Well if you look at it this way. With 0% media coverage for three weeks before today getting 6 to 7% is pretty good.
http://www.journalism.org/node/10004
http://www.journalism.org/node/10004
-
-
Oh, yeah, there was no media coverage of the huge cash infusions, the YouTube spamming, the blog spamming, or forum spamming. Those are not media, at all.Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
That's Paul's fault. He just didn't run a very good campaign. Who is on his campaign staff? What was their strategy? How did he only get 5% of the vote in his HOME state yesterday?
You have to GENERATE news coverage. As pointed out above, there was pretty good news coverage of the record cash raising, there was coverage of his complaint of a media conspiracy to keep him out of the debates (good move, Mr Paul!)
Look, how did Giuliani go from frontrunner to out of the race? He had all the media coverage in the world. He ran an awful campaign with an awful strategy. Do we want someone like that as president? Same goes for Paul. Paul ran a better campaign than Giuliani but he sure isn't in the big leagues with Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
By today's definitions? All of them or just the non-slave owners? You mean the founding fathers that denied women the right to vote? Those very aristocratic founding fathers? Some were libertarian by the standards of their day but not ours. I wouldn't think the majority.
I mean I really don't see the Federalists as libertarian, do you? They were in favor of stronger federal government. They passed the Alien and Sedition acts. They started the process of organizing a national debt. They had a tremendous influence on the early Republic. Federalist papers et al.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Sad that Americans, even Republicans, have soundly rejected Conservatism/Libertarianism/Freedom/Free Markets, and have decided instead to go with Neoconservatism (pro-war, religious, socialism)/"liberalism" (pro-nanny state, political correctness, socialism). I guess it was inevitable though. You can only graduate so many generations from public (government) "schools" before the populace is too ignorant to exercise self-responsibility and make intelligent decisions (no offense, Baddog).
So, as Dr. Paul predicted, since he studied Austrian School Economics, the people that Baddog and his ilk elect over and over and about to put an end to the American Empire by crushing it both economically and via an oppressive nanny-police state. The coming depression is well deserved, and my only concern is that people like Baddog won't stick around to reap what they've sown, but will move somewhere else to spread their infectious socialist idiocy to other places.
The United States doesn't deserve Ron Paul. It deserves, McCain, Hillary, Kennedy, Craig, and the rest of the scumbags people like Baddog are so eager to vote for.Comment
-
Not surprisingly, Colin is excellent on this. Don't forget Washington's Whiskey Rebellion, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase (in addition to being a slave owner as Colin mentioned), and so on. For their day, the founders were not too terrible, but you don't get to the real good guys until the likes of Lysander Spooner (No treason) comes around. Spooner is the first true "libertarian" (applying the term to the past) that I can think of, although Samuel Clemens may qualify too.Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
And hey some of you new guys, if you wanna really know about the Austrian School of Economics Buff is your man. His degree is in economics and he has stayed on the libertarian track for as far as back I know him, which is about a decade now.
I remember calling him about a subtle point once in the middle of a message-board debate on economics to make sure I didn't get back-doored on my logic.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Your an idiot. Everyone knows how the mainstream media ignored Ron Paul. Everyone of the main media outlets were disgracefull in the way they covered his campaign. Just because your are the GFY idiot I will explain something to you....
Email is not the media, Youtube is not the media...that would be user generated content. Most people DO NOT get their Political news from Youtube. You really are a dumb ass.
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand
http://www.bjpenn.comComment
-
There was NEXT TO ZERO reason to cover Ron Paul. That would be like people complaining that the "mainstream media" doesn't give events in Gabon enough coverage. Who the hell wants to hear about Gabon? Who the hell wants to hear about Ron Raul? Events in Gabon are not covered much because they are marginal, at the edge of consciousness and not very influential on our lives. Same with Paul. There have been hundreds of candidates over the years that can get 7% of the vote in a primary. They come, they go, they are usually forgotten. Paul is marginal, not very influential on the election and at the edge of consciousness. In the last debate everyone just ignored him because he was, well, ignorable.
You know what less than 10% is in American politics? "Other".
At least President Bongo is interesting enough to be an answer to a trivia question.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I really liked watching ron paul congress debts with the fed on youtube--
Judy
Teen Sites = www.richcash.com
http://www.kaydenlove.com/
http://www.americankittens.com/
New Sites Coming Soon!!!Comment
-
Comment
-
I think at the end of the day the vast majority of Americans are libertarian, too, if you really break it down.BaDoink
skype: tsgliderComment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
First, the Founding fathers didn't take away any right for various sexes and races - they just never explicitly granted them - and instead opted to leave it open for future generations to decide as they established a system that worked best in the contemporary political climate. They were, nearly without exception, all bound to Lockian philosophy - and the ideals that man has inherent rights, and he is the one that gives power to his government. The Declaration of Independence from Britain was a page right out of Locke's texts.
For clarification: today's definition of what "Libertarian" is in regards to matters of modern policy is what I meant. Even many of the Federalists - pushing for a stronger Federal government, revered the 9th and 10th amendments as necessary for the state of a Republic.
I think we've deviated significantly from what they envisioned. Somewhere... about the time that Hobbes started contradicting Locke, I think... things got switched around.
Today's Republican/Democrat executive tramples over state and individual rights on a regular basis, using rather contorted logic applied to the 'interstate commerce clause' claiming it gives them the power to govern over absolutely every aspect of our lives. Even the Supreme Court has regularly dismissed usage of both the 9th and 10th amendments as tautologies, with no actual merit.
