How Have the Media Turned Me Into a Conservative? Ron Paul, Fox News, Steven Colbert, John Stewart, and Keith Olberman (2678 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: 0.65 on 92 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-05-10 17:27:49 EDT
Yeah, I know it isn't much of a post, but I thought the Ron Paul fans might get a kick out of this one.
When did Fox News start supporting the good guys?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html
This can either be viewed as a good thing or bad thing for someone like me hoping and praying that people wake up to the constitutional tour de force that is Dr. Ron Paul. On the one hand, coverage like this will help spread his viability in the eyes of some, but at the same time, it might turn off those who will only stick with Dr. Paul so long as he's outside the mainstream, like how an underground band suddenly becomes 'less cool' when they are played on the radio.
I've heard indications that there are also concerns for Dr. Paul's safety if he becomes a serious contender - who can forget Bobby Kennedy - so Fox's sudden 180 could be viewed as somewhat dangerous in that respect.
But, I'm inclined to view this, for the time being, as a welcome shift in direction on the part of Fox News. Even if they are just cynically attempting to remain credible in the eyes of republicans, it is a welcome change from the mindless blathering of the Malakins, the O'Reillys, the Hannitys, and the Brit Humes.
Keith Olberman of MSNBC disappointed me BIG TIME in his debate coverage, and he's beginning to show his true colors on many issues where I completely disagree. It's a shame, too, because he is capable of such poignance and precision in his special comments, and it's as if he's simply falling to what his masters are telling him to do at this point.
The same can be said of my other two major sources of current events coverage, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. In their Republican debate coverage, both commentators made the same lame crack about the "diverse" skin color of the candidates - worded in almost precisely the same way - in an obviously calculated ploy to ridicule the fact that all the candidates are white and therefore somehow irrelevant. They went on to do exactly as ABC, Yahoo, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and just about every other news organization did in their coverage - tell the American people that all the Republicans were "pro war" and that none of them stood out from the field on the issues.
The last straw for me was when clips of Ron Paul's brilliant answers were used completely out of context in a collage of other candidate responses for the sake of a really bad joke. Actually, the obvious aim wasn't to create a joke. It was to minimalize Ron Paul's impact by lumping him and his words in with the rest to create the illusion that none of them said anything of consequence.
The last thing the backers of Hilary and Obama want is for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination. He would turn them upside down and spank their bottoms like a couple newborn babies in a head to head debate on any issue, and the people paying for them know it. So like any cowardly bully, they get their henchmen to run interference for them. At this level, that means the media.
If those of you not living in America ever wanted to know what kind of propaganda we are subjected to, just keep an eye on how the media is whitewashing Ron Paul.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-24 21:24:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am routing for Ron Paul, although I wouldn't mind Giuliani. If either of them win, I'll likely rout for the Republicans.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-05-13 03:59:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
for Christ's sake, shut the hell up.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-13 03:25:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok, listen up,
i know about cia irs and all that shit,
i'm all for abolishing them, i never argued for them, i just argued against his othe policies
to clear the air,
i don't support the democrats either,
in america you basically have 2 right wing parties,
however the economic changes this guy is proposing is radical,
and if you enforce radical changes with no safety net,
lots of poor folks are gonna suffer,
i've read his speeches, so far what he is proposing is the same as what bush proposed, but with a large amount of extra money freed up, i suggest you google how social mobility has changed under bush, are people better off with the tax breaks? and where has your trillion dollar surplus ended up
'That's what we're doing now and it's not working. We are already being robbed by the healthcare industry. And if the government took it over, we'd still be robbed, just in a different way.'
so your answer is that we are fucked whatever we do?
the feds prints more money because of the same arguments as tax cuts, if people have more money they will spend more. and the reason america can continue to borrow money is because oil takes up 90% of world trade and it is traded in us dollars, so nobody will ever cash in on the debts, because there will always be a demand for us dollars.
in my view,if you wanted to shake up the system, you'd be better off voting in a third party.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-13 02:29:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-12 06:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sword,
the way the stock market works, the large money is always at an advantange, you take away health care, give the people some money and expect them to invest it, most of that money will end up in the hands of the rich.
i believe taxing everybody (the rich will be taxed more) and providing essential services is better for social equality.
--------------
That's what we're doing now and it's not working. We are already being robbed by the healthcare industry. And if the government took it over, we'd still be robbed, just in a different way.
Listen, I respect your input, but you do not know enough about what you're speaking of to make a valid argument here. You obviously know nothing about the Federal Reserve or its genesis. You don't understand how and why the IRS is an illegal and unconstitutional operation, and you apparently don't see how the CIA, which Dr. Paul wants to abolish as well, started with ex-Nazis brought to America after WWII, and is responsible for about 99% of the skirmishes and wars we get involved in.
All of this, of course, is a collaborated effort to siphon off the money of taxpayers and funnel it into the hands of the international banking cabal that profits off our wars and our high (an UNCONSTITUTIONAL) federal income taxes.
