Reber187

0
Registered
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
460
can anyone stateside reliabley inform me about the level of exposure Ron Paul is recieving on the major networks for his landslide Republican Presidential debate poll victories?


keep pushing
 
Reber187 said:
can anyone stateside reliabley inform me about the level of exposure Ron Paul is recieving on the major networks for his landslide Republican Presidential debate poll victories?


keep pushing

Seems like you and I follow the same "alternative" or "new" media.

I'm so pissed off with the mainstream media that I don't watch it enough to be positive about coverage of him; but, I imagine he is marginalized. Last time I checked, he was not allowed to engage in a recent Presidential Debate because he is "not a significant candidate" or some BULLSHIT like that. Just like when Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Presidential Candidate David Cobb got arrested when they tried to participate in the 2004 debates.

>:( :s
 
Old Ron "Dr. No" Paul isn't a bad guy, although I don't really see eye to eye with him politically, but the fact is the chances of him actually securing the nomination are incredibly low. That's why the media doesn't pay a lot of attention to the guy, not because of some bizarre bias against his politics.

He did indeed perform very well an online viewership polling of the debate, which is somewhat misleading as it only reflects the opinions of the people participating in the polling, which makes it far from a random sampling. Paul has a diehard Libertarian fan base in some parts of the US and more than a few political consultants have suggested that their fairly small numbers were enough to add serious bonus points to Paul's performance (not too many folks total took part in the online polling).

To win the nomination you need party backing, money, and a basically centrist message. Paul unfortunately has none of these things in his corner. The part faithful don't like him, he doesn't have near the war chest and fundraising potential of McCain, Giuliani, or even Romney, and his politics and views are simply too far out there for the majority of voters.

He has a very targeted appeal for some, but is too off-putting for others, and that's not something the GOP is going to gamble on when the stakes are getting squeezed out of the Oval Office on top of losing their majorities.

So, don't go putting it down to some kind of mainstream media bias just yet - the editors that cover the political beat just understand politics, and they know that Ron Paul is a major longshot. The polling stuff from the debate is all hype at this stage in the game - we're a a long ways out from next Feburary when this thing will actually be decided.

And, for what it's worth, I saw primtime coverage of his debate performance on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS - not suprisingly Fox News didn't bother with it. It's not really a major story, which is why it received fairly brief coverage.

He also has some interesting endorsements. I believe Pat Buchanan has signed on, which may not be a good thing, as well as Goldwater Jr. The association with Goldwater conservatism is positive for some older Reaganites, but lets remember that Goldwater himself never took it to the next level and there's all that pesky stuff about actively campaigning against the Civil Rights Act.

Like I said, I think Ron Paul is a good man, but he's not the kind of person that the electorate is going to put in the White House, nor do I think he's the right guy for that sort of executive position. He's an idea guy and better serves in Congress where he can help voice his consituency.
 
Last edited:
I don't look at it like you might, and seem to, insinuate. Ron Paul is a veteran politician and legitimate Presidential Candidate. Even if he wasn't a veteran, his legit candidate status, as with anyone elses, should be taken just as seriously as anyone elses.

The thing that pisses me off the most is denying these mulltiple candidates, granted - who have marginal yet growing support, a chance to debate the other more prominent candidates (the ones that people largely favor because they see them most - or even simply know their name, race and political party - as the average person is busy with their personal life and really not as aware as they might like to claim) on national television, not the other consistant coverage. I gurantee you that if Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik got to debate in the most popular Presidential Debates, this country would change dramatically whether they became President or not.

You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident; or atleast an attempt, or multiples of attempts, of that magnitude. Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact.
 
PenilePersist said:
I don't look at it like you might, and seem to, insinuate. Ron Paul is a veteran politician and legitimate Presidential Candidate. Even if he wasn't a veteran, his legit candidate status, as with anyone elses, should be taken just as seriously as anyone elses.

The thing that pisses me off the most is denying these mulltiple candidates, granted - who have marginal yet growing support, a chance to debate the other more prominent candidates (the ones that people largely favor because they see them most - or even simply know their name, race and political party - as the average person is busy with their personal life and really not as aware as they might like to claim) on national television, not the other consistant coverage. I gurantee you that if Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik got to debate in the most popular Presidential Debates, this country would change dramatically whether they became President or not.

You want to talk conspiracy? I also guarantee, if somebody like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik were elected President, there would be another JFK and RFK incident; or atleast an attempt, or multiples of attempts, of that magnitude. Therefore, all of this chatter may be even more moot, in addition to the fact that we are essentially wasting time with our curiousity and expression in a manner which has no real or signifcant impact.

