Godlike Productions Banner
Users Online Now: 423 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 17,949
Pageviews Today: 66,384Threads Today: 116Posts Today: 1,853
03:43 AM
NEW GLP LIVE VOICE & TEXT CHAT




Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Post a New Thread
Post New Thread
Reply to this Thread
Reply
View Your Favorites
View Favorites
Join Now, Free! (& No Ads!) Forgot Your Password?
E-mailPasswordRemember
Rate this Thread
Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 
Page 1, 23

RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron Paul

 RSS 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364047
1/29/2008 8:46 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

it's a waste of effort, time and money....the media is not required in any way to report on every candidate...how many of you even know who your local socialist workers party candidates for office are? or green party? or marijuana reform party? they dont get press time, neither does ron paul.....he set the rules by declaring an internet candidacy....did he expect them to give him airtime when he cut them out of the loop from the beginning? what he did was a threat to their position in the us political process, so now he gets ignored....what did he expect? it's like calling for your local mayor to be impeached, then a week later asking him to put a loading zone in front of your business....you wont get alot of cooperation
 Quoting: ambiguity unlimited


now thatsa tired neocon canard straight from Tel Aviv
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 696
1/29/2008 8:48 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

One poster on here earlier is correct...

Networks are NOT obliged to report the truth...


The Media Can Legally Lie

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection"
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling.

Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.

What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”

“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!

The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action?

The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left—while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.

In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.”

Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.

The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.

Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”

Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.

Jane Akre and be reached at: jakre@bellsouth.net.





[link to www.projectcensored.org]

/HTH...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 696
1/29/2008 8:51 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Oooops...

Sorry, I fucked up the page-layout...

maybe a mod can remove the code-tag...

TIA...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 271607
1/29/2008 9:11 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

bsflag
Blimped
User ID: 360104
1/29/2008 9:16 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

When the revolution begins the media will be held to be as culpable as the government has been.
 Quoting: Claycat

hf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52832
1/29/2008 9:34 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

You all know who really owns the "mainstream" media, right?

There's NOTHING mainstream, or AMERICAN, about the "mainstream" "American" media.

You already know that the news and entertainment media are biased. Now you will find out why they are biased.

[link to www.realnews247.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364065
1/29/2008 9:36 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

FEC Regs that are being ignored:

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
---------------------

" Political Editorials. Within 24 hours of airing an editorial where the station itself either supports or opposes a candidate for public office, it must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office or to the candidate who was opposed in the editorial: (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air".
------------------------

"Political File. Stations must keep a file containing records of all requests for broadcast time made by or for a candidate for public office. The file must identify how the station responded to such requests and (if the request was granted) the charges made, a schedule of the time purchased, the times the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. The file must also reflect any free time provided to a candidate. The station must keep the political records for two years after the spot airs.
Letters and E-Mail from the Public. Commercial stations must keep written comments and suggestions received from the public regarding their operation for at least three years. Noncommercial stations are not subject to this requirement."
------------------------

"Purpose of the File. As discussed above, stations have an obligation to serve their local community's needs and interests and to comply with certain programming and other rules. Because we do not monitor a station's programming, viewers and listeners are a vital source of information about the programming and possible rule violations. The documents in each station's public inspection file have information about the station that can assist the public in this important role.As discussed above, all stations have an obligation to cover important issues facing their communities, to comply with requirements governing use of their facilities by candidates for public office....."

----------------------------
"You may request copies of materials in the file by visiting the station in person. In addition, if the station's public file is located outside of its community of license (and you live within the station's service area and your request does not involve the station's political file), you may also request copies of materials in the file over the telephone. To facilitate telephone requests, we require stations to provide you a copy of this manual free of charge if you want one. The manual can help you identify documents you may ask to have mailed to you. Stations can assist callers in this process and answer questions you may have about the actual contents of the public file. This information includes, for example, the number of pages and time periods covered by a particular ownership or children's television programming report, or the types of applications actually maintained in the station's public file and the dates they were filed with the FCC. We also encourage (but do not require) stations to place the descriptions of their public files on any Internet home page that they maintain. You pay for any photocopies, and the station may require a guarantee of payment in advance (such as with a deposit or a credit card). The station must pay postage for copies requested by telephone".
---------------------------------


Someone get a lawyer.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 363819
1/29/2008 9:40 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

it's a waste of effort, time and money....the media is not required in any way to report on every candidate...how many of you even know who your local socialist workers party candidates for office are? or green party? or marijuana reform party? they dont get press time, neither does ron paul.....he set the rules by declaring an internet candidacy....did he expect them to give him airtime when he cut them out of the loop from the beginning? what he did was a threat to their position in the us political process, so now he gets ignored....what did he expect? it's like calling for your local mayor to be impeached, then a week later asking him to put a loading zone in front of your business....you wont get alot of cooperation


THe media is not even required to tell the truth. I don't remember the court case.