If you want to learn something, google "income taxes and the constitution" and do some reading. Also read up on the Federal Reserve and how it produces money from nothing and charges taxpayers off the top for this service like some kind of loan shark.
It's high time people get educated and get PISSED OFF.
PS: Study history lest you fall victim to the future.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-05-12 06:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck poor people, rich people get what they want because they earned it.
:)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-05-12 06:12:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck free healthcare
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-12 06:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sword,
the way the stock market works, the large money is always at an advantange, you take away health care, give the people some money and expect them to invest it, most of that money will end up in the hands of the rich.
i believe taxing everybody (the rich will be taxed more) and providing essential services is better for social equality.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-12 05:59:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sword,
you are forgetting the fact that most of the products you buy come from china,
and man i could give you so many examples of companies making record profits and still laying off workers and cutting benifits.. i'm sorry, i really don't believe in the trickle down effect,
companies will only invest money if they can see a return, i really don't see them giving extra raises or bonuses to the bottom layer of workers..
the regualations you have now, don't give me confidence either. this last few years have seen oil companies making record profits and consumers paying record prices, when the government threatened extra taxes, they argued it was the unstability of the market, money spent on exploration and other crap, and i don't remember any extra taxes being taken.
some government branches being shut down is a good thing, but i believe income tax should still be collected and use to fund free healthcare or cheaper transport to help the poor.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-05-12 05:11:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WO RON PAUL 08
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-05-12 04:47:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
greEn_uGly
You are confusing money with wealth. When the government stops taking our resources we will have more wealth, more value, not just more money.
What I am trying to say is that reducing the size of the government would benefit the economy in actual fact, not just appearance. Investors with more money means more businesses, more products, more jobs. Businesses with more money means more products, more jobs and higher wages. These are real benefits that would result from minimizing the amount of money the government wastes.
I don't believe there would be any significant amount of artificial inflation as a result of this either. Rather then companies charging more for their products they would simply sell more products. After all if you didn't have to pay income tax (and income tax is one thing Ron Paul wants to get rid of, the IRS is another) then wouldn't you buy more stuff? Or put more money into an investment?
"in a free-market free-for-all the only ones who benifit are the rich.. "
My position, and Ron Paul's, is not anarchy, a government would still limit business practices it would just be a smaller government, consuming less of the countries resources.
thorpe
sarcasm? If so I think I could convince you if you were willing to read my rambling thoughts on the subject.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-12 01:06:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-05-12 14:11:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
greEn_uGly
I think you are the one who does not quite understand economics. Governments are inherently inefficient. As a government becomes larger the amount of money it wastes increases exponentially. The larger a government gets the more oppurtunity for corruption, the more corruption the greater the inefficiency.
Ron Paul's economic policy is to reduce the size of the government. Reduce the government, reduce wasted resources. Scaling down inefficient government operations will be a great boon to our economy.
Far from creating unemployment this idea will create many new jobs. With more money freed from government mismanagement there will be more money in the hands of businesses and investors, which means more jobs and more money for everyone.
---------------------------------
Holy shit, you're right, you've convinced me.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-12 00:45:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sword,
i agree that eliminating government branches will free up a lot of money,
but you are only looking at a tiny aspect of the economy,
if everyone has more money, the price of goods will rise,
in a free-market free-for-all the only ones who benifit are the rich..
essentially, this is the same argument bush used to get into power,
he wanted to give back the surplus, and eliminate services like medicare,
see where that got you,
ron paul is doing the same thing, just taking it further..
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-05-12 00:11:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
greEn_uGly
I think you are the one who does not quite understand economics. Governments are inherently inefficient. As a government becomes larger the amount of money it wastes increases exponentially. The larger a government gets the more oppurtunity for corruption, the more corruption the greater the inefficiency.
Ron Paul's economic policy is to reduce the size of the government. Reduce the government, reduce wasted resources. Scaling down inefficient government operations will be a great boon to our economy.
Far from creating unemployment this idea will create many new jobs. With more money freed from government mismanagement there will be more money in the hands of businesses and investors, which means more jobs and more money for everyone.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-11 22:27:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-11 17:00:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
he is an idiot who doesn't know shit about economy
===
elaborate
-----
the one thing he stresses is that if you print more money the value will drop,
sure this and previous governments have overspent, and sure you will save some money if you get rid over a bulk of government agencies, this is the good part,
but also you will create a lot of unemployed,
then he talks about stopping illegal immigration, and pulling manufacturing back into the US, this would raise the price of goods, would definitely hurt america's exports and hurt an economy built on illegal labour, not to mention lots of big companies have long-term deals that these measures will affect.
i mean all this can be argued as good for the long long term, but in the mean time he cut taxes which will definitely lead to cuts in normal service governments should provide, and leave no safety net for the poor. i think if he gets elected and all goes through, the poorest in america will be the first to suffer the consequences.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-11 17:00:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
he is an idiot who doesn't know shit about economy
===
elaborate
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 16:25:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Analyze why it is neither of these men have what it takes to win.