Eesh, did I say conspiracy? I don't think I did, but if that is the case it was a poor choice of words. I just don't think its legit to get pissed at the media for not giving Paul coverage - he's not a high profile candidate, and the news media isn't obligated to cover minor candidates.

I agree with you that he's a legit candidate and veteran politician that has proven he can win elections, but that's a far cry from the difficulty of securing a presidential nomination. Lots of folks can win a certain district that could never hope to ascend to national popularity, that's just politics. It's really up to the candidates themselves to organize and gather the amount of attention and momentum needed to enter the top tier and be counted amongst the serious potential nominees - lots of people have good ideas in this country that others agree with and many of them could even be running for president - that doesn't mean they should automatically get the same recognition as the established big dogs in the race. Just because you like somebody's politics doesn't mean they're being unfairly pushed aside, it just means they're not viewed by most as serious contenders.

I think you're also slightly overstating the impact of the debates. Plenty of candidates have become very visible and had a good presence in the debates and still not been able to do anything electorally. Look at old Sen. Gravel from Alaska in the Democratic debate, or Al Sharpton from 2004. Sharpton turned into a rockstar during the Democratic debates, he was everywhere. In the end he didn't have any money or party support and people didn't look at him as a serious contender. Look at a guy like Pat Buchanan that has always been a sort of 'out there' candidate, but has always been fairly prominent in public attention and always was allowed to debate the major candidates. In the end, he never did much either. The point is, don't get too miffed about this debate stuff. For the most part it's just free air time to show people your face associated with your name.

Also, most political literacy surveys show that the majority of debate viewers don't remember or understand many of the candidate's positions even minutes after a debate - what they do recall is poise and attractiveness. Sad but true. Firecracker that Ron Paul is, just getting into the arena isn't going to be enough to light his campaign off if history is any indicator.

So far as debating this stuff here, I don't call it a waste. Politics doesn't exist without civic participation at even the lowest levels, which we'll say includes Penis Enlargement message boards. Check out my man Robert Putnam and his oft used in college classrooms book, Bowling Alone. Talking about politics is the root of a healthy democratic system. Maybe a few guys will see this and look up your man Ron and take an interest - there's a side benefit right there.

So far as the assasination stuff, I'll leave that alone except to say I don't think Ron Paul is so interesting as to incite anybody to try and blow him away. I'd advise Sen. Obama to watch his back first as you had better believe there are some angry neo-nazis in Northern Idaho or elsewhere that are looking at his success as the herald of apocolypse. But I've already paid my dues debating conspiracies on this board, right Reber?
 
you have indeed, stridge, my old bean, and as always i appreciate your comments on this subject.

how i view this from the comfort of my chair, across the great watery divide, and as lucid as can be, is that a potential candidate such as Ron Paul who is a lone wolf in his ardent constitution securing principles, relentless slogging of the current crop of cronies in office, and super-publicly backed 'get out of there' reform in the middle east; who has swept online polling in the aftermath of the Republican presidential debate, should by all accounts be plastered all over the NEWS.

thats my 2cents.


keeep pushing
 
Stridge,

I appreciate the intellectualism you show on occasions more than this, and I understand your views as you have explained them, and I can understand where they come from so to speak. However, as cliffhanger as it may be, and humbly expressed, you do not grasp the depth or complexity of mine in this regard that leaves me with the frustration and challenge of standing for/making points for my conclusions, which may seem fringe or extreme or whatever label you want to call it, and not being able to explain the reasons clearly enough for full comprehension without damn near writing a book, or linking to hours of documentaries or annotations of various facts, documents etc.

I do not grow angry with mainstream media (MSM) for the simple fact that they do not cover Ron Paul, as your latest post implied. I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it.
However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.

As somebody envoking the names of Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik with some hints of non-specific praise, you might guess that I believe in Personal Repsonsibility to a large extent. Therefore, you may better believe that I agree with you that it is largely a candidates repsonsibility to ascend to national popularity. However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly. Also, as you may be reasonable enough to realize - regardless of the fact that you are not likely a person who is referenced in MSM, if you pay any even minute attention to the celebrity-saturated MSM - with the "rest" of it's coverage as well, as I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets.
I assure you, as I'm sure you are reasonable enough to realize, men like Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik - such fervent advocates and to an extent immensely obvious practitioners of personal responsibility - understand the responsibility they have to raise awareness .... and they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question.

I think you're totally wrong about my comment about the debates. Ron Paul, and especially Michael Badnarik's presentation (really, I prefer Badnarik over Paul by far - but Ron is more established), is a FAR difference from Sharpton and Buchanan. If these two had been debating with Kerry and Bush in 2004, as Michael attempted to and was arrested for ( and has since sued for), Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed; and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part.

