Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
And if we don't vote, we still get stuck with one of them. It's a lose lose situation. It's too bad all the best and brightest people go into human resources and stay out of politics.
Perfect example of how much a media and the parties play a roll is Ron Paul. He is not a fringe candidate this election and has a very broad supporting base. However, he is ignored by the media and his own party because he goes against the corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold.
Perfect example of how much a media and the parties play a roll is Ron Paul. He is not a fringe candidate this election and has a very broad supporting base. However, he is ignored by the media and his own party because he goes against the corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold.
So true. The media and the political parties follow the safer "corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold" of winning by supposedly superior marketing rather than by adherence to principles. Yeah, they pretend and make a good show of principled behavior, but it's, at bottom, a dog-eat-dog war of winning or losing.
The media has learned that Ron Paul is "interesting" and in small bites can garner a spike in viewers or readers. So they'll give him occasional looks, but never too seriously. He's too dangerous to seriously analyze, and to be given "equal time" with the really serious run-of-the-mill politicians who are safely ensconced in the "corrupt, pathetic, Corporate-whore mold." He's (hush, hush) a "Constitutionalist"--one of those antiquated curmudgeons that think the Federal Government should be bound by Constitutional limitations--and a few other "controversial" ideas about the Federal Reserve and so on. It is obvious that the Constitution is "outdated" and basically irrelevant to "modern times." So the media will not objectively (not possible) involve itself with serious discussions about the relevance of the Constitution. It will occasionally give credence to some new exposition of how it doesn't meet our current needs. We are, after all, so different than humans were 200-300 years ago. We certainly don't need individual liberty so much as we need government to guide us through the complex maze of modern life. There are too many of us to be allowed to roam about the landscape at will. We need constant watching to prevent doing harm to one another, and we need constant help to manage the few years we inhabit the public space so that we don't mess it up too badly and so we don't fail too badly which would make us even more of a burden on "society." So Ron Paul is prudently marginalized. The Tea Party is as well. They too are outside the whorish corporate mold.
I think Ron Paul gets MSM attention because he's a novelty of sorts, in that he's consistently about the only elected Republican willing to speak his mind and present views contrary to the GOP talking points. Nothing like Ron Paul to go on a tirade about the Iraq war in a room full of Republicans.
I think his running is mostly to continue to inject his message into the dialogue. He certainly has a small but dedicated base, and when bussed in can even almost win a straw poll. It's amazing that Bachmann beat him by a narrow margin considering the lengths she went to get votes.
While he's a bit outside of the mainstream, Paul should certainly get some props for consistency, non-conformance and while I don't agree with some of his views an understanding for the substance of issues.
I think Ron Paul gets MSM attention because he's a novelty of sorts,
I think his running is mostly to continue to inject his message into the dialogue. He certainly has a small but dedicated base, and when bussed in can even almost win a straw poll.
While he's a bit outside of the mainstream, Paul should certainly get some props for consistency, non-conformance and while I don't agree with some of his views an understanding for the substance of issues.
-spence
wow...an "outside the mainstream constitutionalist"...tell me...who is the constitutionalist on the democrat side?
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office.
You should take a macro economics class or two. I wouldn't expect you to understand why $2/gal gas is virtually impossible in the short-term, but someone running for president should have a clue.
You should take a macro economics class or two. I wouldn't expect you to understand why $2/gal gas is virtually impossible in the short-term, but someone running for president should have a clue.
You should take a macro economics class or two. I wouldn't expect you to understand why $2/gal gas is virtually impossible in the short-term, but someone running for president should have a clue.
Why,, none of them have that as a qualification...
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment (OBAMA'S ELECTION) when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."
funny, the same knuckleheads that lapped up and voted for this crap can't wait to jump on Bachmann with both feet
funny, the same knuckleheads that lapped up and voted for this crap can't wait to jump on Bachmann with both feet
Like economics, you seem to have trouble understanding what it means when someone says neither candidate was a good choice but they chose the lesser of two evils.
Sadly, this applies to most elected officials though...
I agree with the gist of your comment with the caveat that most officials may have read the Constitution, but may not have understood it. Not that it is hard to understand, but that they have accepted its current distortion.
The picture, though telling of current congressional ignorance of the Constitution, is obviously political in that it's Bachman's face rather than a group picture of Congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS. She may have made a gaff or two about the Constitution, but she seems to have a deeper understanding of it and its original intent than most. One supposed gaff was her questioning of Geithner wanting to know where in the Constitution he and the Federal Reserve had the power to act as they had the past two years. He said that the power was granted by Congress. Sounds reasonable? This was supposed, by her critics, to show her ignorance of the Constitution. Actually, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress allowed to delegate its powers to autonomous, unaccountable, independant agencies. This also applies to the myriad of independant regulatory agencies created by Congress--EPA, FDA, etc.. They are units of government having self-contained legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Little agencies of tyranny with no accountability. Congress can, blamelessy, have unpopular legislation and regulation passed by these agencies. The Constitution gives Congress specified powers of legislation and regulation for which it will be responsible and answer to at election time. It does not give Congress the power to bypass that responsibility by delegating it to another unelected agency which is not accountable to the people.
Hybrid Mode
