RSS
August 1, 2007
Ron Paul Still on the Top of the Internet Charts
One reason that "mainstream media" should continue to fear blogs is because the best ones are truly independent. LAist is "owned" by a couple of people in New York who are busy running their own damn website. Plus, they believe that when you empower people and give them the freedom to grow, they will yield fruit faster and more beautiful than you ever expected.
The people of the Interwebs have found a star in Republican Texas presidential hopeful Ron Paul. Currently this three-month-old video is #1 on the Technorati Charts for most talked-about video.
When you realize that it means that the soft spoken libertarian is beating all those Philippine prisoners doing the Thriller dance, the question shouldn't be "Why is LAist continuing to beat the drum for Ron Paul?" it should be "Why do you allow the LA Times, and the local news stations to turn their back on the most interesting, and seemingly the most popular person in the race?"
Watching the way the MSM apparently decided long ago that only a few people were going to become president, therefore those were the only ones who would get covered, is a very creepy manipulation of their power, and another tell-tale sign of their lazy workhabits.
But worse, it's further proof that traditional media couldn't give a rat's ass about what is happening on the Internet, even if what's happening is revolutionary.
There's a reason only old people buy your "news" papers, newspapers.
You haven't called bullshit on this president or this war. You are failing to properly incorporate the Information Age into your information. And you don't even know what the people find interesting because you don't care about any of those who are interesting.
You are racing toward your timely death and not a minute too soon and all by your own hand.
And ps great job selling your ass to Rupert this week.
Surely there's a word in one of your thesauruses that lists the names of people who sell their most important thing to creepy old men solely for money?
|
Intentionally or unintentionally, your whole missive is belied by the fact that the clip you posted is made up entirely of clips of Ron Paul on the MSM, or MSNBC as the case may be, which are strewn together and shown via YouTube, a company owned by Google, which last time I checked was trying to give Rupert a run for his money. So, aren't you using the MSM to make your point that the MSM is unnecessary? Haha.
Nice way to make your point.
And, who's the "you" that hasn't called BS on the President and the war? The MSM? I guess you don't read the New York Times editorial page too often. Too busy coming up with ways to call out your self-importance.
as always, theres fasteddie to run in to the comments to pretend like two or three columnists on one paper on the other coast makes up for the entire national press
heck of a job, eddie.
As always, nice way to not respond to the main point.
I wasn't referring to columnists. I was referring to the entire editorial board of the New York Times. Do you need total and absolute consensus and unanimity of the national press corps in order to be wrong? What are you Joseph Goebbels? I don't think you even understand your own missive. I've just given you one of many examples of the "MSM" doing exactly what you say it isn't doing. Need more? How about: Read the editorial page or reporting of the Washington Post (e.g. Dana Priest's articles on CIA renditions), New York Times articles, not columnists (e.g., Michael Gordon and John Burns' reporting on Baghdad and troop surge), or New Yorker commentary and articles (Hedrick Hertzberg and George Packer's articles and blogs), Boston Globe editorials and columns, Keith Olbermann - MSNBC (who you luuuuv to post). Aren't these all examples of MSM, if not the pillars of the MSM? C'mon.. I think you just want to feel special. What makes you special is your serial predilection to posting before fact-checking. Is that the future of information acquisition? Haha.. give me newspapers instead...
heck of a job, tony. welcome back from vacation, we missed your groundless and hyper-exaggerated histrionics you call "blogging."
fine eddie, if you truly think the MSM are a small collection of east coasters then keep believing that the Press has raised their collective fist at this failed administration, this failed war, the unending scandals, and they've called us to action to help bring them down before they bring this country down further.
if, however, you were part of reality you'd know in your heart that the paltry amount of pro journalists who have actually stepped outside of their comfort zone to call bullshit, or actually cover All of the presidential candidates, especially Mr. Paul, are small in number and short in courage or creativity.
they follow who they're told to follow, they write what everyone else writes. they, like you, are cowardly and unable to think for themselves, particularly while on the clock.
but eddie we know you hate reality, facts, logic, and you hate democracy worse. even if the person who is getting the short end of the stick is from the party who you blindly follow.
you hate it because it didnt come from the mouth of hannity or rush first.
here i am defending the rights of a conservative to get equal time but because youre so fucking reactionary to anything that isnt a hummer for BushCo you attempt to call bullshit with your fake name.
you know zero about politics and less about blogging. youre an excellent shitty commentor though, which is probably why god made you.