Of course, that's not what our founding fathers intended. I'd imagine that if any of them - Federalists included - witnessed the scope of our Federal Government today, they'd have a heart attack.
Maybe it's for the best. I don't know the answer to that... I don't _think_ it is... but I do _know_ that we seem to be drifting father and father away from what our founders envisioned for us... and, to me, that's apparent as hell when someone like Ron Paul comes along, and get referred to by society as a "quack."Last edited by D; 03-05-2008, 11:12 AM.-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
No, but that's because we view all the races as fully human today. I'm not sure this was the case 300 years ago. I'm sure some of the founders considered some of the other races to be just hairless apes and therefore not rights-holders. Much of the literature of the time demonstrates this.Comment
-
I think so, yes. It all depends on the paradigm of who the individual considers a "citizen."
The debate of slave ownership is something that the founding fathers started to tackle in both Continental Congresses, but - realizing it was something they wouldn't agree on in their time - decided to word the constitution in such a way that the matter could be decided by future generations.
Today, we've (imho) evolved in the sense that we now consider anyone to be a "citizen," provided they meet the general requirements, whatever their race or sex may be.-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31Comment
-
Madison's position seems pretty "legal".
"We must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. " - James Madison; slave-owner.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Colin, just wanted to say I loved reading your comments in this thread. Very educational - thank you for sharing.Comment
-
Ron Paul showed me one major thing... That Americans aren't stupid but that doesn't mean the Internet isn't filled with breeders.
Any logical, educated, American wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. The man can't explain how he would do anything he says, he doesn't even have the power to do most of it. Yet some people think he should be in power, because "he has ideas."
The system we have now is broken, we all know that. But clearly so was the old system, if it grew into the broken mess it is today.
And anyone that thinks giving power back to the state/people, really do not want to work in porn. Because the state/people, BANNED us - and the GOV, well they saved us..
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
-
Yeah. I think so. I think that the Anti-Federalists were obviously more "libertarian" than the Federalists... but, well. - to put it in perspective, you can be 'pro-choice' and still be a Republican, or be against gun control, and still be a Democrat.
The Federalists felt that they needed the Sedition Acts in order to protect the national security of our country in times of war... that doesn't necessarily mean that they were about doing away with the 9th and 10th amendments like today's political climate has pretty much done.
There are larger issues that lead me to regard the vast majority of our founding fathers as 'libertarian' - namely, preservation of the 9th and 10 amendments, and a more reasonable translation of the 'interstate commerce clause.'
And I'm pretty sure there are others that would agree with me here... Ayn Rand, to mention but one.Last edited by D; 03-05-2008, 12:20 PM.-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
On that note I guess it really only is answerable by degree rather than yes/no.
It seems to me that Democracy (Republics for you nitpickers) probably has a strong tendency for government growth over time. More and more people want more and more services. More and more politicians deliver them for votes. In that regard, the founding fathers would have had a strong tendency to be more libertarian just by default. They started with no government so thought of smaller governments. Maybe that argument is specious though as they were also used to British law and aware of other systems of government.
Who would have thought a Republican president would expend Medicare prescriptions leaving us with a massive new annual expense?
I loathe the increasingly larger governments and expended services. Our best hope is maybe the 2% long-term growth in the real standard living (I'm talking about toilets and cell-phones and big screen TVs). We're all gonna own robots in 40 years. Right?Last edited by ADL Colin; 03-05-2008, 12:36 PM.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Good point... it's not often you'll see a government surrender power, that it's already established, to its citizens without that juncture being reached by revolutionary means...
but I don't think it was just the need to carry out the wishes of their constituency that led to bigger government... nor do I think it was even the largest driving force.
As much as it's something they hold on to, the desire for the acquisition of power was also a driving force itself - probably the main one, I think -sometimes, _in spite of_ the wishes of their constituency.
I mean, look at the last 8 years of our government, in example. That shit's been going on since the dawn of time - and probably will continue forever... as our founding fathers thought it would.
As citizens of a Republic, it's _our_ responsibility to keep that in check - and we haven't been doing the best job of that lately, I think... arguably doing a bit better than at other points in our Country's History, though.-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31Comment
-
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand
http://www.bjpenn.comComment
-
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand
http://www.bjpenn.comComment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
How can Paul get elected in a time when people want MORE government services and more redistribution of wealth? He talks of getting rid of institutions that people don't even understand. Institutions that have been around a long time. I'm pretty sure that 90% of voters don't understand what the federal reserve even does and of the other 10% more than half of them are mistaken.
Everyone seems to want change but I don't think most people want RADICAL change which is what Ron Paul proposes. His proposals are radical departures from the status quo. It is very difficult for even the most educated in our society to determine whether the world would be better off with such changes much less the semi-educated (for lack of a better term).
On top of that I don't think he is a world-class politician and I don't think he is willing to spend on a world-class staff. He seems eccentric to most people and certainly not political enough (answers people want to hear). Clinton was a master politician. Compare the two.
Really, the guy just might be too honest. Ask Paul a question and he will answer from his convictions and a consistently held long-term libertarian position. Ask Bush or Clinton a question and they would usually answer with whatever would get them the most votes. That is tough competition. Let's not forget our competitive analysis.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
AIM: GrouchyGfy
Comment