DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Scheavo on April 23, 2012, 09:05:50 AM
-
news.yahoo.com/media-favored-romney-over-obama-040100208.html
Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.
And remember, according to Romney, the media is in Obama's hand, and does Obama's bidding.
Our media, however, does suck.
As for the candidates’ stands on the issues, that accounted for a mere 11 percent of the coverage.
-
It's because Obama has been shit lately.
inb4rahhhthatsanopinionbutimnotgoingtoletyouhaveone
-
Remember when that liberal rag the New York Times helped lead the war charge to Iraq by unquestioningly publishing all those very true things the White House said about Saddam and WMDs on its front pages? Haha aw shucks those silly libs.
The media is concerned with two things (from my perspective): obtaining and maintaining access to high-ranking officials, and sensationalism.
-
>Republican primary
>going to get more attention than Obama right now
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
>more coverage of Romney, in a higher light because of far right Santorum
>???
>profit!
-
What about the other 14% of Obama's coverage?
-
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
Isn't that Scheavo's point? That if there were a liberal bias they wouldn't be so decidedly negative towards Obama.
-
What about the other 14% of Obama's coverage?
That was going to be my question. :lol
-J
-
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
Isn't that Scheavo's point? That if there were a liberal bias they wouldn't be so decidedly negative towards Obama.
Sorta. I don't fully agree with the shit part - in fact, the amount of negative coverage Obama get's makes you think he's doing a shittier job than he actually is - but if the media was liberal, and if the media was in his pocket, as Romney implies, than Obama would not get such horribly negative coverage, and Romney sure as hell wouldn't be beating him.
>Republican primary
>going to get more attention than Obama right now
>Obama has been shit (i'll qualify this as opinion)
>more coverage of Romney, in a higher light because of far right Santorum
>???
>profit!
I'm not contesting any of this, nor is it relevant to my point.
-
It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out: "But the stimulus!"
Let's just be real for a minute:
You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not. Why not just admit that and move on, eh? It's easier that way.
-
It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out: "But the stimulus!"
Let's just be real for a minute:
You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not. Why not just admit that and move on, eh? It's easier that way.
Didn't say it was any different
-
Wasn't really referring to you, but OK :|
-
It's always interesting and kind of funny but my conservative friends keep saying things like "damage" and "he's been shit" with respect to Obama, but when I press them for, you know, like, facts and stuff...they just sort of blurt out: "But the stimulus!"
Let's just be real for a minute:
You don't like him because he's a Democrat and you're not. Why not just admit that and move on, eh? It's easier that way.
Didn't say it was any different
Wait, so you only dislike him becuase he's a Democrat?
-
Wasn't really referring to you, but OK :|
:) as if I was being serious. Nah, I've got my reasons. I've tried talking about them before, but I was quickly told that I wasn't allowed to think those things.
-
You guys are gonna bitch about the media's coverage of Obama and Romney when RON PAUL has been totally ignored? Just proves that our media is not a liberal or conservative one but a STATIST one.
-
Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him. Because he's a kook.
Did I mention that he's a kook?
-
Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him. Because he's a kook.
Did I mention that he's a kook?
He's an OLD kook. That's probably what you were looking for. Being a kook is bad, but an old kook? Shit.
-
To be fair, he did get at the very least a non-negligible amount of the vote in a lot of states:
(https://puu.sh/r89n)
Also, like that Daily Show bit about it, he was pretty much entirely ignored by the media to the point where they'd talk about the 1st, 2nd, and 4th place candidates and completely ignore him (when he was 3rd).
-
yet, he's completely, 100% unequivocally meaningless. :)
Nothing against him, but yeah, pineapples taste good :)
-
You guys are gonna bitch about the media's coverage of Obama and Romney when RON PAUL has been totally ignored? Just proves that our media is not a liberal or conservative one but a STATIST one.
