Did you Know About Ron Paul's Debate Success?????

Ron Paul won the debate hands down - all the polls show it - but the establishment media are loathe to report it, because if a tree falls in the forest and the corporate press choose not to report on it then it doesn't make a sound.
After several days of voting, the online MSNBC poll has Ron Paul leading in every single positive category , proving that the vast majority think he won the debate. In an ABC News poll, well over 7,000 voted for the Congressman with Giuliani and Romney receiving a paltry 100 votes each. In a CSPAN poll , 69% voted for Ron Paul, with his nearest contender garnering just 9% of the vote.
Many would attribute this to be a reflection of focused online activism rather than overall national opinion, but the fact is that Paul was way ahead of the other candidates in the hours after the debate ended and before the polls had been widely publicized by websites supportive of the Texas Congressman.
This tells us that the American people are crying out for a real conservative and Ron Paul would be a serious contender for the White House if the media afforded him equal coverage with the likes of Romney, McCain and Giuliani.
However, as Alex Wallenwein points out in his OpEdNews.com article , the establishment media completely ignored public sentiment and handed the victory to either McCain or Romney, barely even mentioning Ron Paul's sterling performance and popular approval.

Highlights package of all Ron Paul's answers from Thursday night's debate.
"Unsurprisingly, not a single report of the actual political news story of the decade, namely, that a virtually unknown “dark horse” beats even the media favorite Romney handily - and utterly crushes the rest of the field," writes Wallenwein.
The headlines seen from a Google News search using the keyword “debate”, at the time of this writing show only this: “John McCain Wins First GOP Debate” (Fox News) “Who Won the First GOP Presidential Debate? (Answer provided in article: “Mitt Romney” - National Review Online) "Republican Presidential Debate Gives No Clue on GOP Leader in Race” (Axcess News) Apparently the Axcess News editors don't have a clue - unlike actual debate viewers. A news search for the keywords “won debate” reveals this: “Noonan, Pundits: Romney Won Debate” (NewsMax) "Giuliani Wary of Repeal of Roe” (Washington Times) Readers tell us that ABC didn't even include Ron Paul on their original list and his name was only added to the poll after furious calls to ABC's head office. This website also claims that comments on ABC's message boards expressing outrage at the fact that Paul had been censored were soon deleted.
Even the usually much vaunted Keith Olbermann and his MSNBC co-host Chris Matthews ignored Ron Paul's clear anti-war stance in claiming that none of the Republican candidates opposed the occupation of Iraq.
As if we needed a reminder, the aftermath of the GOP debate has taught us that the path to the Oval office is off-limits to any candidate who is not bought and paid for by special interests and the corporate media. Barely a handful of pre-approved identikit lackeys are selected and lavished with dominant media coverage while anyone who stands for real issues or offers a viable alternative is shunned and censored.
Ron Paul's message of getting government out of our personal lives, destroying the IRS and returning to a founding father foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements is clearly evergreen and craved for by a huge chunk of informed, engaged and active American citizens.
Trust in mainstream media has rapidly eroded for the best part of a decade and their credibility is shot. We need to continue to use the Internet to create synergy with the burning desire of the people to restore constitutional values and ensure that the corporate press can censor Ron Paul no more, save they expose the fact that they are complicit in completely undermining the democratic process in America.

Maybe it's due to this Aussies influence:
Molded under the watchful eye of Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. continues to evolve and serve as a model for the modern vertically integrated media conglomerate. Aided by the acquisition of 20th Century film studio, News Corp. went from primarily a newspaper company in Australia and England to an influential force in American media. The Fox Network broke ground in the late 1980s as the first successful broadcast network to break through against the powerful Big 3. Recently, viewership for its Fox News Network surpassed the once formidable CNN. This proved to be another sign that American viewers favor News Corp.'s irreverent style.
1910s

1915 - William Fox leads successful fight against Thomas Edison's Motion Pictures Patents Company. The Patents Company is dissolved in the face of anti-trust legislation.

