Election 2012

[Milky Joe]

You're still not getting it.

[Raiders]

You're still not getting it.

I think it is you that doesn't get that the change Ron Paul represents is not one a lot of people want to embrace. You can only blame "the biased media" for so long before at some point you begin to realize that maybe there are simply a ton of people who do not in fact believe Paul is the greatest candidate ever.

[Pop Trash]

To paraphrase Bill Maher on Newt Gingrich: people will not vote for Ron Paul because he looks like Ron Paul. People just don't want to see him constantly on TV for the next four fucking years.

[Qrazy]

Man, I hate politicking so god damn much.

[Mara]

Man, I hate politicking so god damn much.

I enjoy any derivation of the word "politic" that adds a "k." Really. I'm so happy right now.

[Milky Joe]

I think it is you that doesn't get that the change Ron Paul represents is not one a lot of people want to embrace.

I quite honestly don't think people understand the change Ron Paul represents. So how could they embrace it?

[Barty]

Ron Paul on the Issues:



lol no thanks

Your for a national ID card??????

[shaun]

Also, the Fairness Doctrine is a really dumb and obsolete law that no longer applies in today's media environment with almost limitless slanted opinions to change the channel/station to.

[Milky Joe]

Some of those are just dishonest, misleading at best. For instance, he did not vote to "ban same-sex adoption." He voted to prohibit federal funding for all adoption, same-sex or opposite sex. A lot of those questionable votes had to do with his stance against needless federal spending.

[MadMan]

I love that Ron Paul's supporters have as much blinders on as hard core Obama supporters do. They just won't admit it.

[Irish]

Also, the Fairness Doctrine is a really dumb and obsolete law that no longer applies in today's media environment with almost limitless slanted opinions to change the channel/station to.

Ugh. Seriously? Today's contentious, half assed media environment only exists because this law is no longer in place. (Among other things, like the 1996 Telecom Act. Half the blame to Reagan, half to Clinton).

A lot of those questionable votes had to do with his stance against needless federal spending.

And erecting a wall along the Mexican border is cost free, somehow? Talk about needless federal spending.

[Barty]

I love that Ron Paul's supporters have as much blinders on as hard core Obama supporters do. They just won't admit it.

What blinders? That man has 30+ years of actually matching his actions with his rhetoric. Your comparison is laughable.

[Barty]

Ugh. Seriously? Today's contentious, half assed media environment only exists because this law is no longer in place. (Among other things, like the 1996 Telecom Act. Half the blame to Reagan, half to Clinton).

So you support speech slavery?

[Irish]

So you support speech slavery?

Nice try. I prefer environments where nutjobs like Glen Beck don't have so much a voice and the ability to spew lie upon lie as some form of news meets entertainment.

I also liked it a lot better when informercials didn't exist.

Simple things, I guess, but in my mind better for the culture and community as a whole.

PS: Notice you didn't address that Mexican wall issue.

[Milky Joe]

And erecting a wall along the Mexican border is cost free, somehow? Talk about needless federal spending.

I'd heard that that presidential candidate Ron Paul was "hard line" on immigration and "to the right" of the Republican field. But that's not exactly what he revealed during my interview with him. Here's Part 4 of my edited interview.

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

[Barty]

In Paul's new book, he says he wants completely open borders in a Libertarian society because that is the ideal freedom. He recognizes under the current regime, that will cause certain problems with how the structure of the system is, so he doesn't want things like amnesty.

Actually, it's a criticism of him I do share, I think he compromises way to much on immigration and should simply attack welfare for immigrants and promote the economic benefits of them as opposed to trying to work around the system.

[Barty]

Nice try. I prefer environments where nutjobs like Glen Beck don't have so much a voice and the ability to spew lie upon lie as some form of news meets entertainment.

So you want to use the force of government to socially engineer the type of speech you like. Got it, you support speech slavery.

Simple things, I guess, but in my mind better for the culture and community as a whole.

Aka, I don't like that a lot of people like what I don't, so I want to ban it.

[Russ]

Barty, do you advocate the right to yell "Fire" in your crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire?

Curious minds, et al.

[shaun]

Nice try. I prefer environments where nutjobs like Glen Beck don't have so much a voice and the ability to spew lie upon lie as some form of news meets entertainment.

The Supreme Court already ruled that mandatory "fairness" rules can only be enforced where available broadcast channels are limited. Anyone with FoxNews or MSNBC can change the channel.

I'm just saying if that's one of your egregious philosophical conflicts with Ron Paul, your candidate options might be limited to Nancy Pelosi and pretty much no one else.

[Barty]

Barty, do you advocate the right to yell "Fire" in your crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire?

Curious minds, et al.

No, because that's a violation of the contract you enter in when you buy a ticket to the movie theatre.

Also, thank you for arguing that line correctly by adding "...when there is, in fact, no fire?" which so many people forget.

[Irish]

So you want to use the force of government to socially engineer the type of speech you like. Got it, you support speech slavery.

Aka, I don't like that a lot of people like what I don't, so I want to ban it.

Another nice try. Keep trying.

I think people in media have some kind of responsibility for the things they produce and put out over public airways.

I don't have an interest in silencing anyone. Glen Beck can say whatever the hell he likes (although I do think it's dangerous when you let obvious nutjobs have huge platforms).

Nobody in major media was silenced during the nearly 40 years this law was in place. But at the very least, it did force your favorite corporate media to at least pretend to be objective, which is a helluva lot better than what have now.

Speaking corporate media -- since Paul is so concerned over immigration, bilingual education and such .. why isn't he concerned that a foreign national not only owns but has a huge sway over the US media and arguably the entire democratic process?

Could it be because he benefits from that in some secondary way?

[Irish]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

Thanks for the link, and the clarification on the wall. Interesting interview, if accurate.

The parts about bilingual education are troubling, though, along with that stuff above about making English the "official" language of the United States.

Two ideas that will forever get a massive eyeroll from me.

[Barty]

Another nice try. Keep trying.

I think people in media have some kind of responsibility for the things they produce and put out over public airways.

They aren't public, they are government run monopolized airwaves, that it has no business being involved in.

Nobody in major media was silenced during the nearly 40 years this law was in place. But at the very least, it did force your favorite corporate media to at least pretend to be objective, which is a helluva lot better than what have now.

It's much better to have people out in the open with their beliefs that subtly trying to pretend one way.

Speaking corporate media -- since Paul is so concerned over immigration, bilingual education and such .. why isn't he concerned that a foreign national not only owns but has a huge sway over the US media and arguably the entire democratic process?

Could it be because he benefits from that in some secondary way?

Have you EVER seen the mainstream media report on Paul? I mean, seriously, Ron Paul benefits from them?

Also Ron Paul wouldn't be concerned about foreigners because he wants peace, commerce, and friendship with all people instead of bombing their countries and demonizing them.

[Milky Joe]

Speaking corporate media -- since Paul is so concerned over immigration, bilingual education and such .. why isn't he concerned that a foreign national not only owns but has a huge sway over the US media and arguably the entire democratic process?

Could it be because he benefits from that in some secondary way?

Aren't you worried you might pull a muscle, with all that reaching? Seriously, just stop "trying" altogether. You're making it very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Russ]

Aren't you worried you might pull a muscle, with all that reaching? Seriously, just stop "trying" altogether. You're making it very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Possibly: Your opinion of Irish

Definitely: Your condescension needs to drop quite a bit. And you wonder why noboby takes you seriously?