I’m gonna hurt this thread. Crucify it. Real bad.*
- as opposed to some other way to crucify? :dubious:
No, that was played by Napoleon Blownapart, former stage name for Elvis Presley.
leave JC out of this
Of course, being committed to putting us back on the gold standard, he can’t in good conscience take credit-card orders, which really hurts his business . . .
Yep, we sure are fighting ignorance in this thread.
No matter the sources in this particular case…we know this shit happens. The media decides who is to be the nominee of each party…only then do we get to have any say so in the matter.
We should be outraged by the fact that this is happening yet again, but instead we make “jokes” about Ron Paul’s name.
“Dur I don know who he is???1///1 Instead of finding out, I make funnie>>>!!! Heeeh ehheheeee!11!11!!1!!lol lol lol lol 
:p”
Shut up, or we won’t even allow you that much.
What’s up with all of the people shitting all over this thread?
Now I realize that it may be a bit too breathlessly stated, but damnit, I think we could get us a Media hatin’ going on here if we tried!
Well it pisses me off to no end that the media has narrowed the race down for us already. They don’t bother covering the less serious candidates because that’s a waste of time, but the point is that at this point, it is important to give equal and respectful coverage. If Ron Paul or Gravel coudl get a bit more attention from the media, maybe they would do better in the polls?
In the future, schoolchildren will be taught to memorize the date as the beginning of the Libertarian’s rise to world domination.
The reporting is indeed excellent. The editorial staff is “quite conservative” in the same way that the sun is quite warm.
Well, your own use of the term “less serious candidates” tends to reinforce the media biases. I get no sense that Ron Paul is less serious than any of the other candidates. He might be less well known, and less well funded, but i doubt he’s less serious.
In Iraq, you could “vote” for Saddam Hussein. Come November 2008 we’ll “vote” either Dem or Pub. Man, we are so much better than Iraq! Like, two times better, right?
Its ok to use the term “serious candidate” in the sense of a low likelihood of success rather than straining to divine the candidate’s level of commitment.
Yeah, i guess you’re right. That interpretation didn’t really occur to me. I still think some other term might be less pejorative, but i take your point.
If Paul were to win the Presidency, and return us to the gold standard, many of those poor tykes wouldn’t have a school to attend to learn such a lesson. We’d go through such a boom/bust cycle as hasn’t been seen since the 1800’s.
That’s logically impossible, because the worst bust was in 1929-33. Any bust less severe than that has already been seen since the 1800’s, and any bust more severe hasn’t been at any time.
Like other chicken/egg questions, this is difficult. Having been a libertarian at one point in my life, I’d say that no. Ron Paul wouldn’t be getting any more traction with greater media coverage. His ideas are simply not mainstream.
But could the ideas become (more) mainstream with respectful coverage? Perhaps.
But one bust does not a boom/bust cycle make. Just because the Great Depression was the worst bust does not mean that the cycle of booms and busts was worse in the 1900s than in the 1800s.
There were rather severe recessions or depressions in America in 1819, 1836, 1857, 1873, and 1893. While none of those lasted as long as the Great Depression, some lasted a few years, and they all had significant effects on the nation’s economy, particularly the 1837 and 1873 crises.
Indubitably. But samclem said that we’d go through “a boom/bust cyle” such as hadn’t been seen since the 1800’s. I’ll leave it to him to define that term before I comment further.
Of course, we were still on a gold standard, at least for base money, in 1929, although the Fed had taken control of central banking and bank note issue. So, the issue is probably a moot point as far as the gold standard goes. But, I don’t like logically impossible statements.
I meant just what mhendo explained. The 1800’s was beset with booms and busts. Being on a gold standard only exacerbated these cycles.
Lighten up, Francis. For starters, even the OP joined in the shitting. Does the current hijack concerning whether or not the Great Depression was part of a boom bust cylcle or merely a lonesome bust qualify as any less irrelevant to the media’s coverage of Ron Paul? No. You want to talk about Ron Paul and how he’s not going to win the Republican Party presidential primary because of a lack of news coverage, have at it, but in case you mistook forums, this ain’t Great Debates, I wouldn’t count on the same level of dialogue here and I’d be on the lookout for awesome Mr. T jokes and Rocky III quotes.
I know better than to try to get dopers back on topic when they’ve decided to be goofy. Might as well join in the fun. Still, this is one of the weirder threads I’ve seen on the dope. We’ve gone from serious to absolutely goofy to completely off topic to sort of on topic to self-policing and back to goofy.