Ah, more media bias

[gunderwood]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... share_copy


Usually not a fan of Stewart, but he does have a point on this one.

Republicans love to hate Ron Paul, but why is that? Social programs aren't the only reason we're nearly 15T in debt and if you really want to fix that you're going to have to deal with all spending, not just someone else's entitlements. How about the Patriot Acts? How many republicans opposed those? TSA expansion? How many republicans were opposed to the Fed/Gov manipulation of markets before it became fashionable with the Tea Party? On and on. Most politicians are great at telling you what you want to hear, but that's all. Ron Paul has the courage to tell you the things you know are true, but don't want to hear...he's been doing that for decades now and really hasn't changed.

On economic issues I'd go so far as to say that Ron Paul is by far the most educated politician we have in any body. He's not just spouting off talking points, this man has actually studied the various schools of thought and read the original works. Yes, his ideas don't sound peachy, but that's not his fault. If you find yourself face down in a pig pen, don't blame the messenger who tells you you're covered in cr@p and here's where the hose is.

So my question is:

Why is it that you beg for a politician who stands on principle and doesn't blow in the wind; actually is educated on the issues we face rather than poll derived talking points; consistently voted against the things we've come to sort of regret (PA's, TSA, etc.); actually is tough on all spending; and attempts to follow the Constitution to a T, why is it you don't like him?

Are we that two-faced?

[wpoppert]

Why is it that you beg for a politician who stands on principle and doesn't blow in the wind; actually is educated on the issues we face rather than poll derived talking points; consistently voted against the things we've come to sort of regret (PA's, TSA, etc.); actually is tough on all spending; and attempts to follow the Constitution to a T, why is it you don't like him?

Are we that two-faced?

I think a lot of Republicans dislike him because he is opposed to our propensity to engage in undeclared wars. Congress has totally abandoned its responsibility in this matter because nobody wants to be held accountable. These conflicts are not only result in dead Americans, but are extremely expensive and often do little to improve our national security. For some reason, though, many Republicans (and Democrats, too, if it's their guy leading the charge) support military intervention as a primary course of action, even for issues that little concern us. I have to admit that I used to think that way, but having participated in several of these operations over the last 22 years, I think our national security is better served by minding our own dang business more often. The Army is stretched so thin that they can't function without major assistance from the other services. (25%-30% of my organization in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 was made up of U.S. Navy personnel. A quick check of the map reveals that Afghanistan is a land-locked country. And we weren't there doing Navy functions in support of the Army, either. We were doing the jobs of soldiers because there weren't enough soldiers to do them.) Meanwhile, armed Mexicans continue to violate our borders here at home, and we do nothing about it. (Oh, wait... we actually armed them!) I think Ron Paul would prioritize our efforts differently.

[m4a1mustang]

The conservative and liberal media is biased. The funny thing is they are biased to the same side -- the media, like the politicians, are all bought by the same concentrated group of very powerful banking, industrial, military elite.

Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo, so both sides paint him as an unelectable whack job. He's one of the few politicians out there that isn't "bought."

When you really think about it, the career politicians on both the left and the right are all pawns for the same people. Yeah they differ on certain issues that keep the naive population busy debating to keep their eyes off reality, but in the end their sole purpose is to pad the pockets of their masters. It's all a scam, and until people wake up to it you guys like Ron Paul will never make it any further than "crazy unelectable representative from Texas."

*tin foil*

[OakRidgeStars]

...Ron Paul will never make it any further than "crazy unelectable representative from Texas."

+1

[Jakeiscrazy]

The conservative and liberal media is biased. The funny thing is they are biased to the same side -- the media, like the politicians, are all bought by the same concentrated group of very powerful banking, industrial, military elite.

Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo, so both sides paint him as an unelectable whack job. He's one of the few politicians out there that isn't "bought."

When you really think about it, the career politicians on both the left and the right are all pawns for the same people. Yeah they differ on certain issues that keep the naive population busy debating to keep their eyes off reality, but in the end their sole purpose is to pad the pockets of their masters. It's all a scam, and until people wake up to it you guys like Ron Paul will never make it any further than "crazy unelectable representative from Texas."

