now you join the rest of us who have always known they are a joke propaganda machine!
Don't get excited. They're far and away still the best of the MSM. Although I was already getting a lot more into Fox Business even before the election. Sometimes I feel like nobody at Newscorp has any idea what's going on at that network of they'd have shut it down by now.
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
Honestly, since Glenn Beck left, I really don't watch Fox News anymore.
My media intake these days is basically the GB Radio Program, GBTV, Fox Business, mises.org, and occasionally the Peter Schiff and Dennis Prager radio shows
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
muffin let me ask you something. When paul pulls out of the race, are you gonna turn your efforts to whats remains of the bachmann campaign? Since ron paul is the grandfather of the tea party and shes like his number 1 disciple.
I don't often consult african-american centric blogs for my news. But these are two pretty clear, well written, and honest articles even though I don't really agree with them.
read the first link so far. pretty much what I've been saying. I wouldn't vote Ron Paul over a good candidate. I would however vote him over any other Republican because everyone else vying for the nomination is somewhere between braindead and "awul person."
Demon HunterX posted... muffin let me ask you something. When paul pulls out of the race, are you gonna turn your efforts to whats remains of the bachmann campaign? Since ron paul is the grandfather of the tea party and shes like his number 1 disciple.
It's likely that Bachmann will pull out of the race before Ron Paul does. And that's assuming Ron doesn't go Independent/third party.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
Up here in AK we had Lisa Murkowski fail to get the Republican nomination, run as independent, not even be an option on the ballot, and still win the election. Quite a few conservatives I know were fuming for a month after that.
So it'd be cool to see Ron Paul run as third party in the real election when he inevitably doesn't win the primary.
And since the Republicans no longer even pretend to represent all of their base, there's no reason they should be getting those votes Paul would get if he ran!
Last time I checked, the Daily Show still claims to be nothing more than a comedy show, not a "get democrats elected" show, right? Or do they not even bother to pretend anymore?
Meh, if you watched more of it you would see he roasts Democrats fairly often as well. He certainly does Republicans more often, but he has never been disingenuous in hiding his political leanings. He has taken entire segments to point out how stupid Biden/Grayson/Olbermann/etc are as well. He is definitely less hard on the left, but most on the far left like him as little as you do for attacking their sacred cows and actually treated O'Reilly and other conservatives as people rather than punching bags.
He's done a lot of good interviews with Republicans. This wasn't one of the best, but Ron didn't really articulate his opinions as well as he had in the past. Jon was sort of lobbing softball questions at him too, but he still seemed to be in "debate" mode, where he was speeding through all of his points like there was a time limit. He still came off fairly well though, especially considering the audience.
-- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."
Literally the single most credible polling service in politics. Never change, B8.
They were, but have been regressing during the lasts polling cycles. I'd trust actual straw poll results over them, honestly. I mean, they certainly are a legit polling agency, but to act like they haven't had their problems lately is just inaccurate.
They were, but have been regressing during the lasts polling cycles. I'd trust actual straw poll results over them, honestly. I mean, they certainly are a legit polling agency, but to act like they haven't had their problems lately is just inaccurate.
I've seen that link before. You can pick and choose things like that for literally every polling agency. And speaking of straw polls, historically they almost never choose correctly. Why'd you start trusting them now is beyond me.
Again, not saying Rasmussen is perfect, but they've been the most credible political polling agency for a long time. So why you would trust something that historically has been almost always wrong over them?
--
Houston Texans: 2-1 Drinks glass, throws out chocolate milk.
Literally the single most credible polling service in politics. Never change, B8.
It has been well understood for some time that they ask questions in a way that helps them get more conservative-leaning results. Consistently whenever it and other polling organizations cover the same material you can bet that it's results are skewed right from the results that everyone else is getting.
This is not new information, and even a basic search of them shows that people have been complaining about them for a long while. I've personally only heard US conservatives suggest that they are a notable polling organization.
And honestly, I don't really understand why you all are so passionate about this stuff. None of you are going into politics, right?
Ooh I missed this. What an absurd thing to say.
The US government constantly makes decisions that affect my life. It also commits worldwide atrocities with some regularity. I would be a fool to not approach elections with interest, discussion, and critical thought. Even though our elections are heavily influenced by the mass media we are still supposedly a democracy and it is in my interest and in my realm of responsibility to be as active as I can be.
The US government constantly makes decisions that affect my life.
True.
It also commits worldwide atrocities with some regularity.
Also true.
I would be a fool to not approach elections with interest, discussion, and critical thought. Even though our elections are heavily influenced by the mass media we are still supposedly a democracy and it is in my interest and in my realm of responsibility to be as active as I can be.
Actually, you would be a fool to think that your single vote makes any impact on how this country operates. I really can't believe people who still believe America is a "democracy"; we're a republic, comprised of an aristocratic legal caste, a militaristic federal caste, and a corrupt and self-serving representative branch that tries fruitlessly to cater to the contradictory demands of the dim-witted American public.
Seriously, for the all the effort people put into getting into pointless political discussions, they could be actively petitioning/hosting rallies/etc. But no, because it's not about making a difference; it's about being right.
--
Houston Texans: 2-1 Drinks glass, throws out chocolate milk.
