of U.S. citizen w/ no judicial review and left NY with the single largest expansion of entitlements. I don't agree with his attitude that the president possesses the "authority to redirect federal funds." among other things.
           Ron Paul trusts the expertise of those who've earned it. He would not be influenced by anything but the facts. He will not ask anyone in his cabinet to shade/forget/ and outright lie like Bush did with his Surgeon General, for example, to cater to anyone. As I've said, I may have to vote for Giuliani, but not without a fight.
                                     Sincerely, Gigi
P.S. I completely agree with you about Congress.

I have edited this post to correct wrong assertions I made earlier concerning Giuliani. He entered as mayor with a deficit to contend with. I stand by the rest of content.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 9/21, 3:10pm)

Post 18

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 9:17am

Hi Sam,

Alexa is a website used to statistically "rank" websites based on traffic. It is not accurate in the sense that it only ranks based on users with its software installed, but it does provide a level playing field in that only a certain amount of people have it.

For example, according to Alexa.com, the rank of this website is:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=rebirthofreason.com

My comment above about Alexa implies that I am spending time to voice my opinion at a website which by statistics does not have that many people visit.

You can also take this information and compare the presidential candidates to get a non-biased representation of traffic to their sites. (Main stream media focuses on facets that benefits the candidates they are told are "top-tier" (in my opinion a buzzword unique to this election season.))

With Alexa data you can compare the internet rankings of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul and Barack Obama here:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=joinrudy2008.com&site2=mittromney.com&site3=barackobama.com&site4=hillaryclinton.com&y=t&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=6m&size=Medium&url=ronpaul2008.com

The rankings are based on math between a websites "reach" (based on sites linking to it) and "pageviews" (based on how many people are clicking around the site, or interest.) I own a website ranked 1100 Alexa and have watched it grow from Alexa 50k to where it is now so I vouch for the numbers being accurate based on Alexa as a neutral ranking third party.

Post 19

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 9:38am