Show me where Ron thinks we need to bury-our-heads-in-the-sand! You can't, because he doesn't think that. He thinks its smarter to go after the terrorists rather than invading countries that were not related. He thinks we should lead by example and use diplomatic methods to encouraging others to do the same.
And thanks to the McCain-Feingold Act, us "regular people" are limited to contributing $2,300. Fortunately for us, John McCain didn't think that 50,000 people would ever coalesce with an "underdog" candidate and donate an average of $100:)
I fully expect that our ability to donate to candidates as individuals will become even more severely limited after this election (assuming Ron isn't in office).
Yes, and Dennis has been unfairly treated by the media as well. The difference is that Dennis (and the other candidates who were misrepresented by the media) was unable to galvanize support like Ron Paul has.
"What the country needs is a moderate version of Ron Paul."
A moderate version of Ron Paul wouldn't get anything done. We need someone to shake the tree to get rid of all the dead leaves, and that won't happen with someone who tries to make everyone happy.
What I find amusing is that the bullets you list aren't even all that moderate. And more funny is that they are EXACTLY what Ron has repeatedly stated he would bring to the table.
"The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them."
Unfortunately, even if he wanted to go into more detail, the media wouldn't allow him to and the audience wouldn't want to sit through it. People have to get up off their asses and educate themselves to learn about Ron and why his ideas are good - but they'd much prefer to just turn on the TV and base their opinion on that.
It is both a party bias and a media bias. And your reasoning for voting/not voting for him is scary.
What you believe is clearly based on the misinformation that the media has (and hasn't) fed you.
Ron DOES talk about methods, but because of the media bias, you don't get to hear it, or you only get to hear a rushed, 30-second snippet of it. One simple example: how many times did the media talk to the other candidates about the president's economic stimulus plan and what they would do in comparison to Ron?
Show me one TV interview that was played equally as much where Ron was able to talk about his own stimulus plan. You won't be able to do it, but he DID publish one, complete with a list of bills that have ALREADY been introduced into congress to help him achieve that plan. And it's the only NON-tax-and-spend plan I've heard of yet:
I'm amazed that people still believe get the circular reasoning behind the media's excuse to not cover Ron. As you said, without coverage, he will never climb in the polls and the media has, since very early last year, made AN ACTIVE EFFORT TO KEEP RON PAUL OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.
A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
Ron's name has almost never been mentioned and his photo almost never shown when listing the candidates since day 1
Newspapers have "accidentally" forgot to run full-page, grassroots ads for Ron
The media consistently has called him "fringe," "dark horse," and "having no chance" since day 1
Repeated attempts to exclude Ron from the debates have happened
A network re-aired a GOP debate with Ron Paul segments removed
A network have run Associated Press articles with Ron Paul references removed
The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
Ron Paul won Louisiana, or would have if the LA GOP wasn't actively trying to keep him from winning. Between shifting deadline dates around and refusing to count 650 provisional ballots, they've effectively kept him in 2nd place and out of the news because of it.
You are being fooled, like the rest of America, by the media and don't even realize it.
Ron Paul won Louisiana, or would have if the LA GOP wasn't actively trying to keep him from winning. Between shifting deadline dates around and refusing to count 650 provisional ballots, they've effectively kept him in 2nd place and out of the news because of it.
Whose post are you replying too? It certainly isn't mine.
I did not say, nor did Ron say that the government is the primary preventer of free markets. Nor did I say it was the worst thing distorting the market.
I said: "there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies" More specifically, I'm talking about things such as power and water, telephone, cable, postal, etc. Some of these are arguably good candidates for a government imposed monopoly.
I did not say, nor did Ron say that there should be no regulation.
I said: "Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him."
No offense, but it seems that your misunderstanding of Ron's positions is simply due to not really listening to what he is/I am saying.
If I know one thing about Ron Paul, it is that he never makes decisions in as much as a vacuum of simplicity as you seem to think. Many things that he votes for may look wacky, but if you listen to him explain WHY he choose what he did, you will see that each decision is carefully weighed and measured using the constitution and his principles as guides.
He has also stated that there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies. Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him.
Sadly, you're doing as much of a disservice to our presidential election as the media is.
Excellent reply (as compared to the unintelligible troll who also posted), thank you.
You couldn't be more correct about the media essentially driving the direction of the election. I've thought this for many years and, assuming we don't end up with internet regulation, think that the internet may be the check/balance for this problem in the future.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the constituents not being happy though. I know a few New Yorkers who see no wrong in Giuliani and also have heard/read many Clinton supporters who empathize with her enough at some level (because of gender, what "she went through," etc) to seemingly disregard any of her history to the point of thinking she's only ever done good. Granted, it's no statistical measurement, but where there are some, there are bound to be more.
If a Giuliani/Clinton election took place, I'm not sure how many skeletons would be exposed. It seems like the GOP is too timid to play hardball and the Dems are too afraid of offending anyone. And yes, a Paul/Obama ticket would be awesome.
