PPP Poll: Ron Paul takes lead in Iowa

Last night before going to sleep I decided to see what the fuckfaces at CNN were saying.. In the 25 minutes I had it on..

"Ron Paul winning Iowa really doesn't mean much. A candidate has won Iowa before but also lost, you can't look much into it."

Then that red eye show came on.. and the host / other guy had a banter back n' forth about each other's past..

"Yeah, well I'll release that photo of you with Ron Paul back in the 90's"...
Other guy: "Ok, you win, I quit"

I wonder how much these networks are paid to shit on RP.
 


dreamache said:
Last night before going to sleep I decided to see what the fuckfaces at CNN were saying.. In the 25 minutes I had it on..

"Ron Paul winning Iowa really doesn't mean much. A candidate has won Iowa before but also lost, you can't look much into it."

Then that red eye show came on.. and the host / other guy had a banter back n' forth about each other's past..

"Yeah, well I'll release that photo of you with Ron Paul back in the 90's"...
Other guy: "Ok, you win, I quit"

I wonder how much these networks are paid to shit on RP.
Click to expand...

What's really interesting is Andy Levy was really excited about Ron Paul running and even went a whole show plugging "Ron Paul 2012" where ever he could.

Not sure if he got bitched by his bosses at or if he changed his mind.

There were also a few shows with Ann Coulter where Greg and Andy teamed up against her defending Libertarians. Asking questions like how she could still think the war on drugs was working. Pretty sure that Levy actually is a Libertarian, Greg may be too. But being on Fox News during election season, they haven't been showing it lately.
 
It's not that people are being paid directly or getting explicit orders.

We don't need a conspiracy theory to address that the system is fundamentally a propaganda machine that the people operating even do not recognize because it is considered mainstream and authoritative.

These people are all acting out of self interest, repeating what they are paid to repeat.

The myth that the punditocracy have anything to say is silly. Bill O'Reilly is authoritative because he has a show, not because he is an expert on anything, or particularly notable for his own achievements. Likewise Rushbo and Hannity.

The system is ugly, counter-productive and dangerous. Paul is exposing this. Consistent with the threat, the system is seeking to minimize Paul's influence. Unfortunately for them, while they still may be the gatekeepers, the walls are in fact down.

30 years ago, there was only one opinion. Now there are millions. And the pundits lose their influence every single day.
 
guerilla said:
And the pundits lose their influence every single day.
Click to expand...

I agree. In my experience, it is better to avoid the conspiracy theory, and instead water the seeds of distrust regarding the media. A lot of folks sense the truth. The seeds are already planted in their minds. Just need to add water and nutrients...

"Have you ever wondered why the folks on TV seem to have nothing intelligent to say regarding important matters?"

"Have you ever listened to 10 minutes of "news" or commentary, and had trouble recalling anything of value?"

"Try this experiment... Watch CNN, NBC, Fox, or whatever your preferred flavor, for half an hour. Then, turn the TV off. Write down what you have learned. Are you impressed with it?"

"Is it time to consider other sources of news, commentary, and truth?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanWesson
guerilla said:
We don't need a conspiracy theory to address that the system is fundamentally a propaganda machine that the people operating even do not recognize because it is considered mainstream and authoritative.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think it's far fetched to understand that the guys delivering the news are told how to spin a story by their producer. Their producer answers to someone higher up, and that person someone above them. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's just the way business works.
 
music4mic said:
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think it's far fetched to understand that the guys delivering the news are told how to spin a story by their producer. Their producer answers to someone higher up, and that person someone above them. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's just the way business works.
Click to expand...

This was posted before, but the guys at The Young Turks (when they where on MSNBC) where pressured hard by their producers because they where pissing off people in Washington.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg]Cenk Leaves MSNBC (Inside Story) - YouTube[/ame]
 
guerilla said:
We don't need a conspiracy theory to address that the system is fundamentally a propaganda machine that the people operating even do not recognize because it is considered mainstream and authoritative.

These people are all acting out of self interest, repeating what they are paid to repeat.

The myth that the punditocracy have anything to say is silly. Bill O'Reilly is authoritative because he has a show, not because he is an expert on anything, or particularly notable for his own achievements. Likewise Rushbo and Hannity.
Click to expand...

They don't have shit to say but that doesn't stop them from being listened to unfortunately.

The cogs in the wheel, yeah they're not active participants in a conspiracy to lie to millions of people, clinking glasses after work on the prowess of their mind control efforts. But the top tier network producers, execs, and presenters, I consider them to be very much aware of the lies they tell, who they tell them for and why, and the power that their words have in maintaining the consensus trance. They can and should be defined as conspirators.
 