*tin foil*

+1 they see him as unelectable and to turn on him to make sure of that.

[gunderwood]

...Ron Paul will never make it any further than "crazy unelectable representative from Texas."

+1

You left out the qualifier of that quote, so I'm slightly confused about the +1. Are your agreeing with the poster that it's because people haven't woke up yet or are you saying that he's crazy. If it's the later, please explain why...it's kind of the whole point of this thread.

It's one thing to say something, it's another to have a good reason for it. I jump on the Pro-bama guys when they do it, so I guess it's your turn.

[SHMIV]

I like Ron Pauls domestic policy just fine. I'm not quite sure I like his war policy, though. I took a look at him during the last election, and he seemed pretty dead set on bringing the military home.

Of course, I have no objection to bringing the military home, I just think that we should win our wars, first.

I will admit that I have paid him no mind since 2008; maybe he's changed his positions since then, but I doubt it.

[gunderwood]

I like Ron Pauls domestic policy just fine. I'm not quite sure I like his war policy, though. I took a look at him during the last election, and he seemed pretty dead set on bringing the military home.

Of course, I have no objection to bringing the military home, I just think that we should win our wars, first.

I will admit that I have paid him no mind since 2008; maybe he's changed his positions since then, but I doubt it.

He hasn't. What does winning mean? The problem is we entered two wars, now three technically, where we didn't determine what our goals were before doing so. Thus, "winning" remains some elusive theoretical condition. Why spend money on wars which have no articulable and achievable objectives?

[Diomed]

I suspect a lot of the animosity from the Republican camp, at least in terms of the bigwigs running the party, is that they are globalists. Paul is a nationalist, an isolationist (it is unfortunate that word has negative connotations now, undeservedly so I think), an America-first-er. The two ideologies are utterly incompatible, and the latter impedes the power drive of the former, making it a target of vilification.

The rank and file don't like him because he's in favor of drug deregulation and ending foreign adventurism - and people like locking up druggies and invading small third world crapholes.

[wpoppert]

I like Ron Pauls domestic policy just fine. I'm not quite sure I like his war policy, though. I took a look at him during the last election, and he seemed pretty dead set on bringing the military home.

Of course, I have no objection to bringing the military home, I just think that we should win our wars, first.

I will admit that I have paid him no mind since 2008; maybe he's changed his positions since then, but I doubt it.

He hasn't. What does winning mean? The problem is we entered two wars, now three technically, where we didn't determine what our goals were before doing so. Thus, "winning" remains some elusive theoretical condition. Why spend money on wars which have no articulable and achievable objectives?

+1. I talked myself out of voting for him in 2008 for exactly the reason SHMIV states. I then went to Afghanistan and concluded that I was wrong. I was further alarmed by the number of officers who had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, but somehow felt that it was no longer relevent in a "modern global society". Holy crap! We've got real problems if the guys who are supposed to defend our rights don't think our rights are all that important. I guess we'll have to get off our @$$e$ and defend them ourselves!

[gunderwood]

Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo, so both sides paint him as an unelectable whack job. He's one of the few politicians out there that isn't "bought."

Which you would think that would make him very popular among this crowd...

I suspect a lot of the animosity from the Republican camp, at least in terms of the bigwigs running the party, is that they are globalists. Paul is a nationalist, an isolationist (it is unfortunate that word has negative connotations now, undeservedly so I think), an America-first-er. The two ideologies are utterly incompatible, and the latter impedes the power drive of the former, making it a target of vilification.

Good point. Ron Paul does reject the grand strategy of "empire," which the leadership of both parties seems to embrace. However, if you even use the word empire in a discussion about policy you'll be laughed at and vilified while they clamor for a forth war...

The rank and file don't like him because he's in favor of drug deregulation and ending foreign adventurism - and people like locking up druggies and invading small third world crapholes.