But youre still an asshole.

THe point is that he is doing better and better, placed second in Nevada and should have gotten 1st in Louisiana. Hes a breath of fresh air and the mainstream doesn't report on him because they are CONTROLLED!!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 219930

the comparison to local, low support candidates was for illustrative purposes only, and only for an example of the media not being required to report on every candidate....it wasn't an attack on RP, his candidacy, or his positions....the media has a grand vested interest in the us political process, they ARE the opinion makers....RP's initial campaign strategy cut them out of the loop, ammounting to a slap in the face to their position as "kingmakers".... if by ignoring his candidacy, they can reduce his standings in the polls, they show future candidates that they must pander to the MSM to be considered "real" candidates, insuring their power over the process.... if, on the other hand, they were to treat him as they do the other candidates, and he makes a good showing, then they cut their own throats, as it shows a candidate can run a campaign that minimizes their participation.......if you were the CEO of one of those 5 corporations, how would you direct your underlings to handle this situation? they "look out for number one", just like everyone else........i bear no particular animus for RP or his candidacy, supporters, or campaigning strategies.....i just think a lawsuit will do him no good, make him appear to be a whining sore loser to many, and endanger future use of the strategy that he has used fairly effectively so far, thus insuring the MSM corner on the political market......good luck in the polls in fla today RPites....vote early, vote often
Sireen-reborn
User ID: 335827
1/29/2008 9:44 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

When the revolution begins the media will be held to be as culpable as the government has been.
 Quoting: Claycat



Yup!
anything after 'but' is bullshit!

[link to www.myspace.com]

"Once you open your mind to the possibility of conspiracy, you then see conspiracy in everything." [link to deadbydecember-sireen.blogspot.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 140243 (OP)
1/29/2008 9:56 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

it's a waste of effort, time and money....the media is not required in any way to report on every candidate...how many of you even know who your local socialist workers party candidates for office are? or green party? or marijuana reform party? they dont get press time, neither does ron paul.....he set the rules by declaring an internet candidacy....did he expect them to give him airtime when he cut them out of the loop from the beginning? what he did was a threat to their position in the us political process, so now he gets ignored....what did he expect? it's like calling for your local mayor to be impeached, then a week later asking him to put a loading zone in front of your business....you wont get alot of cooperation
 Quoting: ambiguity unlimited





the law may not require that the media be honest and fair, but when the PEOPLE get sick of the lies, spin, and unbalanced reporting, there will be HELL to pay.

the RICO suit has less to do with reporting on every candidate as it has to do with OBVIOUS criminal conspiracy against the american people who truly desire peace in the world.

of course, this desire may not extend to you government workers or blind supporters. we knew how to deal with you during the revolutionary war, and we'll know again. so, the time to button YOUR lips is near.

be afraid government lovers...be very afraid.
Shadow Dancer
User ID: 287857
1/29/2008 10:07 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

sounds good if it swims



gunderson helped 'out' some heavy pedophiles,they could not hide...
after his decades with the FBI-oops that's right we have spindoctors underfoot
-do not want anyone believing the truth-gunderson telling it or not
-keep the masses distracted with bs, protect the child rapists eh?


zionist control of media-personal gain
has not served ALL the people-just a handful of gluttonous grubs

free media is a ruse-time to see the truth

Even in NH where there were thousands upon thousands of supporters for RP once it made it to the electronic puppetshow-very little appeared

Many voted for him here-and many are angry about the gardner grunt who looked like a deer in the headlights when asked about the security of the ballots

The first night they had them under lock and
key in a safe, the 2nd night they stored them
in a building 'that was secure' and shown to
be not that secure-the tape they use is a

joke-not like true anti-tamper tape which

readily rips when trying to gently remove...major factions at work even in the primary state



bump


a house divided against itself will NOT STAND

they do so well with so many fighting their neighbors...easy pickings
All choices have consequences, choose wisely, CHOOSE WISELY.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 324762
1/29/2008 11:00 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

FEC Regs that are being ignored:

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
---------------------

" Political Editorials. Within 24 hours of airing an editorial where the station itself either supports or opposes a candidate for public office, it must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office or to the candidate who was opposed in the editorial: (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air".
------------------------