Haha.. What do you know about journalism? If you know anything, you're certainly not practicing it. So, exactly how do you earn your pay? By citing to and linking to the MSM. Is that what they pay you for? If you spent a single second to recognize your idiotic hypocrisy, your blog would be one page long. God made you into an idiot, plain and simple.
I actually happen to know that I am lot swifter and smarter than Hannity or Rush. In fact, I happen to know I'm a lot smarter than your dumb ass. I'm not pounding Ron Paul. I happen to like Ron Paul. I'm just pointing out what a self-contradicting, self-aggrandizing moron you are. You know nothing about politics.. you don't know jack about anything that matters...
and I know blogging doesn't take any skill since they made you "Editor." Tell me how my comments are any different than the idiotic, snarky, links and diary entries you call blogs... haha.. i did what you do for a living when i was in elementary school. it's called a diary. who gives a shit about your two cents or your life?
i love democracy and i especially love facts. so much that i know that your "work" is totally devoid of them if they're not from links or cites to the MSM....
i like how any time you get any real criticism, you go off like the little child that you are... poor tony.. he just likes adulation from the choir... stupid liberal.
i'll take you on face to face. you know where i am.
I believe that recently when he (Ron Paul) was asked by the "truthers" (those that think 9/11 was a bush inside job) and he finally admitted he didn't believe it he lost a large segment of his support.
"Intentionally or unintentionally, your whole missive is belied by the fact that the clip you posted is made up entirely of clips of Ron Paul on the MSM, or MSNBC as the case may be, which are strewn together and shown via YouTube...So, aren't you using the MSM to make your point that the MSM is unnecessary"
Yes, the video is made up of Ron Paul interview clips taken from the MSM...All of them I think. All we want is equal coverage, because, unfortunately, most people are sheep, and will vote for their favorite of the most popular candidates getting the most MSM coverage. Lower tier candidates are more often than not portrated negatively (see NYtimes article on Ron Paul). Ron Paul's ideas may be radical, compared to what we're used to; but we've come so far from our traditional values, that his "radical ideas" are what we need to get back to where we should be (focusing on our problems at home, not trying to impose our will on other nations through force).
I'm just a regular guy, and I watch the news everyday, and I NEVER see anything about Ron Paul, and 90% of the news stations I watch present the Bush Administration in a favorable light, while backing up the notion that our continued presence in the middle-east is keeping us all from certain doom. You can think you're right by posting a few names of a few editors or columnists who disagree with the war, maybe you're a lucky one who lives in a community full of left leaning media, and if that's it, good for you. I live in a republican state where people LOVE to support the war, legislate morality, and they're convinced Bush is keeping us safe - that's what they're told to believe.
Long post short- Ron doesn't get equal coverage (If he did he'd have better name recognition), and most MSM outlets still support the war despite it's unpopularity.
ludicrousspeedjeremy
Only a douchebag would call a story a missive, in a lame attempt to sound smart.
If my cullions were on your mentum, what would you're embouchment contain?
See, I can use a thesaurus too, cock.
I know it's cool for all the netroots people to support Ron Paul because of his opposition to the war, but you do realize he's a crazy Libertarian? For example, here are some of the things Ron Paul supports:
1. Overturning Roe v. Wade
2. Abolishing the IRS
3. Abolishing the Federal Reserve
4. Pulling out of the UN
5. Pulling out of NATO
6. Repealing gun control laws
7. Welfare programs of any kind
The list goes on and on. I think too many people like this guy for one issue alone (which I think he is mostly right about), but fail to realize that if he were President (humor me for a second) he would try to abolish most of the Federal Government and let the "invisible hand" of the free market provide the services that millions of people depend on the government to provide. Oh, and you can forget any kind of health care reform coming from this guy, except maybe the kind that gives private insurance companies MORE power.
Im confused as to why those things are "crazy"
The Fed has been doing damage to our currency since its creation, If you dont have the fed you dont need the IRS.
Hes delivered 4000 babies, he can have whatever position on abortion he wants. Im pro choice but im inclined to yield to the good Doctors position on this one. Besides he wants the states to decide. Abortion is a tricky complex social issue that should be decided at a more local level.
He cant wipe the welfare programs, he wants transition programs to help the people who are now dependant on these programs.
Hes got to go through congress to do this stuff anyway, so it doesnt matter if I agree with everything or not. Its his constitutional position and his proven integrity that sold me.
please explain how those stances make him "crazy"?
1. allowing the states to choose their own laws regarding letting a woman choose what happens to her body is crazy to you?
2. oh you like paying taxes on top of taxes and having those taxes be spent on ridiculous wars?