-------------------------
No idea about gravel, the democratic nomination is going to either hillary or obama without a doubt, so I haven't looked into other contenders.
As far as Ron Paul goes he may stick to his guns and have real principles, but he is an idiot who doesn't know shit about economy, or have a plan for the system he wants to scrap.
--------------
Here is Ron Paul's plan. He introduced this Bill back in 1999. Obviously, we weren't ready for it.
It's completely disingenuous and ignorant of you to assume he doesn't have a plan or in the 30 years since he first became a congressman he hasn't thought about these issues.
HR 1148 IH
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1148
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 17, 1999
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
A BILL
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act'.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED.
(a) IN GENERAL- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.
(b) REPEAL OF FEDERAL RESERVE ACT- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.
(c) DISPOSITION OF AFFAIRS-
(1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD- During the 1-year period referred to in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System--
(A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks--
(i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and
(ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection; and
(B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks.
(2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury.
(B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.
(3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied.
(d) REPORT- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.
END
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-05-11 15:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
If Hillary wins, the Democrats essentially lose. If Obama wins, you can count on a landslide for the Republicans. The real problem is that the Democrats have focused so hard on the progressive things they're going to do when they GET into the White House that they've forgot about the election they actually have to win to get there. Seems they're more interested, as usual, in being Quixotic martyrs.
Sure, we may not have won the election, and sure, our candidate may have just been a token negro with little experience and Oprah's hand up his ass, but we put forward a black candidate didn't we? We tried, isn't that what's important?..
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-05-11 15:15:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was trying to care, but failed.
Maybe you should try these sites out:
http://conspiracy.meetup.com/boards/
www.chatmag.com/topics/politics/politics.html
www.big-boards.com/kw/politics/
www.google.com/Top/Society/Politics/Chats_and_Forums/
www.losers.org/
Submitted by NotApologizing (user info) at 2007-05-11 14:33:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Electrictoo...(forgot already)
Nice post touching on how politcal agendas and the media feed one another. As tempted as I am to add to your post and discuss the politics behind the issue, i'll refrain and simply say that it is niether the duty nor the ability of our government to save us. There are too many people who shirk community, economic, and self improvement - they believe they've done their job by simply electing a government that says it will take care of those things for them.
I used to root for revolution, but now that both parties are fucking it up so bad i might as well sit and wait for the implosion. It's frustrating that so many people voted Kerry/Edwards with the thought that "...anyone is better than Bush...", yet those same people are unwilling to vote libertarian when in fact, "...anything is better than another republican or democrat..."
Oops, there I go again. Nice post anyways.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2007-05-11 11:29:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for turning me on to Ron Paul.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-05-11 11:03:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this is probably a good thing for the left..
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2007-05-11 10:51:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like Ron Paul.
Jon Stewart makes fun of everyone. No one is safe. To paraphrase Stewart, it's a comedy show and it's not his responsibility to be serious about any of the candidates. A comedian plays to his audience, and his audience is comprised mostly of left leaning stoners. I see what you are saying, but he's not a serious journalist. He doesn't have the same responsibility. Olberman, yeah, but not Stewart. If people are taking their voting cues from Comedy Central then the problem is bigger than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Back to my point though, I like Ron Paul, which is new for me... liking a presidential candidate.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-05-11 10:31:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Reading this makes me happy my life revolves around myself.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-05-11 09:57:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"This guy's got some serious SPUNK."
ATTN GHEY MENZ
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-05-11 09:52:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck it, lets just burn it to the ground and enjoy the flames
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-11 09:42:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
Submitted by Can_Always_Trust_A_Liar (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:15:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck democrats. fuck republicans. fuck independents.
vote apathetic.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Analyze why it is neither of these men have what it takes to win.
-------------------------
No idea about gravel, the democratic nomination is going to either hillary or obama without a doubt, so I haven't looked into other contenders.
As far as Ron Paul goes he may stick to his guns and have real principles, but he is an idiot who doesn't know shit about economy, or have a plan for the system he wants to scrap.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:52:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Maybe it's about time it did.
People need to learn what their rights are and why it's of the utmost importance to assert them in the face of those who do not realize that it is THEY who are the servants.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:17:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's never stopped them before.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 02:01:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-11 01:34:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The guy is going to get himself assassinated, he wants to abolish the CIA.
--------------
To assassinate him would give creedence to all those people telling you that an armed revolt is the only way to assert our rights.
An assassination is, in effect, a coup of power, robbing the people from having their say in how their government is instituted. As far as I'm concerned, and according to the Declaration of Independence, it is grounds for armed revolt.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-05-11 01:46:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-11 01:34:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The guy is going to get himself assassinated, he wants to abolish the CIA.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:32:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote: I respect your reasons for saying that neither Gravel nor Dr. Paul have a chance at winning their respective nominations, but let me ask you....why?
