Ron Paul SOCIALISTS: a great article Paul supporters who don't like the MSM should read

The people who came to this site, and others, advocating a "lawsuit" to force the media into giving Ron Paul fair attention were shot down by those of us who understand that by doing something like this we'd be just as bad as the establishment.

Discussions on this have seemed to right the ship in making those who advocated such actions see the inconcsistency in their thoughts. How the author of that article seems to think it's become a major issue is beyond me, because if there have ever been a more logical group of people, the Ron Paul supporters are them.

The USA is *already* socialist, for a number of reasons. Ever hear RP talk? He talks *as if* the USA is socialist and "it doesn't work" - but that truly free markets and a Constitutionally limited government *would* work.

But it is (and moving towards more) by stealth and deception and by fraud...and by gradualism.

In regards to the media - 6 Corporations (see stopbigmedia.com) own most of the MSM. This could not happen in a true free market economy, where competition eliminates monopolies, and government is not allowed to subsidize, bail out, or grant privilages to.

But is government doing this directly to mainstreme media? Perhaps on some level. However the biggest fraud is the banking system - and there is a connection to the MSM: Banks can and do create credit out of thin air and charge interest on it. That interest on created money, money they didn't have to work for - gives the major stockholders of these banks, and especially the big banks, an ENORMOUS advantage in buying corporations(or controlling stock thereof), including the media corporations. These positions of leverage give power to employ editors and spin people that will get the message *they* want heard over the airwaves.

Many people (most, in fact) - do not understand the banking system, and how, through it, banks quietly control the power centers of society, with money gained by fraud - taken from you and me.

*This* is one of the bigger things that Ron Paul is up against, and the powers that be will do their best to not let it happen. It is one of the bigger reasons he is demonised, marginalised, not given the air time other candidates do and laughed at by people staffing the MSM.

When Jefferson said: ""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

He was thinking mostly of property (think eminent domain) - but - it should be remembered here than in our age this includes the property of your *mind*. They need to control what the masses think, and in order to do that, they need to control what the masses turn to for information, and entertainment, where ideas can be planted slyly. Whether that be television, newspapers, movies, people of influence in universities etc etc.

You can bet that major privitisation of the internet in some form or another, or major regulations regarding it - will be a push to influence again, the information you are able to access - and that it won't be for the reasons you are told (internet porn, how to make explosives etc) - those will be the reasons held up for the larger agenda of controlling what people think by limiting their access to cheap and easy information.

To get just a clue on this process, for those who are unaware or new to it - this is a 70 minute speech worth listening to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TAh1gy6rc

In 7 parts.

If you don't beleive it, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkCvubUGCM

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKbE9qCzQo

is not RP's credo, but the article you site is not, in my opinion, a good place to start making that argument. When people ask for fair treatment for Dr. Paul, they are recognizing that FOX, for example, has signed an agreement with our government to meet certain conditions. It is a contract that, if ignored, can be nullified.

It makes sense to me that Dr. Paul can be the compromise candidate of someone who believes socialism has merit. As a way of organizing society Socialism has a lot to offer. The evidence is that lots of people willingly chose that sort of system. I think the definition of Socialism, as stated in the first sentence of the article, is incorrect.