On January 05 2012 11:00 Shraft wrote: @All the people who are talking about the "economic inequality" that a free market society would bring about
Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone would be better off in a free society, or do you believe that "economic equality" is more important than everyone's improved standard of living? Your arguments must stem from either ignorance or pure jealousy (or perhaps both?).
On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly.
It changes the situation very drastically.
Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says.
Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way:
1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out
Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up.
And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions.
No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people.
This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable.
In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't.
The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you.
On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery.
If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is.
The law is the government. By friggin' definition. You're disagreeing and then immediately agreeing. Especially if you believe in the idea of a social contract. The government gives you it. All you need is a change in law to take it away. By definition even.
Actually, the government takes your money and if you don't pay, you get thrown in jail. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but to pretend otherwise is simply bullshit. We have a social contract. You keep acting as if the law and the bureaucracies are different. No, the bureaucracies make the law, and they can change the law, and they can take your rights away.
And with public charities you are placing your life under direct control of the representatives of the people providing you the means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That's what slavery is (apparently).
Look, I'll compare this with public funding for the arts. In America, we have very little public support for the arts (the NEA is miniscule comparatively), which means private donors are always willing to contribute tons of money to the arts. In other countries, the arts are publicly funded. Donors donate much less in those countries, because they figure the government takes care of it. They don't have a very giving culture.
In America however, we have a very giving culture, and we support huge amounts of arts because we are able to. Almost all funding for Arts organizations in the US are private. It can work.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is definitely what we should do, but your arguments are not sound. It is not as simple as saying "there's no way you could make that kind of charity system work!!" Equating it to slavery quite simply ridiculous, and shows if anything that you don't know what you're talking about. I would suggest dropping the slavery idea and explain in other terms what would be wrong with it.
I somehow knew Obama was an E-sports fan. I like him substantially enough more now, that I don't hate the fact that all the conservative candidates are AWFUL.
On January 05 2012 11:00 Shraft wrote: @All the people who are talking about the "economic inequality" that a free market society would bring about
Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone would be better off in a free society, or do you believe that "economic equality" is more important than everyone's improved standard of living? Your arguments must stem from either ignorance or pure jealousy (or perhaps both?).
You have no evidence for that claim, except for vague mathematical proofs based on initial assumptions that are open for debate in the first place.
The reasoning that free markets automatically lead to an improved standard of living (and more equality) is due to factor normalization. Yet there's no proof of factor normalization actually occurring in the empirical world around us. Without factor normalization, a large portion of society specializing into their own comparative advantages is the equivalent of specializing into being poor.
How is this an argument from ignorance or jealousy? It's an argument based on neo-classical theory, where I question the validity of one of the assumptions, which is pretty much what any social science should be about.
The people I consider oblivious are the ones that keep stressing markets even in situations where they clearly do not work. Look at the harm free markets, imposed by the WTO, world bank and IMF, have done to the LDC's. Look at the problems of unleashing the free markets on industries with severe information disadvantages or on industries where natural monopolies play a role. Look at the problems free markets are creating when it comes to higher education in the US (and other countries), where merits no longer decide who is able to go to college but instead your inheritance does.
Free markets can be solutions, and can bring tremendous wealth. It's just not always the case, and anyone claiming otherwise should support his claims with empirical evidence, as is the standard in any science. Except for neo-classical/neo-liberal economics, which is becoming more of a religion then a science.
On January 05 2012 11:00 Shraft wrote: @All the people who are talking about the "economic inequality" that a free market society would bring about
Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone would be better off in a free society, or do you believe that "economic equality" is more important than everyone's improved standard of living? Your arguments must stem from either ignorance or pure jealousy (or perhaps both?).
You have no evidence for that claim, except for vague mathematical proofs based on initial assumptions that are open for debate in the first place.
The reasoning that free markets automatically lead to an improved standard of living (and more equality) is due to factor normalization. Yet there's no proof of factor normalization actually occurring in the empirical world around us. Without factor normalization, a large portion of society specializing into their own comparative advantages is the equivalent of specializing into being poor.
