Why is the Whore Media trying to "disappear" Ron Paul?

[FORD]

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394630" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier">The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

[Dr. Love]

yeah, I don't get it. I'm personally leaning to vote Ron Paul this election cycle.

[jhale667]

Uh, maybe the whore media should dig a little deeper...

yeah, I don't get it. I'm personally leaning to vote Ron Paul this election cycle.

If even half of this is true ya might wanna rethink that...bears mentioning this piece is from an author that jokingly refers to himself as "filthy liberal scum" but he's usually dead on. I'd heard about Paul accepting donations from white supremacist organizations before, but how can a guy who can't control "what his staff puts in newsletters" be trusted to appoint a competent cabinet?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/17/is-ron-paul-a-white-supremacist-absolutely/

Is Ron Paul A White Supremacist? Absolutely!

By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario

Oh, he’s not REALLY a white supremacist; He just happens to support them, take their money and advance their goals. But he’s not ONE of them!!! He’s all about freedom!!!

The freedom to legally discriminate against minorities, at any rate.

Oh, right! I forgot, he’s also the chosen candidate of white supremacists.

From The Michigan Messenger:

Stormfront.org, a white supremacyweb site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul’s bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

“Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us…I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency,” the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul’s plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

Riiiiight. Because no other Republicans support ANY of those particular goals. Now, granted, this article is from the 2008 election cycle. One might be tempted to dismiss it. after all, the KKK simply adores Obama as a recruitment tool. But this is not a recent phenomena.

Ron Paul is a hard core racist. This is a known but little reported fact. He has published a newsletter for over thirty years that puts forth a steady stream of stunning racism:

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”…

“Oh, but that was just ONE article at a very emotional time for the country!” you say?

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
Well, how about that? It seems like Mr. Paul’s publication has a long history of really nasty racism.

“But he says he never wrote those articles and did not realize what was going into the newsletter…” you say?

You’re right! He does say that! Dozens of racist articles over several years and somehow nobody ever mentioned it to him? That’s his excuse? Spare me! That’s about as plausible as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin converting to Islam and donning burkas.
But nowhere is Ron Paul’s barely concealed racism more evident than in his full throated rejection of the Civil Rights Act. Because it infringed on people’s “freedom.”

From the May 13 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthew:



MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.

PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]

Discrimination based on race is ancient history? I wish I could live in that world! That would be awesome! There would be no Tea Party, no GOP, no Fox News. What a nice place that would be…

But for those of us still connected to reality, Mr. Paul’s assertions are that of a lunatic. Right Wing fanatics protest the building of a mosque in their town and that is a Constitutionally protected right. What kind of person can see that and thinks “Eh, nobody would ban Negroes from their establishment if they were allowed to. People just aren’t like that anymore.”?

The freedom to discriminate is not the kind of freedom this country stands for anymore. In that, at least, Mr. Paul is correct. It’s ancient history and we will not allow Right Wing bigots to turn back the clock to “The Good Ol’ Days.”


So yeah....pretty much fuck Ron Paul.

[Dr. Love]

The article is written in a very biased and demeaning tone.

Also, racism isn't one of my big issues. There are a lot of other things that I care about a lot more than I agree with Ron Paul on.

[FORD]

Ron Paul is on the correct side of a few things. Imperialism. The "Federal" Reserve. The so-called "war on drugs". That's probably about it though.

But apparently that's enough to invoke censorship from the whore media. They don't want to show Ron Paul discussing these issues, because they don't want THEIR candidates - either Republicans or the tools who pretend to be "Democrats" - forced to talk about such things.

[jhale667]

I hear ya, but can't support him on principle.

The article is written in a very biased and demeaning tone.

Ya think? :D But then I'm all for demeaning racists.

Also, racism isn't one of my big issues. There are a lot of other things that I care about a lot more than I agree with Ron Paul on.

True, there's more important issues overall, but that mindset tends to taint everything else anyone involved touches. Plus, the guilt by association thing; fuck anybody that accepts donations, endorsements whatever from POS hate groups.

Ron Paul is on the correct side of a few things. Imperialism. The "Federal" Reserve. The so-called "war on drugs". That's probably about it though.

I'm reminded of the broken clock analogy... he can't always be wrong. I almost hate I agree with him on anything now...lol But I was disgusted when he got booed at the debate the other night for suggesting we end the wars for deficit reduction. And he didn't mention it specifically, but imagining he was factoring the "war on drugs" into his equation...

But apparently that's enough to invoke censorship from the whore media. They don't want to show Ron Paul discussing these issues, because they don't want THEIR candidates - either Republicans or the tools who pretend to be "Democrats" - forced to talk about such things.

Agree the few things he's on the right track about are the very things NO ONE else on either side wants to talk about.

[knuckleboner]

Ron Paul is on the correct side of a few things. Imperialism. The "Federal" Reserve. The so-called "war on drugs". That's probably about it though.

But apparently that's enough to invoke censorship from the whore media. They don't want to show Ron Paul discussing these issues, because they don't want THEIR candidates - either Republicans or the tools who pretend to be "Democrats" - forced to talk about such things.

nah.

the average joe schmoe asks why the media pays so much attention to candidates like michele bachmann (and palin, i suppose) who have absolutely no chance. the answer is that joe schmoe will actually click on news links about those two.

ron paul has the same kind of a couple million hardcore followers. and the same overall chance in the general election: zero. but the media know that the average viewer isn't all that interested in the latest zany thing ron paul said, so the media gives him the cold shoulder.

but don't blame the media. it's the viewer.

[lesfunk]

Sounds to me like the establishment is afraid of Ron Paul. Probably because he makes sense.

[Hardrock69]

Yeah. He does make sense.

And those in their ivory towers who have built their lives on pillars of fear, are themselves afraid when he is around.....

[Coyote]

It's the blatant arrogance (of the American media) that cracks me up...

[FORD]

[hambon4lif]

@5:55

"I refer to Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid"

Classic!

[jhale667]

@5:55

"I refer to Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid"

Classic!

[FORD]

That's one of Thom's "catch phrases". He probably says that on his radio show two or three times a week, often when he's interviewing Libertarians.

[hambon4lif]