OK, I'm a little fed up with the media

[Tripw0l]

I've been reading news online almost everyday about how the Clinton campaign has been focusing way too aggressively on Obama's race. I personally have not seen a single television attack ad or online banner or anything that would lead me to think that. The only evidence that I have seen of this is that the media keeps reporting that the Clintons keep attacking Obama because of his race. Wtf is going on? Are they saying that a black man can't run America? If so then when/where/why? Is the media making all of this shit up to keep the Clintons out of the White House? Some one please explain this to me.

[Josh]

what i really hate is RP not getting any coverage whatsoever, even though he's a candidate in the primaries. horrible coverage - the media can blast whoever they want though, such is the nature of the beast.

[Tripw0l]

what i really hate is RP not getting any coverage whatsoever, even though he's a candidate in the primaries. horrible coverage - the media can blast whoever they want though, such is the nature of the beast.

That's entirely different, I like RP too but he's still showing up to debates, getting interviews, etc. The media knows that his message resonates and I think it's safe to say that most of the Democrats/Republicans have all taken from RP and gone with the "we need change" catch phrase. Because that's all that RP really stands for, drastically changing our politics and really fixing what's wrong with the system. I believe that a lot of the candidates are disingenuous about their intent to change things. However, what I'm talking about is very straight-forward in that the media is saying "this is a problem" when there's absolutely no evidence shown to support it....only whispers and hearsay. That's the kind of shit that drives me nuts during election season.

[Josh]

That's entirely different, I like RP too but he's still showing up to debates, getting interviews, etc. The media knows that his message resonates and I think it's safe to say that most of the Democrats/Republicans have all taken from RP and gone with the "we need change" catch phrase. Because that's all that RP really stands for, drastically changing our politics and really fixing what's wrong with the system. I believe that a lot of the candidates are disingenuous about their intent to change things. However, what I'm talking about is very straight-forward in that the media is saying "this is a problem" when there's absolutely no evidence shown to support it....only whispers and hearsay. That's the kind of shit that drives me nuts during election season.

i agree - but when the mainstream media (which sadly, a lot of folks will be basing their vote off of instead of research) neglect a candidate like that....i dunno, it's just sad to me how much this country has lost it's way. we're so willing to give up our freedoms in the name of fighting "terror". It's a true shame - before we know it, we'll be stripped of everything....bet on that if hillary or obama make it into office.

everyone jumps on the gimmicks though - sad thing is, that's exactly what we'll see in office - gimmicks. it's just a grotesquery i guess i'll never be used to. that's exactly what the problem is though - everyone has become complacent, don't want to start a fuss - meanwhile the government takes just one more little thing, one more little thing, one more little things.....they add up.....if we actually sit back and take note....RP is spot on, on quite a many things he talks about.

Our Foreign policy as it stands right now, has put is in a very precarious situation. We often hear about RP talking of blowback, i can think of no better example than the war in iraq and the war on "terror". Our current administration has put us in such a mess. We don't need someone in office who will naively continue this quagmire. It needs to end. There's no one else on the ticket that wants to admit the mistake.....

RP has never said we shouldn't go to war, or collect intelligence - that stuff is very important to a nation's security - point is, we had the intelligence back then and we didn't have to spend exhorbent amounts of money on a department of homeland security to gather it. the problem was it was not used. I mean, it's just an absolute joke - you're considered a looney toon if you want a government bound by it's founding document.

[Tripw0l]

i agree - but when the mainstream media (which sadly, a lot of folks will be basing their vote off of instead of research) neglect a candidate like that....i dunno, it's just sad to me how much this country has lost it's way. we're so willing to give up our freedoms in the name of fighting "terror". It's a true shame - before we know it, we'll be stripped of everything....bet on that if hillary or obama make it into office.

everyone jumps on the gimmicks though - sad thing is, that's exactly what we'll see in office - gimmicks. it's just a grotesquery i guess i'll never be used to. that's exactly what the problem is though - everyone has become complacent, don't want to start a fuss - meanwhile the government takes just one more little thing, one more little thing, one more little things.....they add up.....if we actually sit back and take note....RP is spot on, on quite a many things he talks about.

Our Foreign policy as it stands right now, has put is in a very precarious situation. We often hear about RP talking of blowback, i can think of no better example than the war in iraq and the war on "terror". Our current administration has put us in such a mess. We don't need someone in office who will naively continue this quagmire. It needs to end. There's no one else on the ticket that wants to admit the mistake.....

