Censorship of Ron Paul - **cough** beach bum ** cough**

[MB_722]

1

2

 

[Hugo Chavez]

note for Calmus, it is said here, as I have also witnessed, "he rallied progressive Americans"

Today's progressives:

The fourth and current Progressive movement grew out of social activism movements, Naderite and populist left political movements in conjunction with the civil rights, LBGT, women's, and environmental movements of the 1960s-1980s.[6] This exists as a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging in outlook from centrism (eg. Reform Party of the United States of America) to left-liberalism to social democracy (like the Green Party) and sometimes even democratic socialism (like the Socialist Party USA).

Modern progressivism includes political figures such as Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Rush Holt, Cynthia McKinney, David McReynolds, Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Peter Camejo, and the late Paul Wellstone. Also in this category are many leaders in the women's movement, cosmopolitanism, labor movement, American civil rights movement, environmental movement, immigrant rights movement, and gay and lesbian rights movement. Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, and Urvashi Vaid.

Significant publications include The Progressive magazine, The Nation, The New Republic, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, In These Times, Counterpunch, and AlterNet.org. Broadcasting outlets include Air America Radio, the Pacifica Radio network, Democracy Now!, and certain community radio stations. Notable media voices include Alexander Cockburn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Al Franken, Juan Gonzalez, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, the late Molly Ivins, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy, Greg Palast, Randi Rhodes, Betsy Rosenberg, Ed Schultz and David Sirota.

Modern issues for "progressives" can include: electoral reform (including proportional representation and fusion candidates), environmental conservation, pollution control and environmentalism, universal health care, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing, a viable Social Security System, renewable energy, gun control, "smart growth" urban development, a living wage and pro-union policies, among many others.

Examples of the broad range of progressive texts include: New Age Politics by Mark Satin; Why Americans Hate Politics by E.J. Dionne, Jr.; Community Building: Renewing Spirit & Learning in Business edited by Kazimierz Gozdz; Ecopolitics: Building a Green Society by Daniel Coleman; and Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

The main current national progressive parties are the Democratic Party and the Green Party of the United States. The Democratic Party has major-party status in all fifty states, while there are state Green Parties or affiliates with the national Green Party in most states. The most succesful non-major state-level progressive party is the Vermont Progressive Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_progressivism

[Hugo Chavez]

wow, these vids are right in line with what I've been yelling about.  This is seriously fucked up.

[Dos Equis]

I watched the first one.  Not the most credible source.  Looked like something shot in someone's basement. 

[MB_722]

I watched the first one.  Not the most credible source.  Looked like something shot in someone's basement. 

what is it with you and packaging? so typical. thats all you have to complain about.

[Hugo Chavez]

I watched the first one.  Not the most credible source.  Looked like something shot in someone's basement. 

Well you're not going to get the major media to do it no matter how true the stuff might be since they'd be implicating themselves.  That's not happening so you either see this done independently or not at all.  That's fair to assume, then next it's just up to if the material he presented is true or false and I can say it is right in line with what you've seen me noting all along.  When I watched this, there was no shock because I've been following this along the way.  You can find account after account of these things documented over and over so I have to say, it may be budget, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[Dos Equis]

what is it with you and packaging? so typical. thats all you have to complain about.

That's not the only thing.  They were citing "prison planet" as a source.     It would be different if they just showed an uninterrupted clip.  Instead, there was heavy editing, blurry graphs, innuendo, etc. 

[Dos Equis]

Well you're not going to get the major media to do it no matter how true the stuff might be since they'd be implicating themselves.  That's not happening so you either see this done independently or not at all.  That's fair to assume, then next it's just up to if the material he presented is true or false and I can say it is right in line with what you've seen me noting all along.  When I watched this, there was no shock because I've been following this along the way.  You can find account after account of these things documented over and over so I have to say, it may be budget, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

So there was a mass media conspiracy to suppress Ron Paul?  Why? 

[OzmO]

That's not the only thing.  They were citing "prison planet" as a source.     It would be different if they just showed an uninterrupted clip.  Instead, there was heavy editing, blurry graphs, innuendo, etc. 

Classic "Final Cut" Power 

It's so easy to do.

[Dos Equis]

Classic "Final Cut" Power 

It's so easy to do.

Yeah.  Really undercuts the credibility of the piece when people do that. 

[Hugo Chavez]

So there was a mass media conspiracy to suppress Ron Paul?  Why? 

Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible.  But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..."  There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News.  Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda.  Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox.  We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days.  Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.

[OzmO]

Yeah.  Really undercuts the credibility of the piece when people do that. 

I would think that if Ron Paul had a following outside the internet that he has in the internet that there would be some independent polling system or something that could show that.   But he doesn't.

And as much as i like him and would vote for him he simply doesn't matter much now.

