|
Crazyfish66 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Well done man! Destroy the concentrated media!Freedom of the press doesnt mean corporations should be the arbiters of "democracy". Their networth screams capitalism first, democracy second.
wcarlpdrysdale (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
go ron paul
VVendettaz (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Undoubtedly Ron Paul should be the President. He is without any shadow of a doubt the only real politician in the world today that understand the concept for the people by the people. Im a UK resident and I wish we had such a politicians, No, what we have are cowards and traitors. harsh words I know, but that's the reality. perhaps the next time around the Ron Paul surge helped by the people will demand coverage. Its easy, turn off your TVs, they will get the message very very fast.
ryharwell (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It's all about the money trail.
MacabreTurtle (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I'm not attacking Ron Paul. Please, don't take it that way. Actually, I think Ron Paul was the best option right behind Obama, whom I supported. I'm also not stating that I like what they cover. I am only claiming that covering what they want does not qualify as lying, or covering up.
safeshark (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
If you have questions, would like to argue, or want to know more about Ron Paul and the freedom movement, and would like to discuss things in more detail than can be accomplished in a 500 character YouTube comment, go to:ronpaulforumsDOTcomThere are many of us there who would be glad to engage you in civil debate if you disagree with our concerns about the media or other issues, or would simply like something explained in greater detail. MacabreTurtle, I'm looking at you.
safeshark (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The major media is lying by claiming to be "The Most Trusted Name In News" or "Fair And Balanced" while in reality they are anything but. I can understand if you like the things they cover and don't think they should cover Ron Paul or the very real freedom movement, but not all Americans think like you do and they are being left out in the cold. When we see the mainstream media blatantly ignoring or attacking Ron Paul while propping up their favorite candidate, we get angry. Know what I mean?
safeshark (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Ok, why is Ron Paul the only candidate whose media graph doesn't follow his search hits? You are right in that the networks are "showing who they like", but many of the American people, the ones who aren't "lazy", WERE doing their own research. That's what is shown by a large amount of Google search hits on Ron Paul. Even though the media refused to cover him, he was popular on the Internet anyways. The disconnect in net popularity and media coverage does not exist for any other candidate.
MacabreTurtle (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The video was on whilst typing those messages and I heard him basically saying that the amount of media coverage is correlated with there popularity. This may be true, but I still don't consider this to be anybody lying. I consider this to be the networks showing who they like, and the American people being lazy and not doing there own research.
MacabreTurtle (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
... and my second post of "I fail to see your point," was also true. What was the point of..."It doesn't matter if the searches are pro or con, there were millions of them, far more than Obama & Clinton in '07 and the media ignored it completely."?Because, I missed it. I think stating I don't see the point sounded more mature and welcome than me giving the other option, a childish "so what?" |