How is this an argument from ignorance or jealousy? It's an argument based on neo-classical theory, where I question the validity of one of the assumptions, which is pretty much what any social science should be about.
The people I consider oblivious are the ones that keep stressing markets even in situations where they clearly do not work. Look at the harm free markets, imposed by the WTO, world bank and IMF, have done to the LDC's. Look at the problems of unleashing the free markets on industries with severe information disadvantages or on industries where natural monopolies play a role. Look at the problems free markets are creating when it comes to higher education in the US (and other countries), where merits no longer decide who is able to go to college but instead your inheritance does.
Free markets can be solutions, and can bring tremendous wealth. It's just not always the case, and anyone claiming otherwise should support his claims with empirical evidence, as is the standard in any science. Except for neo-classical/neo-liberal economics, which is becoming more of a religion then a science.
Except that companies would be able to do more efficiently, and more effectively, almost all of the roles of big government that are currently controlled government bloatware.
Of course, you would have to then make sure you are taking action against the monopolies that should be knocked down in to manageable blocks that don't stifle growth and innovation. Note that all of the things that I just talked about are basically not happening at all in our neo conservative world.
On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly.
It changes the situation very drastically.
Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says.
Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way:
1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out
Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up.
And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions.
No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people.
This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable.
In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't.
The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you.
On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery.
If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is.
Look, I'll compare this with public funding for the arts. In America, we have very little public support for the arts (the NEA is miniscule comparatively), which means private donors are always willing to contribute tons of money to the arts. In other countries, the arts are publicly funded. Donors donate much less in those countries, because they figure the government takes care of it. They don't have a very giving culture.
In America however, we have a very giving culture, and we support huge amounts of arts because we are able to. Almost all funding for Arts organizations in the US are private. It can work.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is definitely what we should do, but your arguments are not sound. It is not as simple as saying "there's no way you could make that kind of charity system work!!" Equating it to slavery quite simply ridiculous, and shows if anything that you don't know what you're talking about. I would suggest dropping the slavery idea and explain in other terms what would be wrong with it.
Not all public funding ventures are equal. In value and in scale. Art is a pretty niche thing and furthermore it is something that the rich have tended to fund as a sort of status. Art patronage goes way back.
Funding for healthcare/ public aid is much more vast. Quite often government took over because private groups were no longer able to deal with the volume based on the need. Many of the hospitals began by Catholics and a lot schools were begun by both Protestants and Catholics. But with a decline in church population over the years, the revenue stream is simply not there to handle the charities that it used to be able to run. The general pattern is volunteerism to moralsuasion to government intervention.
It is just really difficult for volunteers to have the funds, clout, coordination, and comprehensive plan to deal with the need in a post-industrial society where people are much more likely to be isolated compared to the close knit communities of the past- ye old barn raising and the like.
Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media ..
It'll be interesting to see how Romney holds up as more candidates drop out. I read something interesting today (and maybe it's already been discussed here) that people dropping out will likely hurt Romney's numbers in comparison to the others. There seems to be quite a number of "Anti Romney" republicans who will only begin to stockpile as their alternatives dwindle.
I don't care as much about his stance against marijuana as I do his bullshit revisionist history, where Jefferson and Washington weren't hemp farmers, didn't use snuff and didn't drink an excess amount of madeira wine. There's no record of them smoking it, but they absolutely grew it and sold it, and smoking it was never controversial until the 20th century.
On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly.
It changes the situation very drastically.
Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says.
Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way:
1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out
Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up.
And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions.
No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people.
This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable.
In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't.
The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you.
On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery.
If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is.
Look, I'll compare this with public funding for the arts. In America, we have very little public support for the arts (the NEA is miniscule comparatively), which means private donors are always willing to contribute tons of money to the arts. In other countries, the arts are publicly funded. Donors donate much less in those countries, because they figure the government takes care of it. They don't have a very giving culture.