A rift between the states is an interesting concern, but I think that could also turn out to be a good thing in terms of states setting example. Inevitably, some states will be more successful at things than other states. This in turn empowers the people to either move to the successful state or enact change in their own state by adopting or adapting successful programs to their local needs.
Politicians who perform poorly will be weeded out as long as people are involved -- which I believe is more likely at a local level (where people feel like they can make more of a difference) rather than a federal one.
If he doesn't have a chance of winning the primary, it's only because people keep going around saying that he doesn't have a chance of winning the primary - as the parent has already said.
Trust? Sure, but Windows Update was broken well before these stealth updates became apparent, and a reinstall of XP Pro the other day reminded me how much so:
* Using a browser to patch the OS * Having to update the updater before updating * WGA * Non integrated service packs (SP2 is a separate download/installer) * Multiple reboots (6 to bring the OS up to date) * Slow (3.5 hours lapsed from start to completion) * Over abundant tray notifications (Your system may be at risk! Turn on auto updates!)
Glad to see you're living in fear. I couldn't help but think of what your post might look like in the future:
"Sure they go overboard, but ever since that terrorist had the TNT plug up his ass, I don't mind the cavity searches because I'd rather be safe!"
Seriously, this isn't about about plane crashes (supposedly). We're talking about protecting ourselves from people willing to strap bombs to themselves or drive cars loaded with explosive material into buildings.
These individuals have a serious commitment that many fail to understand, and I fail to see how the current "safety" checks and precautions would do anything against such strong determination.
Having actually USED visual voicemail, I can assure you that it is no gimmick.
That is unless of course you enjoy listening to the automated "message received at... press x to listen... press y to delete" crap after being forced to wade through and delete old voicemail before listening to that new one you just received.
Who is your source that "apple wanted only one carrier?"
That makes absolutely no sense at all. More likely, they couldn't get all the carriers to cooperate together, were forced to pick one, and that allowed the carrier to demand requirements related to contract and allowed functionality.
"I have a fingerworks touchstream LP. Its bloody brilliant as long as your fingers arent too dry, too wet, or too static'd up. Also if theres no crap on the surface or moisture or semen."
Uh...
If you have crap, moisture and semen on your phone, you're using it the wrong way.
IMO, you should have been moderated funny vs informative -- especially considering what this particular article looks like in my aggregator, NetNewsWire, which has the option of highlighting changes made to articles over time:
In terms of printers, Apple has already been there, done that. And from what I remember, they were very nice printers. You can still find ink and toner for them on the net and even the printers themselves on eBay.
Slashdot Mirror
Show me where Ron thinks we need to bury-our-heads-in-the-sand! You can't, because he doesn't think that. He thinks its smarter to go after the terrorists rather than invading countries that were not related. He thinks we should lead by example and use diplomatic methods to encouraging others to do the same.
Yup.
:)
And thanks to the McCain-Feingold Act, us "regular people" are limited to contributing $2,300. Fortunately for us, John McCain didn't think that 50,000 people would ever coalesce with an "underdog" candidate and donate an average of $100
I fully expect that our ability to donate to candidates as individuals will become even more severely limited after this election (assuming Ron isn't in office).
Yes, and Dennis has been unfairly treated by the media as well. The difference is that Dennis (and the other candidates who were misrepresented by the media) was unable to galvanize support like Ron Paul has.
"What the country needs is a moderate version of Ron Paul."
A moderate version of Ron Paul wouldn't get anything done. We need someone to shake the tree to get rid of all the dead leaves, and that won't happen with someone who tries to make everyone happy.
What I find amusing is that the bullets you list aren't even all that moderate. And more funny is that they are EXACTLY what Ron has repeatedly stated he would bring to the table.
"The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them."
Unfortunately, even if he wanted to go into more detail, the media wouldn't allow him to and the audience wouldn't want to sit through it. People have to get up off their asses and educate themselves to learn about Ron and why his ideas are good - but they'd much prefer to just turn on the TV and base their opinion on that.
It is both a party bias and a media bias. And your reasoning for voting/not voting for him is scary.
What you believe is clearly based on the misinformation that the media has (and hasn't) fed you.
Ron DOES talk about methods, but because of the media bias, you don't get to hear it, or you only get to hear a rushed, 30-second snippet of it. One simple example: how many times did the media talk to the other candidates about the president's economic stimulus plan and what they would do in comparison to Ron?
Show me one TV interview that was played equally as much where Ron was able to talk about his own stimulus plan. You won't be able to do it, but he DID publish one, complete with a list of bills that have ALREADY been introduced into congress to help him achieve that plan. And it's the only NON-tax-and-spend plan I've heard of yet:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
MANY more example are documented at RonPaulTimeline.com
A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
Ron Paul won Louisiana, or would have if the LA GOP wasn't actively trying to keep him from winning. Between shifting deadline dates around and refusing to count 650 provisional ballots, they've effectively kept him in 2nd place and out of the news because of it.
You are being fooled, like the rest of America, by the media and don't even realize it.
Ron Paul won Louisiana, or would have if the LA GOP wasn't actively trying to keep him from winning. Between shifting deadline dates around and refusing to count 650 provisional ballots, they've effectively kept him in 2nd place and out of the news because of it.
Whose post are you replying too? It certainly isn't mine.
I did not say, nor did Ron say that the government is the primary preventer of free markets. Nor did I say it was the worst thing distorting the market.
I said: "there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies" More specifically, I'm talking about things such as power and water, telephone, cable, postal, etc. Some of these are arguably good candidates for a government imposed monopoly.
I did not say, nor did Ron say that there should be no regulation.
I said: "Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him."
No offense, but it seems that your misunderstanding of Ron's positions is simply due to not really listening to what he is/I am saying.
If I know one thing about Ron Paul, it is that he never makes decisions in as much as a vacuum of simplicity as you seem to think. Many things that he votes for may look wacky, but if you listen to him explain WHY he choose what he did, you will see that each decision is carefully weighed and measured using the constitution and his principles as guides.
He has also stated that there are places where competition will not or cannot exist, primarily because of government placed monopolies. Stating that he just thinks free markets are the answer for everything and that there should be no regulation is over simplifying his views and misquoting him.
Sadly, you're doing as much of a disservice to our presidential election as the media is.
Excellent reply (as compared to the unintelligible troll who also posted), thank you.
You couldn't be more correct about the media essentially driving the direction of the election. I've thought this for many years and, assuming we don't end up with internet regulation, think that the internet may be the check/balance for this problem in the future.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the constituents not being happy though. I know a few New Yorkers who see no wrong in Giuliani and also have heard/read many Clinton supporters who empathize with her enough at some level (because of gender, what "she went through," etc) to seemingly disregard any of her history to the point of thinking she's only ever done good. Granted, it's no statistical measurement, but where there are some, there are bound to be more.
If a Giuliani/Clinton election took place, I'm not sure how many skeletons would be exposed. It seems like the GOP is too timid to play hardball and the Dems are too afraid of offending anyone. And yes, a Paul/Obama ticket would be awesome.
A rift between the states is an interesting concern, but I think that could also turn out to be a good thing in terms of states setting example. Inevitably, some states will be more successful at things than other states. This in turn empowers the people to either move to the successful state or enact change in their own state by adopting or adapting successful programs to their local needs.
Politicians who perform poorly will be weeded out as long as people are involved -- which I believe is more likely at a local level (where people feel like they can make more of a difference) rather than a federal one.
If he doesn't have a chance of winning the primary, it's only because people keep going around saying that he doesn't have a chance of winning the primary - as the parent has already said.
A vote for freedom is not wasted.
You're right. It's bizarre and annoying.
;)
I just tell everyone that says this to vote for Ron during the primaries and they can vote again in November for whomever they want
Trust? Sure, but Windows Update was broken well before these stealth updates became apparent, and a reinstall of XP Pro the other day reminded me how much so:
* Using a browser to patch the OS
* Having to update the updater before updating
* WGA
* Non integrated service packs (SP2 is a separate download/installer)
* Multiple reboots (6 to bring the OS up to date)
* Slow (3.5 hours lapsed from start to completion)
* Over abundant tray notifications (Your system may be at risk! Turn on auto updates!)
Seriously, this isn't about about plane crashes (supposedly). We're talking about protecting ourselves from people willing to strap bombs to themselves or drive cars loaded with explosive material into buildings.
These individuals have a serious commitment that many fail to understand, and I fail to see how the current "safety" checks and precautions would do anything against such strong determination.
Having actually USED visual voicemail, I can assure you that it is no gimmick.
That is unless of course you enjoy listening to the automated "message received at... press x to listen... press y to delete" crap after being forced to wade through and delete old voicemail before listening to that new one you just received.
Blah. I hate when you mess up your own joke and there's no edit button :/
No, that's the current system and it's actually spelled "Dalek."
Who is your source that "apple wanted only one carrier?"
That makes absolutely no sense at all. More likely, they couldn't get all the carriers to cooperate together, were forced to pick one, and that allowed the carrier to demand requirements related to contract and allowed functionality.
Uh...
If you have crap, moisture and semen on your phone, you're using it the wrong way.
IMO, you should have been moderated funny vs informative -- especially considering what this particular article looks like in my aggregator, NetNewsWire, which has the option of highlighting changes made to articles over time:
u 6.png :)
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/3138/picture1y
You must be new ... :)
In terms of printers, Apple has already been there, done that. And from what I remember, they were very nice printers. You can still find ink and toner for them on the net and even the printers themselves on eBay.
With counting like that, the paper vote tally will be just as incorrect as an electronic one!
(sorry, you handed it to me and I had to take it)