You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paul forgotton again
- Thread starter Wallet
- Start date
I still have not seen a good explanation of why the MSM (FOX included) actively try to marginalize Paul.
Does each network (NBC/MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc) have their own individual dislike of him (if so, what is it for each one?) or are they the front-men for a voice behind them all?
News that is filtered or selectively censored without merit is not news. It is Propaganda - shaped and manipulated to achieve an agenda.
So what is the agenda of these "news" organizations - and are they acting in a collusive way? Their front-men seem to parrot the same lines almost verbatim.
Does each network (NBC/MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc) have their own individual dislike of him (if so, what is it for each one?) or are they the front-men for a voice behind them all?
News that is filtered or selectively censored without merit is not news. It is Propaganda - shaped and manipulated to achieve an agenda.
So what is the agenda of these "news" organizations - and are they acting in a collusive way? Their front-men seem to parrot the same lines almost verbatim.
Perhaps, but that doesn't impute the federal government with rights to run the affairs of states, nor does it rescind the rights which states have to self determination.
Your camp claims that single payer/socialized/public health care is most economically viable, and will reduce costs dramatically while creating universal coverage. If that's the case, then that will be apparent if done by individual states. Certainly, if your assertion is true than even individual states moving to collective/universal models of coverage will be better than their current paradigms, and the results will speak for themselves as it would create far "more on board" than are currently. If you believe in the superior viability of the policies you advocate, that would be the most powerful marketing tool to get other states to follow suit, and is the only constitutionally compliant one. Therefore, if you really believed in the viability of your assertions, you'd support individual states going being able to move to collective paradigms.
Your camp claims that single payer/socialized/public health care is most economically viable, and will reduce costs dramatically while creating universal coverage. If that's the case, then that will be apparent if done by individual states. Certainly, if your assertion is true than even individual states moving to collective/universal models of coverage will be better than their current paradigms, and the results will speak for themselves as it would create far "more on board" than are currently. If you believe in the superior viability of the policies you advocate, that would be the most powerful marketing tool to get other states to follow suit, and is the only constitutionally compliant one. Therefore, if you really believed in the viability of your assertions, you'd support individual states going being able to move to collective paradigms.
Quote from Ricter:
I think viable risk spreading demands "more on board", by definition.
Quote from MarketMasher:
I still have not seen a good explanation of why the MSM (FOX included) actively try to marginalize Paul.
Does each network (NBC/MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc) have their own individual dislike of him (if so, what is it for each one?) or are they the front-men for a voice behind them all?
News that is filtered or selectively censored without merit is not news. It is Propaganda - shaped and manipulated to achieve an agenda.
So what is the agenda of these "news" organizations - and are they acting in a collusive way? Their front-men seem to parrot the same lines almost verbatim.
It's called TV programming.