1930s

1931 (March 11) - Rupert Keith Murdoch is born in Australia. Father, Keith Murdoch, is an established newspaper man in the country

1935 - Century Pictures and Fox Film merge to form 20th Century-Fox

1950s

1952 - Murdoch inherits Adelaide News, an Australian mid-size daily, and the Adelaide Sunday Mail

1960s

1960 - - Murdoch's Australian newspaper holdings increase with the acquisition of Cumberland Newspapers, and Mirror Newspapers, Ltd., publishers of Sydney's Daily and Sunday Mirror

1964 - Murdoch launches The Australian as the first national newspaper

1969 - Murdoch takes over News of the World and launches London Sun

1970s

1972 - Murdoch purchases Sydney Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph

1973 - Murdoch purchases his first newspaper in the U.S. - San Antonio Express and News

1974 - Enters the supermarket tabloid business by launching The National Star

1977 - Murdoch buys New York Post for $30 million from liberal socialite Dorothy Schiff. He continues his New York buying spree by purchasing New York magazine, Village Voice and New West from Clay Felker

1979 - Diversifies by acquiring Ansett Transport Industries which owns Melbourne TV station, Channel 10. Australia modifies media ownership laws to allow the deal. Critics call the move "The Murdoch Amendments"

1980s

1980 - News Corp. forms

1981 - Takes over Times and Sunday Times in London

1982 - Buys the Boston Herald-American and changes the name to Boston Herald. News Corp. also buys Australian book publisher Angus & Robertson

1983 - Sky, the first satellite TV channel launches. News Corp. buys Chicago Sun Times for $90 million

1984 - Murdoch and News Corp. make take over bid of Warner Brothers but are thwarted

1985 - Murdoch becomes United States citizen in order to purchase more American media outlets. Sells Village Voice. News Corp. buys TCF Holdings Inc., parent company of Twentieth Century Fox Film. In a related deal, News Corp. purchases seven television stations from Metromedia for $1.55 billion (WNEW-TV, New York; KTTV-TV, Los Angeles; WFLD-TV, Chicago; WTTG-TV, Washington, DC; KNBN-TV, Dallas; KRIV-TV, Houston, WFXT-TV in Boston. These stations reach 22% of all television households in the United States. These two deals help to form backbone of a new broadcast television network

1986 - Fox Broadcasting Company is established. News Corp. moves its UK newspaper printing operations to new plant in Wapping. A protracted labor strike ensues. Murdoch sells Chicago Sun-Times

1987 - Takes control Melbourne Herald and Weekly Times, Australia's largest media group. News Corp. becomes world's largest newspaper publisher. News Corp. also purchases the South China Morning Post, UK newspaper Today and United States book publisher Harper and Row. Murdoch now controlled approximately sixty percent of Australian newspapers and thirty-five percent of UK newspapers

1988 - Purchases Triangle Publications (main holding TV Guide) from Walter Annenberg for $3 billion. Sells off New York Post

1989 - Harper Collins is formed after newly acquired William Collins Publishing is merged with Harper and Row. The Simpsons becomes Fox Network's first hit program. Satellite television provider Sky TV is launched.

1990s

1990 - - BSkyB is formed after Sky merges with British Satellite Broadcasting. Accumulation of large debts leads News Corp. down the road to bankruptcy. Citibank, the company's prime lender, takes active role in saving News Corp.

1991 - News Corp. undergoes massive sell off to help lower corporate debt. The properties sold off include: New York, Seventeen, Soap Opera Digest, Soap Opera Weekly, Premiere, and Daily Racing Form

1992 - Buys broadcasting rights for the Premier League, an Australian rugby league, for $300 million

1993 - Gains controlling interest in Asian satellite television service, Star TV. Acquires the right to broadcast NFL games. The move shakes up American sports television as it leaves the NBC network without football coverage. Obtaining the NFL broadcasting rights costs over $1 billion but seen as a necessary investment to help promote fledging Fox Network. News Corp. reacquires New York Post

1996 - HarperCollins sells its education unit to Pearson

1997 - Acquires Los Angeles Dodgers and Dodgers stadium from the O'Malley family for $311 million

1998 - Orders HarperCollins to squash the memoirs of Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last governor and vocal critic of the Communist China government

1999 - Acquires William Morrow and Avon Books in a deal with Hearst

2000 - Present

2001 - Sells stake in Fox Family Network to Disney. Duopolies established in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Washington D.C., and Houston

2002 - Duopolies established in Chicago and Orlando

2003 - Puts LA Dodgers up for sale. Spends $6.6 billion for stake in Hughes Electronic, the parent company of DirecTV

2004 - Los Angeles Dodgers sold to real estate developer Frank McCourt for $430 million

i agree, i do have suspicions about what his role might be.



.

Ron Paul's ideas are anathema to the MSM....they want to pretend that he doe not even exist.
Who could trust a guy that takes the US Constitution seriously!
*lol*

excerpted from 7x's piece...
As if we needed a reminder, the aftermath of the GOP debate has taught us that the path to the Oval office is off-limits to any candidate who is not bought and paid for by special interests and the corporate media.

