------------------ Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T si vis pacem, para bellum
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!
Thats funny cause a coworker and i were talking about this very subject today at work! Thanks for the link will have to show my buddy at work. I don't know why the media has blacked out Ron Paul. Maybe they think if they give him to much airtime he might actually win! Like Stewart said Ron Paul planted the seeds for this grass roots tea party movement. everyone else is reaping what Mr Paul has sewn.
------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2
[This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 08-16-2011).]
The maddening thing is when Paul says something its ignored, when someone else says it, its front page news, case in point, Dr Paul has been calling to Audit the Fed for YEARS and he's been ignored or ridiculed for it. Gov Perry accuses the Fed of treason, and its the lead story! W...T...F?!
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It was the same in the last election. I've never thought Paul was very electable - he just doesn't have a powerful enough personality, and sad to say that matters. I love many of his ideas, but I'm not sure how he'd do on foreign affairs.
Paul has been around for a long time, and he's not been taken seriously for almost as long. I don't know why.
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
If individuals don't like and/agree with him, that is fine. But the news media is supposed to report the news then let the masses decide. Its like how everyone accuses Fox as being the only biased source in the MSM, and they are certainly not guiltless in this case, but where is the objective reporting of the FACTS from the rest of the supposed "unbiased" MSM sources with respect to Dr Paul? It certainly can't be all Fox's fault in this case...
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 08-16-2011).]
If individuals don't like and/agree with him, that is fine. But the news media is supposed to report the news then let the masses decide. Its like how everyone accuses Fox as being the only biased source in the MSM, and they are certainly not guiltless in this case, but where is the objective reporting of the FACTS from the rest of the supposed "unbiased" MSM sources with respect to Dr Paul?
Is there any doubt left what the media's agenda is, and who is their favorite candidate?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
It was the same in the last election. I've never thought Paul was very electable - he just doesn't have a powerful enough personality, and sad to say that matters. I love many of his ideas, but I'm not sure how he'd do on foreign affairs.
Paul has been around for a long time, and he's not been taken seriously for almost as long. I don't know why.
I hope whoever defeats Obama makes Paul a Cabinet member, or maybe the Chairman of the Fed. That'd shake up Washington's s***.
IP: Logged
11:25 PM
PFF
System Bot
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
When I listen to him he kind of sound like the illegitimate son of Ronald Reagan and Nancy Pelosi. Does have some great ideas, but then, well not so sane.
Does have some great ideas, but then, well not so sane.
Care to elaborate as to what ideas of his are "Not so sane"? I would agree that some of his ideas are radical, and some are perhaps even unrealistic, but I would not classify any of them as insane...
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 08-16-2011).]
Originally posted by Formula88: It was the same in the last election. I've never thought Paul was very electable - he just doesn't have a powerful enough personality, and sad to say that matters. I love many of his ideas, but I'm not sure how he'd do on foreign affairs.
Paul has been around for a long time, and he's not been taken seriously for almost as long. I don't know why.
quote
Originally posted by partfiero: When I listen to him he kind of sound like the illegitimate son of Ronald Reagan and Nancy Pelosi. Does have some great ideas, but then, well not so sane.
His stand on decriminalizing drug user crimes is probably why the Republican base ignores him. I would vote for him, I think he's the most electable from an independent voter viewpoint.
His stand on decriminalizing drug user crimes is probably why the Republican base ignores him. I would vote for him, I think he's the most electable from an independent voter viewpoint.
I'm usually pretty conservative, and this issue is one of the reasons Dr. Paul is my favorite candidate. I can't agree with every stance he takes, but I agree with more of his ideas than any other politician. The best part of him is the fact that you can tell he isn't just a puppet up there, I would have a hard time seeing any special intrest group persuading this man with any amount of votes/money.
IP: Logged
11:51 PM
Aug 17th, 2011
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
First and foremost his idea that every action taken by the president should be only in accordance with the powers given him by the Constitution and that every action, signing bills included, should be put through a Constitution litmus test before proceeding. (That seems so common-sense yet so outside of what is actually being done by our current and former presidents). Second his idea to audit the Fed. Third his insistence that we CANNOT sustain our current spending, both domestic and foreign, and that we MUST stop spending IMMEDIATELY (and the biggest expenditure being wars in countries that spit on our flag as they're crying for our help - my words on that last bit, not his) which leads us to Fourth we MUST stop spending trillions on unconstitutional and unsustainable wars Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. and Fifth that he is the only candidate that doesn't represent the same ol' big-government establishment. The establishment republicans AND the democrats got us into this mess, they will NOT be the ones to bring us out of it. Neither has learned their lesson.
