Paul censored in polls

W4d5Y

W4d5Y

Newbie
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Here's the new york times' election "guide", listing results from the recent primaries:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html

As you can see, Ron Paul isn't listed, although he managed to get 10% in Iowa and got more votes than Mr 9/11 AND Fred Thompson, whose campaign is widely reported on, for whatever reason there might be....OH, yes, he's member of the council on foreign relations, as is just about each of the other republican and democratic candidates.
And yes, can somebody finally explain to me why the devil the media presents us the presidential candidates of the democratic party as a gang of THREE PEOPLE??! With one of them being a fascist prostitute???
Oh hold on, they ALL are fascist prostitutes.
At least those featured by the media.

Anyway, because I'm totally random and sober right now I give you this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMA8CRyNUMc
 
Icarus's sig length is fine, at least I think so.

W4d5Y if "there's too much to be said to fit into four lines" then use spoiler tags.
 
Please reduce the size of my sig, its obnoxious.
 
Anyone with a sig longer than 4 lines should change it voluntarily today. Otherwise, I'm going to do it for them, and it won't be pretty.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
Anyone with a sig longer than 4 lines should change it voluntarily today. Otherwise, I'm going to do it for them, and it won't be pretty.
Click to expand...
Sorry if my actions start cramping everyone's style, guys, but his sig was friggin' huge.

On topic - I don't like Ron Paul, so if he gets cut out of mainstream reporting, that's fine by me.
 
Imo no offence to you folks, but the focus on the whole sig thing conveys to me just how little alot of people care about the clear bias in the US political system, or in this case call it corruption and abuse of power. Either that, or it shows just how little nearly everyone engages their brain on the subject matter.
 
I doubt anyone even read the OP because of who posted it.
 
clarky003 said:
Imo no offence to you folks, but the focus on the whole sig thing conveys to me just how little alot of people care about the clear bias in the US political system, or in this case call it corruption and abuse of power. Either that, or it shows just how little nearly everyone engages their brain on the subject matter.
Click to expand...

I think the bias is more in the news coverage (or lack of) than anything else. I'm pretty dismayed that the BBC seem to have gone down the FOX News route and pushed aside pretty much any mention of the other candidates.
 
Please reduce the size of your sig, it's obnoxious.

It seems I'm fashionably late.
 
don't worry Qonfy, this party is only just getting started :naughty:
 
Icarusintel said:
On topic - I don't like Ron Paul, so if he gets cut out of mainstream reporting, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

So your all for Political bias as long as it's not effecting the candidates you like? What a great approach to democracy :dozey:
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
I think the bias is more in the news coverage (or lack of) than anything else. I'm pretty dismayed that the BBC seem to have gone down the FOX News route and pushed aside pretty much any mention of the other candidates.
Click to expand...

The BBC is famous for their integrity? When did this happen?
 
LandStander said:
The BBC is famous for their integrity? When did this happen?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe by the time the BBC censored (CFR-whore) Bhutto's statements on OBL's assassination??

You know, because of Bhutto, I just want to slip this in the discussion, I was kinda relieved to narrow the suspects in her assassination down to the network (alquaeda, I'll call them, if or if not they exist, with the proper meaning of their name because anytime I speak of AL QUAEDA and THE EVIL TERRORISTS I feel I helped the new world order agenda to scare the peasants off and creating some ridiculous enemy stereotype.) OR the pakistani ISI...

And since it was obvious the media was wrong with their helpless assumption AL Quaida was to be blamed for her death, already because they blurted out with that answer although it turned out they actually had nothing to substantiate those claims (a phone call they alleged to be evidence of al quaeda involvement was done with an italian news station and the caller wasn't identified)
Also, the tactics were much different than usually.

So, finally it comes down to the police's behaviour that day, it works just the same way it did with the JFK assassination:
They all left their posts minutes before the shooting, and what's darning even more is the fact they actually washed the streets out, effectively destroying evidence from a crimescene.
source:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18962.htm
http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/12/30/bhuttos-assassination-evidence-hosed-down/
Also interesting to note to counter alquaeda involvement claims is to quote US intelligence sources that they thought the reason for the involvement of a gunman, as well as a suicide bomber might have been to clear up evidence. I mean, imagine, a shooter questioned by authorities!
What would turn out to be said?
source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_intelligence_suggests_coverup_in_Bhutto_0107.html

some great news: UNO alleged of cover-up in Bhutto case http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/156457/1/

So, eventually I was kinda relieved simply to see NWO-propaganda at work and not to have worries they might *again* be able to blame the Al Quaeda for everything that's wrong in this world.