I've read these "explanations" before, along with wilder ones such as "vote flipping" and stuff. Reality is, RP had his moment of spotlight early on, but he plain screwed it up. He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution". When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on. And so did the media. RP supporters like to blame everything under the sun, but the real reason why RP isn't going anywhere is because of himself. And at this point I would argue that he's doing more damage to his cause than help it. He's like the Black Knight in Monty Python, who's nothing but a torso but still thinks he can win.
rumborak
-
Yeah, not sure what Ron Paul thinks he is doing right now. To be fair though, he does have some interesting ideas (legalizing certain substances for one, as well as being opposed to war). On the other hand, he also wants to go back to the gold standard... AND he's an old kook.
-
He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".
That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."
When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.
His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.
-
He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".
That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."
When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.
His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.
Change>Constitution (opinion).
I do agree with you on the foreign policy though.
-
Change>Constitution (opinion).
One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?
-
Change>Constitution (opinion).
One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?
That's the problem with "progressives." They would rather use the courts to push their agenda rather than propose an amendment. Getting that 66% would be a bitch! :lol
-
Change>Constitution (opinion).
One of the beauties of the Constitution, as I'm sure you already know, is that it can be amended. What changes are you looking for that couldn't fall within the parameters of the Constitution?
That's the problem with "progressives." They would rather use the courts to push their agenda rather than propose an amendment. Getting that 66% would be a bitch! :lol
Actually, it's been the conservatives who have been doing this. Look no further than Citizens United.
-
He came across like a one-trick pony, who could say barely more than the word "Constitution".
That's infinitely preferable to a two-trick pony who can barely say more than the words "hope" and change."
When he then displayed his utter absence of a foreign policy, people moved on.
His foreign policy of non-interventionism is very simple, and that's maybe why you interpret it to be an "absence" of foreign policy. It's far more solid than other candidates, who believe in capriciously meddling in the affairs of other countries via fradulent wars or financial, sometimes miltary aid.
I'm not sure "Just trade with them more" is a viable solution when dealing with genocide abroad.
-
American chewing gum was all Hitler wanted, but he couldn't get it.
MML, if life's complexities could be reduced to a few paragraphs written in some document, life would be easy indeed. Sadly, it ain't as simple.
rumborak
-
I'm not sure there's a modern Hitler, or anything resembling a comparison to sitting out the World War, by suggesting we stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. The reasons we're meddling there is quite clear; it's about the oil, not our safety, or even a war.
-
The belief that the involvement in foreign countries can be reduced to a single thing is as overly simplistic as the belief that it can be all fixed by the adherence to a document. A rather annoying feature of American politics, the attempt to belie the complexity of the problems.
rumborak
-
American chewing gum was all Hitler wanted, but he couldn't get it.
MML, if life's complexities could be reduced to a few paragraphs written in some document, life would be easy indeed. Sadly, it ain't as simple.
Godwin's Law at work here. Anyone who's a non-interventionist is automatically a Holocaust "enabler." On the contrary, the Third Reich formed as a reaction to economic sanctions imposed on Germany after their offensive wars against Russia, France and other European nations in WWI. Interventionism and imperialism caused the problems, as usual. So what are you actually proposing? That we have a long and convoluted document or no document at all? Both scenarios can only lead to tyranny or anarchy. To me, the beauty of the Constitution is that it DOESN'T try to reduce the complexities of life into a few paragraphs. It sets very limited parameters for the government and lets us do the rest.
I'm not sure "Just trade with them more" is a viable solution when dealing with genocide abroad.
Genocide sucks but it's completely unfeasible for one country to try and curb all the evils in the world. Let's look at the world today. We have genocides in Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Kashmir, Indonesia, Russia, North Korea, China, and the list goes on and on and on. How could we possibly stop of all that? Ron Paul doesn't necessarily say that trade will fix all of the world's problems. He just points out the obvious truth that military intervention usually causes more problems than it solves. We thought we could "save" the people of Iraq and look how that turned out.
At any rate, I'm NOT commenting on this any more because it's veering off topic. This thread was meant to be a discussion of the media, not a debate about Ron Paul.
-
We can't help them all, so let's help none.
Bottom line is, it's fine if you believe this (IMHO) simplistic approach to be the solution. The majority of people however don't. That is the plain and simple reason why RP hasn't gone anywhere, and why he's burning through a lot of suckers' money in his quixotic quest. I mean, there's simply no chance he's going to have any impact at the RNC (if only for the plain fact that less than 10% of the Republicans seem to care about him), and he still rakes in the last bucks of the people who so desperately follow him.
I mean, let's assume for a second RP's scheme of silently amassing delegates through procedural trickery would work. Do you really think the Republican public will watch idly when delegates completely defy their votes?
But, it doesn't matter really. He will get his ass handed to him tomorrow like so many times before, Romney will cash in shitloads of actual delegates, while the RP supporters will spin yet another conspiracy theory why their candidate isn't winning, all the while dumping their money into this futile endeavour.
rumborak
-
The belief that the involvement in foreign countries can be reduced to a single thing is as overly simplistic as the belief that it can be all fixed by the adherence to a document. A rather annoying feature of American politics, the attempt to belie the complexity of the problems.
rumborak
Well, I didn't say all foreign countries, I said the Middle East. We have interests in North Korea, but it's nothing to do with oil. Our interest in the Middle East boils down to oil, it's simple empire economics. What other reason do we have for being in the region? National security? If the region is a threat to us, it's because of our funneling of arms, money into the region, and our meddling with their political systems. I mean, we've been the guys giving the dictators the weapons they use to suppress the people. Iran is basically a republican-made problem. First, Reagan brokered a deal with the Sha, then he funded Iran and gave them weapons to fight Iraq. Bush completed the deal by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, especially Iraq. On top of that, Iraq and Afghanistan, if they were problems, were problems because of American foreign policy. Reagan funded and armed Saddam, and the Mujaheddin and Osama.
Obama's on the right side of the issue, I'm just wish he'd pick up the pace a little. It's funny, becuase in some ways Obama is better than Paul, but in others Paul is better than Obama. Obama puts forward a better energy policy, and if we don't need foreign oil, they won't be our problem. Yet in Afghanistan, our War on Drugs is a major problem. The Taliban makes it's money off of mostly opium, whom the farmers are somewhat forced and dependent upon for a living. The Taliban is our supposed enemy in Afghanistan, but they're basically just an ideological drug cartel. End the prohibition, end the black market, end the Taliban. There's a ton of others benefits to ending the War on Drugs, and Obama is on the record supporting continuing the War on Drugs. Apparently, possible governmental corruption is worse than drug cartels and current government corruption.
-
Genocide "sucks?" Genocide is worse than "sucking," and we're all only so lucky we'll never have to experience it here in our own country (knock on wood/God forbid). Let me tell ya, you wouldn't be so nonchalant about it if it was instigated against you.
-
Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him. Because he's a kook.
Did I mention that he's a kook?
Says the former resident of the big house. Did I mentioned that you are a former resident of the big house? Oh, I guess we are forgetting that any criminal can post here at DTF. Oh, and it's not an accusation, it's a fact. You DID spend a lot of time in jail, didn't you?
I don't know the point of this post, other than, apparently, calling names. Isn't that what we are doing when we hate someone? Call names? The differencem however, was that I', not lying, you accepted it. I was just reinforcing it.
On the other hand, he also wants to go back to the gold standard... AND he's an old kook.
Please, don't make it obvious. You are blatantly showing your ignorance. You only heard "legalizing some stuff her der errr!" and then something about going back to the Gold standard. You scratched something on the first part, yet joined the bandwagon of ignorance on the second part. AND lowered yourself to Kirk's level on the third part.
And as far as the Liberal Media debate goes, Rachel Maddow did this piece yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EfS1x5RnZZQ
-
Ron Paul gets ignored because he's a kook and no one is voting for him. Because he's a kook.
Did I mention that he's a kook?