People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide.

As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.

Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?

As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the MOS forum. Get it?;)

You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me. ;) And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion.

Take care.
 
Last edited:
PenilePersist said:
As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.

can't believe i neglected this pearl. this is why i like Ron, voicing this is like positioning yourself between two plants colliding... there is no more of a reason why this man and his morals are suffering the constraints of a corrupt muzzle order.


keep pushing
 
Reber187 said:
you have indeed, stridge, my old bean, and as always i appreciate your comments on this subject.

how i view this from the comfort of my chair, across the great watery divide, and as lucid as can be, is that a potential candidate such as Ron Paul who is a lone wolf in his ardent constitution securing principles, relentless slogging of the current crop of cronies in office, and super-publicly backed 'get out of there' reform in the middle east; who has swept online polling in the aftermath of the Republican presidential debate, should by all accounts be plastered all over the NEWS.

thats my 2cents.


keeep pushing

Good to hear from you my man,

I often envy the level of British politics - I actually did a brief consulting stint for that old bruiser John Prescott a little ways back on some issue work, and I must admit that British politicos are generally a real large step above their American cousins. I catch the Prime Minister's Questions every chance I get on C-Span in America. I can't help but laugh when I imagine Bush being put to that kind of test. I'm no huge fan of PM Tony, but at least the guy can string a sentence together.

As I mentioned, I think good old Ron's post debate polling isn't anything to get too excited about, but I do admire his capability and poise - unfortuantely that doesn't equal political viability in the states. It made the news for a moment, but that's fleeting in the grander scheme of the nomination race. He's going to have to crack a lot more eggs to make a serious run at the highest office in the land over here. It takes a lot of money and rockstar appeal to pull that off, and right now Ron hasn't mustered the support.

Americans can crow all we want about our democratic tradition, but England was the seed of free societies in Europe, and those tax-dodging rebels that founded America were all EnglisHydromaxen at heart, just not in pocket. Too bad we had to recruit the French to keep you guys from whipping our asses in the war. They have their own right wing hardass in office now, so good luck to them, I guess.
 
PenilePersist said:
Stridge,

I appreciate the intellectualism you show on occasions more than this, and I understand your views as you have explained them, and I can understand where they come from so to speak. However, as cliffhanger as it may be, and humbly expressed, you do not grasp the depth or complexity of mine in this regard that leaves me with the frustration and challenge of standing for/making points for my conclusions, which may seem fringe or extreme or whatever label you want to call it, and not being able to explain the reasons clearly enough for full comprehension without damn near writing a book, or linking to hours of documentaries or annotations of various facts, documents etc.

I do not grow angry with mainstream media (MSM) for the simple fact that they do not cover Ron Paul, as your latest post implied. I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it.
However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.

As somebody envoking the names of Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik with some hints of non-specific praise, you might guess that I believe in Personal Repsonsibility to a large extent. Therefore, you may better believe that I agree with you that it is largely a candidates repsonsibility to ascend to national popularity. However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly. Also, as you may be reasonable enough to realize - regardless of the fact that you are not likely a person who is referenced in MSM, if you pay any even minute attention to the celebrity-saturated MSM - with the "rest" of it's coverage as well, as I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets.
I assure you, as I'm sure you are reasonable enough to realize, men like Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik - such fervent advocates and to an extent immensely obvious practitioners of personal responsibility - understand the responsibility they have to raise awareness .... and they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question.

I think you're totally wrong about my comment about the debates. Ron Paul, and especially Michael Badnarik's presentation (really, I prefer Badnarik over Paul by far - but Ron is more established), is a FAR difference from Sharpton and Buchanan. If these two had been debating with Kerry and Bush in 2004, as Michael attempted to and was arrested for ( and has since sued for), Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed; and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part.

People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide.

As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent.

Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?

As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the MOS forum. Get it?;)

You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me. ;) And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion.

Take care.

Wow, great post. I'll try and address every point, but that's a big dog, so forgive me if I gloss anything over.

"I never said that I did. I said I can't be positive on coverage on Ron because I don't watch/follow mainstream media nearly as much anymore because of my dislike for it."

My mistake for assuming the point. As I mentioned, the polling results did receive a little coverage, but it wasn't a major story. A strong showing in an opening debate from a fairly unknown candidate isn't a huge happening, but nonetheless it did generate a few moments of national press. Not bad considering.

"However, I do enjoy John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who often have better news than the real MSM, and as far as real MSM goes I sometimes enjoy the occasional piece, or outburst, by people like Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs."