Analyze why it is neither of these men have what it takes to win.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:27:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you're a democrat living in a state that would not allow you to vote in the republican primary without changing your party affiliation and you are unwilling to change it, may I recommend looking into Mike Gravel:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA
This guy's got some serious SPUNK. I admire him as well. America needs more people like this. What we need less of are two-bit media whores telling us that people like him and Ron Paul are "irrelevant" and "fringe" and they "stand no chance at winning" therefore will get no serious coverage from their media outlet.
I don't buy it! And I trust that even if you cannot agree with me on all that I say, at least you could agree with me on that much.
I will not be dictated to, and I'll be damned if I'll be told by a mindless money machine who to cast my vote for.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:26:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:13:11 EDT (#)
Since the beginning of our republic, people have been content to vote in lockstep around single issues and around what the leaders of their civic organizations tell them would be best.
-=-=-=-=-
People are ALWAYS content to vote in lockstep around hot-button issues and guided by their civic leaders. It's not a distinctly American trait by any stretch.
We've had a landslide victory by democrats to take back the house, the American people are overwhelmingly sour on this war we're in, yet we see very little of substance being done. Not only that, but we see slick-tongued democrats like Hilary and Obama echoing the "war on terror" rhetoric even while they condemn the war in Iraq. It seems that the only justification they can find in ending the war in Iraq is that "it has nothing to do with the larger war on terror".
-=-=-=-=-=-
Because that "landslide" was soft: public support for the leadership of the democratic party is lukewarm at best for whatever reason the pundits of the day care to bandy about. It won't take much spin to send things sliding the other way again and to do anything truly interesting would open a candidate up to attack ads.
And don't make me imagine Hillary Clinton's tongue, I'm having enough trouble keeping my food down as it is.
Americans are no longer buying it. The media has lost much of its hypnotic power over the people, I think. Everyone is growing increasingly skeptical of everything they hear from the mainstream media, especially with the rise of internet sources. This is nowhere more evident than the amazing case of Rosie O'Donnell, love her or hate her, coming out on The View and telling the viewers point blank, "Go outside this country to get your news. Trust no one, not even Disney, who owns this station." -=-=-=-=-=-=-
Most people are still getting their news from their buddies at the bar or the other secretaries. There's still the large contingent of people who don't even listen to the news because they're going to vote for whoever their husband tells them to. And then there's the people who have become increasingly skeptical of everything they hear from the mainstream media, but lack any kind of critical thinking skills to apply to whatever alternatives they avail themselves of.
If they've been paying attention at all, they already know something is horribly wrong with our republic. It is sick, and most acknowledge that a complete overhaul is in order, whether they're democtrat or republican. Ron Paul is the best hope for that. Mike Gravel is also saying some sensible things on the the other side of the aisle.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I think most people in the general public have roughly the same opinion of the need for complete overhaul as the rednecks in the pickup truck had of Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda in "Easy Rider". They're going to keep thinking what the media and the churches and the celebrities tell them to think because they lack the capacity to do otherwise.
Notice the two names they mention in that article. That should tell you something.
-=-=-=-=-
You can go back to '92 and '96 and see how hard the major parties tried to keep Perot out of the debates, it's nothing new. What is it with Texans?
To be fair, Mike Gravel is a total loon. Ron Paul has an admirable willingness to take unpopular positions or cross the aisle when it suits him, but he'd get more credit from me if his ideas made any sense at all. Personally I don't care who's allowed in the debates because watching them just makes my stomach ache. It doesn't change the basic fact that neither one has a hope in hell of winning their party's nomination.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:10:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Cool. thx
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-11 00:09:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:39:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, apollo, to be a registered party member so that you can vote in a party leadership election you have to pay. Labour is thirty-something pounds a year.
In america, changing your voter registration so that you may vote in a particular primary is free.
Their system is actually more fair than ours, in that respect.
Do any other british people want to say something stupid? I'm in a condescending mood.
i'm sorry - i misunderstood.
i thought he meant that if say I voted for Gore last time I had to get permission to vote for a republican this time in the actual election.
of course the above makes sense. why should I get a vote in a labour/tory leadership battle?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-10 23:57:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:58:10 EDT (#)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:01:59 EDT (#)
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
------------
Can you fucking blame us? Unlike you and your society, we've had a nasty habit of letting all our heros get assassinated. You haven't had the same problems we've had over the years. Ridicule it all you want, but there is a reason we are this way.
