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 E
XTREMELY 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 E
XTREMELY 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.