Says the former resident of the big house. Did I mentioned that you are a former resident of the big house? Oh, I guess we are forgetting that any criminal can post here at DTF. Oh, and it's not an accusation, it's a fact. You DID spend a lot of time in jail, didn't you?
I don't know the point of this post, other than, apparently, calling names. Isn't that what we are doing when we hate someone? Call names? The differencem however, was that I', not lying, you accepted it. I was just reinforcing it.
I don't hate anyone. Hate is strong word. But I think Ron Paul is a kook and his political positions are nuts. And while I was serving time in prison I thought he was a kook then too.
You can reinforce my time in prison as often as you'd like. Let me try to muster up some "give a shit."
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/damn.gif)
Sorry, I failed at giving a shit. ;D
-
Probably doesn't understand that you've learned from your mistakes. What a nub
-
Well, you know, I think there's a big difference between attacking a public figure (like a politician, you know, who isn't actually a member here) and attacking a fellow forum member just to try to get a rise out of them or something. It's kind of silly actually. I wear my prison time on my sleeve because I believe those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. So someone throwing it in my face because they think it bothers me is really rather silly :lol
But I digress.
-
Wtf, emin. Talk about crossing a line.
On another note, apparently Gingrich indicated that depending on today's results he might fold.
rumborak
-
Says the former resident of the big house. Did I mentioned that you are a former resident of the big house? Oh, I guess we are forgetting that any criminal can post here at DTF. Oh, and it's not an accusation, it's a fact. You DID spend a lot of time in jail, didn't you?
Oh yeah, that's why everyone thinks you're a jerk.
Thanks for reminding me.
-
Which btw is another aspect against RP. His supporters are "something else", to say the least. There's a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, and almost religious following of RP. Which I think why we saw this nasty attack by emin just now.
-
Wtf, emin. Talk about crossing a line.
On another note, apparently Gingrich indicated that depending on today's results he might fold.
rumborak
I saw that and was kind of surprised by it. I just didn't think he had it in him to quit, but I also heard that his campaign is something like $4.3 million in debt, so he's probably looking at that too.
-
Which btw is another aspect against RP. His supporters are "something else", to say the least. There's a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, and almost religious following of RP. Which I think why we saw this nasty attack by emin just now.
I present to you a real live conspiracy theory movie sent to me by a Paulite friend of mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&feature=related
-
Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population....
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/emoticons/babywow.gif)
-
TURN THE KEY
WALK THROUGH THE GATE
-
emindead, that is not how we treat fellow members here. Take a week off.
-
I just finished giving it to him, just hadn't posted it yet
emindead, that was absolutely unacceptable
kirk, I want to apologize on behalf of the rest of DTF, that was not cool. your willingness to open your life to us here is one of the things that makes this community so cool.
-
Yikes, crappy behavior emin. I do disagree with everything said about RP from others here except MondayMorningLunatic -who I think got it absolutely right- but it sucks that emin chose to reply that way.
RP never said anything that sounded kooky to me, I found him to be the most sane and fair of all the Republican candidates in all the debates. I agree his fans are too fanatic and they might have made his situation worse cause they allow dirt fishers to point and say "Hey look at the guys who like Ron Paul!".
I chose early on not to discuss RP but had to say that emin's attitude doesn't represent shit. He's been that way before this whole elections thing ever started or we heard of the nominees.
Back to topic: Although the right wing has been throwing around the term "liberal media" for a long time, I think Romney picked on it big time when he saw the massive positive response Gingrich got in that debate when he started off with the whole martyr performance he played on John King, Gingrich went up in polls after that just for the "I'm sick of the liberal media" nicely written and performed speech. I think Romney will glorify that tune to unprecedented proportions from now on.
But thank God for the T-1000 (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/24/boehner-obama-using-politics-envy-and-division-in-2012-race/) for telling us that America can't survive another 4 years with Obama.