===
It's got nothing to do with assination. It's because you've had it drummed into you that america was founded on a new and great idea and all these lofty ideals and drama. America wants to live up to the storybook version of its own history.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
True ever since the days of Jefferson and Adams... who both knew the lofty ideals firsthand and still spent enormous effort trying to have each other written out of the storybook version. If you ask me, America SHOULD be trying to live up to the storybook version of its own history. I bet a significant fraction of Congressmen couldn't describe the contents of the Federalist papers or explain the genesis of the Bill of Rights, and they should be sent to Iraq for unlimited tours.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-05-10 22:51:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It scares the fuck out of me how much I've been in agreement with ETS lately.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 22:41:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I should clarify my review about Bill Richardson somewhat. That "ontheissues" website is misleading. Most bills and government activities cannot be summed up in a few words. I would probably need to study his stance a little more to make a complete assessment.
I'll keep my eye on him.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 22:18:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Aaron Russo talking to Ron Paul in his documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism": http://youtube.com/watch?v=styYIG-fiEc&mode=related&search=
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 22:11:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bill Richardson talks a good game on some of the issues, but is shaky on others. Looking over his "ontheissues" page, http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm , I see no clear way he proposes to fund some of the proposed changes. Furthermore, I don't see a real tangible change in foreign policy there nor any proposed measures that would restrict the Federal Government from continuing business as usual in the future.
He's talking about creating committees and partnerships on renewable energies, etc., and while energy dependence is a big issue, I don't hear him talking about cutting governmet subsidies for oil companies like Ron Paul is doing, which is the quickest and surest way of getting the ball rolling on renewables.
I like some of the things he says. He sounds more sane than most of the democrats, but I disagree his views on the war on drugs among other things, and I think his stated agenda wouldn't do much to change government in any real sense.
I don't hear him talking about stabilizing the national currency, which is in freefall by the way, or addressing the issue of Federal Income Tax as an unconstitutional concept (as Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are doing). And, of course, no one but Ron Paul wants to TOUCH the Federal Reserve System, which is the source of many, if not all, our problems, in my humble opinion. For more on Ron Paul's views, check out this convenient archive of his speeches: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html or just go to youtube or google video and search "ron paul".
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-10 22:09:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-05-10 21:06:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
actually, I'm really interested in reading your opinions of Bill Richardson.
Va El Gordo!
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2007-05-10 21:59:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's Jon.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-05-10 21:06:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
actually, I'm really interested in reading your opinions of Bill Richardson.
Va El Gordo!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:49:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This should answer a lot of your questions about primary elections and caucuses and general elections and the differences between them: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politicalsystem/a/delegateprocess.htm
Apollo, now can you see why it's important to stay on top of things?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:47:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:39:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do any other british people want to say something stupid? I'm in a condescending mood.
===
i live under the crown, do i qualify as british? or british lite? or british excrement?
i gotta stupid question now:
do you guys have two different computers, like some sort of underground revolution network or do you sit on ETS lap and both log in and out of Uber to reply to people.
DO YOU EVEN FUCKING EXIST? :-O
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:45:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't start bagging on Stewart and Colbert. Fact is that the first Republican debate is virtually irrelevant, and they're smart enough to know that.
Furthermore, they are the 2 motherfuckers in the entire media that come up with something funny, intelligent, and at times, insightful on a DAILY basis.
------------
I used to think the same thing, but I'm trying to show you where you're wrong. Look into it.
Watch the raw footage from the debate, particularly watch Ron Paul's answers, then watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report's coverage. You'll see the difference. I'm telling you, they're no different than Fox's O'Reilly Factor, they just appeal to college kids and 20 and 30 somethings because they usually make depressing things funny.
Not everything is a joke. There are times when it's just dishonest to try and make it into one. Put the weed down for a second, look more deeply at what I've pointed out above.
In order to be vigilant and not fall out of one mental trap right into another, you HAVE to question things! Don't ever stop doing that, because when you do that, they've got you.
It's like Keith Olberman, for instance... I've been saying for a long long time that he is the new Alfred Murrow, but he is really starting to disappoint me lately with some of his coverage. It's getting progressively lazy to the point where one cannot but conclude that it's being controlled just like everywhere else.
I guess what I'm trying to say is pick your heros carefully, and always reapply the same standards of integrity to them in all that they do, because the minute you stop doing so, they will turn on you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:40:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hold on...
you can only vote based on your registration to one party?
GET THE FUCK OUT!
===
You realise that the general public in england does not get to decide who leads their party unless they are a registered party member, right?
Why would you be suprised at the americans doing it when we've been doing a very similar thing for years?
===
because it's the way it looks. i was shocked and asked the exact same question before.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:39:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, apollo, to be a registered party member so that you can vote in a party leadership election you have to pay. Labour is thirty-something pounds a year.
In america, changing your voter registration so that you may vote in a particular primary is free.
Their system is actually more fair than ours, in that respect.
Do any other british people want to say something stupid? I'm in a condescending mood.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:34:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:02:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
your wife is right.
if you weren't all so fucking emotional and over the top, perhaps you could have remotly serious debates. the GOP nominates debate was painful to watch
"CONGRESSMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE BILL CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?"
