no media bias against ron paul?

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

For me, all the money talk and media coverage is great filler, but I still need more clarification on the issues.

Ron Paul is actually quite clear on the issues. Here is a good resource regarding his platform:

www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Check his writings too...he's the real deal!

In my opinion, he is the most sensible and consistent candidate...and he's got a great message.

[freddyv]

jeffd5buddy said:

I'm actually getting tired of the conversations on here (not that I've started any winners myself). Just sick of all the same things being rehashed over and over and over.... they are controlled by this group and they don't have him on and they don't give him credit, he's this and he's that. Getting old already.

I'm new to the Politics and Current Events board, so I wasn't around if these ideas have already been discussed. It's really unfortunate that you are unwilling to research Dr. Paul and his platform further. I think if you could get past the the myths you might feel differently.

Did you see my post on the Patriot Act? It's enlightening.

hbgonline.proboards62.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=1197310248

[freddyv]

jeffd5buddy said:

Yeah it's a lot but not even a 1/4 of what Clinton has so why would you think this should be the story of the day....all day?

I don't remember saying that it should be...or anyone saying that actually. if you re-read my post, I actually said that I was looking for equal treatment.

[Mickulz]

No. He says what he wants to do, but not how he plans on doing it.

It is great to say we need to lower taxes and get rid of the IRS, but he has not shown a plan on what to do then. That is my concern. Trust me, I have read his site, read about a billion things (ask SeanX). I am not going in to this blind, but there are just a lot of things that are still very cloudy.

[Mickulz]

A prime example of issues that I DO have is his H.R. 3664 bill. He wants to make tips tax free. Sure, that sounds great to a lot of people, but how is that fair to someone like me. My wife is a bartender, and let's say she makes $1,000 a week on tips (which is not out of the question), that would be $52,000 a year tax fee. That would be nuts.

That is like getting rid of the income tax, it would just get transferred to something else (and he has admitted it) such as a "national" sales tax. So you would have 6% on top of the 6% the state charges. It is all about pushing the money around.

[mdeasy]

jeffd5buddy said:

I'm actually getting tired of the conversations on here (not that I've started any winners myself). Just sick of all the same things being rehashed over and over and over.... they are controlled by this group and they don't have him on and they don't give him credit, he's this and he's that. Getting old already.

Add something of value and you won't be so sick and tired. It's rewarding! Try researching something useful and offering the information to the debate. Just an idea...

[mdeasy]

This is for all of you that still buy into the "party" affiliation fraud. Liberty is an essential precept of the USA. Read below and try denying that you are essentially libertarian.

lib·er·ty
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.
5. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
6. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.

de·moc·ra·cy  
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

re·pub·lic
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

lib·er·tar·i·an
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

dem·o·crat
1. an advocate of democracy.
2. a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.
3. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. a member of the Democratic party. b. a member of the Democratic-Republican party.

re·pub·li·can
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic.
2. favoring a republic.
3. fitting or appropriate for the citizen of a republic: a very republican notion.
4. of or pertaining to the Republican party.
5. a person who favors a republican form of government.
6. a member of the Republican party.

[HBGOnline]

mickulz said:

That is like getting rid of the income tax, it would just get transferred to something else (and he has admitted it) such as a "national" sales tax. So you would have 6% on top of the 6% the state charges. It is all about pushing the money around.

It's quite simple, FLAT TAX. I saw Steve Forbes mentioning this a few weeks ago. If EVERYONE just paid 10% of their earnings, (no deductions or bullshit) the federal government would take in more money than the current system.

Unfortunately it's so simple, it will never see the light of day. Plus how can politicians use class warfare with a flat tax system.

I agree with Mickulz, many taught the elimination of things, which sounds great, however you know damn well you have to replace with something. And the replacement is usually more fucked up than the current system.

