no media bias against ron paul?

[freddyv]

what you want is the illusion of safety. you've said that you know that federal marshalls aren't on every flight, so you know that you're not safe. but it comforts you to think maybe...just maybe...a federal marshall MIGHT be on my flight.

remember, that Delta guy is a former soldier in our US military. he may have gone to flight school, but he also went to basic and knows how to kill if need be. you allow the airlines to manage it, and you are GUARANTEED to have trained, armed professionals on EVERY flight. I think that would be a pretty good deterrent against hijackings while providing you with a true measure of safety and not just the illusion there of. and it would save a ton of tax dollars to boot!

sounds like a win/win to me.

[freddyv]

p.s. - what about the newsweek thing...and the phone polling?

[Mickulz]

Hey, if they are qualified, then I am fine with it. But, how will we know they are qualified if it is left in the private sector? That is my concern. If the Delta guy is ex-wahtever, or has great training, I am fine with that. I just want to know what the deal is I guess.

[Mickulz]

I find the Newsweek article to be pretty much what I thought all along. But you will just call me biased and blast me for being a sheep about it. I actually had this discussion with my Dad (as RP Republican) about the whole Reagan thing. In 1988 he wanted nothing to do with the Republicans and dumped out to run as a Lib. Now all the sudden he is acting like a poster child for Reagan. I am sure this will just get chalked up as MSM picking on Ron Paul, but the facts are there, especially on that issue.

[freddyv]

I think you forgot to read the other article I included:
www.americanchronicle.com/articles/52312

my problem isn't that they did an article on ron paul...it's that they got the facts completely wrong! please read the link above...then perhaps it will be more obvious why I asked you to read the newsweek article.

[Mickulz]

The second article confirms what I was saying about the Reagan part. as for the money/$1 trillion part..Who knows. It is so over complex. I think that $1 trillion is probably incorrect, but it still is not good. The problem is both sides can spin the numbers anyway they want.

I do find this part fun:


Can you name the 3 images behind Paul in that picture?

[freddyv]

I'll reiterate a few points he says.

the author of the newsweek article claims that dr. paul complains that there is some secret conspiracy about a NAFTA superhighway. the fact of the matter is that dr. paul said it is not a conspiracy, but essentially a difference in ideologies. if you click the link provided in the second article, it takes you to a page on Canada's official site showing the maps and explaining that they've been pursuing a canamex trade corridor since the 90's. so the author of the newsweek article tries to make dr. paul look like some conspiracy theorist kook by misquoting him and misrepreseting the facts. dr. paul didn't even bring the matter up in the first place...he was asked about it at the cnn/youtube debate and answered. there's also a link to that in the second article.

as far as the "disassociating himself from ronald reagan," he said back then that he wanted to distance himself from the administration. he was friends with ronald reagan, supported him, and reagan likewise supported dr. paul in his congressional bids. call it splitting hairs, but again it is a misrepresentation of the facts.

the one trillion dollars...it's fine to disagree with him, but he purports to know how dr. paul came up with his figure and makes assumptions as to programs dr. paul would cut, etc. I find this to be bad journalism. it's not based in fact.

again, the newsweek article is a hit piece. it's cool if you don't agree with the guy...it's not cool to misrepresent the facts or say that the guy has opinions/etc. that he does not. his sources were random internet blogs...that's not good journalism!

what about the phone polling? there's really no way to spin that one.

[Mickulz]

I did not get to the phone polling yet...

[seanx]

thomas jefferson, george washington, and ............alexander hamilton? not sure about the last guy

[Mickulz]

I have the same issue you do. I get the first two, but not sure of the last.

[freddyv]

I think it might be james madison...

[Mickulz]

They all look the same to me ;-)

[freddyv]

Ron Paul 2008: RICO suit filed against ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald and The San Diego Herald-Tribune

www.opendemocracy.net/forum/2008/01/29/ron_paul_2008_rico_suit_filed_against_abc_msnbc_fox_cnn_cbs_the_los_angeles_times_the_new_york_times_wall_stree

I don't know if this is legit, but it would sure be interesting if it is.