As for Bachmann - I like some of the things she has to say, but she supported the Patriot Act - a non-negotiable sin in my mind. I can say that I "like" her, but I cannot say that I support her as my candidate.
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 08-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:02 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
My first choice for the "A" word in the title was not "Advocates," but I settled on it because it is more conducive to intelligent discussion than the word I wanted to use.
There is nothing more tiresome than the imputation of intent where none exists. Since becoming a political writer, for example, I have often had to defend a publication against someone who follows my work and suspects that my articles are delayed because of some nefarious editorial intent to suppress my political views. The truth, I tell them, is much less exciting: when volunteers work with little oversight at a large publication, balls get dropped and things fall through cracks and there really is nothing more to it.
I am also skeptical when intent is imputed to something other than a single person. How, for example, does "the media" -- in all its heterogeneous forms, conspire to be liberal or conservative, to spin a story one way or another, or even to ignore one story and push another? Sure, any institution can become a victim of groupthink, but that does not mean that anything covert or even purposeful is going on.
And yet, and yet... the extraordinary lack of coverage of Ron Paul following his statistical tie for first place in Iowa is a remarkable story in itself -- worthy of the best efforts of serious investigative journalists.
Here are a couple of headlines that I saw today, a couple of days after the Iowa Straw Poll, which are very typical of the type of coverage the event has generated.
Pawlenty exits GOP race; leaves Romney, Perry, Bachmann to duke it out (CS Monitor)
Bachmann, Perry Shake Up GOP Field (FOX)
Dr. Paul, who everyone knows represents something new and culturally challenging -- two criteria for newsworthiness -- is conspicuous by his absence.
As another example, in the story, "The post-Ames, post-Pawlenty GOP field", from CNN, the only reference in the whole article to the man who gained almost as many votes as Bachmann, was the line,
Pawlenty finished a distant third in the poll, behind Bachmann and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who finished within one percentage point of each other.
The remarkably strong and suggestive showing of Dr. Paul does not, apparently, warrant even the use of his name as the subject of a sentence in an article that purports to describe the post-Pawlenty field. And this is despite the fact that he near-as-damn-it tied with a woman who couldn't put any clear water between her and him even though the poll was held in her home-state.
The dereliction of service by the media is truly remarkable. I don't know how or why it has come about but it demands investigation -- as an extraordinary incident of either massive group-think or institutional corruption.
It is hard to believe that journalists are being instructed from their corporate overlords to misrepresent a hugely important political event and trend, but it is also hard to credit the idea that an entire profession of thousands of free-thinking individuals have decided to ignore the elephant (read libertarian doctor), in the room -- especially when it is obvious to anyone with an internet connection or the ability to read that Dr Paul's success in Iowa is not just a story -- but is really the only story here.
"Mainstream congresswoman wins in her home state" is not a story.
"Humble peace-loving congressman who has often stood almost alone for 30 years against the greatest changes wrought upon this country in the areas of war and economics, who has been regarded as a marginal character for most of this time, and whose views completely subvert the prevailing Left vs. Right, two-party paradigm of the most powerful country in the world": that IS a story.
I happen to believe that if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, he is likely to beat Obama to the presidency. But the evident failure of the media en masse to cover the Ron Paul phenomenon post-Ames does not depend on my being correct. Even if I am mistaken, what has already been achieved is itself important per se as reflective of a profound shift in the country's political consciousness, and even identity.
Consequently, the shift that Dr. Paul represents and was confirmed to be real in Ames should be front-page news even if Obama, Bachmann, Romney, or anyone else for that matter, ends up as our next president.
If so-called political journalists were doing their job, they would point out that the Ron Paul revolution phenomenon is all the more newsworthy because it has been achieved almost entirely by grassroots activity: armies of Americans are making endorsement videos, unpaid and unsolicited; designers and artists are making logos, posters and signs; webmasters are setting up websites to promote their candidate; neighborhood organizers are bringing people together; students are setting up campus organizations all over the country to promote the ideas of this one candidate.
