It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The whole crux of their rulership relies on information...Who has it & who controls where it spreads. Throughout history, the ruling elite used information (& propaganda) against the masses of people that they've ruled over. Their whole linchpin on control has been the illusion that they disperse to the masses while hording the truth for themselves...They simply cannot maintain control any other way & that's why it's an illusion.
Since the advent of public-access internet, now the "common man" has equal footing in the War FOR Information. The "Ruling Elite" are having trouble keeping their advantage in this particular war and they know it...Why else would there be such a big rush to push for tyranny in the once-free USA? Why is China seemingly being groomed to take the US's place as the pre-eminent superpower in production & economy (since the US's capability in those areas has been receding, China's is increasing)?
Originally posted by robertnesta
here is that video i think you might have been talking about
brokencrystal.com...
Originally posted by Cyberbian
If the media is picking the candidates via popularity/viewership, that is closer to true democracy than we have ever had.
I much prefer that to rigged elections and media mind control efforts.
I only wish you were correct.
I believe they are manipulating it to be even, to enhance viewership.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only area which makes me scratch my head a bit is surrounding McCain vs Romney. Mitt Romney had more money at his disposal, had promised commitment of more money to his campaign than McCain did if Romney had gotten the nomination, and was predicted to be a fund raising beast compared to McCain. Do you have any thoughts on whether other driving factors (political bias, for example) may have lead the media to cover McCain more than Romeny given the fact that they actually stood to make less money off advertising from John McCain?
In the end, Romney, a businessman, likely decided that the path to win the nomination was too narrow to justify further expenditures of his own money. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that covered campaign contributions and expenditures through the end of 2007, Romney had donated $37.5 million of his own money to the contest. He likely spent considerably more so far this year. His net worth has been estimated at between $250 million and $500 million.
Since the New Year, McCain has won Republican primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. His campaign says that its fundraising for the month of January alone has surpassed the $7 million it raised in the last three months of 2007.
McCain's main rival for the GOP nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has been buttressing his campaign funds with personal wealth. Romney held a high-profile fundraising event after finishing second in New Hampshire's primary Jan. 8. It netted only $1.5 million in funds to be spent on the primaries.
Originally posted by brill
As another poster indicated the source of this "research" is from Jerry Day
Originally posted by Demandred
even with the "common mans" unprecedented access to information it does them no good unless they have the capacity to winnow through the truth and the lies.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
if ron paul had "actually" raised more money than john mccain at some point, why would there be a conspiracy to not let him spend it on advertising?
Originally posted by ApathyIsAnEpidemic
Originally posted by Cyberbian
If the media is picking the candidates via popularity/viewership, that is closer to true democracy than we have ever had.
I much prefer that to rigged elections and media mind control efforts.
I only wish you were correct.
I believe they are manipulating it to be even, to enhance viewership.
So you actually believe that someone else hijacking your own free will to choose the best candidate you believe in is a good thing? The hypocrisy in your statement is incredibly striking, you believe elections are rigged but at the same time you choose to ignore the data old school has put forth that shows in transparent terms that the media is choosing who and what to report on that leads to the public choosing to focus more of their attention on that particular person/candidate without evening thinking about, talk about mind control for the masses.
This is worse than a straight rigged election as the media is pulling the wool over your eyes and telling you who and who-not to pay attention too and you don't even know its happening . Its a slap in the face that nobody is willing to acknowledge or is just too ignorant to see.