[freddyv]

flat tax is a good idea. everyone should be taxed the same amount regardless of income level. that way it is completely fair and no one can complain that another group or class is getting off easy. I would be happy with just a sales tax and no income tax. people can hide income...it's a little harder to hide your purchases when you have to physically go to a store to make them. I don't like the idea of paying taxes when you make the money...then paying taxes on that money again when you spend it...and then paying taxes on that money again when you die and will it to someone. as an aside, ron paul is against so-called double taxation.

as far as ron paul not 100% spelling out how he is going to enact the ideas in his platform...does any candidate do this...ever? if you read his writings or listen to him in debates, he goes into a bit of detail about these things. typically no one formally commits in writing their exact plan of action. for the most part you're lucky if you can get a politician to even stick to any of their campaign promises once they get into office.

jeff...you didn't comment on the fundraising info I posted. does that change your opinion at all?

I think some people have the notion that ron paul is a novelty. unfortunately he didn't have the star power of a hillary or a barack or a rudy coming into the election, so it's taken time for people to discover him and find out what he's really about. I think the trend in his fundraising is showing that he's really starting to catch on and is a legitimate candidate for the presidency, regardless of his lack of media attention.

[Mickulz]

Ron Paul is not spelling out a LOT of things. Also, there are issues that I just do not agree with him on. Not liking a candidate doesn't mean that I am pro-big government, or pro anything. It just simply means I do not agree with his views on things, or his solutions to some issues.

I have read his writings and most of them are the same. Large detail on on why we need to get rid of them, small detail on how to change them and the effects those changes would have. I do vnot agree with the school voucher system, I do not agree with with no child left behind, I believe in the death penalty, I do not think Roe v Wade should be overturned, there are a number of issues that I do not agree with him on. It is that simple for me.

I do not agree with 100% of any candidate at all, so I have to look at what issues matter the most to me. How much money one raises is not even a consideration of mine. I could also care less about his party affiliation.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

It just simply means I do not agree with his views on things, or his solutions to some issues.

How much money one raises is not even a consideration of mine. I could also care less about his party affiliation.

I think that's pretty much how everyone votes...how well the candidate's views align with their own. it is extremely unlikely that any given voter's views will line up 100% with any given candidates views, so you figure out what is important to you and what are the deal-breakers and you make the best choice for you.

as far as amount of money or party affiliation influencing your vote, I don't think that anyone has contended that it should. my entire point of this thread is that the old adage "money talks" is very true, especially when it comes to elections. many people are letting their wallets speak for them in the form of a huge amount of donations this quarter to ron paul's campaign.

ron paul's fundraising this quarter is shaping up to be the second biggest in terms of money raised for any republican candidate in any quarter of 2007. the corollary I draw from this is that ron paul has a tremendous amount of support. if you gauged his support solely based on the poll numbers that the media is putting out there then you would reach an entirely different conclusion. It seems reasonable to conclude that something must be amiss with the media coverage.

unfortunately the news media is not objective, so it leads to this sort of controversy. money raised is completely transparent, you can't really argue with the numbers.

[Mickulz]

Wait a minute. How can you sit here and say he raised it without one iota of planning or organization? The money bombs were pumped everywhere. The Boston Tea Party 07 was all over (flyers, websites, etc..)

How is that not planning?

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

Wait a minute. How can you sit here and say he raised it without one iota of planning or organization? The money bombs were pumped everywhere. The Boston Tea Party 07 was all over (flyers, websites, etc..)

How is that not planning?

It was planned and promoted by a man that is in no way affiliated with Ron Paul's campaign. To me, this is just further evidence of how large the Ron Paul fan base is growing. From an article on mtv.com/news:

www.mtv.com/news/articles/1576580/20071217/index.jhtml#

The man behind TeaParty07.com is 37-year-old Trevor Lyman, a music promoter who has organized previous fundraising stunts for Paul. On November 5, he helped raise $4.2 million for Paul with the Web site ThisNovember5th.com. Then, on November 30, he launched a second, daylong campaign to bring in $2.5 million through RudysReadingList.com. That campaign raked in $500,000 for Paul.