"OH OH OH, DEAR GOD, NO!"
"ME NEITHER"
*crowd erupts in laughter"
"CONGRESSMAN, DO YOU LOVE AMERICA?"
"WE ARE GREAT PEOPLE! YES!"
"WE ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD"
*crowd claps*
"CONGRESSMAN, CAN I HAVE A XBOX FOR CHRISTMAS?"
-------------
What do you expect when MSNBC conducts the debate? It was designed to be ridiculous from the start. It's not about what the people want, it's about what the media wants it to be.
Case in point: Dr. Paul fielded 4 questions all night long, while McCain and Giuliani fielded about 10 or more each. And the nature of the questions are just ridiculous. But, again,they are that way on purpose. Makes for good soundbytes on your "liberal" talk shows and news progs like the aforementioned Olberman, The Daily Show, and Colbert Report, which will at all costs paint the entire republican party with the same brush in an effort to galvanize their political base and convulsively ridicule their collective "enemy".
This strategy might ot be as evident if they weren't so rabidly insistent on not even mentioning Ron Paul's glaring differences from the field of republican candidates. Here he is, talking about a lot of issues you'd think democrats and anti-war left leaners would pounce upon and praise, but instead they try to silence him by leaving him off their polls, failing to mention him in their analyses, and just generally keeping quiet about him.
The people who watched the entire debate and didn't get their coverage from 15 second soundbytes after the fact know better.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:33:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't start bagging on Stewart and Colbert. Fact is that the first Republican debate is virtually irrelevant, and they're smart enough to know that.
Furthermore, they are the 2 motherfuckers in the entire media that come up with something funny, intelligent, and at times, insightful on a DAILY basis.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hold on...
you can only vote based on your registration to one party?
GET THE FUCK OUT!
===
You realise that the general public in england does not get to decide who leads their party unless they are a registered party member, right?
Why would you be suprised at the americans doing it when we've been doing a very similar thing for years?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:31:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hold on...
you can only vote based on your registration to one party?
GET THE FUCK OUT!
-===
the registration allows them to pick a candidate. it works with memberships in Canada.
after that your free to vote for whoever u pick, like anywhere else.
i find that system a little more accessible than memberships, LIKE PORN SITES!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hold on...
you can only vote based on your registration to one party?
GET THE FUCK OUT!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:17:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in america politics is like a sport. you support your team and that is it.
i know some rabid republicans who couldn't name 5 Republicans.
Go politics WOO!
ALSO
Your electoral process is absurd. The last nation to be in a perpetual state of election? Rome.
THE ELECTION IS IN NOVEMBER 2008 FOR FUCKS SAKE. START TALKING ABOUT IT IN SAY APRIL 2008 IF YOU MUST.
----------------
That's the general election. The real election happens in the primaries. And they are closer than you think.
Fortunately, I've looked into it, and Indiana is an open primary, meaning you don't have to be registered for a particular party to vote in that party's primary, you just can't vote in both.
Every state is different though, so that's why it's important o think about these things NOW instead of later, so that if you think you might like to do as I'm doing, which is vote for Ron Paul in the republican primary in your state, you have to know whether changing your party affiliation is necessary in order to do that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:13:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're partially right about the media, but when you consider that Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination of his party because of disagreements with the party brass, you can start understand the media desire not to lavish much attention on such a longshot.
----------
Since the beginning of our republic, people have been content to vote in lockstep around single issues and around what the leaders of their civic organizations tell them would be best. This is a different America than what you've ever seen before. We're just going through one of the shakiest presidencies in the history of the country, one wherein arguably more civil liberties have been openly abused than any other, were nation-building has become open national policy, and where the very scary prospect of a Big Brother style government has reared its ugly head in scandal after scandal on an almost daily basis.
We've had a landslide victory by democrats to take back the house, the American people are overwhelmingly sour on this war we're in, yet we see very little of substance being done. Not only that, but we see slick-tongued democrats like Hilary and Obama echoing the "war on terror" rhetoric even while they condemn the war in Iraq. It seems that the only justification they can find in ending the war in Iraq is that "it has nothing to do with the larger war on terror".
This is just as dangerous a position as Bush's "stay the course", because it virtually admits that even if we pull out of Iraq, we're likely to be right back in a similar position somewhere else in the world tomorrow.
Americans are no longer buying it. The media has lost much of its hypnotic power over the people, I think. Everyone is growing increasingly skeptical of everything they hear from the mainstream media, especially with the rise of internet sources. This is nowhere more evident than the amazing case of Rosie O'Donnell, love her or hate her, coming out on The View and telling the viewers point blank, "Go outside this country to get your news. Trust no one, not even Disney, who owns this station." [paraphrased]
That is a pretty powerful thing for most Americans to hear, and I think the message is bubbling out of enough sources now that even if it's not in the forefront of people's minds, there is a spark of recognition when they see something that is blatant propaganda.
