100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Wed 10/19/11 11:37 PM
|
|
If I ran a media outlet and the man was even associated with half of what he is (racism) I wouldn't want him on my media either. Who knows what the lunatic might say that might get me sued. Yep, so much for 1st amendment rights...... you nailed it So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice. Can't have it both ways. Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too. Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST?????? My logo boasts no such thing. Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist. Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals. My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do.... RACIST! Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here. What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it. Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white.  Ron Paul never condoned them. (He was not the editor in chief. He just founded it. A lot of people do this. Pick up any newsletter, and you'll find that few to no articles are written by the founder) Even if he did, there is no evidence that they are factually false. I don't know why you're so against RP-he stands up to the GOP establishment a helluva lot better than Obama ever has. If you SERIOUSLY oppose the GOP, Ron Paul is the only candidate who's interested in opposing the statists and neocons. It is fortunate that many principled left-liberals and progressives are waking up to both party's BS and moving toward logic and libertarianism. (ironically, libertarianism started as a radical "left" movement in opposition to 20th century statism, and the partisan left joined the trotskyite "new right" in their eternal assault on individual liberty) You ought to check out Naomi Wolf's recent works. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I ran a media outlet and the man was even associated with half of what he is (racism) I wouldn't want him on my media either. Who knows what the lunatic might say that might get me sued. Yep, so much for 1st amendment rights...... you nailed it So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice. Can't have it both ways. Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too. Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST?????? My logo boasts no such thing. Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist. Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals. My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do.... RACIST! Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here. What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it. Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white. Ron Paul never condoned them. (He was not the editor in chief. He just founded it. A lot of people do this. Pick up any newsletter, and you'll find that few to no articles are written by the founder) Even if he did, there is no evidence that they are factually false. I don't know why you're so against RP-he stands up to the GOP establishment a helluva lot better than Obama ever has. If you SERIOUSLY oppose the GOP, Ron Paul is the only candidate who's interested in opposing the statists and neocons. It is fortunate that many principled left-liberals and progressives are waking up to both party's BS and moving toward logic and libertarianism. (ironically, libertarianism started as a radical "left" movement in opposition to 20th century statism, and the partisan left joined the trotskyite "new right" in their eternal assault on individual liberty) You ought to check out Naomi Wolf's recent works.
He had complete creative control over them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I ran a media outlet and the man was even associated with half of what he is (racism) I wouldn't want him on my media either. Who knows what the lunatic might say that might get me sued. Yep, so much for 1st amendment rights...... you nailed it So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice. Can't have it both ways. Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too. Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST?????? My logo boasts no such thing. Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist. Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals. My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do.... RACIST! Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here. What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it. Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white. Ron Paul never condoned them. (He was not the editor in chief. He just founded it. A lot of people do this. Pick up any newsletter, and you'll find that few to no articles are written by the founder) Even if he did, there is no evidence that they are factually false. I don't know why you're so against RP-he stands up to the GOP establishment a helluva lot better than Obama ever has. If you SERIOUSLY oppose the GOP, Ron Paul is the only candidate who's interested in opposing the statists and neocons. It is fortunate that many principled left-liberals and progressives are waking up to both party's BS and moving toward logic and libertarianism. (ironically, libertarianism started as a radical "left" movement in opposition to 20th century statism, and the partisan left joined the trotskyite "new right" in their eternal assault on individual liberty) You ought to check out Naomi Wolf's recent works.
He had complete creative control over them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I ran a media outlet and the man was even associated with half of what he is (racism) I wouldn't want him on my media either. Who knows what the lunatic might say that might get me sued. Yep, so much for 1st amendment rights...... you nailed it So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice. Can't have it both ways. Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too. Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST?????? My logo boasts no such thing. Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist. Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals. My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do.... RACIST! Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here. What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it. Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white. Ron Paul never condoned them. (He was not the editor in chief. He just founded it. A lot of people do this. Pick up any newsletter, and you'll find that few to no articles are written by the founder) Even if he did, there is no evidence that they are factually false. I don't know why you're so against RP-he stands up to the GOP establishment a helluva lot better than Obama ever has. If you SERIOUSLY oppose the GOP, Ron Paul is the only candidate who's interested in opposing the statists and neocons. It is fortunate that many principled left-liberals and progressives are waking up to both party's BS and moving toward logic and libertarianism. (ironically, libertarianism started as a radical "left" movement in opposition to 20th century statism, and the partisan left joined the trotskyite "new right" in their eternal assault on individual liberty) You ought to check out Naomi Wolf's recent works.
He had complete creative control over them. He only admitted in several newspaper articles to writing those newsletters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I ran a media outlet and the man was even associated with half of what he is (racism) I wouldn't want him on my media either. Who knows what the lunatic might say that might get me sued. Yep, so much for 1st amendment rights...... you nailed it So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice. Can't have it both ways. Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too. Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST?????? My logo boasts no such thing. Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist. Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals. My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do.... RACIST! Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here. What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it. Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white. Ron Paul never condoned them. (He was not the editor in chief. He just founded it. A lot of people do this. Pick up any newsletter, and you'll find that few to no articles are written by the founder) Even if he did, there is no evidence that they are factually false. I don't know why you're so against RP-he stands up to the GOP establishment a helluva lot better than Obama ever has. If you SERIOUSLY oppose the GOP, Ron Paul is the only candidate who's interested in opposing the statists and neocons. It is fortunate that many principled left-liberals and progressives are waking up to both party's BS and moving toward logic and libertarianism. (ironically, libertarianism started as a radical "left" movement in opposition to 20th century statism, and the partisan left joined the trotskyite "new right" in their eternal assault on individual liberty) You ought to check out Naomi Wolf's recent works.
He had complete creative control over them. He only admitted in several newspaper articles to writing those newsletters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't an Honest Politicians one hell of a contradiction? 
Only time a Politician has his hands in his own Pockets is in winter when its cold! 
true but folks in the US the media is just another arm of the political machine so don;t expect much from the commercial media, anyway |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the founding fathers were not all racist
and it doesn;t matter anyway they've been dead for hundreds of years listening to the racism clamor is tiresome. I see racism coming also from communities of color - like some think they are entitled to it in reverse? just no it;s not right in either direction and it is not racist to favor a white candidate and it is not racist to not favor a candidate of color racism does not belong on the table in politics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peccy
on
Sun 10/23/11 02:58 PM
|
|
Isn't an Honest Politicians one hell of a contradiction?
Only time a Politician has his hands in his own Pockets is in winter when its cold!
true but folks in the US the media is just another arm of the political machine so don;t expect much from the commercial media, anyway You see the average person reading the paper has a fourth-grade reading comprehension level. (This board is way above the norm) It's very easy to gain confidence in most people through the media. Be it visual or written. That's why our society is so frigged up! You have maybe a few people deciding to tell the population what to believe this week! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 10/23/11 03:12 PM
|
|
Yeah! Like Rupert Mordicks flunky Bull O'really (Murdock and O'Rielly.....Faux News) Then there is Some Hammerme (Hannity) and of course their unbiased analysts (cough..cough) Only one worth watching on the Faux network is Judge Nep.... surprized they keep him on telling the truth and all.... but he is a judge....
 thought they knew.....
Censored News Now (CNN) is no better! Never Broadcast Correctly (NBC) another one! Absolute Bull Chit (ABC) no better! Maybe Some Need Bull Chit (MSNBC).... I think you get the picture!
|
|
|
|
|