So, apart from contradictory behaviour in this assassination (Musharaf was Bush's lover boy, Al Quaeda could have got him out of the way simply by not attacking him, not giving him an excuse for emergency rule and letting democracy do the rest) I was also astounded to find the US and the CIA NOT responsible for this assassination, because Bhutto was, maybe even more than Musharaf, an asset of the US neoconservative lobby, the Council on Foreign Relations.
Nobody would have killed her, because anybody in that league already does enough doubleplusgood things for the neocons as you might imagine.
 
I'm sorry, I can't take anything you say seriously wadsy. Your sig is the most nut job thing I have had the misfortune to read since people used loose change as a source. I suggest you go get a mental evaluation, seriously. Your parents would appreciate it if you used logic and said something smart for once.
 
Why can't you?
I really do not understand, nor could I bother to.

You have to make your point, okay?

Make. Point. Please. You. Incomprehensible.
That means I cannot understand you, okay?

Also, why do you judge my posts by the nature of my signature's contents?
What kind of freaky logic is behind that?

Come on, tell me.

Oh wait, because I said OBL was dead?
No, that wasn't my claim.

I do not doubt that might be very well the bitter truth, but it actually was Bhutto who said that.

Get my point? I hope so.

Bhutto. Said. Okay, I'll make it a bit slower for you to understand me better... Bhutto. Said. That. Bin. Laden. Was. Killed. (by Umar Sheikh, if that information doesn't cause an overload to your maximum celebral reception capacity!)

Also I stated that Bhutto was neither killed by "the network" (known as alquaeda, when it comes to the mainstream propaganda) because there simply is no evidence NOR the CIA because she was valuable to the CFR.
I pointed out that it must have been the ISI, given the circumstances of her death and the subsequent reaction by federal authorities (hosing down the crime scene, blaming al quaeda...oh no, I said the word.)

As opposed to the general assumption I was going to come up with the nuttiest explanation imaginable, I actually do have a point. A. Point. Which. I. Attempted. Elaborating. On.

That's just the attitude of you people that I loath so hard, you flame me without actually addressing the issues that I believe are too important to be left burried by the MSM propaganda machine, get it?
 
LandStander said:
The BBC is famous for their integrity? When did this happen?
Click to expand...

Check this out:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7199181.stm

If you look under profile, candidates, Paul isn't even listed. In fact it's worse for Democrats because only Hilary, Obama & Edwards get coverage, the rest don't get a look in.

If you check out the Polltracker:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7145238.stm

You'll see that only the profiled candidates are featured for both parties in either poll. The blurb at the bottom states 'This data was collated by independent polling resource website Pollster.com', but if you check www.Pollster.com you'll find that their polls include all of the candidates.

Given that Ron Paul is ahead of both Rudy Guiliani & Fred Thompson in the voting so far, it seems a tad bizarre that he's not being included in the the voting. When there is any mention of him it's very much along the lines of the 'maverick'/'renegade' spin that is something Fox (and Rupert Murdochs other news outlets) have been employing to downplay him at every opportunity. His recent success in Nevada is a good example:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7198877.stm

Ron Paul, the maverick libertarian, came second in Nevada after Mitt Romney, picking up four delegates. He has been placed among the top five in every primary and caucus. But he is still not a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...

That the guy has been placed amongst the top 5 in every primary so far, begs the question why isn't he featured in the candidates profiles? The average reader of the website is probably going to just assume there are only 5 candidates in the race. If people don't know who he is, then they aren't likely to read up on him.