Moreover, many of these people, united in a rising political cause, used to be political opponents -- some from the left, others from the right -- and are as demographically diverse as any political movement you can find. Now, however, they share a determination to expend their own resources -- time and money -- out of a simple belief in, and indeed passion for, the message that their candidate espouses. Some of them have been consistently doing it for years and are finally hitting pay dirt.
This is not only extraordinary in American politics. It is almost unique on a global scale. What exactly are the media for if not to reflect back to us -- let alone help us to understand -- currents of such depth and import in our own nation?
Collectively then, as a national institution, the American media, are delinquent. Forget the old saw of reporters' presenting the first draft of history: the large corporate media are currently presenting only a lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity.
It is not worthy of a nation with the standing, the history or the spirit of the United States.
In a broader historical perspective, it may turn out that the only story of our times that will be as politically and culturally important to the future of the USA as the ignored rise of Dr. Paul and the liberty movement, is the story about how a multi-billion dollar media industry that pretends to serve a nation by providing basic, relevant information can continue to avoid doing so.
And that latter story -- which should scare people as much as the former story should inspire them -- brings me, at last, to my chosen word in the title -- "advocates".
Of course, there are some excellent journalists in the industry, who are driven by a desire to help their audience see and understand events that affect our fellow American and global citizens without fear or favor. And we are blessed to have them as they do truly important work.
Nevertheless, whether intentional or not, the media as an institution is clearly advocating a status quo in which a tired two-party system dominates a nation by agreeing on most things while appearing to oppose each other.
It is shameful. It is sad. It is pathetic. If you are a journalist who is freely generating this black-is-white nonsense, then you have no journalistic integrity. If you are peddling this informational snake-oil because you are under pressure to do so within the corporation for which you work, then you have no spine - and what's more, you have a moral duty to inform your readers or listeners that that is what is going on.
To all Mainstream-Embracing Disappointingly Ignorant Advocates of the status quo, my hope is that America continues along its restorative path to freedom in spite of you.
"the media" is completely invested itself in a 2 horse race. anything else will completely screw up their Standard Operating Procedure. The "Tea Party" knew this, which is why they remained Republicans - not a actual party. there is no "tea party" - they are republicans. this way, they get media coverage. Also why Ron Paul had to call himself a republican. as an independant, or libertarian - he got no mention at all. he's been around a long time (12 years+?). and, now that he finally put an (R) after his name, he finally gets a snipet in "the media". "social media" is the next hope for creating a third party. or at least getting existing "off-brand" party into the ring.
It's really too bad that voting for Ron Paul is a thrown away vote.
Brad
Self fulfilling prophecy. If people would stop that mentality and vote for who they think would make the best president, not who they think is "electable" then Dr Paul would be electable. "Electable" or not is just votes, people...
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 08-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:11 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by twofatguys: It's really too bad that voting for Ron Paul is a thrown away vote.
Brad
the only vote "thrown away" is the one that is not cast
voting other than (R) or (D) is NOT a throw away - tho - I do understand it is much like the throwing a hot dog down the hallway analogy....
tho, I would hope these last 2 months have shown just how thrown away all them (R) & (D) votes have been. is it more important to be on the "winning side", or more important to actually put decent (or as near as we can get...) people to represent us??
IP: Logged
12:20 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Does have some great ideas, but then, well not so sane.
What's so telling is people can consider him a kook, yet most of his positions are based solely on the Constitution. Someone who wants the Federal Government to adhere to the Constitution is considered "not so sane."