If they've been paying attention at all, they already know something is horribly wrong with our republic. It is sick, and most acknowledge that a complete overhaul is in order, whether they're democtrat or republican. Ron Paul is the best hope for that. Mike Gravel is also saying some sensible things on the the other side of the aisle.
But of course, they are both targets of the smear and smokescreen tactics of the elite who own the media. They are already talking openly about ways to better control the debates by limiting who is allowed national face time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701553.html
Notice the two names they mention in that article. That should tell you something.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:13:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh and btw jack, i'm also amused that you use the word "survival" since "La survivance" has been one of the main arguments for independance. the pursuit of cutlural normalcy. if anything, the economical survival argument was only an equivalent opposite to counter the identical one.
i know it might seems complicated, but if you ever get more than a high school education, you'll have a better grasp of your home country history. you're worse than rob.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 20:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Cant see anything that gets public money improving in the near future.
===
You do understand that as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last ten years he probably has had more control over financial matters than he will have as PM, right?
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Tony Blairs announced the date of his last day as PM. So begins the era of Gordon "Penny Pinching Scottish Sterotype" Brown. Cant see anything that gets public money improving in the near future.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:06:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:03:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:59:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually I was thinking of Bonnie Tyler. She's welsh, you know.
--------------------
She isn't desperate, she is just holding out for a hero because she has high standards.
===
And so the song passes beyond my understanding.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:05:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and for the record, the Dems debate wasn't any better.
the mike gravel guy was particularly ridiculous.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:03:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:59:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually I was thinking of Bonnie Tyler. She's welsh, you know.
--------------------
She isn't desperate, she is just holding out for a hero because she has high standards.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:02:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
your wife is right.
if you weren't all so fucking emotional and over the top, perhaps you could have remotly serious debates. the GOP nominates debate was painful to watch
"CONGRESSMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE BILL CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?"
"OH OH OH, DEAR GOD, NO!"
"ME NEITHER"
*crowd erupts in laughter"
"CONGRESSMAN, DO YOU LOVE AMERICA?"
"WE ARE GREAT PEOPLE! YES!"
"WE ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD"
*crowd claps*
"CONGRESSMAN, CAN I HAVE A XBOX FOR CHRISTMAS?"
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 19:01:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in america politics is like a sport. you support your team and that is it.
===
Same thing happens in england. I could find you plenty of people who vote tory because they've always voted tory, and their parents always voted tory, and....
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:59:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:56:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
===
I don't think it's just the americans.
---------------------
Yeah apollo, if you were married to ETS you would be looking for a hero too.
===
Actually I was thinking of Bonnie Tyler. She's welsh, you know.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
------------
Can you fucking blame us? Unlike you and your society, we've had a nasty habit of letting all our heros get assassinated. You haven't had the same problems we've had over the years. Ridicule it all you want, but there is a reason we are this way.
===
It's got nothing to do with assination. It's because you've had it drummed into you that america was founded on a new and great idea and all these lofty ideals and drama. America wants to live up to the storybook version of its own history.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:56:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*waits for Jack MacCallum to select a tiny sentence and make a completly off-topic argument*
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:56:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
===
I don't think it's just the americans.
---------------------
Yeah apollo, if you were married to ETS you would be looking for a hero too.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:56:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in america politics is like a sport. you support your team and that is it.
i know some rabid republicans who couldn't name 5 Republicans.
Go politics WOO!
===
yes and when you have independant views...you're some sort of genius in the "margin", just like ETS
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
===
I don't think it's just the americans.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:52:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
in any other country than america, people can discuss america without sounding like idiots. people read and they are informed.
--
Ah, you mean like the Canadian Quebcois who voted for Seperatism, actually BELIEVING that quebec could survive on its own?
Tell us another one, mon ami. Entertain us.
===
in 1980, first referendum, Quebec was better off without the confederation since it was losing 4 billion to the perequation program. in the second, in 1995, it was a recipient of the perequation program...the most pessimstic economic models forced seperatist and then prime minister to buy large amount of US dollars to go through a period of "dérangement" that would extend over at least a decade.
no one said it would be heaven, but dollars aren't the only reason to build a country.
now on to your word "survive". it is an interesting choice of word. at what point does a nation cease to survive exactly? does transition and temporary deficit means that it cease to exists? or is it when you live in huts? Secceeding has taken place in parts of europe and has found to be benefital for both parties. Slovakia for instance, has experienced a massive economic growth when it left the Czech republic when people predicted its doom. a same scenario wasn't impossible for Quebec.
it's hard to tell but it shows that you've been brainwashed by the fear campaign of the No. i'm not a seperatist because i don't think it's even an issue, but you don't have to be a genius to see the bullshit in the "survival" argument. the use of the word separatist is quite unique to canada (and third world countries dubbing separatist factions) and is used mostly in anglo-canada.
it is something we could talk about in length but your little "QC couldn't survive" is usually brought up by tourists who overheard about the issue once. my god, you are a fucking idiot. why don't you show us more about your linguistic knowledge, jack?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in america politics is like a sport. you support your team and that is it.
i know some rabid republicans who couldn't name 5 Republicans.