In America however, we have a very giving culture, and we support huge amounts of arts because we are able to. Almost all funding for Arts organizations in the US are private. It can work.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is definitely what we should do, but your arguments are not sound. It is not as simple as saying "there's no way you could make that kind of charity system work!!" Equating it to slavery quite simply ridiculous, and shows if anything that you don't know what you're talking about. I would suggest dropping the slavery idea and explain in other terms what would be wrong with it.
It is just really difficult for volunteers to have the funds, clout, coordination, and comprehensive plan to deal with the need in a post-industrial society where people are much more likely to be isolated compared to the close knit communities of the past- ye old barn raising and the like.
You really don't want private charity to be the sole source of relief. Charities can come with price tags and religious charities doubly so. The Catholic Church has been flexing its charity arm, for example. Hamas is able to indoctrinate suicide bombers partially because the fact that they are sometimes the sole provider of social services gives them huge access and influence.
The logic that a pure free market benefits all (severely questionable) doesn't even lead to the conclusion that we should always head towards freer markets for the benefit of all. Given that completely free markets are, without question, abstractions that are never achievable in reality, on what basis does the argument that moving towards freer markets follows a gradient of increasing benefits to all stand? Or to put it another way, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that local social optima may favour a small shift away from the free market end of the spectrum?
The sociopathy demonstrated earlier in this thread is breathtaking. I have to seriously question this: how many posters have experienced first or second hand the effects of a winner-takes-all society? "I got mine, fuck you." works only when the majority of people don't actually follow this rule.
On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote: Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media ..
Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind.
A record number turned out to caucus for the Republicans in Iowa and the main story of Huffingtonpost is about how so few people bothered to show up. So sad how many people sit on that site and bash Fox News and are too stupid to realize the site they are posting on is just as bad, lol. =[
On January 05 2012 12:30 BlackJack wrote: A record number turned out to caucus for the Republicans in Iowa and the main story of Huffingtonpost is about how so few people bothered to show up. So sad how many people sit on that site and bash Fox News and are too stupid to realize the site they are posting on is just as bad, lol. =[
On January 05 2012 12:29 hummingbird23 wrote: You really don't want private charity to be the sole source of relief. Charities can come with price tags and religious charities doubly so. The Catholic Church has been flexing its charity arm, for example. Hamas is able to indoctrinate suicide bombers partially because the fact that they are sometimes the sole provider of social services gives them huge access and influence.
The logic that a pure free market benefits all (severely questionable) doesn't even lead to the conclusion that we should always head towards freer markets for the benefit of all. Given that completely free markets are, without question, abstractions that are never achievable in reality, on what basis does the argument that moving towards freer markets follows a gradient of increasing benefits to all stand? Or to put it another way, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that local social optima may favour a small shift away from the free market end of the spectrum?
The sociopathy demonstrated earlier in this thread is breathtaking. I have to seriously question this: how many posters have experienced first or second hand the effects of a winner-takes-all society? "I got mine, fuck you." works only when the majority of people don't actually follow this rule.
No, it works when you don't let monopolies control your government, and instead actively break them up to encourage the free market. Please, educate us as to some winner-takes-all societies? As far as I can tell, that's exactly what we are living in. The only downside being that it takes about $1-6,000,000 per politician to curry favor so that you can "take-all".
On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote: Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media ..
Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind.
I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread.
CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS.
Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer.
And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east.
No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core?
What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose?
If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up.
P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much?
It's tough.. when you're 18-24, you think the world is against you--authority figures, government, the media, etc.--there are subliminal messages out to harm you, etc. But, eventually, you realize that everyone goes through that phase. In the end, life is just boring. You can't stand to be alone, so you meet a girl, you have kids, you get a decent job to support them, and before you know it, you're at retirement age. The End.