I'm a fan as well. As far as I'm concerned Stewart and Colbert are heroes for what they're able to put out every night. Besides the high quality of writing, they both pull few punches on the real issues underneath the sheen of media distortion, but they never fail to do so without a strong sense of humanity and realist perspective. Jon Stewart deserves every accolade he gets -- he took a third rate Comedy Central time filler and turned it into a national touchstone for people that want a little more out of their entertainment and news. Not an easy task, nor something that we knew we ever needed before he did it. Dobbs pisses me off with his one-note commentary, but I respect his professionalism and nuanced approach. I tend to agree with old Keith's politics more (to a degree), but I liked it better when he informed me about sports. The guy is really riding the anti-Bush wave - what the hell is he going to do if we have a Democratic president and double majority? Frankly, his countdown will be pretty trite without the old whipping post sitting in office.

"However, despite the growing power of the internet -largely due to streaming video, even internet popularity is not really accepted as national or worldwide popularity until MSM covers it fairly."

This is an interesting point, but I wonder what it means in the larger picture. The last few elections are the only ones in history to have had any serious input from the internet - does the political process and the resultant media feedback need to cater to the expectations of those of us that use the web heavily for informational purposes? Newspapers and the traditional meters of public interest (namely good old fashioned sample polling) still count for a lot, and in the end they play just as large a roll for candidate momentum as web support. Don't tell that to the many bloggers and 'Kos Heads' that identify themselves as the almight 'Netroots' and constantly demand recognition from the candidates though. As Tip O'Neil reminds, "All politics is local." The MSM is pretty responsive and hooked into the online community. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but I feel that they're very aware of all the various conduits of candidate support.

"I'm sure you do to an extent, you will realize that MSM makes up their own minds on what and how to portray things and it is often far from fair, accurate and often neglecting to cover a full scope of an issue for best understanding opposed to snippets."

I hope I'm not misinterpreting again, but I think that from your reference to MSM "making up its own mind" I can safely extract that you feel there is some kind of executive decision about what is covered that includes an agenda. As a person with libertarian values, I'm sure you believe in a truly free market, and I'd ask you to apply that idea to the MSM, which is essentialy a business. It is especially a business that is responsive to viewer interest and demand, and there lies the point. The MSM covers what people are interested in hearing about and concerned with, and thus far that doesn't really include the politics or candidacy of Ron Paul.

I'd say that the editors and news managers of the MSM are more or less enslaved by what they feel will sell ad space much more than any other force, and so as you agreed previously, Ron Paul's candidacy is far from a main attraction. I personally don't begrudge big media for taking a revenue driven approach to these things, and I also don't think that its necessarily fair to indict them for not making some editorial move to suddenly include guys like Paul in heavy coverage just because he's in the race or may have performed well in one debate.

Also, I would offer the point that the MSM has a dominating effect on public interest, but I would also say that the financial and networking side of politics that is so crucial in this stage of the race is driven by people that are involved with more specialized and complicated media. These are the folks that donate to campaigns, volunteer, fundraise, attend events, recruit others people, and especially read publications like The New Rupublic or The New Yorker, or The Economist -- basically people that are very engaged with the political system. These people are catalysts for a lot, and a guy like Ron Paul can go far and do well by addressing this critical group without having his name brought up just as many times as Giuliani on a cable news network. Politics is an insider game to a large degree during the early primary competition - how the hell else did we end up with Kerry in 2004 - and so I wouldn't stake too much merit in simply getting a piece of recognition with the MSM. Kerry and Edwards were both darkhorses, and they didn't entirely claim their stakes just by total number of mentions in the NY Times.

"they have been trying EXTREMELY hard (Ron Paul for decades with decent ferver, and Michael Badnarik for a few years with exceptional ferver) to raise awareness of themselves and really the issues they stand for (hugely Constitutional-literal-strict). If they are still not as popular as you admit (really, almost everybody is still learning these people's names for the first time), one might ask if there could be some sort of effort to some extent to marginilze them. When you further observe things like their rejection and or even arrest during attempts to participate in Presidential Debates, as Legitimate Presidential Candidates with growing support, you realize there may be further reason to ask such a question."

I'm not familiar with the arrest incident you mention, but I'll certainly look it up. Here's my comment on this though - just because they've been working to promote themselves and haven't succeeded, there's not a smidgen of evidence there is any concerted effort to prevent them from becoming hugely popular in the public eye. Hell, I root from some pretty unpopular sports teams and I know they've been playing hard, but they're not top tier after all these years. I don't chalk that up to an effort by the leagues and officials to hold them back, it's just that they can't seem to get it done.

