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

bumptastic

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/wa...

In 7 parts.

If you don't beleive it, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

is that he attracts a very diverse crowd. There are a lot of libertarians, of course, but there are also a lot of disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats, former Romney and Huckabee supporters, pro-lifers, pro-gunners, anti-CIA folks, the hands-off-the-Internet crowd, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, Anarchists, young people, old people, and yes- even some Socialists.

There are plenty of RP supporters who don't agree with him on every issue, and that's FINE. This is what is so great about RP's campaign! It's a big tent under which a huge and diverse group of supporters has gathered.

I have seen a lot of people on this site being dismissive, intolerant, and downright abusive toward other points of view. This needs to stop. We need to be WELCOMING everyone who is lucky enough to have heard about RP. We need to build each other up and encourage each other; not alienate one another. Polite argument is fine, but it doesn't have to be hateful.

Let's focus on building our ranks, becoming delegates, and helping RP win!

And don't forget-- be excellent to each other.

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.

Part of the problem is that they are being controlled by big business. I think we should all chip in and buy a national TV station. Let's see how far we get. lol

socialism. They think they can undermine and use the "Force" against us. Controlling the media would be great, but once again, someone will always have something to say. We just want fairness, since everyone else uses that why can't we ? All of a sudden we are not allowed to use the system because it contradicts our views? Well, if thats true its not as hypocritical as a Republicans voting for McCain.

The monopoly isn't so much the media, but the regulation on distribution channels that make it nearly impossible for new media. The internet is doing a decent job of eliminating some of these barriers, but the technology is not yet very mature.

The key point made by the founders is that the press must be both free and independent. If a conglomerate that is doing business with the government owns a media company, then that media company is no longer independant.

A media company should not be able to derive its revenue from the gov't. That is not capitalism.

The problem of the "Ron Paul Socialists" is a valid one that needs to be acknowledged.

There are too many people who have joined the RP crowd in the last 6 months, as a desperate grasping for any kind of change with better than a snowball's chance in hell of being realized.

Sure they agree with Paul's position on one or two issues. But they truly believe in Paul's principles. In conservative libertarian principles. Case in point, the number of Paul supporters calling for (as if it would help) govt policing of standards in journalism now.

Yes, the MSM is corrupt, and cowardly. Yes, the FCC thugs extorted $billions from the MSM for monopoly rights on sections of our govt-owned air waves (you call them public? The FCC took the airwaves away from the public long ago.)

A proper Libertarian solution would be to shut down the evil micro-empire of the FCC with its billion-dollar auction scams, return that money to the corps who paid it, and work out a whole new traffic management system that doesnt favor deep pockets (the FCC is allllll about deep pockets, and their buddies in the broadcast industry.)

But no. Instead, we have a thunder of supposed Ron Paul supporters calling for the easy bandaid solution: more government, more regulation.

And we tolerate them, because of our own desperation. We want votes and donations from Ron Paul, so badly that we'll welcome anyone - regardless of what they really think, regardless of what they espouse.

Certain GOP orgs have been sneered at in the past for requiring "loyalty oathes" of their membership. I believe the Calif Libertarians did the same at one time. Im starting to see why. Maybe "oath" is the wrong word, but we need a way to stop people at the door and say "If you dont at least agree with X, Y, and Z, then thank you for your offer but we do not want your support, because you're not really one of us, and Im sorry but you dont belong here."

Really, a "Ron Paul Socialist" should be a logical contradiction. In fact, I daresay it's not possible.

But the general Ron Paul scene here, will surely disagree with me. You'll take anyone, just to get their vote. And now, you're the learning the true cost of that low bar. Now there are even "Ron Paul socialists". Good job.
Now no one knows who and what we are, because we dont even know anymore.

... to be sure, you are 100% right, but people are so blinded by their desires to see ron paul win by "any means necessary" they don't seem to care that their "any means necessary" crosses into what they used to be so passionately AGAINST - namely gov't intervention into private property and meddling in what should be private contracts to begin with.

I think that's the unintended consequence of the "unholy alliance" that makes up the Ron Paul campaign. Even though a lot of us are libertarians and understand the philosophy through and through, a lot of us aren't and were attracted to Ron for other reasons and are only recently learning all the nuances of the libertarian philosophy.

But look at it this way - if they weren't in this campaign and it were only us libertarians, he'd have way less support. And maybe conversations like this light a spark and cause a few people to look into this whole "free markets" thing and make the transition that a lot of us have.