Thread: Jon Stewart on the Ron "13th Floor in a Hotel" Paul Media Blackout

If you're not in America - John Stewart Bashes the Media Over Ron Paul - YouTube

*sigh* Third time I've come across this - US only shit - in 24 hours.

Is this really a surprise to anyone? At this stage I thought it was common knowledge that the media supports the establishment...

Man, sometimes Stewart really hits the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Man, sometimes Stewart really hits the nail on the head.

Yes, and sometimes his hammer is far enough away from the nail that it's in a separate zip code. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Originally Posted by cmind

Yes, and sometimes his hammer is far enough away from the nail that it's in a separate zip code. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Hence "sometimes."

Also, here are more pieces regarding Paul's blackout:

The Black Swans of Politics by Justin T. P. Quinn

Ron Paul remains media poison - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Ron Paul supporters decry media neglect - Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com

Is Ron Paul getting unfair media treatment? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The Morning After: Jon Stewart Sticks Up for Invisible Man Ron Paul - Tuned In - TIME.com

Ron Paul exposes media bias | Paul Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Hence "sometimes."

Also, here are more pieces regarding Paul's blackout:

The Black Swans of Politics by Justin T. P. Quinn

Ron Paul remains media poison - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Ron Paul supporters decry media neglect - Keach Hagey - POLITICO.com

Is Ron Paul getting unfair media treatment? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The Morning After: Jon Stewart Sticks Up for Invisible Man Ron Paul - Tuned In - TIME.com

Ron Paul exposes media bias | Paul Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Have you seen this one yet? Hilarious.

Well, that's what you get for trying to go up against the moneyed interests in this country (the military-industrial complex, the fed, and corporate welfare). I'm personally a progressive, but I'm pretty much sold for Ron Paul in 2012. I sure as hell aren't voting for the bought-and-payed-for hack we have now.

This is completely insane, and also not surprising.

He seems like a pretty together guy and certainly pretty independent, which is good to see. The media blackout by what I presume are right wing media outlets is pretty funny.

Can't say I'm totally behind him though. All I've done is skimmed the Wiki article about his policies, but he seems to adhere unthinkingly to the US constitution which is a vague and somewhat archaic document, and seems to use this to defer stating an opinion. For example, with respects to his religiosity, it's worrying;

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant [lolwat, contradiction amirite?] America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

He introduced the We The People act, which would allow individual states to ban atheists from public office. This is one example of quite a few places where he says 'the states can decide that', based on the technicalities of the constitution. Not good.

Originally Posted by Xei

He introduced the We The People act, which would allow individual states to ban atheists from public office. This is one example of quite a few places where he says 'the states can decide that', based on the technicalities of the constitution. Not good.

First Google and now Ron Paul. DreamViews is slowly ruining everything for me. >_>

Kill yourself now.

It's impossible to agree with someone on everything. I'm certainly not a fan of him being a fundie, but his aim isn't to impose Christianity upon everyone, it's to decentralize power: "Paul told Congress, 'The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power.'" Letting states handle some of these issues instead of the federal gov't is decentralizing power to him.

That said, he isn't perfect. Definitely the best candidate, though. I'm more into his economics than I am his politics.

Originally Posted by Xei

He seems like a pretty together guy and certainly pretty independent, which is good to see. The media blackout by what I presume are right wing media outlets is pretty funny.

Can't say I'm totally behind him though. All I've done is skimmed the Wiki article about his policies, but he seems to adhere unthinkingly to the US constitution which is a vague and somewhat archaic document, and seems to use this to defer stating an opinion. For example, with respects to his religiosity, it's worrying;

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant [lolwat, contradiction amirite?] America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

He introduced the We The People act, which would allow individual states to ban atheists from public office. This is one example of quite a few places where he says 'the states can decide that', based on the technicalities of the constitution. Not good.

H.R. 593

Where exactly does it say that about banning atheists? I don't agree with everything on Ron Paul. I think he has an inconsistency in thinking that Federal level tyranny is wrong but state level tyranny through the 10th amendment is ok.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's impossible to agree with someone on everything. I'm certainly not a fan of him being a fundie, but his aim isn't to impose Christianity upon everyone, it's to decentralize power: "Paul told Congress, 'The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power.'" Letting states handle some of these issues instead of the federal gov't is decentralizing power to him.

That said, he isn't perfect. Definitely the best candidate, though. I'm more into his economics than I am his politics.

That's why I liked him. But I thought

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

was rather incongruous with this philosophy. He seems to be conflating the government with 'public life'; a rather weird thing for a libertarian to do. The governmental stance should simply be blindness to religion, and this should be reflected in the constitution. Religious activity is something performed solely by the public. People employed by the state are, whilst performing their duties, acting as agents of the state, and should not use their positions to hold school prayers (such things are for the public sphere, not the state sphere), and it should not be legal for the government to discriminate against employing people based on their religious position. But Ron Paul doesn't seem to hold either of these things as principles, instead just saying, 'leave that to local governments because the constitution says so'. :/

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

H.R. 593

Where exactly does it say that about banning atheists? I don't agree with everything on Ron Paul. I think he has an inconsistency in thinking that Federal level tyranny is wrong but state level tyranny through the 10th amendment is ok.

That's exactly what I thought and is what I meant when I said

"he seems to adhere unthinkingly to the US constitution which is a vague and somewhat archaic document, and seems to use this to defer stating an opinion."

Like I say I've only skimmed, and not being American I don't understand your legal system anyway. This is just what I've heard;

"This bill would make it illegal for any federal court to consider any lawsuit over state violations of religious freedom (not to mention lawsuits over the right to reproductive freedom or equal protection for gays, but that's a separate topic).

If passed, this bill would literally undo the First Amendment. Both the states and the federal government could establish their own official religions and compel all their citizens to attend church or contribute to a particular denomination, and these acts would be immune to judicial oversight. This bill would, in effect, dismantle the judiciary and undo the system of checks and balances that has served America since its inception."

Originally Posted by Xei

That's why I liked him. But I thought

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

was rather incongruous with this philosophy. He seems to be conflating the government with 'public life'; a rather weird thing for a libertarian to do. The governmental stance should simply be blindness to religion, and this should be reflected in the constitution. Religious activity is something performed solely by the public. People employed by the state are, whilst performing their duties, acting as agents of the state, and should not use their positions to hold school prayers (such things are for the public sphere, not the state sphere), and it should not be legal for the government to discriminate against employing people based on their religious position. But Ron Paul doesn't seem to hold either of these things as principles, instead just saying, 'leave that to local governments because the constitution says so'. :/

He's right, the first amendment wasn't created to expel religion from public life. But the problem is that "public life" is rather ambiguous.

That's not the problem, the problem is that he equated driving religion out of government to driving religion out of public life.

Originally Posted by Xei

That's not the problem, the problem is that he equated driving religion out of government to driving religion out of public life.

He may not necessarily mean "government" when he says "public life." That's why I said it's ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Xei

"This bill would make it illegal for any federal court to consider any lawsuit over state violations of religious freedom (not to mention lawsuits over the right to reproductive freedom or equal protection for gays, but that's a separate topic).

If passed, this bill would literally undo the First Amendment. Both the states and the federal government could establish their own official religions and compel all their citizens to attend church or contribute to a particular denomination, and these acts would be immune to judicial oversight. This bill would, in effect, dismantle the judiciary and undo the system of checks and balances that has served America since its inception."

That just means that the Federal court system can't become involved in lawsuits at the state level.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

He may not necessarily mean "government" when he says "public life." That's why I said it's ambiguous.

Looking at the context he says it in.

Originally Posted by Xei

Can't say I'm totally behind him though. All I've done is skimmed the Wiki article about his policies, but he seems to adhere unthinkingly to the US constitution which is a vague and somewhat archaic document, and seems to use this to defer stating an opinion. For example, with respects to his religiosity, it's worrying;

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant [lolwat, contradiction amirite?] America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

He introduced the We The People act, which would allow individual states to ban atheists from public office. This is one example of quite a few places where he says 'the states can decide that', based on the technicalities of the constitution. Not good.

Whenever someone is in a position to shake up the powers that be, you have to be a little more careful about what you hear and read about them. Hopefully, your post was just a lapse of judgment.

I read your follow up comments and appreciate your ability to modify your thoughts, but the above post is at best passing on lies that you yourself haven't expended the effort to verify. When you repeat things that are not only wrong but slanderous, you are going to get called on it because this sort of info needs to get ridiculed hard. So if you can't handle criticism, don't read any further.

First, while the constitution is vague, it contains provisions for its own modification and interpretation. There is nothing in the constitution which is so rigid that it cannot be changed and updated by a transparent, honest government. People who complain that the constitution is archaic do so because they want to change it without the consent of the governed. Those people are 100% to blame for the blatant transgressions of administrations such as G.W. Bush. Ron Paul has distinguished himself as a scholar of the constitution far above his peers in congress. He has admitted it has some flaws that needed amending. There is no intelligent reason to call his insistence that the constitution is still relevant to the rule of law "unthinking." If the constitution were as archaic as you claim it is, an honest government could easily bring any part of it up to date. The amendment process is part of the constitution. It is a living document, and unless someone wanted to kill all of the amendments that have modified the constitution since its inception, they would not be advocating anything 'archaic.'

But the logic just goes bad in the next section where you cite a simple factual statement as 'worrying' and mistakenly accuse him of conflating ideas. The US has evolved into the notion of separation of church and state (and I view this as positive). But still, Ron Paul is right; for better or worse, the founders of the US had no desire to make the state free from religious influence, but rather to make religion free from the state. His statement is not only accurate, but appropriate as well. There are a number of individuals and lobbyists in America that insist Religious motifs, icons, etc should not appear anywhere in the public arena. This becomes a call for government to not just avoid passing religious laws but to avoid passing any law that is even influenced by religious opinion. This is not a slippery slope, it has actually happened. There have also been calls for laws outlawing religious paraphernalia in public places based on this same misunderstanding of the first amendment. The first amendment does not in any way, shape, or form guarantee that if I am a Baptist living in an all Mormon town, that I will never see or hear Mormon images and greetings from my local government. Ron Paul is precisely correct to say that since the first amendment does not forbid the influence of religion upon the state, it cannot be cited by those who wish to drive religion out of public life. Perhaps religion should be driven out of public life; if anyone wants to advocate that, fine - but no one should be using the constitution to justify that. Ron Paul is spot on. He is responding to actual events which have unfolded in the US. In other words he is not conflating ideas as you accuse him of doing, he is responding to others who have.

Also the term "Christian" during the enlightenment era often referred to the idea or philosophy of the universal brotherhood of man. Even people who did not go to church often called themselves christian. Tolstoy used the term this way as did TS Eliot later. Many of the founding fathers of the US used the word in this sense. So laughing at the idea of a Christian yet tolerant society just shows you don't understand the culture that produced the US's founding documents.

Then you just sink into (I hope) repeating lies. Please do a little research on the 'we the people act' - again if you want to critique it fine, but it would not allow any governments to ban atheists from public office. It was a law designed to prevent the judiciary from making laws.

Sorry if this comes across as harsh - but from what I've seen in the US every criticism of RP revolves around ignorance and outright lies. Every detail of his career is put under a microscope and other candidates records are ignored. I hope that most of what you've written was just repeated without fact checking. Once you check the facts, I hope you'll agree I'm doing you a favor.

Simply put, I disagree with Ron Paul on a number of issues. I would rather see someone like Ellen Brown, or Dennis Kucinich who are in favor of state banking get into office. But Ron Paul would end the wars and audit the fed, giving us real justice against those who maim, torture and engineer financial crimes. If people don't like the fact that he's religious, than find me a non-religious candidate who is as consistently opposed to theft and empire as Ron Paul or admit that you are just using pedantic means to tear down someone because deep down, Imperial oppression doesn't really bother you that much. It is clear all other major candidates are working for the same people Bush (and Blair incidentally) took orders from. As far as I'm concerned anyone who criticizes Bush and then is too good to vote for Paul is confused (or lying about their dislike of Bush.)

Yes, you got me on my soapbox issue. Sorry I will be out of town this week. Look forward to seeing any responses next week.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Kill yourself now.

Originally Posted by Xei

He seems like a pretty together guy and certainly pretty independent, which is good to see. The media blackout by what I presume are right wing media outlets is pretty funny.

It's not just right-wing media outlets. It's all of them, because the other media outlets support more liberal candidates, and Ron Paul could honestly beat them, because they are all foreign-nation-building war mongers.

I found the piece really funny on TDS with Jon Stewart (I just happened to be watching it that night, not knowing it would be on) as a Ron Paul supporter since his last presidential bid. It's funny, but scary all at the same time.

When he wants the church to play a more vital role in society, he actually means non-government organizations, regardless of what religion they are. Charities, non-profits, and for-profit groups that function on a more local level can serve a community more appropriately than a governmental organization. If an area is predominantly non-religious, they will still have charities and non-profits, they just won't be church-based.

If you read "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul, you can actually learn HOW he feels without just skimming a wikipedia article. It's only 150 pages or so, but still outlines his entire policy toward the economy, foreign interventionism, and the Constitution of the United States. He has a strong opinion towards the Constitution, and it is well-considered if you actually read his writings on it. (He makes a point in the chapter "The Constitution" that the Constitution can and SHOULD be amended when there is a very strong popular opinion on a subject... and through those amendments, rather than Executive Orders or over-stepping legislation, we can change how the United States government functions.)

At this point, there are far more things about him that I support compared to any other candidate. I feel as if I HAVE to put my support, primary vote, and general election vote to his name, if only to make a point that I am not happy with our current system (our wars, our unjust prohibitions, the PATRIOT Act, etc.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I found the piece really funny on TDS with Jon Stewart (I just happened to be watching it that night, not knowing it would be on) as a Ron Paul supporter since his last presidential bid. It's funny, but scary all at the same time.

A Ron Paul supporter who likes NASA...me thinks something not fit-th.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

A Ron Paul supporter who likes NASA...me thinks something not fit-th.

What doesn't fit? That I form my own opinions? I use history and logic to define what I support? That's how many Ron Paul supporters are. We don't all agree on everything, but we agree that no other politician is as committed to freedom and common sense as Ron Paul.

Even though I do support a couple government organizations, it doesn't mean I don't oppose the Fed (who only causes rapid inflation and temporary fixes), I still oppose foreign wars (they are unnecessarily costly and not justified by any means), I believe education should be administered on a local level, I believe that social security needs immediate and drastic reform, and I personally supported the option for a Health Savings Account before I knew Dr. Paul had an opinion on them.