[Hugo Chavez]

Prison Planet might get it wrong sometimes.  wow.  I hope nobody is telling me Fox/CNN and others don't get it wrong too.  That would be a funny assertion.  They get quite a bit right over at prison planet too.

[OzmO]

Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible.  But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..."  There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News.  Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda.  Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox.  We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days.  Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.

Imagine if he had poll power behind him.  They would have had no choice.   If he even got 20% or even Hucks numbers a month ago.

If the man was 10 or 20 years younger he'd have his day eventually.

[Dos Equis]

Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible.  But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..."  There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News.  Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda.  Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox.  We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days.  Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.

I agree with some of this.  I really don't trust the media.  That said, I doubt networks like CNN and MSNBC really had anything against Paul.

[Dos Equis]

I would think that if Ron Paul had a following outside the internet that he has in the internet that there would be some independent polling system or something that could show that.   But he doesn't.

And as much as i like him and would vote for him he simply doesn't matter much now.

I agree.  His support has been inflated by internet followers and people who bombard call-in polls.  The election results bear (or bare?) that out. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Imagine if he had poll power behind him.  They would have had no choice.   If he even got 20% or even Hucks numbers a month ago.

If the man was 10 or 20 years younger he'd have his day eventually.

I'm really lost at the polling.  I searched and searched for an independent polling agency or undertaking that took place without the bias toward Ron Paul and I could not find that one was ever done.  Of course if it were to be done, it would have been funded by Ron Paul or a supporter and just discredited because of that.  I don't know what's going on, I just know it seems off to me.  All these numbers just go against my gut feelings.  All time high disapproval in the two parties.  All time high against the Iraq War even in the republican party although it's much higher with progressives.  And the guy who does the best in the primaries is the guy most supportive of the war and most supportive of the course we've taken.  He's been right there backing bush for much of this.  One of the things I still think is likely is that a major portion of the Ron Paul support comes from people who are not registered republicans. It is true that he rallied progressives behind him, but how many progressives are registered republican.  Even with me, by the time I announced he would be who I want, the deadline was passed to register republican.  So maybe much of that support field is not going to translate in the polling or in the primaries and it would account for the clear seperation in what seems to be a large following and actual results. I just know there's something that seems very off.

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree with some of this.  I really don't trust the media.  That said, I doubt networks like CNN and MSNBC really had anything against Paul.

Well as we know with Fox, they got their agenda and marching orders from the top on a daily basis.  We also know that the other media outlets rushed to emulate the success of Fox News.  We also know there has been a huge point made against media consolidation because of the corporations ability to push an agenda without any significant independent voice in the media.  So many others have worried about the corporate media's ability in this area.  So to me, it's not unshocking that marching orders would come down from the top that translated in some way to censorship.

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree.  His support has been inflated by internet followers and people who bombard call-in polls.  The election results bear (or bare?) that out. 

This is like saying internet followers aren't real people.  It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet.  Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over.  So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this.  Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.

[War-Horse]

This is like saying internet followers aren't real people.  It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet.  Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over.  So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this.  Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.

Romney supporters should be shot on sight.

[Dos Equis]

This is like saying internet followers aren't real people.  It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet.  Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over.  So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this.  Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.

I think internet followers are real people.  What the election has shown so far, though, is those followers have exaggerated Ron Paul's support among the voters.  

[Bindare_Dundat]

I watched the first one.  Not the most credible source.  Looked like something shot in someone's basement. 

Some of the articles are taken from Associated press, Rueters, etc...but the images were blurry so they didn't help much.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Ron PAul thinks he got somewhat a of a fair break from the media in the beginning, (when most weren't paying attention anyway), but once the elections debates came on TV something changed. As other canidates starting dropping out he started getting less of a chance to speak then when all the canidates were in. The media did cover him less and less.
 
Some would argue that it's because no one was interested in voting for him, I think it's because his meesage was getting to too many people and the grassroots level was getting huge. I don't think some people liked that so there was a deliberate attempt to shut him up. Lets face it, without media coverage, you're fucked.

[Hugo Chavez]

I think internet followers are real people.  What the election has shown so far, though, is those followers have exaggerated Ron Paul's support among the voters.  

Don't you think I have a possible real explanation in my theory that his support from progressives doesn't translate because they're not registered republicans?  That would account for a larger following that wouldn't show up in polls or votes.  I'm an example of that myself.

[Dos Equis]

Don't you think I have a possible real explanation in my theory that his support from progressives doesn't translate because they're not registered republicans?  That would account for a larger following that wouldn't show up in polls or votes.  I'm an example of that myself.

Yes that could account for some of the disparity.  But if he had true supporters who wanted him to be president they would register and vote.  If his support is made up largely of people who can't or won't vote for him, then he's not and never has been a legitimate candidate.