"Political File. Stations must keep a file containing records of all requests for broadcast time made by or for a candidate for public office. The file must identify how the station responded to such requests and (if the request was granted) the charges made, a schedule of the time purchased, the times the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. The file must also reflect any free time provided to a candidate. The station must keep the political records for two years after the spot airs.
Letters and E-Mail from the Public. Commercial stations must keep written comments and suggestions received from the public regarding their operation for at least three years. Noncommercial stations are not subject to this requirement."
------------------------

"Purpose of the File. As discussed above, stations have an obligation to serve their local community's needs and interests and to comply with certain programming and other rules. Because we do not monitor a station's programming, viewers and listeners are a vital source of information about the programming and possible rule violations. The documents in each station's public inspection file have information about the station that can assist the public in this important role.As discussed above, all stations have an obligation to cover important issues facing their communities, to comply with requirements governing use of their facilities by candidates for public office....."

----------------------------
"You may request copies of materials in the file by visiting the station in person. In addition, if the station's public file is located outside of its community of license (and you live within the station's service area and your request does not involve the station's political file), you may also request copies of materials in the file over the telephone. To facilitate telephone requests, we require stations to provide you a copy of this manual free of charge if you want one. The manual can help you identify documents you may ask to have mailed to you. Stations can assist callers in this process and answer questions you may have about the actual contents of the public file. This information includes, for example, the number of pages and time periods covered by a particular ownership or children's television programming report, or the types of applications actually maintained in the station's public file and the dates they were filed with the FCC. We also encourage (but do not require) stations to place the descriptions of their public files on any Internet home page that they maintain. You pay for any photocopies, and the station may require a guarantee of payment in advance (such as with a deposit or a credit card). The station must pay postage for copies requested by telephone".
---------------------------------


Someone get a lawyer.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 364065

Damn, haven't seen this kind of Wide Page Fuck-up on GLP in a couple of years, how did that happen? Used to happen all the time on the old GLP!
Grafted Promise
User ID: 364046
1/29/2008 11:08 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

YooooHooooooo?! Anybody at the switch at GLP?

This post and treads seems to be heading for the hills.
PACNWguy Subscriber
User ID: 60206
1/29/2008 11:39 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Grow up. He didnt lose because of the media. He lost because he is a nut and the voters dont like his insane ideas.



:rpbabies:
OBAMA - THE FASTEST FAILED PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY
zacksavage
User ID: 325890
1/29/2008 11:46 AM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Grow up. He didnt lose because of the media. He lost because he is a nut and the voters dont like his insane ideas.
 Quoting: PACNWguy


Meaningless drivel,...as per usual.

I'm in New Mexico and I heard RP adds for the first time down here this morning on the Hannity/Limpbaugh network. A very clear message.

Hey PGuy,...why did Ronald Regan cut and run from Lebanon????

Pray tell.



Z
Free your mind,...Your Ass will follow.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364142
1/29/2008 12:02 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

More evidence of a coordinated blackout. Lew Rockwell is man of integrity so this assertion is very serious, IMO.

[link to www.lewrockwell.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364142
1/29/2008 12:04 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Hey PGuy,...why did Ronald Regan cut and run from lebenon????

Pray tell.



Z
 Quoting: zacksavage


Don't engage this professional shill. He is here to demoralize, distract, and diffuse energy from doing anything productive to support RP. If you expect intelligent discourse from the like of this shill, fuggetaboutit.
zacksavage
User ID: 325890
1/29/2008 12:09 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

More evidence of a coordinated blackout. Lew Rockwell is man of integrity so this assertion is very serious, IMO.

[link to www.lewrockwell.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 364142


Yes,...I know you are correct, but I keep hearing these paid shills ask the question what would Ronald Regan Do??

As if he was not an Actor,... reading his script.

They wanted Thompson,...and Actor. But then cry about the Hollywood elite.

What a bunch of dolts.

Here you have RPaul talking fluent constitution but they do not understand.



Z
Free your mind,...Your Ass will follow.
Kat Mama
User ID: 363455
1/29/2008 12:10 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

It's called "Operation Mockingbird":

[link to www.apfn.org]
CONDEMNATION without INVESTIGATION is the HIGHEST form of IGNORANCE
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364142
1/29/2008 12:14 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Yes, a news organization is free to report or not report whatever it wants. It can even knowingly report false information. It has first amendment rights.

But if there is evidence that all major media outlets are COORDINATING a news blackout of a major candidate, that that is a different story, most likely RICO.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 247684
1/29/2008 12:25 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

bump
Kat Mama
User ID: 363455
1/29/2008 12:51 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

You all know who really owns the "mainstream" media, right?