And of course where would we be without Ted Nugent (https://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2012/apr/18/rocker-ted-nugent-slanders-president-obama-while-m/) to show us the way and the plan in case of the apocalyptic chance of Obama's renigging.
-
I just think this is absolutely nuts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3PvhYvE_w0
He's going to cut $1 Trillion and 4 major agencies from the government in the first year? :\
Next you're going to tell me that the 1980 Pepsi TV Commercial version of Cindy Crawford wants to have a dozen of my babies right now. :lol
That's what I mean when I say he's kooky. Anyone who basically has a pulse knows none of that shit would ever happen.
-
Yes, I agree his commercials have been hilarious and his campaign decided to appeal to monster truck fans for some reason heh. I only go on the official debates and serious interviews with him and all the other candidates.
But yeah his ideas on economy are far fetched here and there but for every far fetched idea he has; there's an idea double as so from the other candidates. But I think he's the most sincere and peaceful of them all in general.
I just wish he'd quit already so that people stop slamming him as I really admire his personality as a politician and the ideology he represents.
-
It's really the combination that turned off people in the end. I mean, the ads always end with "I am Ron Paul, and I approve this message". When he wants to cut 1 trillion dollars in one year, he sounds like someone who has no connection to reality. And frankly, that kind of stuff has been a mainstay in his career, asking for ludicrous stuff no sane person could agree to. He passed 4 out of the 620 measures he sponsored. He would be the most useless president in history.
rumborak
-
He'd make sure gov't would get out of the way and not interfere in our lives any further. SLASH AND BURN! :metal
-
It'll be interesting what the Libertarians will do after this. Their prime candidate for so many years has finally had a shot at it, and failed pretty hard. This will have been RP's last attempt, so now they have to look for another figure to lead it. I would not be surprised if the whole thing somewhat dissolves into chaos, given the average personality profile of an RP follower. There will be for sure many more YouTube videos with gloomy music behind it explaining that "The Man" foiled people's liberty once more on its way to the new world order.
rumborak
-
Well, looks like the only thing that got slashed and burned tonight was Ron Paul. Any bets how long until he finally gives up?
rumborak
-
Well, looks like the only thing that got slashed and burned tonight was Ron Paul. Any bets how long until he finally gives up?
rumborak
Better yet, how long until he stops breathing. Like I said before, I think he has some good ideas. However, as Kirk pointed out, he is a kook (and an old kook at that). He needs to give up politics and go live out the rest of his days in peace.
-
I don't want to speculate on the man's life span, but it does indeed beg the question what's going on with him. Their grassroots pumped another million dollars into the guy just recently, but his twitter account has been dead for over a week now, and he's been running ads with Santorum in them. I would almost guess he's trying to refill the accounts because he knows he doesn't have a chance.
rumborak
-
It's funny how people call RP a kook when he's the only one telling it like it is and not treating the American public like children. He's the only one not in the pocket of the Federal Reserve criminals.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President
[Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....
the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
-- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 191
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority
of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits
from the use of other people's money" -- also Lindbergh
"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden
Woodrow Wilson: "I am a most unhappy man; unwittingly I have ruined my country..."
Let's not forget what happened after JFK issued Executive Order 11110.
-
I would not be surprised if the whole thing somewhat dissolves into chaos, given the average personality profile of an RP follower.
rumborak
Is this really necessary? You've been railing on his supporters in this thread like they're all nut cases. How is this any different than what happened with the other poster that earned him a vacation from the forum?
-
It's funny how people call RP a kook when he's the only one telling it like it is and not treating the American public like children. He's the only one not in the pocket of the Federal Reserve criminals.
Telling it like what is? :lol Bizzarro world?
Look, the fact is, even IF he could get elected POTUS (he can't and he won't and everyone knows it) there is absolutely no possible way - not one iota of a slim microscopic chance - that he would be able to cut $1 Trillion dollars and 4 major state departments in one year. It's a completely ludicrous claim that only a pretty gullible person could possibly believe. Telling it like it is. Right ::)
-
Not to mention no Congress would be crazy enough to actually let him pass legislation. Even if they were of the same party.