[Mickulz]

This suit has no merit. Yes, I am going back for my law degree (in technology law though). RICO is stated as:

§ 1962. Prohibited activities

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.


to fully understand, you need to know the LEGAL definition of racketeering:

(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,[1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);

So basically, there is no bases to use RICO to file the suit.

Now, on a personal matter, I refuse to accept anyones arguement when then use "wikipedia.com" as a reference source. It has already been proven numerous times to be inaccurate.

So if I am missing something, please let me know, but I do not see how this can be a RICO case.

The other part that is VERY disturbing is the title of the article makes people think that Ron Paul has filed RICO charges. The fact is no one has filed a RICO suit at all. They are just trying to "muster" up people to do it. Second, a RICO case is criminal, not civil, so a class action suit would have to come AFTER a RICO case.

[freddyv]

it may be a stretch, but when a handful of people have a specific agenda and are able to secure a controlling interest in the media...that may constitute a racket.

according to ricoact.com:

"A RICO claim can also be predicated upon the violation of many, many federal criminal statutes."

the election process is well-defined. is it not illegal to attempt to manipulate the election process? Especially by controlling/manipulating the information available to the general public so as to insure that the winner is a candidate that would serve a select few individuals' interests.

[Mickulz]

Careful Freddy. RicoAct.com is a LAW firm and not an information site. It is a RICO lawyer looking for business.

If you open up the areguent that media coverage is an attempt to manupulate the election process, you are opening a huge can of worms. Including all the freepress websites, ron paul websites, etc.

for you to win the argument that "specially by controlling/manipulating the information available to the general public so as to insure that the winner is a candidate that would serve a select few individuals' interests. " You would have to prove that there are no other sources of information to get other opinions from.

Freedom of press leaves this all pretty much untouchable. There is no law requiring the news to be truthful.

[freddyv]

In practice, is there really still a freedom of the press? The New York Times had the NSA wiretaps story for at least a year before they finally broke it. They held off at the request of the Bush Administration. This has been going on for a while. Back in the 70's the Nixon Administration tried to suppress the release of the Pentagon Papers. Lincoln shut down news papers left and right during the civil war that disseminated anything he felt was anti-Union.

This further supports my point. Regardless of whom is pulling the strings, it's still wrong. There are basically five groups (and in turn essentially 5 people) that control our entire media. Is any of this a good thing?

p.s. - point taken on my RICO source. got lazy.

[freddyv]

Media´s Deafening Silence and Ron Paul´s Candidacy
Szandor Blestman
March 3, 2008

For all the reporting they´ve done on him, you´d think Ron Paul didn´t exist. He´s one of three candidates left in a Republican field that started with eleven, and yet you´d never know he was one of the last three survivors. If he was on American idol he´d be making headlines. Most everyone in America would know his name. People would be spending money on cell phone calls just to vote for him. Yet here he is running for the most important position in the world, one of three left who could possibly become the Republican presidential candidate, and so many still have no idea who Ron Paul is and what he stands for. So many people out there are just too lazy, just too dependent on the mainstream media to find out what their choices are. As a result, we all get the bottom of the barrel, the dregs of the political establishment, and so it is that corruption is so rampant in Washington DC.

