Socialism: Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making and public control of productive capital and natural resources.
There are a number of examples of socialism in Obama's Blueprint For Change (PDF). Many of them are forced social equality through new and/or expanded government programs that will require additional funding (read: more taxation), but a number also expand government control over how private businesses are ran.
If you want specifics, some of my favorite examples are: Universal Healthcare (Section 1:6 and 1:7), More government child care (Section 1:15 among others), Free community college for everyone (Section 1:20), and goverment deciding the direction of technology and creating jobs to pursue that technology (Section 1:24). There are other examples.
And why not have this type of change, you ask?
Because by stealing money from those who work hard to earn it, the government is infringing on their freedom and liberties. They are no longer a soverign individual entitled to the fruits of their labor and instead are owned by government. Further, creating government programs in the name of good will only increases dependency on the system rather than building and fostering growth and personal responsibility.
But as someone else has pointed out, this isn't that much different from the current administration's course of action. Democrats and (today's) Republicans are both pushing headlong in the same direction of larger federal government and socialism. I think the Democrats however, and in particular Obama, are in a slightly bigger hurry to get there.
That's why I'll be voting 3rd party again. Some would say it may not make a difference, but at least I won't be responsible for voting away the fundamentals of what (used to) make this country great.
Are you talking about coffee machines or American politics and how the masses decide who to vote for -- whichever candidate promises the most programs that induce government dependency?
In their rush to get the site updated they've forgotten to remove the revision markers from the HTML after an auto-merge from the repository:) The GetFirefox page finally loaded for me and at the top:
<<<<<<<.mine ======= >>>>>>>.r15918
I feel their pain. Glad I'm not the only one who has done this:)
If you glance down to check your ammo in real life, your focus changes just as if would in-game. Perhaps instead of looking down at a "virtual status bar," maybe now you'll actually be looking at the clips in the gun.
I think that could add yet another bit of interesting realism to the game.
You have a point, although I think both are correct. Case in point: the Patriot Act. It gives power mostly to the government, though also indirectly to companies that it employs to facilitate the government's bidding.
You asked: "How is it possible that a special 'right' to employ physical force against peaceful human beings -- the defining prerequisite of all government -- is NOT abuse?"
It's not hard to find the answer:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The problem is when the government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed. As in, the governed are manipulated into allowing a shift of power from them to the government.
"Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*
Would you care to elaborate on your point?"
Where in there does it say "the Constitution was this perfect thing that must be protected at all costs?" All s/he said, via sarcasm, is that following the Constitution is not a bad idea.
Ask 10 Americans off the street if they support the constitution. How many would say they didn't (besides yourself, assuming your American)? Not many if any at all, I'd wager.
Try to silence any American against their will and what's the first thing they say? "You can't do that, I have a freedom of speech!"
Maybe YOU don't support the Constitution, but from my observations I'd say that most Americans DO. The problem is not lack of support. It is, as has already been pointed out in this thread by myself and others, is that the people are being duped into thinking they're voting for representatives that also support the Constitution, when in fact they don't and/or are failing to live up to their oath of office to protect it.
Fiction? Last time I looked, we still have nearly all of what is outlined in the constitution.
Senate and House of Representatives? Check.
President? Check.
The whole legislative process and presidential veto? Check.
State of the Union addresses? Check.
One Supreme Court? Check.
We're still a republic and not a democracy? Check.
Still got those basic freedoms? Check.
The list goes on.
Amendments don't nullify or shorten the lasting power of the Constitution - they are entirely part of the design. Not to mention that most of them don't change the heart of what is outlined in the document. In fact, the first 10 are the Bill of Rights, written specifically just to be clear.
The Constitution IS as relevant today as it was when it was written, and aside from the trend towards ignoring the limitation of powers bit and treading on our basic freedoms, it has lasted quite well.
If you think that what the Constitution says no longer applies, then you clearly have no idea what is contained within it, nor do you have any understanding why straying away from it will be an immense detriment to the well being of our country.
Please, take a moment to enlighten us all with what you think is no longer relevant.
Notice who was not included even though he received many more votes than two of the other media darlings combined. The networks have all done stuff like that since day one. And yet people love to cite how poorly he did in those polls. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how anyone without media coverage is supposed to poll well, let alone if they don't include your name to begin with. Again, see the timeline for more examples.
In reality though, it really has little to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with the media picking and choosing the candidates for you. It won't be any different in 2012 only because Americans won't be any more outraged at the media than they are today.
All this proves is that if you are denied media coverage, then sure, you have no chance.