If like me you're a little incensed by this, firstly write a snotty comment on the North American Editors blog:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/

(He didn't take to kindly to me telling him he was an embarrassment to journalistic integrity..sadly my post got edited :dozey: )

Secondly (and more importantly) make an official complaint to the BBC Trust, details here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

There is a clear case to be answered here by the editor as to why he has chosen to selectively present candidates in the coverage, rather than providing the viewing public with the whole picture. A lot of people see the BBC as a bastion of impartiality, but clearly Mr Webb thinks otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised to see him jump ship to a lucrative job with Fox somewhere down the line. :dozey:
 
Quote, "Why the Media Hates Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich

November 19, 2007
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html

It's not like Kucinich or Paul go around making bizarre comments, such as "the Constitution is just a piece of paper," or, "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family," or even, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No, neither Dennis Kucinich nor Ron Paul made any of those statements. Instead they get portrayed in the media as "crazy," "goofy," "reckless," or "a nutjob" for saying things like, "I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again"(Kucinich), or, "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon" (Paul).
...............

The answer is simple. The media are the lobbyists, war profiteers, insurance companies, and financial institutions that would be impacted by new policies and laws. For those companies, common sense is the enemy, and Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are full of it - common sense that is. They don't talk like politicians, they talk like successful businessmen. They can see where the fat is and are not afraid to speak up and vow to cut it if given the opportunity, and that scares the hell out of the companies that own the media.

So who owns the media?

Fox News is openly owned by Rupert Murdoch, a hardline supporter of the Republican Party <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html>, but the other major media corporations are in the same boat, affiliated if not directly owned by companies that make their living doing business with our military <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html>. In effect, the major media in the United States makes a good portion of their income from war.

No wonder these companies use the scare tactics of terrorism, scarrorism as I like to call it. They are business partners in the same secret club. A scared citizenship <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html> afraid of the phantom bad guy is good business when you make a living killing people. And anyone who threatens their business is labelled "a nutjob" and denied airtime.

Want proof?

The Nightly News, Presented by Halliburton

NBC <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html> is owned by General Electric, who also owns MSNBC and CNBC. GE also owns Bravo, Telemundo, USA Network <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html>, and the Sci-Fi Channel, among others. GE was awarded $2.2 billion in military contracts in 2005, and according to the War Profiteers <http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?list=type&type=16> website:

"General Electric is one of the world’s top three producers of jet engines, supplying Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military aircraft <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html> makers for the powering of airplanes and helicopters."

CBS is owned by the former Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, a division of Westinghouse. WBC purchased all of CBS <http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html> in 1996 and dropped it's name in favor of the less ominous title, CBS Company, which was in turn purchased by Viacom. Besides making the appliances and household electronics we know them for, Westinghouse used to own Northrup Grumman <http://www.northropgrumman.com/about_us/index.html>, who makes nuclear powered aircraft carriers, military airplanes, smart bombs and nuclear bombs, and is one of the largest military contractors in the United States. Despite the sale of Northrup, Westinghouse still <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Westinghouse_Electric_Corporation> makes nuclear reactors for U.S. submarines as well as electronics for the military and manufactures arms. Those same arms that are used to kill Iraqi's and Afghani's.

But it's much worse than you think. One of the longstanding members of the board of directors for Westinghouse was Frank Carlucci <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carlucci>. Carlucci served as Secretary of Defense before Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor before Colin Powell, and also as the CIA Deputy Director. Carlucci also served as chairman of Carlyle Group from 1992-2003 and as Emiritus Chairman until 2005. The Carlyle Group is an investment firm with ownership in multiple industries, but some of their defense contracts have been widely criticized. Former employees of the Carlyle Group include George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and James Baker.

http://snipurl.com/1tvch
 
...And then the thread was Complete...
 
delusional said:
wadsy and kathuksung would make a good couple.
Click to expand...

Don't lump me in with those two. What I posted isn't from someone else, it's based upon my own observations, and is all there to be verified if you look at it. :|
 
tl;dr

To be frank, the Media seems to be burning the constitution.
 
Politics is boring. The revolution will fix this, or fux it up, whatever.
 
W4d5Y said:
Why can't you?
I really do not understand, nor could I bother to.

You have to make your point, okay?

Make. Point. Please. You. Incomprehensible.
That means I cannot understand you, okay?

Also, why do you judge my posts by the nature of my signature's contents?
What kind of freaky logic is behind that?

