Convervative news channels censoring Ron Paul

[Larry_Mudd]

@ForumBot

We’ve gone from serious to absolutely goofy to completely off topic to sort of on topic to self-policing and back to goofy.

…which is why you can never trust online polls.

[marshmallow]

If true, Ron Paul has plenty of company. The only thing I’ve learned about Kucinich from the MSM is that he’s a traitorous elf, presumably exiled from the Keebler cookie tree.

[Dunawake]

@marshmallow

If true, Ron Paul has plenty of company. The only thing I’ve learned about Kucinich from the MSM is that he’s a traitorous elf, presumably exiled from the Keebler cookie tree.

You couldn’t possibly have heard that from MSM, everyone knows they never tell the truth.

[AskNott]

Since we seem to be lurching back to the original issue, I have a serious, but ignorant question. Mr. Ron Paul, if I remember from the first few posts, has been a Libertarian candidate in the past. Is he now trying for the Republican nomination?

I did not see the televised GOP debate. Frankly, letting that many Publicans into my living room makes me uneasy.

It’s astonishing to see a thread go so far afield and find its way back to the source. It’s just crazy enough to work.

[Dunawake]

@AskNott

Since we seem to be lurching back to the original issue, I have a serious, but ignorant question. Mr. Ron Paul, if I remember from the first few posts, has been a Libertarian candidate in the past. Is he now trying for the Republican nomination?

I did not see the televised GOP debate. Frankly, letting that many Publicans into my living room makes me uneasy.

It’s astonishing to see a thread go so far afield and find its way back to the source. It’s just crazy enough to work.

He ran for President in 1988 under the Libertarian ticket, and got 0.5% of the vote if I remember correctly.

He later ran for the House as a Republican and has stayed as such since then, even though his views on issues haven’t really changed at all. If I had to guess, I think he realized that staying under the Libertarian party would marginalize him, so he switched to the Republican party to widen his options. Also, some of his views aren’t traditionally held by Libertarians (pro-life, etc.), but are more in touch with some of the Republican base.

[BrainGlutton]

Would you believe the OP’s topic has given rise to a FReeper thread?

When an actual debate breaks out in what is usually an echo chamber, it’s fun to watch!

[Kneepants_Erasmus_the_Humanist]

@whole bean

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.

Fair enough.

But, Francis? Is that what the kids are calling each other these days?

[whole_bean]

@Kneepants Erasmus

Fair enough.

But, Francis? Is that what the kids are calling each other these days?

You owe it to yourself to watch Stripes

[Kneepants_Erasmus_the_Humanist]

@whole bean

You owe it to yourself to watch Stripes

Ahhh. You see, I am absolutely clueless anytime a movie reference comes up.

[Boyo_Jim]

If Ron Paul won the first Republican debate, that says more about how fucked up Republicans are than how good he is. Seriously, he was on Bill Mahr a few weeks ago. And he thinks that the government should get out of EVERYTHING, including, for example, regulating air traffic and airports through the FAA.

I would sooner vote for RuPaul or Ron Popeil.

[ForumBot]

For what it’s worth, Jim, I agree with him.

[Boyo_Jim]

I buy that government steps in to a lot of arenas where it’s not needed. Air traffic control isn’t one of them.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, you can’t fault the Libs for consistency. They start with a basic value assumption – in their case, that freedom (from government interference) is more important than anything else – and then they follow it wherever it leads. They actually have a lot in common with Communists in that regard. As Michael Lind pointed out in a 2001 article, Which Civilisation?:

On the secular side of the civilisational divide, there have been three major traditions: humanism, rationalism and romanticism. These three traditions originated in Europe but now have adherents around the world. All three are essentially secular worldviews which do not need to invoke the authority of divine revelation or mystical gnosis (though some romantics are mystics or pantheists and some humanists have been religious believers). In respects other than their common secularism, the three traditions are fundamentally different from one another.

Humanist civilisation crystallised in Renaissance Italy, before spreading to the Netherlands, Britain, and the US. This liberal, commercial, increasingly democratic civilisation has spread to other nations by emulation (Lafayette’s France, Atatork’s Turkey, Yeltsin’s Russia) and by conquest and conversion (post-1945 Germany and Japan). Humanists seek to ameliorate the problems of social life with the guidance of practical wisdom, derived chiefly from history, literature and custom, with little or no reference to supernatural religion or natural science, with the possible exception of the emergent sociobiology. Humanists tend to be modest as philosophers and cautious as reformers. Examples of great humanist thinkers and statesmen are Petrarch, Erasmus, Bacon, Montaigne, Voltaire, Franklin, Hume, Burke, Smith, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.

Rationalism, a world view underlying a number of secular creeds, first crystallised in 17th and 18th-century France. Rationalists reject the humanist distinction between practical wisdom and natural science. The goal of rationalists of all kinds is to devise a science of society, modelled on natural science, which can serve as the basis for the construction of a “rational” social order. Stephen Toulmin makes a useful distinction between the “reasonableness” of Renaissance humanists and the “rationality” of Enlightenment philosophes. The rationalist pantheon includes social engineers like Condorcet, St Simon, Comte, Fourier, Bentham, Marx, Lenin and Ayn Rand. (The “secular humanists” who support world federalism and utopian social reform are really rationalists).

Romanticism, the third major secular world view, has spread widely from its original homeland, late 18th and early 19th-century Germany. Romantics reject both reasonableness and rationality, they exalt the inspired unreason of the artistic genius, the child, the primitive uncorrupted by civilisation. Rousseau, Emerson, Wagner, Nietszche and Frantz Fanon should be on a list of romantic prophets, and idealist philosophers like Kant and Hegel arguably are closer to romanticism than to humanism or rationalism.

[ForumBot]

My belief in Libertarianism comes from a couple of core assumptions.

1. It is wrong to steal someone’s money, for any reason.
2. Government should have its hand in only the smallest of matters. Legitimate force should be bestowed on the smallest entity possible. The only business Government should be in is anything in which that force is necessary.

If you could make a point that air traffic control could be construed as necessary for defense (not a stretch of the imagination by any means) then I would be fine with the government regulating it.

[Boyo_Jim]

@ForumBot

My belief in Libertarianism comes from a couple of core assumptions.

1. It is wrong to steal someone’s money, for any reason.
2. Government should have its hand in only the smallest of matters. Legitimate force should be bestowed on the smallest entity possible. The only business Government should be in is anything in which that force is necessary.

If you could make a point that air traffic control could be construed as necessary for defense (not a stretch of the imagination by any means) then I would be fine with the government regulating it.

Does “defense” stretch out to encompass saftety? Product safety, food and drug safety, mass transportation safety, etc.?

[ForumBot]

No, generally I would let the market decide those things, but any misrepresentation would naturally fall under the category of fraud and be punished.

[OneCentStamp]

@ForumBot

No, generally I would let the market decide those things, but any misrepresentation would naturally fall under the category of fraud and be punished.

“Fraud” as defined and determined by whom? Punished by whom?

[CanvasShoes]

What conservative news channels?

[marshmallow]

@CanvasShoes

What conservative news channels?

According to the OP, FOX and ABC in regards to the subject of Ron Paul. If you’re asking which major American news channels lean to the right in general, all of 'em.

[ForumBot]

@OneCentStamp

“Fraud” as defined and determined by whom? Punished by whom?

This should be a good start. Intentionally misleading information for personal gain is pretty straightforward. A lie in America is still a lie in any other place. Punishment comes from the government, of course.