3. i dont mind disagreeing with him on this
4. the same UN that no one respects?
5. why shouldnt we be friends with all countries instead of just a few?
6. id love to have the same guns as the cops and the terrorists
7. fine, i disgree with 2/7ths of his stances. thats a lot less that i disagree with most suits
and if i dont have to pay income taxes, im willing to work on those two disagreements and find some middle ground.
as for health care, someone like Ron Paul would change way more than you give him credit for.
if you want real change, you have to be ready for real change.
i believe our boy would also legalize marijuana, which someone like smokes_quantity should appreciate.
Ok Eddie, I am gonna try to take a stab at this. I am just a welder\fabricator so please excuse any short comings on my abilities as a "blogger" Not trying to attack anyone here just pointing out my observations.
As for the clips taken from the MSM, they are pretty much strictly from the debates. I don't think the MSM had much other choice in the matter. I think the point that is trying to be made here is that the MSM almost never seeks him out for an interview. And for someone who is trying to put an end to the "PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT FEDERAL RESERVE" that prints money out of thin air and then lends it to us at interest, should be on the front page of every paper. And the fact that it isn't, is nothing short of criminal on the part of the MSM.
And then there is Meetup.com. Ron Paul has more supporters than all the other candidates combined. Can you point to a MSM video that points that out? I doubt it.
Then there is Google. I just did a search on Ron Paul and it brought 55,000,000 hits. That is typically a bit high. It usually runs from 45-50 million. I just did a search on Rudy Giuliani and he got 2,140,000. Were talking more than 25 times as many hits than the supposed front runner gets.
Also, after the debates in, I think it was South Carolina, I was following the blog on the CNN web site and Ron Paul dominated the blog (with just 12 bloggers of course) and there were something like 170 blogs that night and then all of the sudden they were gone. Someone had pulled easily 90% of the Ron Paul stuff and left a pretty even mix, rigging the blog.
Another thing is the online polling. Ron Paul kicked everybody's butt in both debates and yes they did mention it those nights because it was live TV and they had no other choice but then you never heard anything on the MSM after that.
Then there are the polls on Fox. As of tonight 8-1-07 they show
Giuliani 28.0%
Thompson 19.0%
McCain 15.7%
Romney 9.3%
I would like to know where the other 28% is. For all we know, Ron Paul could be getting 25%
I could go on and on but you get the picture.
Abolishing the IRS, insisting that the First Amendment be followed, insisting that we have Declarations of War as per our Constitution - these strike me as the height of sanity ...
Somehow I knew my post would bring out some people to defend Ron Paul's strict Libertarian views. Which is fine. If you are a real Libertarian, then more power to you. My original post wasn't aimed at you.
Instead, it was aimed at the growing number of liberals who are supporting Ron Paul merely because he is such a staunch critic of the Iraq War. I was merely trying to show that the vast majority of his views are COMPLETELY in opposition to many important things that liberals believe in. Liberals believe in reforming government, not gutting it. This guy hates government so much he wants to limit its scope to the absolute bare minimum...yes, that means ending social security, Medicare, Federal student loans/grants, the EPA, FEMA, etc.
Many of the young people who make up the bulk of his support probably don't support those things. The life-long Libertarians do support many of those positions and will continue to support them long after Ron Paul is gone.
You can read more about Ron Paul in his own words here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 (and I don't want to hear that I am a 'mainstream' Democrat just because I linked to Daily Kos. Trust me, I don't have many positive things to say about the Democratic candidates either)
One other point I would like to make is that with the MSM, I think it is pretty well understood that those with the money get the coverage. The MSM makes big money off politicians and politicians get their money from two main sources, people that are trying to save their country and get their candidate noticed (Ron Paul being the winner here) and those that stand to reap billions upon billions of dollars by colluding with politicians to steal it from us one way or the other(this would be the Rudy Mcromneyobamaclinton bunch)with the latter reaping the largest contributions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the MSM is going to favor and this is nothing more than good ole fascism and this is why our country is hosed. If it were truly a level playing field and all the candidates had the same amount of money\coverage, Ron Paul would win hands down because Paul has the grass roots and has proved his loyalty to the people and not the corporations. Corporations don't vote, people do. So when we get a president in office, it is always one that has been backed by big corporate money and money buys propaganda. So Eddie, there in lies the problem. You are MSM, you make money at it and the top management of your company makes sure they make as much money as they can. And that is why the MSM will always be the scumbags that sold our country out, where as Joe blogger, though less educated is not bound by this inherent fascist design and is not as likely to put a spin on his opinion.