[Mickulz]

But this happens with all the candidates. Again, I applaud him for what he did, but this is not unique. The amount is, but the fact that someone outside the campaign organized it has been happening for years in politics.

[HBGOnline]

mickulz said:

But this happens with all the candidates. Again, I applaud him for what he did, but this is not unique. The amount is, but the fact that someone outside the campaign organized it has been happening for years in politics.

Come on Dan let it go. Ron Paul is the shit!!! Soon you will see why. Guess these guys are to young to remember Howard Dean the mastermind of internet politics and small donations. He was the Ron Paul of 2004.

Let's talk about the real issues!!! Who will TILA TEQUILA pick tonight? ;D ;D ;D

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

But this happens with all the candidates. Again, I applaud him for what he did, but this is not unique. The amount is, but the fact that someone outside the campaign organized it has been happening for years in politics.

I don't understand what you are trying to prove or how any of this is relevent to the thread. Are you arguing just to argue?

My entire point of posting this thread is essentially summed up in my post timestamped 11:16 am earlier today. You haven't really been able to provide anything to refute that. If you can, please enlighten me. Otherwise, just let it go.

[JeffD5Buddy]

freddyv said:

jeffd5buddy said:

Yeah it's a lot but not even a 1/4 of what Clinton has so why would you think this should be the story of the day....all day?

I don't remember saying that it should be...or anyone saying that actually. if you re-read my post, I actually said that I was looking for equal treatment.

When has the media EVER been fair on equal treatment? Look at the Republicans in general... I hear more about Obama and Clinton then anyone.... if you're not a Democrat, you should be used to it.

[JeffD5Buddy]

mdeasy said:

jeffd5buddy said:

I'm actually getting tired of the conversations on here (not that I've started any winners myself). Just sick of all the same things being rehashed over and over and over.... they are controlled by this group and they don't have him on and they don't give him credit, he's this and he's that. Getting old already.

Add something of value and you won't be so sick and tired. It's rewarding! Try researching something useful and offering the information to the debate. Just an idea...

Have you read any other thread on this board?

[HBGOnline]

jeffd5buddy said:

I've had enough of this BS and will be headin to the Brickhous, because I need a drink!!!

[Mickulz]

this statement is what I am talking about:

"if you gauged his support solely based on the poll numbers that the media is putting out there then you would reach an entirely different conclusion. It seems reasonable to conclude that something must be amiss with the media coverage. "

Who cares how much he raises if he is not winning at the polls. I just am not grasping how you say money talks, but then when Ron Paul raises a good chunk and still does not get the acknowledgment you think he should, doesn't that shoot the whole "money talks" theory down? Obviously something is out-trumping the money then.

Think about this. I enjoy 7th Layer, The Underwater, Pokerface and more...To spend $10 to see all these bands is a great deal. I go to dragonfly, pay the $10 for the tickets, and all the sudden I am making a "donation" to Ron Paul. It does not really bother me, but this is why I see the money issue skewed a bit.

Jim - you are right about the Dean comment. But I am also one of the few that remember Ron Paul the first time he ran for President. I actually remember the original airing of the now infamous episode of the Morton Downey Jr. show with Ron Paul.

[HBGOnline]

Sorta off topic but we just found out about a new group forming in Central PA to help Obama. Read all about "This Just In" www.hbgonline.com/fun_stuff/justin/index.htm

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

Obviously something is out-trumping the money then.

we're not even involved in the same argument here. I am questioning the media coverage, which would include the polling data that they are representing. instead of dispelling any of that, you are trying to use the very information that I am calling into question as suspect as the definitive proof in your argument. do you have any other information to back up your claim?

here is what I do know: ron paul is the most searched presidential candidate according to google. ron paul had 118,000 unique contributors making donations to his campaign in the fourth quarter. ron paul has raised over $18 MM this quarter, ranking as the second highest total of any republican candidate for any given quarter of 2007 and higher than any democratic candidate not named hillary or barack. these people are deliberately going to his web site and purposely making contributions. there is no smoke and mirrors there. ron paul is consistently winning the straw polls. all of this points to him having a lot of support.