Btw, I made this from a Washington Post (WaPo) photo gallery released last night. Please share it with all of the neocon idiots you know on facebook and fascist blogs like HotAir and RedState.

guerilla said:
HlA2D.jpg
Click to expand...


Also, I would appreciate it if people could anchor this page for our friend Dick Morris.
 
ayzo said:
If I was in the Ron Paul campaign, I'd start hinting that if he didn't get the nomination he would use his massive donor base and highly engaged backers to launch a 3rd party campaign in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona, all states that republicans must win in order to win the election.
Click to expand...

This idea is genius except for the fact it wouldn't matter. As long as RP doesn't get in that's a win for the establishment. Dem or repub, doesn't matter... same agenda.

Why do people always feel the need to preface shit with.. "oh this isn't a conspiracy theory" or "let's not get into conspiracy theories here"? As soone as people do that I think "conditioned"... hey here's a fucking news flash: There is a conspiracy, and it's not a theory. It's right the fuck in front of everyone's faces.

Not directed at you Ayzo
 
Paul has to address the newsletters or they will hammer him on it relentlessly.

And I am not sure he will. No one in the campaign can make him say anything, and I don't think he will back down on this.

It's a big gamble he is taking here.
 
conv3rsion said:
you can be fairly liberal and agree with Ron Paul more than any democrat. I think myself and Turbo fall into that category. At least if Ron Paul wins his party's nomination then people have a real choice
Click to expand...

Word. If Ron Paul manages to win the nomination, sticks to his guns and doesn't succumb to the republican right ( and thereby going against true libertarian principles) I will have no problem voting for him and against obama.

That said, if one of those other clowns get the nomination, then I have no problem voting for obama (with maniacal glee).

So let it be written, so let it be done.
 
JakeStratham said:
Hold on tight. The machine is shifting into second gear...

Ron Paul Suddenly Doesn't Want to Talk to Reporters About His Racist Newsletters - Politics - The Atlantic Wire
Click to expand...

Talk Radio has been going on and on about this all week.

Not sure what else they expect him to say, there are only so many ways to say "I don't agree with what was written, and I wasn't aware of what was written until years after".

I don't blame him for walking out on what is obviously attempts at character assassination, the name of their game is, if you repeat Ron Paul is racist enough times, people will start believing it.

They are also probably trying to ambush him into a flip flop scenario on free speech.

Truth is, he has answered every question on the newsletter. He hasn't dodged anything, what else is there to address on it?
 
I think he got mad when they implied he profited from racism.

The thing is, the media will make this the only coverage he gets unless he puts it to bed.

It's also not good for fence sitting supporters, who may see this as him not taking this on directly.
 
guerilla said:
I think he got mad when they implied he profited from racism.

The thing is, the media will make this the only coverage he gets unless he puts it to bed.

It's also not good for fence sitting supporters, who may see this as him not taking this on directly.
Click to expand...

How much more direct could he be though?

Did you know about the newsletter articles at the time they were written?

His answer: "No".

When were you aware of them?

His answer: "Not until years after they were published"

Do you agree with the articles?

His answer: "No, I disavow those articles"

But you made a million dollars from this newsletter?

His answer: "No I did not. If that newsletter made a million dollars, I didn't see any of that money, I was running my practice at the time. I wouldn't have had to do that if my newsletter was making that kind of money"

Of course, I paraphrased those answers, but they are answers that he has given.

How could he be any more direct?
 
He couldn't. He's doing the best anyone could do the way that the press is slanting this issue.

I know there is no message he can say other than "I hate darkie" that will satisfy the MSM, but Guerilla's right, they are going to ride this and ride this and ride this issue because it's the only chance he's given them, living an otherwise spotless existence for 30 years.

What he should do at this point is make a statement himself about it; NOT answer any more questions on the situation. PAUL needs to control the flow of that information, even if he's not saying anything new.
 
turbolapp said:
Word. If Ron Paul manages to win the nomination, sticks to his guns and doesn't succumb to the republican right ( and thereby going against true libertarian principles) I will have no problem voting for him and against obama.

That said, if one of those other clowns get the nomination, then I have no problem voting for obama (with maniacal glee).

So let it be written, so let it be done.
Click to expand...

Why not vote third party?
 
ly2 from WF said:
Many of his "supporters" will probably jump ship once the real election starts and they go into the booth to vote Obama. Happened last time and I see no reason why it won't happen this time. Liberals love to talk him up and suck his balls to try and fuck up and confuse the right and then soon as the game really starts, they unleash their hate about him believing in God, thinking abortions are not OK, and then all the racist attacks. Would be funny though if they over did it and actually help him beat Obama.
Click to expand...

Wait, RP is pro life... just lost my vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom