If We Don't Talk About it It'll Go Away

The more I think about it the more I honestly fear for the future of our lives and freedoms. Ron Paul won the MSNBC debate's online polls and came in 3rd place on Drudgereport. Despite this there's no mention of him in the mainstream media at all.

I sat there last night watching CNN Headline Prime host Glenn Beck pick out Paul's answer to the question of what major leadership decisions he's had to take as the worst answer of the night. Nevermind that the big talk is Giuliani's inability to define his abortion stance as crucifying his candidacy. The videos are all over youtube, so rather than sift through all of them for the specific questions here are all of Paul's statements. You'll note that when the question comes up he fumbles because he's a congressman and not in an actual leadership position. His job is to represent his district, not act as a leader, which is why he struggled to tie in his medical experience and then came away with citing his opposition to the war. What Glenn Beck did was nothing short of character assassination, and yes they cut off the clip right before he mentioned his opposition to Iraq.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who opposes the war, and is perhaps the only candidate period who is proposing a withdrawal and an end to interventionist policy next to Gravel. Neither of them are being talked about and are the proverbial elephants in the room for the mainstream media. In response to Gravel attacking the other Democratic candidates for rattling sabers at Iran, The Daily Show likened him to a crazy old prospector. Yet despite the response Paul has received on the internet nobody wants to talk about him.

In this discussion on public television, all of the pundits made absolutely no mention of Ron Paul's anti-war platform, or his adamant opposition to the National ID Card, wanting to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve, or any other issues that resonated with the people who are supporting Paul online. They talk about a narrow orthodoxy among the candidates, say that nobody distinguished themselves, and that none of them would resonate with young voters (save Obama). None of them want to talk about the proverbial elephant in the room, Ron Paul. John McLaughlin had to slip in an endorsement for Paul at the end of the segment.

It's revolting. Whenever somebody comes up to the forefront of politics in order to speak the truth, like Paul and Gravel have done they are either ignored by the media, or treated as wide-eyed wing bats. Essentially the same thing which occurred to Ross Perot.

The media has hand-picked the candidates that we should vote for. From the Democrats it's Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (despite the character assassination they performed on him last time), and for the Republicans it's Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. All of them huge phoneys, and double-speaking political finks.

Don't believe me? Remember when Paul answered the question on ammending the constitution in order to allow foreign-born nationals to become president? Paul ended the statement by saying he supports the "original intent" and Chris Mathews can no longer hold back his contempt with an audible "oh God."

Consider this segment following the debates. First I'd also like to note no mention of Paul's understanding of why Republicans did poorly in the last elections (Iraq). Towards the end of the segment, however, Keith Olbermann interrupts with an outburst of "Who is in the lead!?" That outburst was clearly in regards to the poll results, citing Ron Paul as the winner of the debate which as of the time of my posting this entry is still the highest rated. A lead position met with forced laughter from those surrounding Olbermann.

It's not just that they don't think he will win, the media doesn't want Ron Paul to win. Men like Paul and Gravel shake up the establishment, and nothing scares the shit out of cronyist corporations more than when men who can't be bought run for a position of authority. The Republican National Congress itself funds a man to run against Paul in his own district for Galveston in every election, and despite that he's been elected to 10 congressional terms.

Men like Paul and Gravel, men who understand the values of personal freedom and the danger of foreign entrapment are the ones we need in the White House so desperately. Don't get wrapped up in Paul's supporting of the Gold Standard or Gravel's support of universal healthcare. In the long run they're minor issues compared to our personal freedoms and the safety of serving men and women abroad.

Paul/Gravel '08.

Addenda: Since the time I originally wrote this, more has developed on the media's Ron Paul blackout. ABC attempted to leave Ron Paul out of their poll for who won the Republican debates. Digg users caught onto it, and after several members' inquiries were deleted, they flooded the ABC forums, forcing them to make a new poll with Paul in it. It's to be presumed that Diggers flooded that too.

Furthermore, traffic records from after the debate presented at the unnoficial Ron Paul blog indicate that the spike of interest in Paul may be more than just organized moonbats.

Most amazing jew boots

While I don't have your sophisticated political view, I can say that I'm in basic agreement with your basic point that our rights are being taken away. It's certainly the case in America, and no less so here in Britain where I live. Mind you, civil rights and civil liberties are not regarded as issues worth discussing here.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Don't believe me? Remember when Paul answered the question on ammending the constitution in order to allow foreign-born nationals to become president? Paul ended the statement by saying he supports the "original intent" and Chris Mathews can no longer hold back his contempt with an audible "oh God."

Matthews is a douche, no doubt about it, but seriously - people ARE sick of hearing of this "original intent" bullshit. We shouldn't base our lives off the exact words of a 231-year-old document any more than a 4000-year-old document. The constitution was designed as a living document (the founders' words, not mine) that was designed to have its meanings be flexible so that as times changes they could adapt.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yeah, so society is corrupt because of greed? What else is new?

I shouldn't make light of this, though. It's frustrating that our government is so manipulated by our economy. I'm glad to hear that those diggers were able to pressure ABC to report the whole truth, though. We need to do that more often, but of course that'd require our education system to focus on teaching critical thinking enough to counter the mainstream media's successful dumbing down of the public. Our society's probably going to collapse in 20-50 years, but what are you gonna do, right?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Something? Islamodans can't walk across the ocean like they can just walk into Europe, so we've got a good hundred more years to kick out of this bitch.

The best thing we can do to keep people from being ignorant state-controlled zombies is to give them their rights back and to stop interfering in their lives in the name of welfare.

Quote:

We shouldn't base our lives off the exact words of a 231-year-old document any more than a 4000-year-old document. The constitution was designed as a living document (the founders' words, not mine) that was designed to have its meanings be flexible so that as times changes they could adapt.

That said, I also don't think they intended for the Constitution to take away our rights. If we're to ammend the constitution it should be as an expansion of what constitutes a right, not a constriction of them. Yes, the original intent of the ammendment is to keep foreign nationals from experiencing mixed loyalties in the oval office. So fucking annoying. Maybe you should actually read the constitution instead of blindly letting the government tear it to pieces because it's supposed to be a "living document."

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

The constitution was designed as a living document (the founders' words, not mine) that was designed to have its meanings be flexible so that as times changes they could adapt.

Another interpretation of that 'living document' theory is that the Admendment process is what makes the Constitution a living document, not judges basically making shit up to fit their political agenda. Did you ever consider that?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I get that the media locks out certain candidates, but if people were more interested in the political process, the media wouldn't have that opportunity.

You can say it's a Catch-22, that it's impossible to be interested when you don't get the entire story from he media, but I put the greater burden on the population.

If people demanded it from the media, the media would have to give better coverage. But the people clamor for who is Anna-Nicole's baby-daddy.

FELIPE NO

Maybe the rest of us should start electing people running on public education platforms. =p

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Apparently Yahoo is getting in on the action, with candidate pages for every participant except Ron Paul and Gravel.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Honestly, I'm not too surprised.
Ron Paul doesn't represent any special interest groups. Nor do his policies show any sign of paying off to those in power.
So long as ISPs and ICANN don't get in on the filtering action, there is still some hope that in the next few months public awareness can reach critical mass for the media to not ignore him.

Interestingly enough this seems to fulfill Paul's nigh-prophetic statement in the last debate when he declared his distrust for the mainstream media outlets when asked about it.

This question was also addressed directly to Yahoo! in their Yahoo! Answers section.
I'm also a proud member of the aforementioned Digg horde.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The whole Paul thing is a ruse anyway. Some very vocal supporters are spamming the Internet ways rather efficiently, pushing the stories onto Digg and voting in the online polls, but I never see a single Paul supporter in real life. That's why I suspect a giant covert ad campaign likely supported by a botnet.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Arainach

but I never see a single Paul supporter in real life. That's why I suspect a giant covert ad campaign likely supported by a botnet.

I can drive to Lansing later tonight if you like.

Also, the Ron Paul Facebook group alone exceeds 4000 people.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't deny they exist - it's just that while I see piles of people publicly mentioning support or hatred for Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and McCain, Paul is rarely ever mentioned except as "that libertarian nutjob who's got a few nice views but is way too crazy to take seriously".

Paul's marketting efforts on Digg and Reddit can hardly be declined - while in recent days Digg users have gotten fed up and started demoting as spam, there were a couple of solid months where 4-10 Paul stories made it to the front page each day and anyone daring to mention anything other than "ZOMG RON PAUL HAVE MY BEBIES" was rapidly dug down. We don't even Digg down Pro-RIAA people that fast - It HAD to be a botnet, plain and simple. Those online polls that Paulites keep pushing? They were listed on Digg and Reddit encouraging people who hasn't even watched the debates to vote for Paul.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Digg is funny in it's contradiction. On one hand, it's prides itself on being liberial. On the other, they're supporting a candidate who voted no to network neutrality, no to AMBER Alert, no to Kyoto Protocol, no to abortion , no to stem cell research, no to any trade agreement/WTO, no to alternative energy sources and supports unlimited intelligence powers for the goverment (but not Patriot Act, huh?). And whenever it gets mentioned on Digg, someone says that Ron Paul probably had a constitutional reason for voting no.

At least he opposes the death penalty. It's good to see consistency in the whole death penalty/abortion thing.

I don't know about him. He's such a mixed bag. He just seems a bit overboard in all his issues.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You know, I hate how the Republican Presidential debate went down, with the canidates barely answering questions and then taking that time to soapbox. I'd probably say the same thing if I saw the Democratic debate too; however, I missed it. Even still, throughout the entire thing (which was painful to sit through), my brother and I both felt that Paul was the only respectable one out of the bunch. Worst was probably Guiliani, who's always trying to appeal to everyone. I remember his answer to the question asked to everyone, about their opinions on if Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Don't quote me exactly, but I believe his answer was "That would be fine." The moderator (Matthews, I think) asked "And if it wasn't overturned?", to which Guiliani replied "That would be fine, too." >_<

But yeah, I'm getting off topic. I understand your frustration, as the debate was the first time I've ever heard of Paul, and since then, I've noticed he's been frozen out of the mainstream. Oh, and packrat, Yahoo! deleted the question. Hahaha. =)

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by xiaowei

Digg is funny in it's contradiction. On one hand, it's prides itself on being liberial.

Now, actually, I don't think thats really the case. Most of the time, when I've talked with "liberals," I find that they, surprisingly, agree with a vast majority of my views, which are pretty conservative. I think that most of these self-professed liberals assign themselves to this position because they identify it as a view which opposes the current administration. Most likely a majority of these people have no conception about what being liberal or conservative actually means, and just attach themselves to the label that opposes what they oppose.

Sad state of affairs, eh Max? This is just another example of the silencing agenda at work. Interestingly enough(well to me), most of the responses that were posted were relatively well thought out and clear responses (although some of them had rehashed and rephrased ideas). When I get back to work tomorrow, I'll dig up the cached pages and try to post them elsewhere.


Here is the Yahoo! Questions page which was deleted:
http://www.duggmirror.com/politics/Y...Full_Coverage/

How ya doing, buddy?

I know that specifically in regards to the Amber Alert system, Paul voted against it because of all the extra-Constitutional legislation slipped into the document, including Biden's Rave Act.

On the recent Hate Crimes Bill:

Quote:

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

There's always a Constitutionally sound reason for why Paul votes down these forms of legislation.

Quote:

I don't deny they exist - it's just that while I see piles of people publicly mentioning support or hatred for Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and McCain, Paul is rarely ever mentioned except as "that libertarian nutjob who's got a few nice views but is way too crazy to take seriously".

You're also a very pro-statist socialist living in Michigan. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it. I'm not saying that a good part of interest in Paul on the net isn't fake, but that also doesn't mean that the opposite isn't true. What is it about Paul that makes his support any less legitimate than the vote distribution on MSNBC's poll prior to the debate? It's around the same amount of total votes, and while you could put forth that it was conspired by Paul supporters to vote him down pre-debate, I thought that conspiracy theories were the turf of Paul supporters.

Paul's campaign is being marginalised by all facets of the MSM, and his media blackout is clear evidence of that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

There's always a Constitutionally sound reason for why Paul votes down these forms of legislation.

Politics is give and take. If the aim is to deny all legislation that has even a sliver of something undesirable, nothing will ever get passed.

It's not ideal, but, then again, neither is the world, politics, Washington, or really anything.

He's free to stick to his ideals, but it's not surprising why this Presidential campaign failed.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Hasn't failed yet. Still 8 months left before the first primary, and that's a lot of time for word of mouth.

I'd say that what people are looking for now in a candidate is precisely the kind of guy who is principled and stands by his positions. Like Paul pointed out in the debates, a big factor of the Bush campaign was that we wouldn't attempt nation building. Now the very thing we attempted following the fall of the Ba'ath Party was nation building, and the consequences of that decision has become the albatross around the neck of Neoconservatives.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Funny he uses the 1st Amendment for his reason for voting against hate crimes, but doesn't seem to mind to vote for abstinence-only education or keeping mum about abortion. And he believes they should get extra funding for doing so. A bit of a contradiction, in my book.

There's no doubt he has created some buzz on the internet. But will that translate that to primaries and polls? Doubtful. The groupthink will fall apart when they're away from their Web 2.0 communities.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

but doesn't seem to mind to vote for abstinence-only education or keeping mum about abortion. And he believes they should get extra funding for doing so. A bit of a contradiction, in my book.

Explain how those violate the 1st Ammendment.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Many of these abstinence-only educational programs are backed up by religious organizations, as noted here. It also penalizes agencies for not providing the wide spectrum of options.

I've been using the website below to see his views, http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Most of your examples are state programs, and considering the following:

Quote:

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

I doubt that the bill Paul signed on for indicated establishmentarian intent.

FELIPE NO

All of them mention receiving federal funding.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

No, you're still not getting it. Just because a bill determines federal funding doesn't mean that the bill is establishmentarian. There's nothing inherently establishmentarian about abstinence education, and how it's implemented at the school level is the jurisdiction of states, not the Federal Government.

Jam it back in, in the dark.