This response is a bit similar to my other point, but if you're a true libertarian than you believe in the market's truth. And, for these guys, the truth is that the market of ideas is valuating their chips pretty low in terms of mass appeal. There are only two politicians out of thousands that have worked relentlessly at self promotion and awareness and haven't received a great deal of recognition - they can join the club of 98% of the other politicians in this country that have ideas that some people love yet can't seem to become national icons. To me, that's not evidence of a concerted effort, that's just how politics works in this country. You might think that sucks, but there's nothing directing it other than public will and the course but fair "tough shit" reality of our democracy.

"Kerry and Bush would have been absolutely THRASHED - NO QUESTIONS. The only possible edge that Kerry and Bush would have over them, is insinuating that they are a weak Commander In Chief for following principles like those of George Washington who said to not be involved with foreign entanglements except for trade. The impact would be, mostly, that a huge percentage of people would remeber that things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights even exist, and they wold be reminded of why they were established and with what importance they were stressed;"

Hey, I'll sign on that they could wrangle those two in a debate - I think my nine year old neice could have upstaged those two in a lot of ways. This doesn't really dispute my point that most Americans don't really take a lot of issue-oriented content or feeling away after watching a debate - nor do they really intellectually engage what the candidates are saying.

To break this down, the people that are heavily opinionated - like us - already have out minds made up on the issues, and thus the candidates. The rest are basically watching Love Connection where they root for the most appealing guy, or in most cases they apply faovrable impressions to their partisan choice (for about 85% of voters, partisan affiliation and a sense of who the eventual 'winner' will be decides their vote for them, according to most studies). You're making the very understandable mistake of transposing your interest and concern for constitutional values to the majority of Americans - it's only an assumption that Ron Paul's rhetoric is going to drastically jolt the national electorate awake. In the world of politics, that kind of assumption is usually pretty lethal. Better to go with polling and poltical science.

You're a smart guy with a sharp sense of what you value in national character, but most people that see a debate are only going to remember which candidate got the biggest laugh at Brian Williams. Don't make the error of assuming everybody is going to be as turned on by certain values as you are. It seems cynical, but in it's also unfortunately reality for us.

"and they would be shown, quite bluntly, how egregiously these founding documents are overlooked to the point where people may even ( .... GASP!) READ the documents and attempt to adhere to them. If allowed to be effectively presented, I believe a large percentage of the population would start considering values outside the polarized two party system that is basically one party in the big scope of things. The two main parties have been, for decades now, arguing about how to do the same bullshit goals instead of actually having opposing goals - in large part."

I like this comment, and it addresses a lot of huge points. Maybe all the other stuff I've said would be best put in context by explaining how I view government. First of all, I don't understand what you said exactly, because you mention polarization, but then go on to say that it's basically a 'one big party/two sides of the same coin system.' I'm probably harping at language here, but it's either one or the other for me.

I believe that America is far more united than we're lead to believe. Go check out the work of Morris P. Fiorina for a real explanation, but basically the idea of this heavy partisan polarization is a creation of your much reviled MSM media, and its intellectual roots and public popularization can easily be traced and understood. The things that the vast majority of Americans really care about, as well as their opinions about said issues, are actually fairly clustered around a very centrist set of values (which, incidentally, alienates guys like Ron Paul, who speak more about heady constitutional issues than meant and potatoes stuff like the state of kid's eduactions, not to his detriment).

That aside, I believe in a slow, stable, and ultimately reactive government. I'll spare you the history lesson that you undoubtedly already know, but the founders that guys like Ron Paul revere intended for our government to be a fairly similar, fairly elitist, and always sluggish entity. They wanted stability and similarity over radical change populist propulsion. Our current republic was hatched during a time of fiersome revolution, and the main impetus behind the constitution was avoiding upheaval. I hate to say it, but Ron Paul is a radical step from what we have now, and so he doesn't really fit in with the established pattern of governmental evolution here. His politics demand pretty radical changes immediately - that's generally not the way things are set up for us nor is it what generally happens. He may be ahead or behind his times, but honestly, there are worse tragedies. I'd say any of the frontrunners on either side are a nice shade of change from Bush, and so I'll follow the model of our friend James Madison and take 'not too damn bad' over a fringe whim. I hate to characterize Ron Paul in that fashion, but as of this date, his politics and ideas are fringe so far as most of the voting populace are concerned.