Ironically, that probably makes him very electable (if the base figures it out) since it would capture a lot of the young democrat voting base. I remember from my college days that I knew a lot of democrats who considered RP to be the only Republican they would vote for (or so they claimed).

Funny thing is that the republican voting base wants to be lied too. It seems they would rather vote for someone who is just telling them what they want to hear and has no intentions of actually doing it (e.g. Rick Perry is hardly the Tea Party politician he is trying to paint himself as; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... S720110810). Yet, they don't like someone whom they slightly disagree with but tells them what he really stands for. FYI, if they are lying to you, it's because they don't want you to know what they really think!

I personally prefer an honest man whom I disagree with slightly.

[allingeneral]

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Ron Paul last time around is because I didn't think he had a snowball's chance, so rather than "waste" my vote, I voted for the guy that I thought had the best chance of beating Obama.

[gunderwood]

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Ron Paul last time around is because I didn't think he had a snowball's chance, so rather than "waste" my vote, I voted for the guy that I thought had the best chance of beating Obama.

IMHO that's a separate discussion (you've been warned thread-jacker...I'll report you to the forum owner! ).

I'm mostly interested in the outright disrespect that is shown to him by many republicans and was blatantly obvious in the Stewart clips. Seriously, Obama gets more respect on Fox than Ron Paul!

I'm finding it interesting that the usual RP haters haven't really spoken up yet on this thread. I was hoping to have a good conversation with them. As it stands, most of the people who have posted in this thread are at least mildly sympathetic and make good points, but I really want to hear from the people who think he's crazy.

[WRW]

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Ron Paul last time around is because I didn't think he had a snowball's chance, so rather than "waste" my vote, I voted for the guy that I thought had the best chance of beating Obama.

I think we, as a Country, had reached a point where we needed to vote to send a message to the leaderships of both parties that we were not satisfied with voting for Obama versus Obama Lite (same direction with a different time time schedule). If this be thread-jacking, I be in good company.

[OleMan]

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Ron Paul last time around is because I didn't think he had a snowball's chance, so rather than "waste" my vote, I voted for the guy that I thought had the best chance of beating Obama.

IMHO that's a separate discussion (you've been warned thread-jacker...I'll report you to the forum owner! ).

I'm mostly interested in the outright disrespect that is shown to him by many republicans and was blatantly obvious in the Stewart clips. Seriously, Obama gets more respect on Fox than Ron Paul!

I'm finding it interesting that the usual RP haters haven't really spoken up yet on this thread. I was hoping to have a good conversation with them. As it stands, most of the people who have posted in this thread are at least mildly sympathetic and make good points, but I really want to hear from the people who think he's crazy.

Paul has been pretty much derided by the MSM as long as I have been aware of him. In truth, he has some principles that we sorely need. He is very well educated, experienced in life and governance, has observed the DeeCee Circus first hand - and would have been welcome in the Continental Congress.

IMHO, the very large majority of the 'Media' & politicians either ignore him or attack him because they are afraid of his thinking. 'We the people' need to at least give him and his beliefs real consideration. I think his ideas seem radical only if considered with the backdrop of our huge, bloated, misguided and intrusive goverment. Even if he could not compete with other national 'conservative' candidates, he can go a long ways toward changing the debate to the benefit of those who don't like that monstrous big government.

At least he ain't a trial lawyer cum 'legislator' - sarcasm intended.

Oleman

[gunderwood]

The biggest reason I didn't vote for Ron Paul last time around is because I didn't think he had a snowball's chance, so rather than "waste" my vote, I voted for the guy that I thought had the best chance of beating Obama.

I think we, as a Country, had reached a point where we needed to vote to send a message to the leaderships of both parties that we were not satisfied with voting for Obama versus Obama Lite (same direction with a different time time schedule). If this be thread-jacking, I be in good company.

+1

[lagmonkey]

I personally prefer an honest man whom I disagree with slightly.

I'm with you 100% on this one.

I recently picked up a copy of "Liberty Defined" and it was a real eye opener. The book made me do some thinking to say the least.