your entire argument hinges on one thing...polling data presented by the very media that I am calling into question. for argument's sake...if the media coverage is suspect, then the polling information that they are presenting could potentially be suspect, no?

so what else do you have to refute my claim that there is something funny going on with the media coverage? absolutely nothing. which is why you keep brining up things that have nothing to do with the argument I am making. it's the classic "well I have nothing to rebut what you just said...so what about this completely unrelated piece of information."

speaking of howard dean...if ron paul is the howard dean of this election, then by virtue of that alone I would expect more coverage. if you'll recall, howard dean was the frontrunner for the democratic party in the 2004 election before his whole "byaaaaa" speech where his candidacy crashed and burned.

[Mickulz]

I am still not seeing the bias, that is what I am stating. If Ron Paul was suspected to be Muslim, it would be all over the news like that was.

He has made no ripples at all, and that is why there is no media. He raised money, it got the amount of media coverage it should have gotten. John Kerry held the previous record. It got about 1 day in the news.

Maybe is Ron Paul himself did something, he would get more coverage. Not getting coverage isn't a bad thing at all.

In 2 weeks we will not have to worry about the "suspect" media polls.

You also talk about media bias, but you offer no proof either. Exactly how much air time as Huckabee gotten vs Paul?
Or Obama vs Paul? You can say it is obvious, but that is not proof.

I will tell you right now after Obama, Clinton, Guliani..I see Paul on the tv more than anyone else (not counting Thompson on Law and Order reruns).

[JeffD5Buddy]

admin said:

jeffd5buddy said:

I've had enough of this BS and will be headin to the Brickhous, because I need a drink!!!

You know me oh to well!!!

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

I am still not seeing the bias, that is what I am stating.

Exactly how much air time as Huckabee gotten vs Paul?
Or Obama vs Paul? You can say it is obvious, but that is not proof.

sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't watch much tv, so I can't speak to that. I haven't watched the democratic debates either, as the candidates don't particularly interest me.

I see articles on Huckabee every day and he's often a "top story." supposedly he is surging...but I don't really understand how or why. he's only really brought in about $2.5 MM in the first three quarters combined. he was featured a decent amount in the cnn/youtube debate, and was positioned fairly close to center next to romney and giuliani. usually they place the biggest names towards the center in those things, and he seemed to start his push shortly after that. I thought ron paul outperformed him in the debate. Huckabee is getting a lot of respect, but why is over my head I guess.

from what I can tell he is one of the least "republican" of the republicans (other than being a part of the religious right), maybe people like that. he pretty much ran arkansas into the ground financially and taxed the heck out of them, which you would think wouldn't bode too well for him.

maybe middle america fancies him?

[HBGOnline]

freddyv said:

sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree.

Good way to wrap it up, doesn't that summarize most political banter in today's world. Nice debate, no low blows.

So let's move on and talk about strippers or maybe try and find stuff on Crazy John's website. I'll start a thread in the general board.

[freddyv]

mickulz said:

I do vnot agree with the school voucher system, I do not agree with with no child left behind, I believe in the death penalty, I do not think Roe v Wade should be overturned, there are a number of issues that I do not agree with him on. It is that simple for me.

I'm not trying to stir things up, but I wanted to clarify. Ron Paul does not support no child left behind. Regarding abortion, he wishes to let each state decide that issue for itself. From what I understand, he feels that it is an issue that falls outside of the scope of the federal government as dictated by the constitution.

[Mickulz]

Its cool, you are a good guy and fun to "talk with". Who knows, maybe people will start to think.

[mdeasy]

jeffd5buddy said:

mdeasy said:

Add something of value and you won't be so sick and tired. It's rewarding! Try researching something useful and offering the information to the debate. Just an idea...

Have you read any other thread on this board?

I just don't want you to be sick or tired.

[seanx]

...freddyv, I'll vouch for MicKulz....he's a worthy debate......

ask him about the Freemasons......he likes that (but you'd better do your research first)