"People don't remember the debates because of things like 1) More people vote for American Idol than any president in history and 2) the debates have been boring as hell because the two parties aren't very different. Bring in people with real, stark, passionate opposition ... and you will have a debate that will at least be remembered like quotes of the most prominent presidents in history - like when JFK said "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" ... and eventually it could lead to political change of interest that, if not hindered by rigged voting or vote counting, could lead to a President that would be remembered like JFK is remembered world wide. "

Not sure what you mean here - bring in people that are in opposition to their own parties? Once again, I understand your point, and on one level I couldn't agree more. Variety of ideas in politics is what makes it worthwhile and it's entirely necessary. On the other hand, we've already agreed that it's up to the candidates to earn their way into the forefront. We also know that there are radicalized and fringe candidates that do debate, and generally it hasn't made that much of a difference. For all the Gravels and Sharptons and Kucinichs out there, we still get Kerrys as our nominees. Ditto for the GOP. I think you're ignoring the variety that is out there because that variety hasn't included your candidates of choice, so far. I like JFK a great deal, but more as a historical icon. That guy was as flawed adn screwed up, not to mention underqualified, as they come. You can probably tell that I'm a yellow dog Democrat, but I only love the Kennedys from an arm's length - in a lot of ways they represent the great dichotomy of what is great and terrible about politics in America. That's the only reason they're interesting for me.

"As far as Ron Paul not being important enough for assination; no offesnse but it is obvious to me that you do not understand all of his ideas and the impact they would have. His banking policy alone could easily get him killed. It's like the world of Finance meets Syriana, but actually more serious to a large extent."

Like I said, I'll happily shy away from this. I'm not too certain of what policy ideas it takes to get somebody killed in this day and age. We're not exactly talking about somebody getting snuck up on while they take in the theatre one evening.

"Obama watch his back, in context with an assination implication? Bullshit from what I've seen and heard from him and the media. Let's see. Want to bet?"

Not sure what you mean here, but I was half-hearted about him being in danger of assasination. Those neo-nazi militia morons don't have thier shit together to take out a president, er, at least I hope not. Not unless there's some kind beer shortage for a few months and secret service goes on strike.
I met Barack very briefly at a fundraiser about a year back and I will say he's as smart as they come. If you want to talk about a profound respect fot the Constitution, he did teach Constitutional law at one of the very best law schools in the nation for a decade, not to mention editing the Harvard Law review. The guy could have gone to Wall Street, as do 90% of his peers, and made a nicely sized fortune, but he chose a life of public service and education. Say what you want about his politics; he didn't choose the easy road and he's involved in public life because he believes in it, not because he expects anything. He's putting his considerable talents towards his beliefs, not making himself rich and comfortable, which I do admire. It's not an easy thing to be a young, high profile black candidate with too young kids and a very attackable past campaigning in front of America.

"As far as your "I don't call it a waste" comment; I didn't used to do so either. Matter of fact, though I lean more towards that rationale than I ever have, I did not in fact call this a waste. My statement was, in essence and in other words, that the impact is incredibly marginal. I mean, if you feel you are going to change the world from you posts on this forum - then go ahead. Heck maybe we should just hold the Presidential Debates on the MOS forum. Get it?;)"

Ah buddy, I think you missed my point with this one. Just to restate, civic interaction starts on a very minor level. Without that basic level, there really is no substance to the next level, and so on. We're not changing the world by talking, but every great intellectual in history would undoubtedly testify to the infinite value of correspondenve, debate, and fervent discussion. Dismissing the inherent merit of talking about something is dismissing the value of the larger issue. I don't want to wax philosophic too long here, bit if it's a worthless enterprise, why did you bother responding? Like I said, go check out my man Robert Putnam. If you really enjoy politics, it's good to investigate the fundamental social machinations that make politics work in the first place. Nothing in the world gets changed without individuals - that doesn't support some new age bullshit 'we're all special' viewpoint - it just means that collective action doesn't exist without personal interaction.

If you think discussing politics is stupid, why don't you write Ron Paul and ask him if you think debating these things is a waste of time, or whether he thinks the involvement of individuals is insignificant to his campaign? I'd be curious to hear the answer if there was a personal reply.

"You haven't paid you dues debating conspiracies until you've actually debated me. ;) And, unfortunately - or fortunately, I have grown extremely tired of debating them ... over the years ... along with a lot of political controversy. Hence, my lack of participation in many threads on this forum that I feel might consume me too much. I mean - shit, look at this thread. I've already blabbed with you enough about much more simple issues and even delibverately tried to be vague just to avoid certain discussion."

Well, I have no doubt you're an adept deaber on the conspiracy stuff. I'm a bit burnt on that - check out the 9/11 thread on this board if you think this post is overly verbose. So far as being consumed by threads, I hope that's not an issue. This is, after all, a Penis Enlargement forum. This is mostly for entertainment. That's too bad that you feel the need to censor yourself to avoid certain topics - I guess I feel like debate and examination has limitless benefits and it never really wears me out to have my ideas challenged. Worst case scenario is that I learn something or am presented with such a strong case that I might just change my mind - not too terrible after all. I think it was that wicked slavery-advocating chauvanist Aristotle that said the mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain an idea while not believing in it.