..Ron Paul can not be elected because he is a nut bag,a super liar,,even the liberal press knows this,I was paulbot in the 90s,his tie to Davis DUKE & alliance with the KKK is the absolute reason he will never be president .. ..Ron Paul robots scrub the internet of KKK paul,, the internet use to be full of Paul & david duke & The KKK,now difficult to find. ..Why do yu think no congressmen ever support PAUL?? they know he is crazy'hopefully his senile old fart looks will send him to Pork town,,no other congressman robs & fleezes the US treasury like Paul,black treasury criminals like Meeks Jefferson & Franks look up to Paul Paul is such a loser most democrat marisxt reporters will not promote him,they concider him a Pig Politician, the worst of the worst they do hope he will get involve is some way to help OBAMA
IP: Logged
05:29 PM
TommyRocker Member
Posts: 2808 From: Woodstock, IL Registered: Dec 2009
..Ron Paul can not be elected because he is a nut bag,a super liar,,even the liberal press knows this,I was paulbot in the 90s,his tie to Davis DUKE & alliance with the KKK is the absolute reason he will never be president .. ..Ron Paul robots scrub the internet of KKK paul,, the internet use to be full of Paul & david duke & The KKK,now difficult to find. ..Why do yu think no congressmen ever support PAUL?? they know he is crazy'hopefully his senile old fart looks will send him to Pork town,,no other congressman robs & fleezes the US treasury like Paul,black treasury criminals like Meeks Jefferson & Franks look up to Paul Paul is such a loser most democrat marisxt reporters will not promote him,they concider him a Pig Politician, the worst of the worst they do hope he will get involve is some way to help OBAMA
Ok, Uncle Stan... Take your meds and get back to bed. There's a good boy...
IP: Logged
05:43 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22749 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Ron Paul would be my LAST CHOICE by far of potential Republican candidates, but the MSM has certainly been awful in representing him. The focus seemed to be on Fox News somewhat, but the other news media outlets have been just as bad. When they DO mention him, it's to make fun of him (as they did near the end of the clip).
They should be reporting the news, and blowing him off like that is very unclassy, and goes against the oath that reporters take...
Yeah, pretty sad.
I'll say it again though... Ron Paul would make a horrible president, but he would make an AWESOME Supreme Court Justice.
IP: Logged
05:52 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
What's so telling is people can consider him a kook, yet most of his positions are based solely on the Constitution. Someone who wants the Federal Government to adhere to the Constitution is considered "not so sane."
How far we as a nation have fallen.
I think his national policies are great, never said any different. But the other night he claimed that all terrorists should be tried in our courts, that is the insane part to me.
I think his national policies are great, never said any different. But the other night he claimed that all terrorists should be tried in our courts, that is the insane part to me.
Given the short amount of time he had, I suspect he was referring to those who are captured on our soil. Knowing what I know of him, he is an advocate of sending private armies to pursue specific targets. It is actually specified in the constitution that a president can do that, as opposed to sending our entire military to go after a specific target.
IP: Logged
06:06 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Given the short amount of time he had, I suspect he was referring to those who are captured on our soil. Knowing what I know of him, he is an advocate of sending private armies to pursue specific targets. It is actually specified in the constitution that a president can do that, as opposed to sending our entire military to go after a specific target.
But like most I have never heard his take on that issue. Have heard him plenty on the national issues. Doing a debate with a stage full of candidates is not the beast place to do one liners. They all have to be frustrated trying to get any point across.
IP: Logged
06:21 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
But like most I have never heard his take on that issue. Have heard him plenty on the national issues. Doing a debate with a stage full of candidates is not the beast place to do one liners. They all have to be frustrated trying to get any point across.
Yeah, it's too bad more people don't know that about him. He did talk about it one of his speeches, I forget which one, might have been a speech he gave in Mass a while back. He was very specific in that going after Bin Laden for example, he would hire a private army to do surgical strike. He even discussed the fiscal aspect pointing out that if it cost us a few million, or even a few billion to hire such a team, we would still be trillions ahead of declaring a war. I didn't even know a president could do that until he talked about it. It kind of proves to me that he's not a wuss who's afraid of kicking some ass, but that he's much smarter about going after a target.
IP: Logged
09:42 AM
Gridlock Member
Posts: 2874 From: New Westminster, BC Canada Registered: Apr 2002
My theory...when you have a Ron Paul clip, he sounds normal, knows what he's talking about and comes across as educated in his field(as he is).
When you have a guy say, dump Paul to get a Palin sound bite, its because she is entertaining. Her clips usually have a sense of self-importance that gets repeated and makes people tune in, "what's this bird have to say".
Same with Bachman.
And yes, Stewart leans left...way left, but its his views on media, any media that make him interesting and relevant. He went off on the crossfire guys at CNN, and he's taken a blow at Beck. I don't get that he is overtly flattering to his liberal leanings, although I don't think he is in any way central or unbiased.
As he often says, his show airs on Comedy Central, its not a well oiled news program. It's comedy.