Come on, tell me.

Oh wait, because I said OBL was dead?
No, that wasn't my claim.

I do not doubt that might be very well the bitter truth, but it actually was Bhutto who said that.

Get my point? I hope so.

Bhutto. Said. Okay, I'll make it a bit slower for you to understand me better... Bhutto. Said. That. Bin. Laden. Was. Killed. (by Umar Sheikh, if that information doesn't cause an overload to your maximum celebral reception capacity!)

Also I stated that Bhutto was neither killed by "the network" (known as alquaeda, when it comes to the mainstream propaganda) because there simply is no evidence NOR the CIA because she was valuable to the CFR.
I pointed out that it must have been the ISI, given the circumstances of her death and the subsequent reaction by federal authorities (hosing down the crime scene, blaming al quaeda...oh no, I said the word.)

As opposed to the general assumption I was going to come up with the nuttiest explanation imaginable, I actually do have a point. A. Point. Which. I. Attempted. Elaborating. On.

That's just the attitude of you people that I loath so hard, you flame me without actually addressing the issues that I believe are too important to be left burried by the MSM propaganda machine, get it?
Click to expand...

Your old sig supported the 9/11 conspiracy theories if I remember correctly. The first time I read that I passed off anything you said as crazy talk. I am sorry, but a person who can honestly say they believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories with a straight face instantly loses any shred of credibility. It doesn't matter if you post a thread saying 2+2=4 and provide a mathematical source, no one cares as you have already lost your credibility.
 
There are these moments where kathaksung posts something which is totally on the money. There is apparently an opperation, whether it's tacit or intentional-conspiratorial, to quieten Ron Paul and big up idiots like Huckabee. If one examines their media spendings against the proportion of votes they recieved, one is led to the conclusion that someone is giving Huckabee a free lunch:

From the Times, Jan 10th, RE New Hampshire:

McCain
Votes received: 48,666
Media spending: $1.6m
Cost per vote: $40

Romney
Votes received: 75,202
Media spending: $8.9m
Cost per vote: $118

Giuliani
Votes received: 20,387
Media spending: $2.4m
Cost per vote: $117

Huckabee
Votes received: 26,760
Media spending: $175k
Cost per vote: $6

Hang on. 175 thousand? That's miniscule compared to any of the other Republicans and less than a fifth of Ron Paul's NH spendings on TV alone. It may be ironic for me to illustrate a point about apparent media blackout with a story about Ron Paul, but this was months ago; he is simply not being engaged by the media in any real capacity during election-times.

Ah, but Ron Paul isn't successful. He doesn't do well in polls, so the media don't pay attention, and so he doesn't do well in polls. Except that not only do we now see him being ignored over candidates doing worse than he does, but as far as I know Mike Huckabee also had deeply unimpressive ratings before the spotlight.

Then again, no wonder the cameras love him. He's charming. He's quirky. He's wacky and zany, lived in a trailer, lost a hundred pounds, plays in a rock band - and otherwise is just like Bush.
 
Man, that's awesome stuff there. So much wasted on romney.
I don't get though how spending less on huckabee makes him the liked by the media?

Source?


One things for sure. If It's any of the above, we is skrewed. well actually, Romney is rich, so he can't be bought. hmm.
 
Gormanmod said:
Man, that's awesome stuff there. So much wasted on romney.
I don't get though how spending less on huckabee makes him the liked by the media?

Source?
Click to expand...
The stats are from a hard copy of The Times bought on 10th January.

And the discrepency between his spending and the media attention on him is exactly my point: he put a truly miniscule amount into the running - less than it costs to buy a flat in Brighton today - and yet it's heaped on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
RakuraiTenjin
Crossing the Line for Paul
Replies
23
Views
3K
Krynn72
Krynn72
BabyHeadCrab
Prop 19 fails, millions of politically active potheads somberly roll next spliff.
Replies
38
Views
3K
VirusType2
VirusType2
W4d5Y
Ron Paul censored [again], this time by FOX
Replies
0
Views
604
W4d5Y
W4d5Y
leib10
Calif. court upholds in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
Replies
21
Views
2K
No Limit
No Limit
Back
Top