Oh, to be able to snip this sucker down to just 0:38 - 1:30 -- awesome!!

Nice, I like the 'snip' idea Sheppard.

@kymbos makes a good point.

Would it be possible to snip quotes down to the last two things you're quoting?

Example: (1)I say something, (2)Someone quotes me on it => (3)I quote them on it, we're now at two quotes (1 & 2) and my response (3).

(4)Someone quotes me again, their post now shows (2 & 3), and (4). and so on.

That may sound confusing as hell, but on the incredibly talky posts you eventually reach a point where you've scrolled past almost every post twice because of the original, and then again from one person quoting it. and then a third, fourth, etc. making pages far, far too long.

Maybe there could even be an "Expand" button, that could show you the entire batch of quotes, but only show the most recent 2.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...

Are you trolling me?


?

Do you not agree and understand that contact between players is called as a defensive foul unless the defensive player's feet are planted? That is, if both players are in the air and there is contact, it is ALWAYS a defensive foul. The only possible exception being if the offensive player throws a punch or something else to warrant a flagrant call. Even then though, some very hard elbows and knees in that situation still get called against the defender.

Do you really argue any of that? If you do, then yes I do question if you've ever actually played in a competitive game with actual referees.

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...


Are you trolling me?

There seems to be a general misconception by those on the right that Socialism is about helping lazy people benefit at the expense of those who work hard, while ignoring the fact that the rich got rich by stealing the wealth generated by the labor of those who worked hard. Even Marx agreed that those who don't work, don't eat. Socialism and liberals aren't about helping those who are too lazy to help themselves, but putting power back into the hands of those who are doing the labor who presently in the US have no power or voice.

The income line in most companies isn't a slant (/) from the start to the top, but a very slightly curved backwards L with very few people are on the top bar, and fewer still past the point where that slant and backwards L would cross if we were to imagine spending the same amount for payroll between the otherwise equal income distributions. Everything to the left of that cross point, below the slant and above the bottom of that backwards L is labor that has been stolen to feed those to the right of that cross point. Imagine if you will Company A and Company B. Both have the same number of employees in each position, and both spend the same amount a year on payroll. Company A bottom is about $15k a year, while the CEO makes $22 Million (they are the typical backwards L). Company B's top is $250k a year and their slant goes down from there. Now how steeply and where Company B's bottom is depends on a number of factors, but no matter what, the bottom will likely be higher, or at the very least their benefit package is much greater. But very few companies operate like B, most operate like A.

<snip a long and rambling rant to better summarize with:>
The problem, it should be made clear, isn't Capitalism. It is greed. When Socialism fails, it isn't because of Socialism itself, it is again, greed. Greed is the problem. Nearly every failure in society comes down to greed and some would argue religion, which itself could be argued is a greed issue. The bigger problem the right faces is that they are loving greed now, and think it is the answer to everything, when it is in fact the very thing that is causing problems.

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

>> ^Quboid:


The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor right.


Brilliant.

>> ^shinyblurry:
The Christian religion has brought freedom and liberty where ever it has gone...<snip> The catholic church used Christianity to control people, this is true, but they clearly weren't following anything Jesus taught.


What? So there is some secret sect of Christianity that is doing it right were others are wrong.. I see now. Thank goodness we have your interpretation to sort us out.

Katherine Heigl got snipped years ago.





(I'm sorry, KH! I was just kidding! Really! I think you are smokin' hot! Here, you want my balls? Take my balls, Katherine Heigl. Take 'em! I never use 'em anyway.)

The main stream media is the liberal media that's my point. Society needs more people figuring that out. For as much as people hate them (FOX news, Glen Beck etc,) they do bring stories forth stories that the main stream does not. EX. Main stream imply that Muslims are a peaceful religion. Its not. The true desire of this religion is to convert or kill. They treat their women like dogs. How can Americans tolerate that? But yet main stream media play stories that they are a nice bunch of people. >> ^alcom:

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."
More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:
"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."
>> ^bobknight33:
This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."

More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:

"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."

>> ^bobknight33:

This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

I don't even want to argue with this logic - it hurts my head to even think of a response to this digital puke. You win the internet, QM! You're a winner!

>> ^quantumushroom:

<snip>

Warren Buffoon has one gift IMO: predicting the stock market. Otherwise he seems rather oblivious about how economics work. Poor fellow.


>> ^MonkeySpank:
Well QM, my friend.
If we follow your "success" logic, Bill Gates should be the president of the US, and Warren Buffet should be V.P. Are you OK with that?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Yeah, he did a poor job clarifying his personal beliefs, versus beliefs about what government should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
Of course, compared to the Kenyawaiian narcissist, Cain is a genius many times over, with actual business and life experience.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?


I agree with you 100%, and I think most people would too. It's my money too dang nab it; true capitalism has no bailouts. The problem today is that we have a corporate-socialist-capitalist government. In other words, the banks got a bailout and the people didn't. I speak for myself here when I say that any amount of money spent on somebody else's greed (whether it's personal buying a house, or corporate buying toxic mortgages) was a waste of money. People talked about the real-estate bubble bursting since 2004; everyone had 3 years to get their act together (capital gains on homes is 2 years, so they had plenty of time to refinance or sell), yet some actually paid attention and limited their losses, and others believed that during recession (2001) it still made sense that house prices were on the rise.


Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.


I agree with you here as well. I like the practice of democracy and I don't have an issue with these people voicing their concerns, and like I said before, I don't see this problem solved by any existing politician today. I have no faith in the federal government, Democrat or Republican. So far I am liking the movement, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Tea Party. The moment I see the OWS people align with an existing corrupt party (choose your flavor), then I'll polarize against it.

Good day to you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> MonkeySpank:[snip]