By subscribing to that train of thought you guarantee that your voice will never matter. I just choose to have a really small impact rather than no impact. If everyone chose the same thing as me we'd have different political leaders and be in a better situation. If I can convince others to do the same, we might still.
By subscribing to that train of thought you guarantee that your voice will never matter.
Unless you actually go into politics, that is!
I just choose to have a really small impact rather than no impact. If everyone chose the same thing as me we'd have different political leaders and be in a better situation. If I can convince others to do the same, we might still.
Can't argue with that. Still, I have to question your priorities if making such a negligible impact is worth such an investment.
--
Houston Texans: 2-1 Drinks glass, throws out chocolate milk.
You can pick and choose things like that for literally every polling agency.
Which is why that isn't what he did. He explains his methodology in detail, and he doesn't cherry pick anything. Ras is still good, and when he did the same thing for the 04 and 06 elections, they came out on top. However, their efficacy dropped during the last two cycles. This just isn't up for debate; check their polls.
I'm not saying all straw polls are very accurate of anything other than the small group of people that voted, but at least they are real, actual voters. Ras is still a top tier polling site, but it is no longer unquestionably the best.
-- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."
I'm not saying all straw polls are very accurate of anything other than the small group of people that voted, but at least they are real, actual voters. Ras is still a top tier polling site, but it is no longer unquestionably the best.
So out of curiosity, which would consider possible contenders?
--
Houston Texans: 2-1 Drinks glass, throws out chocolate milk.
if he wrote it just for me he probably should've known that I'd stop reading when he said "intentions of the founders" as if they were a singular hive mind. I have a rule that tells me that when someone says "the intentions of the founders" without rolling their eyes something dumb is probably going to follow!
I'll try to muster up the fortitude to finish this article but we're off to a bad start.
it all sounds nice, but it's built on a false assumption: that if we subscribe to "free market principles" the world will be peachy keen. To me, this is obviously false. if you stop regulating the market, corporations are not going to suddenly start acting in a morally upstanding way, they will do whatever they can to maximize their own power and profit.
Corporations in Ron Paul's favored society would not be allowed to violate the property rights of others, pollute their air or water, defraud them, lie to them or hurt them in any way.
I just don't see how anyone can believe this. In far less regulated markets in our history, companies have acted in ways that have been horrible for the environment, for workers, and for competition. The industrial tycoons of the old days who's inability to act with morality lead directly to the environmental movement, the workers rights movement, and much stricter regulation on what companies can do and how they can go about securing market share.
One only has to look at a US history book to see this and it is plain to everyone. A weak government leads to corporate tyrannies that destroy the environment, establish monopolies, and treat employees as slave labor. It has already happened, we don't have to argue theory. Ron Paul wants many of the things that I want but I have no faith that his plans would accomplish them. I would expect them to have the opposite effect in many cases.
Also worth mentioning is that by taking a global view, we can see that large government does not cause many of these ills. I am against every war we've entered since I've been alive and fully agree that the rich are massively distorting the economy with help from our elected representatives, building more riches on the backs of the poor and middle class.
This is not a result of big government, however. There are several big government states in northern Europe which do not commit constant global atrocities and do not have a massive disparity in wealth distribution. Those are United States problems specifically and a direct result of our post WW2 neoliberalism approach to interacting with the world.
You seem to be totally missing his larger point, which is one I've attempted to make to you several times before.
The problems that the American worker faced in the 19th century were not inherent to capitalism or small government. They were a result of government bureaucrats getting in bed with large corporations and cutting special deals, exempting, and ignoring current, already existing, laws. If a company is murdering its workers who go on strike, you don't need a new giant bureaucracy designed to promote and protect labor unions. All you need to do is enforce the already existing laws prohibiting murder.
The same logic applies to environmental regulations. The EPA is completely and totally unnecessary. If someone upstream from you pollutes the river, and your cows drink from that river and die, you can sue that person for the value of your cows. Most likely, the judge/jury will also impose a hefty punitive fine as well to discourage others from attempting to pollute. We don't need a new giant bureaucracy designed to control the lives of citizens. Current civil law is equipped to deal with these issues.
As far as empire building goes, I think your example is pretty terrible. At any given time in human history, there are a very small number of nations who are capable of building a global empire, whether they want to or not. I mean, if every single citizen in Sweden woke up tomorrow with an urge to create a global Swedish empire, that doesn't mean they'd be able to actually do it. Although I'm sure you already know that it was the progressive Teddy Roosevelt who really started America's empire-building in earnest, continued by ardent leftists and big-government globalists, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. You're right that not all big-government nations go empire-building, but I'm not aware of any small-government nations who have ever done it.
As far as a disparity in wealth distribution goes, well, I have no answer for that. Just a question. Who cares? Why is this a "problem"? At this point I'd like to remind you that I once created a topic stating "Agree or disagree, the fact that some people are very rich and others are very poor is a problem that government should attempt to solve." Nobody agreed. Not anybody. So why do you guys keep bringing it up?
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
And honestly, I don't really understand why you all are so passionate about this stuff. None of you are going into politics, right?
I'm actually not that passionate about politics at all, but to say you have to go into politics to be passionate about it doesn't make sense. That's like saying you can't be passionate about music if you're not in a band.