I know you will all hate this just because of who it is about, but pay attention to Stewart. Even if you don't like the Dr, you won't like this.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO93P6uz9t8

Incidentally, Stewart also ignores him, except when it's funny.

For those of us that keep seeing Ron Paul's name in places lately but are completely out of the loop, what's going on?

id like to hear less about ron paul actually. my brother is obsessed with him, thus resulting in me ignoring all his facebook posts.

Like any politician, ron Paul has some ideas and bad ideas. Unfortunately this country doesn't have the balls to. Actually implement even his best ideas.

Ron Paul has become the trendy default for those who think they are too good to vote bipartisan.

Ron Paul's ideas are almost all bad. He's a libertarian.

...because libertarianism has no way of correcting for externalities or any other market failures, it is simultaneously based on an incorrect assumption of rationality in some areas and an incorrect anticipation of altruism in others, it is based on the assumption of long-term stability of the supply of commodities, it is based on the assumption of unbounded economic growth, and every attempt at implementing libertarian policies in the real world has resulted in complete (and ongoing) disaster.

Just in case anybody was wondering why I would say that.

The media is correct in discounting Ron Paul's votes in the Ames Straw Poll, but that doesn't mean Stewart is wrong.

The Ames Straw Poll is an awful poll. The numbers are incredibly small, the number of votes one can receive is directly related to how much money they have on hand, in addition to the show they can afford to put on, and there is a lot of hoops for voters to jump threw for little to no incentive. As a result, a candidate can win with a small number of highly motivated supporters, who are willing to travel from all over the state. By rallying 4,000 college-age paultards (the poll is held at Iowa State University), removing the need to put on a show (he just brought out his son), a candidate can force a win in Ames with a die-hard fanbase. The media knows this. They know Ames is a sham, but it's the first finger in the wind of how the election is going, based on the success of MAINSTREAM candidates, from MAINSTREAM voters. The ones that make up the overwhelming majority of the population. They know Ames can be gamed, so they ignore those that obviously game the system (such as Paul), to move on to candidates that have a chance of winning. If he had won the poll, it would have been a different story, the narrative would have been how Paul gamed it instead of ignoring him completely, and Bachman would have still been declared the winner.

Stewart brings up an interesting point that Paul was ignored, but I think he missed the mark on the "why" part of the story. He was insinuating that the media is purposefully ignoring him because they have an interest in keeping him out of the race as a major candidate, but there really isn't any evidence to suggest it's volitional. They simply move on because Paul doesn't sell, and he gamed the awful Ames system.

The media is correct in discounting Ron Paul's votes in the Ames Straw Poll, but that doesn't mean Stewart is wrong.

The Ames Straw Poll is an awful poll. The numbers are incredibly small, the number of votes one can receive is directly related to how much money they have on hand, in addition to the show they can afford to put on, and there is a lot of hoops for voters to jump threw for little to no incentive. As a result, a candidate can win with a small number of highly motivated supporters, who are willing to travel from all over the state. By rallying 4,000 college-age paultards (the poll is held at Iowa State University), removing the need to put on a show (he just brought out his son), a candidate can force a win in Ames with a die-hard fanbase. The media knows this. They know Ames is a sham, but it's the first finger in the wind of how the election is going, based on the success of MAINSTREAM candidates, from MAINSTREAM voters. The ones that make up the overwhelming majority of the population. They know Ames can be gamed, so they ignore those that obviously game the system (such as Paul), to move on to candidates that have a chance of winning. If he had won the poll, it would have been a different story, the narrative would have been how Paul gamed it instead of ignoring him completely, and Bachman would have still been declared the winner.

Stewart brings up an interesting point that Paul was ignored, but I think he missed the mark on the "why" part of the story. He was insinuating that the media is purposefully ignoring him because they have an interest in keeping him out of the race as a major candidate, but there really isn't any evidence to suggest it's volitional. They simply move on because Paul doesn't sell, and he gamed the system.

I suppose that I interpreted Stewart's comments as questioning whether or not it's the media's role to do this (purposely ignore a candidate despite what they "think" said candidate's chances are). Some of the "shows" that left out Ron Paul were supposed to be "news" & not necessarily commentary. The media should at least be responsible for giving the reason (beforehand or during) that they're ignoring a candidate (especially in circumstances where said candidate did well). Otherwise, they appear to be deciding for the public who's electable & who isn't.

You realize he hosts a comedy program, right? He ignores anyone and everyone except when it's funny.

It's newstainment, I get my news from reading online (BBC, AP, Fark) and the daily show every night.

Very true, although the we could certainly do with the whole 'not starting senseless wars' part of his platform. That seems a bit more sensible than the alternative. Anyway, it's not like he'd actually be able to enact any libertarian reforms as president with zero ideological support from any other politicians.

He also makes a lot of non-funny stuff funny. The show is very good at that, there's been some real tragic stuff on that show and they've managed to make me laugh about it.
Much respect

I watch that show all the time because it's the only US show, along with The Colbert Report, that I know whose website does not restrict its content from overseas viewers.

I never realized how much media I'd have to access via a proxy before I moved to Europe. It's a bit of a hassle actually.

I've tried accessing Hulu via a proxy before, but it either didn't work or was too slow. <_<

Maybe you left out an L

Now there's a post with a narrow target audience on this forum.

Hulu is a bit trickier than some sites. You'd have to use a VPN as well as a U.S. proxy.

Well, you have to consider which you'd rather have in the white house: Sarah Palin or Ron Paul.

-It's a moot point because neither of them will even make it to the general election, but I would still go with Paul over Palin any day of the week. Even if I was going on a moose hunt.

I can't imagine anyone the republican party is running having much of a chance. It'll be funny to see what kind of racist bull**** comes out in the general election campaign.

o noes Ron Paul has been banned

Was there a point to that?

JM, it's a FGR post.... there is rarely a point unless it's about JK or DX.

STOYA

ST2YA

I have friend.
Supports Ron Paul as if he were Jesus, but gets a large percentage of disability for PTSD from VA.

My gut reaction says that this is contradictory. Research is ongoing on my part, but is this, odd?

you need help

No... Those health benefits are obligations that the governments incurs when it enters into a contract with the solider. They are not social services. Ron Paul doesn't support breaking those obligations, just getting into fewer of them.

This should provide any rational person with enough reason not to support Ron Paul. If you make it through the first 2 sections (Abortion & Budget & Economy) without vomiting on your screen &/or laughing uncontrollably to the point of pissing yourself then you're more man than I.

gold standard
**** the poors

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, colspan: 1, align: left"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

• Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

ahem todoa or dx

not a question btw chaps

Do you want to actually let us know what you disagree with, or is this just the 'ron paul is a nutbar' argument?

Imma go ahead and guess that he reckons stem cell research should be allowed and abortions kept legal.

I can't say I know anything about the US budget and whatnot so I don't quite get the second lot of bullets.

You said it, I didn't. No reasonable person would need to read beyond "abortion is murder".

The apple may not fall far from the tree.

Honestly I disagree.



Worth reading.

The word "murder" must have a different meaning where you & the Pauls are from.