I wrote too much to really edit or proof, so apologies for the numerous spelling and grammar horrors.
 
ithiel said:
vote for me.

If you can help me understand how Golden State is getting punked by Jerry Sloan's predictable offense after they froze the Mavericks out of the paint for a whole series, I'll send you a campaign contribution.
 
stridge said:
If you can help me understand how Golden State is getting punked by Jerry Sloan's predictable offense after they froze the Mavericks out of the paint for a whole series, I'll send you a campaign contribution.

I believe GS just had that "mental edge". i think it was something like 5 straight games they beat em before the playoffs. Regardless, they was going in there underdogs. Plus evrything meshed for them. Stephen Jackson picked it up, Baron Davis def played like an MVP. The teams morale was just too high for Dallas. Again Dallas came in the playoffs with its doubts. first off dirk aint play MVP level, weak ass contributions.

Utah just too talented for GS. No one out there can control Boozer and his rebounding. He having big games.
 
Yeah, that's a pretty spot on analysis. I've just been a huge Baron Davis fan since he came into the league so I was really stoked to see him finally perform at this level under the national spotlight, especially when it meant putting a stop to the unwarranted MVP stuff for Nowitzki.

I just fealt like they would carry that energy to the Jazz, but they're just too fucking systematic for a team that's all heart and plays loose like GS. In addition to Boozer, Kirelenko has been healthy and playing hot - that's a lot of rebounding power, especially offensively. Still, I thought GS had showed enough poise and toughness to get through this series but now I don't think so.

I have to blame Nellie on some level, because it's not like he hasn't coached against Jerry Sloan hundreds of times before.
 
the more i've delved into this Ron Paul thing the past couple of days, all i've happened across is an overt media black out and ultra-aspersion.

heres just a snippet of what Paul stands for... no wonder he's locked out of the circus.

Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul full document

About Ron
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted aganst the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

do we really believe in our heart of hearts that a candidate such as Ron Paul WOULDN'T be a steadfast front-runner if he were to recieve the publicity his bold intentions so rightly deserve?

if Paul found his way into office, big money/corperatocracy lose tremendously... go figure.


keep pushing
 
Reber187 said:
the more i've delved into this Ron Paul thing the past couple of days, all i've happened across is an overt media black out and ultra-aspersion.

heres just a snippet of what Paul stands for... no wonder he's locked out of the circus.

Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul full document

About Ron
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted aganst the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

do we really believe in our heart of hearts that a candidate such as Ron Paul WOULDN'T be a steadfast front-runner if he were to recieve the publicity his bold intentions so rightly deserve?

if Paul found his way into office, big money/corperatocracy lose tremendously... go figure.


keep pushing

The points about Rep. Paul's record are good to mention - the guy practices what he preaches. But, that so-called document, c'mon . . . that thing is a joke.

It's 300 words that claim there is a media "black-out" on Ron Paul, yet the first thing it mentions is the MSNBC coverage on Paul's online polling results. I would also mention that I saw the poll results covered on multiple major news agencies - it just wasn't a huge story that hung around for more than that evening. News services carry stories based on public response and ratings, and the lack of endurance by the Ron Paul thing shows that most people just don't care about it. To further prove that Ron Paul is intentionally ignored, it goes on to whine about the fact that Dick Morris and Glenn Beck don't think he's a legit contender. Not exactly compelling evidence. Two pundits suggesting that a fringe candidate that 90% the country have never heard of isn't a serious shot for president? To me, that's not really fishy.

Reber, I know that you're a harsher judge of evidence than this - there is nothing concrete to show that the powers that be are intentionally trying to stop Ron Paul from getting a lot of headlines. As I've said, the media is a free market - if people aren't paying attention to Ron Paul, it's his fault. The fact is, the guy doesn't appeal to that many people over here, and just because he got a few words in during the first debate doesn't mean he's a serious force in the race.

Like I mentioned to PenilePersist, you guys are assuming that the politics you like are consistent with mainstream values. Ron Paul is a fine legislator, but most people simply aren't on board with his libertarian brand of ideology. That's not a conspiracy, it's just popular opinion. I thought Peter O'Toole should have won the Oscar this year because I think he's a great actor - but the academy voted for Forrest Whitaker. I don't understand why they didn't like O'Toole better, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy either. Get my drift?

You guys think Ron Paul is great, so you assume there's a sinister effort to marginalize his candidacy? Well, I like John Edwards, but he's a distant third, does that mean the media is trying to screw him as well? Honestly, this is just sili.
 