The reason most don't know about Ron Paul is because the establishment has been actively manipulating America's choices. It has been blatantly obvious, but for those unable to see past the media's blinders there's the Ron Paul Timeline, which has attempted to document the media's concerted effort in keeping him out of the picture for more than a year.
Instead of axing all those other features that were supposedly going to be in the Vista, they SHOULD have axed Activation and Windows Genuine "Advantage." Then I might have considered upgrading.
Until that happens, I'll continue using software that doesn't require me to "prove my innocence," and no amount of pricing cutting will make me think differently.
Then by proxy we can say his presence hasn't had any measurable effect on policy.
Yes.
Regardless of who had gotten elected (unless they were a constitutionalist of some measure) essentially the same policies and plans would have been put into place - the net effect being immeasurable. Both parties have an vested interest in eroding civil liberties and freedom in the name of the nanny state.
You're quite right that a chance in the White House isn't suddenly going to turn us from a cesspool of corruption to the shining beacon of justice and morality that we pretend to be, but this is the most corrupt administration we've had in at least a century. Not only has the Bush Administration shown a willful disregard for the law, but they've pretty much flaunted it at every turn.
CONGRESS AS A WHOLE has shown a willful disregard for the law. You only really hear about the Bush Administration because the leftist media likes to blame him for everything.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that I dislike it when people state "It's Bush's fault!" and dismiss the bigger picture - the corrupt career politicians that are REALLY responsible for the direction and policy of the country.
As an aside I think the larger reason for the state of things is the decadent indifference of the American people. In previous generations we tolerated such corruption out of fear of whatever boogy man the government created. The terrorism drum has been pounded so hard I don't think most Americans are generally fearful, we're just more comfortable watching American Idol.
Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.
Well there you go.
"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Hereareafewexamplesthat explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.
And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world... and at our expense and reputation?
And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?
Stopping the declining value of the dollar by printing more money?
Less spending by the federal government?
Ending over-regulation?
Stop the wasted attempts to pay of debt and its interest with more debt?
Providing tax credits to increase competition and new ideas rather than "writing checks" to the companies with the best lobbyists?
Getting rid of the organization largely responsible for our economic woes - the Federal Reserve?
Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.
Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.
Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.
In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).
Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.
Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit
Maybe because that "quite a bit of support" has translated into zero electoral success? You can't blame the media for the voters rejecting Ron Paul in small elections (read: Iowa and New Hampshire) where he had the ability to campaign on an individual and town-hall level. I know it's popular in the Ron Paul camp to blame the media for all your woes but has it ever occurred to you that the voting public rejected his philosophy?
Are you kidding?
You can keep stating that all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.
His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you. The public was never given the opportunity to reject his philosophies. For that matter, the public was never given the opportunity to reject a handful of the other candidates philosophies either.
And do you really believe that the majority of voters travel to stump speeches to make up their minds about the candidate? This isn't the 1800s anymore - the vast majority form their opinion based on what they hear from TV, radio and print.
It's popular to blame the media because THEY are the entity that uses their power to shape public opinion. And they have, almost 100% of the time since day 1 of campaign coverage, excluded Ron Paul when listing/talking about the candidates. The have, since the beginning, called him and his supporters names and stated he has no chance.
Yet you think I'm unjustified in saying that these actions don't have any impact on popular opinion?
In July of 2007, the PEW Research Center published a report on "candidates heard about in the media" and Ron hadn't been mentioned enough in the media to even register outside the 4% Other cantegory. Journalism.org has done numerous studies since then showing Ron has recived 0% or <0.5% of media coverage.
In August 2007, Ron received 9.1% of the vote in the Iowa Ames staw poll, yet FOX broadcast the results excluding Ron and listing candidates who scored LESS. Thankfully, the New York Times got it right... at least on the internet, where you're at least likely to find SOME poisitive (albiet buried) positive coverage. Such as the "internet only" interviews with Ron that ABC published as opposed to on broadcast television alongside their other candidate interviews
In January 2008, Ron was excluded from the FOX Forum before the New Hampshire primary because "there was not enough room at the table" despite the fact that Ron had garnered THREE TIMES as many votes as Guiliani in Iowa and later went on to score more than NINE TIMES the number of votes of Fred in New Hampshire -- both of which were invited.
Before Super Tuesday, there was literally no coverage of Ron Paul and when he did win 2nd place in Montana it was largely ignored (just like his 2nd place wins in Nevada and Louisiana)
"I agree with all the points you made about web apps, but this last point really is not much better for web apps than native - both can choose to receive only pertinent data, so native apps are at an equivalent level."
