@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Right has FOX news (some of the time), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and talk radio, specifically Rush.
The left has all other papers, all other stations, government unions--including government-run schools--and Hollywood.
Drive-by leftmedia is in the tank for Obama, they elected him and protected him and help him hide his identity and history to this day (aside from the birth certificate, what were his grades? Where are his kollij papers?) and either downplay or flat refuse to report his many failures now.
With all that media muscle, you're still blaming FOX? For what, exactly? Who is the leftmedia to hold FOX to standards they don't have and never did have?


What were Bush's grades?

Uhh, no.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-7-2011/npr-vs--conservative-talk-radio

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Right has FOX news (some of the time), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and talk radio, specifically Rush.
The left has all other papers, all other stations, government unions--including government-run schools--and Hollywood.

The Right has FOX news (some of the time), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and talk radio, specifically Rush.

The left has all other papers, all other stations, government unions--including government-run schools--and Hollywood.

Drive-by leftmedia is in the tank for Obama, they elected him and protected him and help him hide his identity and history to this day (aside from the birth certificate, what were his grades? Where are his kollij papers?) and either downplay or flat refuse to report his many failures now.

With all that media muscle, you're still blaming FOX? For what, exactly? Who is the leftmedia to hold FOX to standards they don't have and never did have?

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

My problem with Cenk is that he pretty obviously cut his teeth on talk radio. It's why I'm not too fond of Ed Shultz, either.

Everything Cenk says is just whatever his gut feeling is, and anything that contradicts his preconception is just never mentioned (when it's just him onscreen), or railroaded aside (when he's got other people around).

A lot of times I sympathize with what he's feeling. He's mad at Obama for not being a partisan progressive ideologue, he's disgusted with Republicans for being fascists, etc.

It's just that he's constantly going off half-cocked, and not really interested in reflection or discussion. At all.

I'm still watching his show on Current (or at least letting it play in the room I'm in), but it's rather quickly losing my interest. He's never covered some topic I hadn't heard about elsewhere (except for the non-political "isn't that weird" stuff Ana covers), nor does he present some fresh way of looking at an issue that I hadn't considered. He doesn't even seem to be able to condense down the liberal argument on the topic of the day in a clear, concise, resonant way, which is usually the main thing I look to get out of liberal cable TV.

His only sin was being a Black conservative. If it's really about pu$$y, compared to Filth clinton, the man is a saint.

That said, until conservatives wake up and realize the media-gandists (minus talk radio) work for taxorats, they'll continue to be crucified by splinters.

Mostly with you. I feel CBC TV still needs to present hockey. Not sure why I do, just do. And our comedy heritage is in sketch comedy, and the CBC is the only place supporting that. If there were no CBC TV anymore, I wouldn't actually be upset. It's non-essential, especially considering most of the programming these days is indistinguishable from other channels -- Rick Mercer being one of the exceptions, but captured under sketch comedy.

But man, Canada without CBC Radio would be a whole different country. Just about everything there is a precious gem -- As it Happens, Wiretap, DNTO, Tapestry, Vinyl Cafe, Writers and Company, and old shows like Morningside, Richardson's Roundup (Sad Goat), and The Inside Track. It's also the only source of serious criticism of the government from people who are not just talk radio blowhards.

If for no other reason, Canada needs to have at least one broadcaster less unbalanced than the others towards corporate interests. Without that balance, the other broadcasters have no check.>> ^jmzero:
I think the CBC needs changes. It should produce educational content, children's programming, news and nothing else. There's no reason it should compete to show sports and general entertainment.
Especially the latter.
It has demonstrated a tremendous lack of skill in making the kinds of entertainment programs Canadians want to watch, despite aiming pretty low. Why, as a taxpayer, should I be paying for sub-par sitcoms and reality shows?
A public, independent news network without ads? Good purchase. Rick Mercer? He's great, but I think he'd get the ratings to survive elsewhere.
A few more daytime cooking shows - and still pressure from advertisers? Doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

I'd agree with you, but the video above pretty much blows your argument out of the water. That, and common sense.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What comparison?
NPR is taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda. LOSERS!

>> ^quantumushroom:

What comparison?
NPR is taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda. LOSERS!


They're not liberal at all. Here's an example.

Some of their listeners back when the first Gulf War happened started whining that they weren't having anyone on that knew a goddamn thing...specifically Noam Chomsky. So Noam was asked if he could write something...have them read it and then record it for them...Not be on air but PRE-Record something for them so they can make sure he won't say something horribly left wing. He did it and they advertised that they during their championing of the war were going to have a 90sec dissenting opinion from Noam Chomsky.

Well some music came on and then just kept going, and no one ever heard his little bit of dissent of what he had to say. People started calling to complain, then the station manager called Chomsky explaining to him that some executive above him had decided to not have that dissenting opinion on and ordered it pulled.

This was back in the FIRST Iraq War...never heard of Chomsky being on NPR during the second. NPR is controlled VERY VERY carefully. Chomsky can be on right wing shows, he's invited to those a lot he says. Anything even remotely hinting at being left or under fire for being left CAN'T even come close. They're just too controlled.

This site was mentioned on Talk Radio:
http://www.votocracy.com/

^I went through my libertarian phase in the mid 90's - Ayn Rand, Talk Radio and the huge sense of entitlement. Then I grew up.

Reminds me of how they deal with this in Canada.

"Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada"
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/9037-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada.html
[Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada..]