Go politics WOO!
ALSO
Your electoral process is absurd. The last nation to be in a perpetual state of election? Rome.
THE ELECTION IS IN NOVEMBER 2008 FOR FUCKS SAKE. START TALKING ABOUT IT IN SAY APRIL 2008 IF YOU MUST.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:47:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I respect Ron Paul. I don't think he is in bed with any special intrest groups, I appreciate a lot of his ideas on the constitution (I don't agree, but I don't think they would change depending on him being in power or not), but unfortunately he is a moreon with no understanding of international economy. Kind of like you except he stand behind what he says.
Wayt to go though at least this clip is from this year and you didn't make up any "solid evidence".
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
in any other country than america, people can discuss america without sounding like idiots. people read and they are informed.
--
Ah, you mean like the Canadian Quebcois who voted for Seperatism, actually BELIEVING that quebec could survive on its own?
Tell us another one, mon ami. Entertain us.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're partially right about the media, but when you consider that Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination of his party because of disagreements with the party brass, you can start understand the media desire not to lavish much attention on such a longshot. Given the fact that his ideas are so far outside the political mainstream, and that he hasn't devoted as much effort to building a base and currying favor, is it really so surprising?
He really should be running as a Libertarian, and he's already gotten way more attention than they ever get. He seems to have a crummy record on the environment and education, and he's not really as libertarian as you think because he's pro-life and pro-big-fence-around-Mexico, so my sympathy for his plight is somewhat limited... but he has pretty much the same liabilities that any third party candidate would have, that neither party in congress would have any incentive to work with him.
It'll be interesting to see how much traction he gets in the era of blogging and youtube, but no matter what you think of his platform, I think at this point he's got to prove he's not a novelty act.
Oh, and you're right that Olbermann is losing it. He's getting more and more mean-spirited and personal about less and less important issues, has been my impression. Hopefully he rights ship soon.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
in any other country than america, people can discuss america without sounding like idiots. people read and they are informed.
in the US, the country with lowest voting turnout, as soon as someone gets remotely interested in politics, he thinks he's enlightened because all the people around him are so fucking retarded on that subject.
that's where ETS steps in. he's voted for the first time at 29 years old and now he thinks he's a politically enlightened, that he's the champion of democracy cuz he found a candidate that is already there to be seen by all.
you really need perspective, man. calm the fuck down. not every one of your political opinion is a change in the universe. in any other country, you'd be laughed at like you laugh at rednecks who still equate saddam to 9/11.
stop embarassing yourself already.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:18:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Uncharacteristically lucid
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:11:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is an archive of Ron Paul speeches: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
If any of you have any doubts about him being te real deal, read some of those speeches.
We're not "desperate for a hero", Apollo, we've got one right here. Now all we have to do is recognize it and show him some support.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:07:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Re-Elect Bill Clinton!!
--------------
I'd sooner see Bill Clinton hanged for war crimes and crimes against his own people as see him or his power hungry bitch of a wife get back in there.
Both of them are Bilderbergers. Hilary is going to win. As long as everything goes according to plan and the republicans run interference for her and stay focused on the LOSING ISSUES, she will get a free ride to the White House.
I, for one, am tired of being told who to vote for. I'm tired of having no more of a choice than the one between Puppet A and Puppet B.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 18:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
------------
Can you fucking blame us? Unlike you and your society, we've had a nasty habit of letting all our heros get assassinated. You haven't had the same problems we've had over the years. Ridicule it all you want, but there is a reason we are this way.
Here's another piece acknowledging the online rise of Ron Paul, but ridiculing it and marginalizing it as just a limited number of "fringe" followers.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070509/ron_pauls_online_rise.htm
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Re-Elect Bill Clinton!!
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:53:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-11 07:50:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
-------
They say that a hero will save us
I'm not gonna stand heeerrreee and waaaaiiiit
I'll hold onto the wings of the eaaaagles
Watch as they allll flyyy awaayyyyyyyyyyy
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:52:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:30:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What do you think of Huckabee?
--
I don't agree with all of Huckabee's views but I love his honesty.
Also, what did Ron Paul ever do besides inventing the Pocket Fisherman?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:50:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my god you americans are desperate for a hero.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:49:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:43:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't see myself placing Comedy Central on the same plane as MSNBC
--------------
Yea, I know...Comedy Central doesn't ritualistcally cover American Idol.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:44:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you're the american Steevy Boulay
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:43:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't see myself placing Comedy Central on the same plane as MSNBC
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:34:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He's got my vote.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:31:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
also - I hadn't heard of Ron Paul yet, but I'll look into him.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2007-05-10 17:30:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What do you think of Huckabee?