-
Is this really necessary? You've been railing on his supporters in this thread like they're all nut cases. How is this any different than what happened with the other poster that earned him a vacation from the forum?
It's different because I don't pick individuals and rail at them directly, or use their personal history against them.
Seriously though, in what way am I off here? Of the RP supporters I have seen make posts in various forums, I've seen:
- Them buying ammo and food supplies for the imminent collapse of society
- Believing vast conspiracy theories about New World Order, Romney having undermined all elections etc. etc
- Even after yesterday, they're still scheming, saying "It ain't over yet", "He's going to Tampa"
With mindsets like that, who currently all line up behind their Jesus-like figure of Dr. Paul, I think the only direction it will go after he quits from the public scene is disarray.
rumborak
-
It's funny how people call RP a kook when he's the only one telling it like it is and not treating the American public like children. He's the only one not in the pocket of the Federal Reserve criminals.
Telling it like what is? :lol Bizzarro world?
Look, the fact is, even IF he could get elected POTUS (he can't and he won't and everyone knows it) there is absolutely no possible way - not one iota of a slim microscopic chance - that he would be able to cut $1 Trillion dollars and 4 major state departments in one year. It's a completely ludicrous claim that only a pretty gullible person could possibly believe. Telling it like it is. Right ::)
Pretty much true. Political action is a lost cause for libertarians. Not my words, but it was said pretty well: it's stupid to think that one can reach to the top of an evil organization and turn it virtuous.
-
I saw an analogy some time ago that is pretty dead on: You don't join a Basketball team and then try to convince them to play Volleyball. And that's what RP essentially did. He was a very consistent Libertarian in his views, but that doesn't exactly help when you're running for the support of Republicans.
rumborak
-
Not to mention no Congress would be crazy enough to actually let him pass legislation. Even if they were of the same party.
A lot of what Paul runs on, Paul has full authority to control. He wouldn't be able to dismantle the bureaucracy as much as he'd like (Obama's already asked for approval for that, but of course Republicans won't dare let Obama actually reduce the size of the government), but he would be able to stop enforcing the War on Drugs single-handedly, and he could bring troops home, en masse.
I've found Paul runs on actual Presidential authority more than most other candidates. 90% + of Romney's platform isn't under his authority, and a good amount of Obama's agenda is the same (though Obama has experience now knowing what he can and cannot due, which makes him much more effective from here on out).
-
Is this really necessary? You've been railing on his supporters in this thread like they're all nut cases. How is this any different than what happened with the other poster that earned him a vacation from the forum?
It's different because I don't pick individuals and rail at them directly, or use their personal history against them.
Seriously though, in what way am I off here? Of the RP supporters I have seen make posts in various forums, I've seen:
- Them buying ammo and food supplies for the imminent collapse of society
- Believing vast conspiracy theories about New World Order, Romney having undermined all elections etc. etc
- Even after yesterday, they're still scheming, saying "It ain't over yet", "He's going to Tampa"
With mindsets like that, who currently all line up behind their Jesus-like figure of Dr. Paul, I think the only direction it will go after he quits from the public scene is disarray.
rumborak
I've been a RP supporter for several years and I fit none of the things that you're posting about them. Granted, I'm not completely in-line with the majority of libertarians about certain issues and I have a few conflicts with some of his stances but, you can't just lump every person into a stereotype based on the actions of a vocal minority of any movement/belief system. It's very easy to make ANY group of people look like shit if you want to brand them in this manner. I could start listing examples but, it would a quick way to get my ass kicked out of the forum or, at the very least start a flame war. It's bullshit and a very lazy way to view the world.
-
Not to mention no Congress would be crazy enough to actually let him pass legislation. Even if they were of the same party.
A lot of what Paul runs on, Paul has full authority to control. He wouldn't be able to dismantle the bureaucracy as much as he'd like (Obama's already asked for approval for that, but of course Republicans won't dare let Obama actually reduce the size of the government), but he would be able to stop enforcing the War on Drugs single-handedly, and he could bring troops home, en masse.