I don't know...:)
Safari on the iPhone has persistent browser buttons on the bottom of the screen that don't exist in native apps. It also has an address bar that comes and goes. And lastly, the auto-rotation on phone tilt.
Those are the things I was specifically referring to, and (as far as I am aware) are outside the control of the web app, so you can't ignore them programmatically.
Yes, Bush has been a disappointment, but you're kidding yourself if you think his exit will have any measurable effect on policy.
I can think of a few hundred other people (congress and even the people that continue to vote these shills into office) to blame for lack of positive change along with the president, and they're not all related to the administration. In fact, last I looked, the Democrats controlled congress. If they really wanted to, change could have been long since happening.
As long as the money stays in Washington and we have career politicians, things will remain the same.
Show me any third-party candidate who has received a proportional amount of media attention as compared to the two leading parties, and who had any chance at winning the general election.
Running under the Libertarian ticket would have gotten Ron *LESS* coverage than he has gotten as a Republican candidate.
Ron himself has cited that running Republican gives him a better chance at being on the ballot and involved in the debates, something he wouldn't likely have gotten as a third-party candidate. Regardless, the parties are really meaningless labels and your implication that Republicans can't be against illegal wars or ineffective drug policy seems to communicate that you're just playing into the "team" mentality.
For the record, Ron HAS gotten quite a bit of support (like the thousands that showed up at the Austin Rally a couple of days ago or the activities happening in many local government GOP groups). But if you only pay attention to the big picture presented by the media, you'll never hear about it.
The only reason Ron hasn't gotten more support is because FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. have all spent the last YEAR keeping him and his message out of circulation or distorting it and marginalizing him -- even going so far as to actually say or imply that he had dropped out of the race for many many months now.
Anyone who doesn't realize this hasn't been paying attention and is being manipulated. For an eye-opener, check out some of the blackout events noted on The Ron Paul Timeline, which has been chronicalling it for some time.
Yes, there are a great number of interesting and impressive web based apps, but I agree with "get real" in regards to them. Web apps on the iPhone (and mobile phones in general) ALL SUCK for a few important reasons:
Lack of signal breaks the web application. Whether because of poor coverage, network trouble or signal interference, loosing access to apps on a device in your hand because of network issues SUCKS. For example, I tried to use a shopping-list web application, but discovered it was useless because I couldn't pull up the app while inside any large box-stores.
Web applications vanish without notice. Web developers can be fickle and your favorite app vanishing from the web SUCKS. I've gone to bookmarked apps I use regularly a number of times and found only an annoying search-engine gateway page remaining.
The web browser interface gets in the way. Accidentally hitting the history back or reload buttons and loosing progress in a web app SUCKS. The auto-rotation of the screen and consequent dimension change, can also hamper app usage and worse, break the app.
I love my iPhone and I love surfing the internet on it, but I prefer my native apps over their web-based equivalents any day. And for what it's worth, a native app really only has to send data back and forth over the network, not the interface as well, so I'd argue that they are even more efficient in terms of bandwidth than web versions.
The delegate count does not include Lousiana, where Paul is likely to win 1st place if the LA GOP quits refusing to count 650 provisional ballots. In any case, he will most likely get 2nd place there regardless.
The numbers quoted for fundraising are WRONG for Paul (note that they refuse to update the totals past 9/30/07). He has raised WELL over $20 million. He is also, consequently, the only GOP candidate who has consistently increased his raising every quarter and has no debt. And raised the most during the fourth quarter by a long shot.
Up until recently, the "Election Center" listed Paul in 3rd place in nevada, when he won 2nd (it's been corrected since thankfully)
Same goes for Maine, where Ron also scored second place, yet they list him as 3rd
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing... as I said.
Okay, I'll bite. Here's what I think is a fair definition of socialism:
There are a number of examples of socialism in Obama's Blueprint For Change (PDF). Many of them are forced social equality through new and/or expanded government programs that will require additional funding (read: more taxation), but a number also expand government control over how private businesses are ran.
If you want specifics, some of my favorite examples are: Universal Healthcare (Section 1:6 and 1:7), More government child care (Section 1:15 among others), Free community college for everyone (Section 1:20), and goverment deciding the direction of technology and creating jobs to pursue that technology (Section 1:24). There are other examples.
And why not have this type of change, you ask?
Because by stealing money from those who work hard to earn it, the government is infringing on their freedom and liberties. They are no longer a soverign individual entitled to the fruits of their labor and instead are owned by government. Further, creating government programs in the name of good will only increases dependency on the system rather than building and fostering growth and personal responsibility.