Smokes, what's crazy about being a Libertarian? Our Founders of this country were libertarians and put limits on the Federal Government because they knew what happens when a select few get to make more rules rather than defend people's rights. Did you ever notice that the Bill of Rights is strictly a list of things the government cannot do. It is not a list of things the government is responsible for, or what they can do. The responsibilities were granted to the states and then if the states make no law regarding an issue it went to the people. Why should the government tell us what to do? They work for us? Do you tell your boss what to do? No, you work for him so he tells you what to do or your fired. It makes so much sense, I don't understand why people don't get it? Don't you want the government to leave you alone? Why rely on them? What have they done that is a good thing? The only thing they do that can't be done by anyone else is operate the military. That's it. Even the Post Office could be better run by Fed Ex and UPS.
By the way, universal healthcare will be the ruin of our country. It is federal and state regulations that drive up the costs of health care, in addition to the pharmaceutical companies getting exclusivity on "cures," that exclusivity coming through their payoffs to the government, not because they earned it.
thanks, smokes, for bringing that up. it's good to point out that while ron may not support the war, he has little else of liberal ilk on his platform.
the move to overturn roe v. wade is about a lot more than "allowing the states to choose their own laws regarding letting a woman choose what happens to her body"and you know it, tony.
"the move to overturn roe v. wade is about a lot more than "allowing the states to choose their own laws regarding letting a woman choose what happens to her body"and you know it, tony."
Enlighten us all as to what more there is to it.
Does wanting to return the decision-making about what laws we live under in our own communities qualify as a nefarious ulterior motive?
Do you so deeply desire to be a petite-despot yourself that you get some perverse pleasure from seeing others forced to adhere to your own moral code?
Ron Paul is personally anti-abortion. So am I. But I don't support a federal law restricting abortion (or about virtually anything else). Neither does he.
Suppose for the sake of argument, that the religious right successfully got abortion outlawed throughout the entire US. Wouldn't you be marching and railing against the despotic regime that infringed on what you see as a fundamental right? But suppose..... that you could just cross the border into the neighboring county, or the next state where they had a more 'enlightened' policy. The one-size fits all national policy ensures that wide swaths of citizens will have moral judgments that they disagree with fundamentally forced on them under the threat of violence.
Aggregating the reigns of power and extending the reach of that power over the personal morality of the citizens in a political unit the size of the united states is a sure-fire way to ensure the tyranny of the majority. And once it is within the power to legislate on issues beyond the protection of life and property of individuals, no area of a persons life is off limits to them, save that they act as self-limiters. We should not be so ignorant to think that a power available to our authoritarian masters will long go un-utilized.
Why should a massive bureaucratic organization, far removed from its citizenry go about enforcing a moral code on it's 300 million odd citizens. Whether it is deciding whether abortion is moral or dictating that we must all give a portion of our labors to our neighbors, why must the pragmatism of a city of self-important bureaucrats trump the wishes of the local citizens who better understand their community and what they personally want out of life. Are we the mentally infirmed, that we cannot find the path to happiness without a federal department subsidizing us with our own money (less the 40% handling fee they retain as the fee for imposing their will upon us)?
If the majority of the citizens, or at least a majority of the elected 'representatives', decide that something is not good, should it become illegal? Or if they decide it desirable, legal?
Breaking the political body into it's smallest possible component parts and endowing the smallest component parts with the most sway over the operational quality of life issues is the surest way to impart to citizens the maximum amount of freedom and the broadest opportunity for happiness.
Whatever the issue you might imagine - let's say marijuana laws.... suppose you live in a town where puritanical values rule, and the town has seen fit to enforce strict laws regarding the subject. You could simply move to a neighboring town that allowed it. Of what consequence is it to Elkhart Indiana if Norwalk California chooses to allow marijuana to be legally procured and ingested?
Suppose that through some tortured interpretation of the constitution, the religious right could get a law passed making church attendance universally prescribed. Would you not prefer a system where the nut jobs who wanted to enshrine their own lifestyles as optimal and compulsory could not do damage beyond the borders of their own distinct community?
Ron Paul does not favor an end to helping those in financial hardship; he does not support defaulting on obligations long promised to those nearing retirement; he is not in favor of individuals using hard drugs. He simply rejects that the federal government is the most economical and efficacious body to address these issues. One doesn't have to look very hard to illustrate that the federal government is never economical and rarely efficacious.
Ron Paul is the best, last chance we have for restoring liberty and limited government to the United States. Please sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html