There's NOTHING mainstream, or AMERICAN, about the "mainstream" "American" media.

You already know that the news and entertainment media are biased. Now you will find out why they are biased.

[link to www.realnews247.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 52832


People don't understand. They think this government and its media whores are the government of the constitutional REPUBLIC of the united States of America. Bush and toadies are the administration of the CORPORATION called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" - and we - via our birth certificates, are ALSO corporations - Which means we are owned and the constitution of the Republic does not apply to anyone anymore.

Which means the British owned corporate government, THE UNITED STATES, can do whatever the hell it pleases.

And it does.
CONDEMNATION without INVESTIGATION is the HIGHEST form of IGNORANCE
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 318590
1/29/2008 12:58 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

T
h
i
s

r
e
a
l
l
y

s
u
c
k
s
.

I

h
v
e

t
o

g
o

i
n
t
o

t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r

r
o
o
m

t
o

r
e
a
d

t
h
i
s

t
h
r
e
a
d
.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 299382
1/29/2008 1:04 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

That's a nice thought, accusing the major media of collusion and censorship. The scope of such a 'lawsuit' would be historical. Reminds me of a book called 'Stiffed', about an attempt by the justice dept. to expose the mafia involvement in MCA records. The inquiry got quashed from higher ups twice, and the whole thing was swept under the rug. Turns out Reagan probably hired the mafia to run guns & drugs through MCA's international offices as part of the whole Iran-Contra scandal. Guess which studio Reagan acted for? Yep, MCA!

So applying this scope to the current MSM situation and you will see that all it takes is a phone call from someone 'higher up' and the whole boat sinks.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter who completely believes he's being shortchanged by the major media, but I also believe this thing will be won without MSM. We've shown it's possible already! Don't sign up for this movement for the glory, we need guts and determination. The more the MSM ignores us, the more they send us a sign that we're eating away at their foundations. THAT is what this campaign is about- REAL FUCKING CHANGE
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 364047
1/29/2008 1:17 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Grow up. He didnt lose because of the media. He lost because he is a nut and the voters dont like his insane ideas.
 Quoting: PACNWguy


oh look, the zionist cocksucker is mumbling something, can't quite hear him with that banker's dick in his mouth
Blimped
User ID: 360104
1/29/2008 1:35 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

T
h
i
s

r
e
a
l
l
y

s
u
c
k
s
.

I

h
v
e

t
o

g
o

i
n
t
o

t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r

r
o
o
m

t
o

r
e
a
d

t
h
i
s

t
h
r
e
a
d
.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 318590

lmao
lmao
lmao
lmao
lmao
lmao
lmao
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 330053
1/29/2008 2:12 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

Grow up. He didnt lose because of the media. He lost because he is a nut and the voters dont like his insane ideas.



:rpbabies:
 Quoting: PACNWguy

In case nobody else has suggested it yet--string a bunch of Paulian quotes from Huckabee together; at the end, you hear "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this message."
WIOLAWA
User ID: 23053
1/29/2008 2:20 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

TED GUNDERSON IS ONE OF MY HEROS!!..

[link to www.wiolawapress.com]

he was bureau chief of MEMPHIS , DALLAS AND LA..

and because he is fighting the SNAKES like many of us are..


my father who was totally manipulated by FOX NEWS etc.. called the FBI after TED retired and the FBI said he was a rougue and not to be trusted.. so he didnt believe me about TED.. well my dear DEAD DAD.. was incapable of objective thought..and had 8 wives.. a misognist also
ah ho WIOLAWA
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 363946
1/29/2008 2:29 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

another thing to consider about Teddy G is that
all the other lawyers are "connected" - bought and paid for

not many or any of them are willing to risk their pecking order to represent "public enemy #1"
of the establishment...

I trust Ron's judgment in these matters...
Jingo
User ID: 191129
1/29/2008 2:37 PM
Re: RICO lawsuit developing against major media, RE: Ron PaulQuote

You can bet the right wing criminal judges and prosecutors
will jump right on this one!
Page 1, 23
Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Post a New Thread
Post New Thread
Reply to this Thread
Reply
View Your Favorites
View Favorites
Click Here To Donate To GLP!



 Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional



Disclaimer:
This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.

The content of post on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of GodlikeProductions. This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.

Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.

This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.

Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.

We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.

This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.

Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.

Privacy Policy - Terms Of Use


Copyright 1999-2009 © GodLikeProductions.com

Page generated in 0.029s (5 queries)