But as someone else has pointed out, this isn't that much different from the current administration's course of action. Democrats and (today's) Republicans are both pushing headlong in the same direction of larger federal government and socialism. I think the Democrats however, and in particular Obama, are in a slightly bigger hurry to get there.
That's why I'll be voting 3rd party again. Some would say it may not make a difference, but at least I won't be responsible for voting away the fundamentals of what (used to) make this country great.
Hmm... I'm not sure how to feel about the fact that I realized where that was heading before I was even done reading the first sentence.
Are you talking about coffee machines or American politics and how the masses decide who to vote for -- whichever candidate promises the most programs that induce government dependency?
And whoops... the link to download 3.0 is going to version 2.0.0.14
I'm beginning to think that they need to just concede today, take a step back and try again. What a mess.
In their rush to get the site updated they've forgotten to remove the revision markers from the HTML after an auto-merge from the repository :) The GetFirefox page finally loaded for me and at the top:
.mine ======= >>>>>>> .r15918
:)
<<<<<<<
I feel their pain. Glad I'm not the only one who has done this
Why?
If you glance down to check your ammo in real life, your focus changes just as if would in-game. Perhaps instead of looking down at a "virtual status bar," maybe now you'll actually be looking at the clips in the gun.
I think that could add yet another bit of interesting realism to the game.
No ... IT'S SPARTAn!!!
lol :)
You have a point, although I think both are correct. Case in point: the Patriot Act. It gives power mostly to the government, though also indirectly to companies that it employs to facilitate the government's bidding.
It's not hard to find the answer:The problem is when the government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed. As in, the governed are manipulated into allowing a shift of power from them to the government.
Ask 10 Americans off the street if they support the constitution. How many would say they didn't (besides yourself, assuming your American)? Not many if any at all, I'd wager.
Try to silence any American against their will and what's the first thing they say? "You can't do that, I have a freedom of speech!"
Maybe YOU don't support the Constitution, but from my observations I'd say that most Americans DO. The problem is not lack of support. It is, as has already been pointed out in this thread by myself and others, is that the people are being duped into thinking they're voting for representatives that also support the Constitution, when in fact they don't and/or are failing to live up to their oath of office to protect it.
- Senate and House of Representatives? Check.
- President? Check.
- The whole legislative process and presidential veto? Check.
- State of the Union addresses? Check.
- One Supreme Court? Check.
- We're still a republic and not a democracy? Check.
- Still got those basic freedoms? Check.
The list goes on.Amendments don't nullify or shorten the lasting power of the Constitution - they are entirely part of the design. Not to mention that most of them don't change the heart of what is outlined in the document. In fact, the first 10 are the Bill of Rights, written specifically just to be clear.
The Constitution IS as relevant today as it was when it was written, and aside from the trend towards ignoring the limitation of powers bit and treading on our basic freedoms, it has lasted quite well.
If you think that what the Constitution says no longer applies, then you clearly have no idea what is contained within it, nor do you have any understanding why straying away from it will be an immense detriment to the well being of our country.
Please, take a moment to enlighten us all with what you think is no longer relevant.
It's not "media coverage or no." Without media coverage, a candidate cannot win because without it, the majority of America will not know you exist.
A prime example of what I'm talking about from August 2007:
Fox news reporting on the Iowa Ames Straw Poll. TV broadcast top, actual results below.
Notice who was not included even though he received many more votes than two of the other media darlings combined. The networks have all done stuff like that since day one. And yet people love to cite how poorly he did in those polls. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how anyone without media coverage is supposed to poll well, let alone if they don't include your name to begin with. Again, see the timeline for more examples.
In reality though, it really has little to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with the media picking and choosing the candidates for you. It won't be any different in 2012 only because Americans won't be any more outraged at the media than they are today.
All this proves is that if you are denied media coverage, then sure, you have no chance.
The reason most don't know about Ron Paul is because the establishment has been actively manipulating America's choices. It has been blatantly obvious, but for those unable to see past the media's blinders there's the Ron Paul Timeline, which has attempted to document the media's concerted effort in keeping him out of the picture for more than a year.
Instead of axing all those other features that were supposedly going to be in the Vista, they SHOULD have axed Activation and Windows Genuine "Advantage." Then I might have considered upgrading.
Until that happens, I'll continue using software that doesn't require me to "prove my innocence," and no amount of pricing cutting will make me think differently.
Thank you for saying that. Now can you get to work on convincing the rest of ignorant America to wake up to that fact for us, please? :)
Seriously, have you counted how many new social programs are listed on his web site!? Geezuz!
lol! You couldn't be more right.