I've found Paul runs on actual Presidential authority more than most other candidates. 90% + of Romney's platform isn't under his authority, and a good amount of Obama's agenda is the same (though Obama has experience now knowing what he can and cannot due, which makes him much more effective from here on out).
Oh, the irony. ::)
-
I fit in the stocking up on guns and ammo category. :biggrin:
Prices have been going up like crazy, so better to save money now on lead and brass especially.
PEW PEW PEW
-
I see the $1,000,000,000,000 cut number being thrown around. As much as I'd LOVE to see that happen, it can't. You have to ease people off. That money is being spent and people are depending on it. You can't cut it in one year, let alone four. You can't promise a number.
-
emindead, what a cock
-
Personal attack, reported
-
emindead, what a cock
What in the world? Enjoy your week off
-
For the record I didn't actually report you. Sorry PLM.
-
On the other hand, he also wants to go back to the gold standard... AND he's an old kook.
Please, don't make it obvious. You are blatantly showing your ignorance. You only heard "legalizing some stuff her der errr!" and then something about going back to the Gold standard. You scratched something on the first part, yet joined the bandwagon of ignorance on the second part. AND lowered yourself to Kirk's level on the third part.
I know you won't be around here too much for a few days, but when you get back...
Don't make it obvious, you are no serious economic historian. If you were, you may be more aware of the general consensus that going back to the gold standard was one of the main causes of the great depression. With such massive amounts of cash money circulating, introducing the gold standard would most likely lead to pretty serious deflation. Once the market begins to descend into a deflationary spiral, production decreases. Which in turn leads to lower wages and demand, which leads to further decreases in price.
The gold standard works the same way trickle-down economic theory works. Wait, it doesn't.
-
I fit in the stocking up on guns and ammo category. :biggrin:
Prices have been going up like crazy, so better to save money now on lead and brass especially.
PEW PEW PEW
No sense in keeping this thread on track at this point...
You could also try to reduce your economic dependence, and your need to buy so many things.
-
Why? I make good money, and I like to spend it. Plus, it saves more jobs. ;)
As for the gold standard issue above, RP is not for a gold standard. He's for a standard set by international markets and competing currencies, be it something like oil or agricultural. There's too many dollars printed out there to have a gold standard again. From an individual investors standpoint, buying physical gold and silver has been a genius idea on my end. The key is buying before the hype (2004) and now I'm at a 400% return. Silver is another story. :)
Meanwhile, the dollar has fallen 95% since the federal reserve came to screw us in 1913.
-
Why? I make good money, and I like to spend it. Plus, it saves more jobs. ;)
As for the gold standard issue above, RP is not for a gold standard. He's for a standard set by international markets and competing currencies, be it something like oil or agricultural. There's too many dollars printed out there to have a gold standard again. From an individual investors standpoint, buying physical gold and silver has been a genius idea on my end. The key is buying before the hype (2004) and now I'm at a 400% return. Silver is another story. :)
Meanwhile, the dollar has fallen 95% since the federal reserve came to screw us in 1913.
Oh, even better.
-
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/honest-money/
-
Earth to Ron Paul: In this age of global banking, you can keep your bank account in whatever currency you like. There are 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies) to choose from, all with their respective money policy. And if you don't like governments, then keep your money in Bitcoin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin).
Ron Paul also doesn't seem to understand economics all that well. How many retailers do you think would start accepting non-US dollars? Zero. It would only add conversion costs to their bills. Currencies are natural monopolies.
rumborak
-
Hmm...perhaps PraXis has actually been Ron Paul all along, hoping to recruit an army of supporters here on DTF. It all suddenly makes sense! :justjen
-
Meanwhile, the dollar has fallen 95% since the federal reserve came to screw us in 1913.