RP has never said we shouldn't go to war, or collect intelligence - that stuff is very important to a nation's security - point is, we had the intelligence back then and we didn't have to spend exhorbent amounts of money on a department of homeland security to gather it. the problem was it was not used. I mean, it's just an absolute joke - you're considered a looney toon if you want a government bound by it's founding document.

I'm trying to keep the thread on point but I do appreciate the input ;)

[Josh]

I'm trying to keep the thread on point but I do appreciate the input ;)

yea, i just get to ranting...if we can call it that....more concerned than anything else....and i spill out kinda over everything i'm griping over :lol:

[oh1coupe]

I watched 30 min or so of a democratic debate, and all they really covered was that she's a she, hes black , and hes white.....seriously, I thought it was the most retarded waste of time I had ever subjected myself to.

[Josh]

I watched 30 min or so of a democratic debate, and all they really covered was that she's a she, hes black , and hes white.....seriously, I thought it was the most retarded waste of time I had ever subjected myself to.

it's just a sideshow...:lol:

the media, banking industry, etc decide who is a threat to their wallets and abandons them

[jabtay]

I'm trying to keep the thread on point but I do appreciate the input ;)
Good luck with that. I dare you to fine ONE political thread that RP does not hijack :roll:

Come on people this is not about paul, its about Bill going after Obamas skin color...I have heard many stories about this, and Bill is still saying he was the first black president, and it is upsetting the black community. If Obama does become president, clinton has already taken the title from him.

[jabtay]

I watched 30 min or so of a democratic debate, and all they really covered was that she's a she, hes black , and hes white.....seriously, I thought it was the most retarded waste of time I had ever subjected myself to.
The Dem debates are a joke, they all stand for the same damn thing. The only difference is where the fighting comes out. History, and race and gender. But this is a good thing for the Republicans.

[dan]

i see it this way.

elections matter...but not like they used to.

the media is controlled by affluent owners. those owners are either rep or dem (most of the time). those people endorse a certain person, or just plain ole don't like another candidate. thus, they can have a hand in the races if they want. they can control what is shown and not shown on their networks and in their news programs.

not to be a tinfoil hatter, but at times, it seems this country is almost "guided" by a certain select group of people who can decide who gets where. granted, the population still gets to choose the final 2 in the election, but it's almost as if there is alot of coercing and "help" when it comes to getting campaigns running, and getting backing for certain candidates.

the media in a way, does control what you hear and see. that is why i preach to take anything seen on tv with a grain of salt, and to do the research on a candidate on your own time....and not just from any site on the internet, as that is just as bad. find an actual site that gives a factual biography/history on a candidate and doesn't have opinionated views, just one that states what they've done, etc.

[Scott]

You guys mean the media is slanted ? :tard: :lmao:

[Elohim]

i see it this way.

elections matter...but not like they used to.

the media is controlled by affluent owners. those owners are either rep or dem (most of the time). those people endorse a certain person, or just plain ole don't like another candidate. thus, they can have a hand in the races if they want. they can control what is shown and not shown on their networks and in their news programs.

not to be a tinfoil hatter, but at times, it seems this country is almost "guided" by a certain select group of people who can decide who gets where. granted, the population still gets to choose the final 2 in the election, but it's almost as if there is alot of coercing and "help" when it comes to getting campaigns running, and getting backing for certain candidates.

the media in a way, does control what you hear and see. that is why i preach to take anything seen on tv with a grain of salt, and to do the research on a candidate on your own time....and not just from any site on the internet, as that is just as bad. find an actual site that gives a factual biography/history on a candidate and doesn't have opinionated views, just one that states what they've done, etc.

You're on to something. Get this, something like 80% of the worlds media consists of just 5 companies. On top of this, these guys all work together with a group of other corporations in a group called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR for short.) You should see their track record for putting people into office. The thing your partially wrong about is political affiliation bias... The MM and CFR don't care about which party someone is in as much as they care who represents their interests. It's important to get out and vote for people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the primaries because by the time the regular election is held it won't really matter if you vote for the Dem or Rep nominee because either candidate will support MM and CFR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

[Kryptix]

If the election were today I would vote for Clinton but its not today its tomorrow. :lol: The medias nut swinging for Obama and bashing of the Clintons is one of the reasons. They just can't stand the Clintons. If the media would have really reported the real news instead of their slanted opinions back in the day the Iraq War would not have happened and Bush would have never been elected.

[Josh]

You guys mean the media is slanted ? :tard: :lmao:

well that's a given. we're just not happy about it :lol: