I just needed to get this off my chest. I was watching the CNN Youtube debate last night and it was as terrible as ever, (nothing but Romney vs Giuliani) now I am fine with the fact that Ron Paul only had a couple questions during the entire night, he isn't considered top tier I guess so whatever, :/ but the first question they ask him (45min into the debate) is if he agrees with his supporters about the crazy conspiracy to join Canada, Mexico and the US.

To which he replies:

Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.

And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.

You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.

But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat."


This is all true stuff, one of their top correspondents Lou Dobbs talks about it all the time. There are people in Texas protesting the government for taking their farm land for the international highway right now. When the president of Mexico went on the Daily Show he said that NAO was a real goal for him, and the United States ... But despite all of that, they called him a kook for believing in such nonsense and insisted that he wasn't fit for presidency because of it during the post debate segment.

UGH, this just bugs me so much, damn biased media!

Gam, where does the quote of Ron Paul end and your own commentary begin? I'm kind of confused by your post.

I suppose I could make that more clear.

I understood. Media bias in inherent in the system as well as with the individual. There's a lot of power there as a person in the media.

So you have a system in which corperations have had measured influence on the media, mixed with punditry gone mad (read 'What Liberal Media? --Eric Alterman'. It's a good book although it might only make you more angry.)

It is temping... but I don't know if I really want to hate our system any more than I already do.

It's funny, because I often find that our media has a very liberal bias to it. I find the National Post only discusses things happening Ontario/Quebec (which is why I don't read it), and I was frustrated with the very Liberal (both political and party views) bias on the last federal election coverage. Canada is not going to crumble because we elected a *gasp* conservative from *double gasp* ....... uhh.... a barren wasteland that might be somewhere - no wait - it's far west of Toronto!

I don't know, I have heard of those westys.. they are a corrupt bunch.

Well, I would recomend the book to you. Its counter intuitive, I know, but it backs itself up with a careful observation of the media. Eric Alterman is a critic of the media industry. As far as Canada is concerned, I'm not sure the book applies. Although, I would not doubt a corporate bias there too. As far as criticism of politicians go, that can be spotty and hard to read. Based on that alone, you could say the American press is liberal, based on the (somewhat) criticism they gave GB and company about Iraq. Take it back 6+ years, and you have a whole 'nother story. Look at how Bush was when he first came into office--look at when he proposed a war in Iraq and said there were weapons of mass distruction. The administration lied, sure, but the press fail us. They went easy on the guy, whereas when Clinton was in office, he was scrutinized and critised for everything, especially his affair (which is minor compare a war, if you ask me).

holy s**t the media is such a sick thing...

filter filter filter

How did you find this old thread lol

I believe you mean "the media are...". "Media" is a plural term ("medium" being the singular).

Dear TheStep,

That image just made my day!

Sincerely, Tundramonkey

I are a rebel and care not for your policemanship.