And thanks for getting us back on topic - I felt bad after my first reply, but the amount of FUD is infuriating.
Regardless of who had gotten elected (unless they were a constitutionalist of some measure) essentially the same policies and plans would have been put into place - the net effect being immeasurable. Both parties have an vested interest in eroding civil liberties and freedom in the name of the nanny state.CONGRESS AS A WHOLE has shown a willful disregard for the law. You only really hear about the Bush Administration because the leftist media likes to blame him for everything.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that I dislike it when people state "It's Bush's fault!" and dismiss the bigger picture - the corrupt career politicians that are REALLY responsible for the direction and policy of the country.Very well stated, I couldn't agree more.
Well there you go.
... and at our expense and reputation?
"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Here are a few examples that explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.
And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world
And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?
Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.
Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.
Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.
In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).
Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.
Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit
Are you kidding?
You can keep stating that all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.
His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you. The public was never given the opportunity to reject his philosophies. For that matter, the public was never given the opportunity to reject a handful of the other candidates philosophies either.
And do you really believe that the majority of voters travel to stump speeches to make up their minds about the candidate? This isn't the 1800s anymore - the vast majority form their opinion based on what they hear from TV, radio and print.
It's popular to blame the media because THEY are the entity that uses their power to shape public opinion. And they have, almost 100% of the time since day 1 of campaign coverage, excluded Ron Paul when listing/talking about the candidates. The have, since the beginning, called him and his supporters names and stated he has no chance.
Yet you think I'm unjustified in saying that these actions don't have any impact on popular opinion?
You are naive:
Safari on the iPhone has persistent browser buttons on the bottom of the screen that don't exist in native apps. It also has an address bar that comes and goes. And lastly, the auto-rotation on phone tilt.
Those are the things I was specifically referring to, and (as far as I am aware) are outside the control of the web app, so you can't ignore them programmatically.
Please.
Yes, Bush has been a disappointment, but you're kidding yourself if you think his exit will have any measurable effect on policy.
I can think of a few hundred other people (congress and even the people that continue to vote these shills into office) to blame for lack of positive change along with the president, and they're not all related to the administration. In fact, last I looked, the Democrats controlled congress. If they really wanted to, change could have been long since happening.
As long as the money stays in Washington and we have career politicians, things will remain the same.
Right.
Show me any third-party candidate who has received a proportional amount of media attention as compared to the two leading parties, and who had any chance at winning the general election.
Running under the Libertarian ticket would have gotten Ron *LESS* coverage than he has gotten as a Republican candidate.
Ron himself has cited that running Republican gives him a better chance at being on the ballot and involved in the debates, something he wouldn't likely have gotten as a third-party candidate. Regardless, the parties are really meaningless labels and your implication that Republicans can't be against illegal wars or ineffective drug policy seems to communicate that you're just playing into the "team" mentality.
For the record, Ron HAS gotten quite a bit of support (like the thousands that showed up at the Austin Rally a couple of days ago or the activities happening in many local government GOP groups). But if you only pay attention to the big picture presented by the media, you'll never hear about it.
The only reason Ron hasn't gotten more support is because FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. have all spent the last YEAR keeping him and his message out of circulation or distorting it and marginalizing him -- even going so far as to actually say or imply that he had dropped out of the race for many many months now.
Anyone who doesn't realize this hasn't been paying attention and is being manipulated. For an eye-opener, check out some of the blackout events noted on The Ron Paul Timeline, which has been chronicalling it for some time.
Yes, there are a great number of interesting and impressive web based apps, but I agree with "get real" in regards to them. Web apps on the iPhone (and mobile phones in general) ALL SUCK for a few important reasons:
Lack of signal breaks the web application.
Whether because of poor coverage, network trouble or signal interference, loosing access to apps on a device in your hand because of network issues SUCKS. For example, I tried to use a shopping-list web application, but discovered it was useless because I couldn't pull up the app while inside any large box-stores.
Web applications vanish without notice.
Web developers can be fickle and your favorite app vanishing from the web SUCKS. I've gone to bookmarked apps I use regularly a number of times and found only an annoying search-engine gateway page remaining.
The web browser interface gets in the way.
Accidentally hitting the history back or reload buttons and loosing progress in a web app SUCKS. The auto-rotation of the screen and consequent dimension change, can also hamper app usage and worse, break the app.
I love my iPhone and I love surfing the internet on it, but I prefer my native apps over their web-based equivalents any day. And for what it's worth, a native app really only has to send data back and forth over the network, not the interface as well, so I'd argue that they are even more efficient in terms of bandwidth than web versions.