Here's Ron Paul on the Bill Maher show:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

Besides the fact that this doesn't bode well with the 'blackout' theory, I think Congressman Paul comes off well here. Not presidentially well, but he holds his own, more or less, against Maher. The basic point of this video is that while Ron Paul comes across fairly well, he really doesn't come across as the type of person that the nation would choose to lead us in the free world.
 
stridge said:
Like I mentioned to PenilePersist, you guys are assuming that the politics you like are consistent with mainstream values. Ron Paul is a fine legislator, but most people simply aren't on board with his libertarian brand of ideology. That's not a conspiracy, it's just popular opinion. I thought Peter O'Toole should have won the Oscar this year because I think he's a great actor - but the academy voted for Forrest Whitaker. I don't understand why they didn't like O'Toole better, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy either. Get my drift?

You guys think Ron Paul is great, so you assume there's a sinister effort to marginalize his candidacy? Well, I like John Edwards, but he's a distant third, does that mean the media is trying to screw him as well? Honestly, this is just sili.

There you go tossing around the conspiracy word again - even though it simply means and organized plan - but you use it to frame things in a negative light. I say you toss it around AGAIN because yes - you posted it the first time ... and then you played dumb like "did I say that" - when it is plain to see that you edited it out because you know it primarily does two things - 1) agitates, 2) exposes some of your mindset to be more biased than you'd like people to think.

I don't have much time. I'll be blunt and write this in haste. Quit this bullshit of labelling me how you see fit. Reber and I may both be talking about Ron Paul, but we are two different people - even on different sides of the world. Stop acting like you know what I'm thinking, what I mean etc when you clearly do not. You know the old phrase - ASS-U-ME. Earlier I said that I showed non-specific support of Ron Paul. It was one of many phrases of mine that you clearly did not understand, albeit some you have certainly misunderstood to much further extent. I did not say what I do or do not like about Ron Paul. I did not say that I think everybody agree with him. I did not say what I think about his coverage - I specifically said I am not very aware of it except that he is usually and probably still marginalized. Actually, I have been happy to see that Ron has participated in 1 debate already and is scheduled to participate in another - and I was going to post about it when I had time but I have little time that I choose to allocate here as of late as is and your bullshit mislabelling and ASS-U-ME-ING is giving me more to respond to that I don't want to deal with and that you probably don't want to hear.

I could respond to every word of yours, piece by piece, but I have chosen not to for various reasons. Maybe I will reply more later. One thing I will touch on from your reply to me - again - I do not think discussing politics is a waste - just like the first time you implied it. Due to your persistance to miss this point and others - repeatedly - I wonder if you really want to know other people's point of view or if you only want more justification to spew yours. I said, essentially, the significance of this discussion on this forum is incredibly insignificant ... no matter how fundamentally valuable any political discussion is. Again - the Presidential Debates would not be help on such a platform for a reason. The candidates don't post here in their spare time for a reason - other than whether they know this exists or not (and they probably do not). There are more effective platforms for the type of discussion and effect I am interested in. Not intending to self aggrandize - but I think, and do, quite a bit bigger/more outside the box than many people in some aspects. I'd prefer to at least be on the radio - if not on tv - or on mass broadcast online video, for best effect. You clearly like to write/talk alot about this type of thing - which I sometimes do as well so it's not a bad thing, necessarily/in some ways - so maybe you should try to move to an avenue of more exposure where your potential/desire is used more efficiently.
 
Reber187 said:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted aganst the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

You can't get much better than that. ;)
 
stridge said:
Here's Ron Paul on the Bill Maher show:

YouTube - REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT | REAL TIME W BILL MAHER 3-30-07

Besides the fact that this doesn't bode well with the 'blackout' theory, I think Congressman Paul comes off well here.

He makes good points on the CIA (to an extent), the Civil War, but I think he's a little unrealisitic about a private FAA. Libertarianism is its most strict form is a disaster, in a society such as ours. Ron Paul is pretty serious in his libertarian beliefs, whereas Bill Maher's libertarian claim is about as accurate as calling GWB a great orator.

Not presidentially well, but he holds his own, more or less, against Maher. The basic point of this video is that while Ron Paul comes across fairly well, he really doesn't come across as the type of person that the nation would choose to lead us in the free world.

I don't think holding your own against Bill Maher is the most formidable challenge by any means. Maher's bias on most everything is overbearing and no one that isn't a fan of his would ever take his show seriously. I thought he looked fine and held nothing back in his arguments, though I might not quite agree with all of them.

Anyway, for delivery and personality, I would not rank Paul as high as Clinton, as Clinton was very articulate. However, I think Paul comes off every bit as likeable, knowledgeable, etc. as many of the recent doofuses (or doofi...not sure) like both Bush Sr. and Jr., Gore, and Kerry.
 
Back
Top Bottom