Corruption is all over the news. The current crop of candidates for president is thick with it. We all know of the Clinton´s past. Many questions about Hillary´s ethics remain unanswered or unasked. Barak Obama´s career is also questionable. He may be young and he may give people hope, but already there are skeletons creeping out behind him and specters dancing in front of him that will not be scared back into the ethers by even the prettiest of words. John McCain has a long and illustrious career of scamming the public. Mike Huckabee´s past is anything but exemplary. Lately he´s stolen Ron Paul´s call to rid us of the IRS, but he wants to implement an unfair "fair tax" that would steal as much or more of our hard earned money than the IRS ever did. All these candidates have little to worry about as their rich contributors are happy to make certain they never feel the pain of having to decide between paying the rent or buying food. Meanwhile, an honest, principled man who does have a verifiable record of supporting the ideals of liberty, smaller government and the constitution is battling to get his message of peace and hope out to an ailing nation and the mass media couldn´t care less. A candidate exists who has received millions in donations from common folks and more donations from regular military personnel than all the other candidates combined, and the mass media ignores him. They don´t want you or anyone else to hear what Ron Paul has to say. They don´t care about Ron Paul and they don´t care about common human beings. They´re happy to maintain hold on their old media, government sanctioned monopolies, and would hate to see an advocate of truly free markets re-introduce competition into their field and make them actually have to do work and become real news reporters again.

This fact alone should make people want to see Ron Paul win. He is the underdog to end all underdogs, and the people love an underdog. The old media is part of the establishment that Ron Paul is standing up to. They are owned by the same multi national corporations that own our government. The same people that have bought and paid for congressmen, senators and presidents pay for the news and entertainment coming from these media conglomerates. These days, the mass media is not the voice of reason set in place to keep watch over those who are supposed to serve the people. It is not the fourth estate it once was. The mass media no longer serves us as a thought provoking source of information offering objective news and critical commentary. The mass media has become a mouthpiece for the government. Those who control it tell you who will be the next president, and who will not be. They tell you what to think. They tell you a version of reality they want you to hear and believe. If you´ve been listening to them, then you already know that they had picked Barak or Hillary long ago. It really didn´t matter to them which one. McCain was also picked long ago. Huckabee is also an establishment candidate thrown in there just to give a little twist and to make things seem interesting. Yet one might wonder if he isn´t in there just to give the media further reason to ignore Ron Paul and make sure his message is not as widely disseminated as it might be. If it was just Ron Paul and John McCain, they´d have to cover him. Why hasn´t there been a Republican debate since Jan. 30th, while there´s been two Democratic debates in February? That is the establishment trying to keep the only advocate for real change, Ron Paul, down.


If you are the establishment, then freedom is a dangerous message and truth is a powerful enemy. The rot goes deep in Washington DC, to the core, and everybody knows it. The people are upset with government millionaires mishandling their funds. Yet the mass media conglomerates continue to spew government propaganda. They continue to pretend that everything is as it should be. They continue to promote the establishment candidates and ignore those who make sense and those who would make a real difference. The mass media has no respect for the common American. They believe we are stupid. I don´t believe that. I have a great deal of respect for common Americans. We have achieved so much. Yet the mainstream media makes all seem hopeless. They promote these establishment politicians as if we haven´t another choice. They all want us common folk to believe we are helpless. But there are still many subtleties in politics that many aren´t aware of. The establishment may think that by hook or by crook they will have their candidates in place come September, but the world is full of surprises and the best laid plans of mice and men oft times go astray. And those who lead, those who would rule the world, are nothing more than men, whether they believe otherwise or not.

The mass media´s silence is deafening. When it comes to Ron Paul, they also hope to keep us blind and dumb as well. Still, I haven´t seen the fat lady up on stage. As a great American, Yogi Berra, someone who can be thought of as one of us common folk, once said "It ain´t over until it´s over." It´s not over yet. Ron Paul aims to stay in this until the convention and I believe that no matter the outcome he and his supporters have already made an impact on this election and will continue to make an impact on political discourse in this country for years to come. And four years from now, when the 2012 elections roll around, the old media should play as insignificant a roll as the Internet played on the 2000 elections, that is if we can keep the government out of regulating the Internet until that time.

www.americanchronicle.com/articles/54052

[freddyv]

and now for something completely different...

Ron Paul Hammers Neo-Con Rival To Retain Congressional Seat

ABC News still claims it was close-fought, despite fact that margin of victory was Congressman's biggest ever in District 14

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/030508_hammers_rival.htm