This is all too true. Most unfortunate!

it's amazing, really, to witness this media blackout.

fortunately, the web is stoking the embers. i hope the blogs continue to push for this guy and any true patriot candidates. the retail package politicians need to get sent home.

what's more troubling is that i fear that the states are pushing back primaries in order to try to stifle the power of the web... it appears they want to make a quick and decisive "pruning" of the non-establishment contenders before the word gets out and a wildfire erupts.

we need a wildfire!!



.

ron paul is the man. prisonplanet is also the shit. alex jones fan i see...

Over 80% of those media-heads polled, admit to being members of America's socialist party ... the democrat party. Ron Paul speaks out in favor of getting back to the strict intent of the Consitution, returning to gold backed money, and abolishing both the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS. See the connection?

Vi

medicineman said:

There you go again Democrats=socialists, what the hell are you smoking? You are so delusional. Have you thought about psychiatric help? I'll say this, I like some of Pauls agenda, but not all. Just answer me this: Why is there not a country with a libertarian government and if there is, why don't you move there?

Click to expand...

In discourse, insults are not considered valid argument. Ron Paul is a libertarian and a republican. Is it too hard to imagine a socialist and democrat?
If you take out the Democrats=socialists, the rest of VI's notion is very sound.

Silk ...

Med lives in a world of denile. For some reason, he refuses to see that the Democratic Party is not the party that our parents belonged to. It has been taken over by leftist radicals, socialists and communists. The party has moved to the left of Lenin and Marx and Med is stone-blind to that fact.

My point was ... Ron Paul stands for what the founding fathers stood for, and that is liberty. Party be damned ... democrat, republican, libertarian, whig, federalist, labour, conservative or liberal, in the end, its preservation of liberty that counts.

Vi

Whew! I am SO happy that you see it this way 7x. If Hillary is elected, I expect her to change the title of President to Grand Madam Commissar!

By the way ... I remember when I talked with a college girl once. *lol*

Actually, I have a grand daughter starting her third year of college. She's had a conservative/libertarian upbringing and can see right through her communist professors.

Vi

yeah, it doesn't take much more than an honest look at their positions to see them for what they are. the appetite that hollywood has for democrats is no coincidence and neither is the fact that most dems rely so heavily on media manipulation, camera time, one liners, etc... they are the party of deception.


speaking of deception, don't tell my wife but i actually talk to them quite often.. lol



.

how is Ron Paul too radical? is what he wants 'radical' because no one has been willing to get to work on serious issues for so long that it's now deeply entrenched? that just means he's a hard worker to me, ready to roll his sleeves up and get something done..



i'm not speaking for Vi and Wavels but i can't find anything good in the dems. they keep attacking free speech. they keep shitting on every plan to come from anyone who's not them but they never have a plan of their own. they criticize pork but they serve themselves a record helping right when they get a slight majority. they make everything partisan and they constantly pose for pictures that no one is taking. they create division for division's sake.

i really can not, for the life of me, see why anyone would submit to their tactics of manipulation and outright coercion.

the only thing they have somewhat right is civil liberties but they only have that right in their talking points - their votes go the other way.

true, at this point both parties are messed up and it's going to take some serious work to fix our political system. the radical right has to ween itself from the corporate $, the left needs to quit giving in to a Europe jealous of our power, the right needs to end government growth and the left needs to stop perpetuating the idea that government can fix everything..

dems are not what they once were and neither are reps...simple as that. IMO the dems, however, are intentionally steering us toward the failed system of socialism because they see voters as $ producing robots, to the dems we are just a resource to be pillaged.



.

IMO the dems, however, are intentionally steering us toward the failed system of socialism because they see voters as $ producing robots, to the dems we are just a resource to be pillaged.

It's funny you see it this way because I see the repubes as doing the same thing, only demeaning the voters in the process while fattening their wallets. Two views on the same subject, Go figure. The repubes only see voters as a means to an end, that end being their continued excessive profitability and lack of social services. Let me make all I want without any responsibility for those less fortunate, the mantra of the elites. This is the slave owners agenda, let them eat shit. This is the final path for our democracy, straight into a dictatorship. Without reason and compassion, we are doomed.

How many times have I said in this forum that both parties suck? Too many to count. I've also said many times that I consider the Democrat Party to be the more dangerous of the two and that's why I speak out against them. And Med ... your political views mirror those of the Democrat Party ... thereforer, you and I are constantly on opposing sides of the arguement. That's about it.

Vi

If I'm not mistaken, you get a pension and social security and your wife works as well. Now, are you trying to tell us that you can survive without money? Do you feel self-hate when you're flush and glee when you're broke?

In your opinion Med, at what income level does one become an "elite?"

Vi