Yet, our consumer purchasing power has massively increased since 1913. Our economy is undoubtedly much better, and my personal pocketbook is bigger than it would have been in 1912. I can do more, eat more, own more, and am wealthier than most people back then, and in today's age, I'm very much lower class.
Ron Paul also doesn't seem to understand economics all that well. How many retailers do you think would start accepting non-US dollars? Zero. It would only add conversion costs to their bills. Currencies are natural monopolies.
It's one area where Ron Paul doesn't seem to even know his history. 1780's saw many currencies in the US, non-fiat - and our economy was horrible. One of the main reasons the Convention of 1787 was called was because of the monetary crisis. Then, the Federal Government took over, bought up currencies, and made the whle thing much more uniform, and voila!, our economy improved (along with coherent foriegn policy to allow for trading).
-
Or just look to Europe. There we naturally had competing currencies, the Deutsche Mark, the Franc, the Pound, the Lira etc. etc.
And there was a very specific reason why the Euro was introduced. Not because of some New World Order ambitions of greedy politicians. Rather, simply because competing currencies cost everybody a LOT of money. Companies are forced to foresee the future in terms of currency fluctuations, and inevitably fail and lose money in the process, or become overly cautious and thus slow down the economy.
It is stunning how simple this is really, and how yet it seems to escape the Paulites.
rumborak
-
The Euro is failing! It was a huge mistake!
-
Jeez Louise, your opinions are a bit ... simplistic ... aren't they?
The Euro's problem isn't the idea of creating a unified currency. It's problem is that upon its creation not enough political will was there to create the fiscal straight-jackets to make it work. The straight-jackets are being put in now, but we will see whether it was too late.
Despite its current ailings, the Euro has created massive wealth in the Eurozone, and buffered many external shocks that otherwise would have killed the smaller countries.
rumborak
-
The EU is failing because of the PIIGS.
-
The EU is failing because of the PIIGS.
Do I want to know what this means?
-
Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain
-
The EU is failing because of the PIIGS.
I honestly have to bite my lip when I read such "insightful" posts.
rumborak
-
Jeez Louise, your opinions are a bit ... simplistic ... aren't they?
The Euro's problem isn't the idea of creating a unified currency. It's problem is that upon its creation not enough political will was there to create the fiscal straight-jackets to make it work. The straight-jackets are being put in now, but we will see whether it was too late.
Despite its current ailings, the Euro has created massive wealth in the Eurozone, and buffered many external shocks that otherwise would have killed the smaller countries.
rumborak
Rumborak, how do you feel the differences in culture affect the single currency. Is Germany as generous to its people as, say, France or Sweden. I agree that a single currency is best for all, but I suspect the bad implementation was due mainly to how the nation (and their politicians) view the relationship between state and people.
We would have the same messy problem if, for example, the US was in the similar multi-currency situation and senators from California and Texas, for example, battled for the single currency and the socio-economic policies with it.
-
Rumborak, how do you feel the differences in culture affect the single currency. Is Germany as generous to its people as, say, France or Sweden. I agree that a single currency is best for all, but I suspect the bad implementation was due mainly to how the nation (and their politicians) view the relationship between state and people.
I don't know, to be honest I think all countries kinda abused the lax rules on the Eurozone, not just the PIGS countries. When the Euro came into being, both Germany and France exceeded the maximum new debt allowed (3%), but they used their clout to assuage the others. Everybody was too excited to really care, but in the end it was a clear sign that it was way too easy to circumvent the stability safeguards. Well, the PIGS countries made an art out of it in the end, especially Greece.
rumborak
-
PIGS= Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain?
-
Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain
-
I've mostly seen it without the double I because Ireland is already recovering.
ruimborak
-
With mindsets like that, who currently all line up behind their Jesus-like figure of Dr. Paul, I think the only direction it will go after he quits from the public scene is disarray.
rumborak
I can't speak for all RP supporters, but I can tell you what happened in my area. After the 2008 elections our RP meetup formed an organization that's aim is to educate voters about, and have influence on, local and state politics.