On January 05 2012 12:29 hummingbird23 wrote: You really don't want private charity to be the sole source of relief. Charities can come with price tags and religious charities doubly so. The Catholic Church has been flexing its charity arm, for example. Hamas is able to indoctrinate suicide bombers partially because the fact that they are sometimes the sole provider of social services gives them huge access and influence.
The logic that a pure free market benefits all (severely questionable) doesn't even lead to the conclusion that we should always head towards freer markets for the benefit of all. Given that completely free markets are, without question, abstractions that are never achievable in reality, on what basis does the argument that moving towards freer markets follows a gradient of increasing benefits to all stand? Or to put it another way, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that local social optima may favour a small shift away from the free market end of the spectrum?
The sociopathy demonstrated earlier in this thread is breathtaking. I have to seriously question this: how many posters have experienced first or second hand the effects of a winner-takes-all society? "I got mine, fuck you." works only when the majority of people don't actually follow this rule.
No, it works when you don't let monopolies control your government, and instead actively break them up to encourage the free market. Please, educate us as to some winner-takes-all societies? As far as I can tell, that's exactly what we are living in. The only downside being that it takes about $1-6,000,000 per politician to curry favor so that you can "take-all".
China and Indonesia. Money really is raw power there. Regulations might as well not exist, for all the compliance that happens. Guess what, people will do things that are unthinkable elsewhere to get money. Overt violence aside, the amount of exploitation that happens when the pay packet is you and your family's immediate survival is crazy. I've actually witnessed this firsthand. There's a reason why OSHE and employee laws exist. To characterize them as government interference resulting in a net loss is absurd. I'll give you a concrete example, solvents. In one of those factories, the workers were working in a closed environment with organic solvent fumes. People should not be asked to choose between starving and working in that environment.
Look, money in politics is not something I'm arguing about. It's this idea that if you take the hands off the wheel, the car will always go straight. It doesn't, maybe because the road is slanted, or something about the car makes it not a perfect car. Arguing that if it were a perfect vehicle, it would always keep on course is a really bad idea.
On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote: Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media ..
Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind.
I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread.
CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS.
Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer.
And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east.
No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core?
What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose?
If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up.
P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much?
Here, do some homework. Validate YOUR claim. Here is the fact. A Ron Paul supporter was cut off. You come in saying, oh poo hoo. It's 2011 or 2012 or whatever. Shit happens. However, you could easily educate yourself by taking the initiative and googling what tends to cut out satellite feeds. Was it weather? Google the weather conditions. Judging by how well satellite tv works, it'd probably have to be something pretty noticeable. Perhaps swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus... interrupting the satellite feed.
I have my view, and I don't really want to waste my time trying to change yours. Perhaps, you could ask yourself why you are making excuses for a major media outlet? My point of view is that reality is likely a whole lot more fucking complicated than what is shown on major news outlets. If it isn't, what did I lose?
However, I bet that JFK is on the moon since pearl harbor, happening on purpose.
*edit
Turns out I am bored enough to tackle this one. Google Trends is a good place to start. Have you seen this yet? The other candidate is ONE QUARTER as popular as Ron Paul is online. Seems like any network could easily pick up viewers talking about Ron Paul. In fact, they could pick up the hard to reach, hard to advertise to age group by talking about him.
Here's Jon Stewart, the conspiracy theorist arguing that there is significant media bias/blockout:
Early November:
Further, you can watch the republican debates. Notice who gets what questions. Notice what gets asked, and what doesn't. Notice what the crowd behind the moderator cheers for, and for what they are silent. Compare it to the noise level of the audience overall. Realize that he is given very little time compared to his competition in almost all of the debates. Either you are accepting incompetence or malice. I personally think that it's malice.
Someone earlier in the thread said that getting married settles you down from this kind of thinking. Well, what it actually does is pressures you to fit in as you try to negotiate more and more varied social circles. That it also frees you from worrying about what those in power are doing to try and amass wealth and influence is just a side benefit. It's fun thinking you've found some answers, but as any sociologist will tell you: It's more fun fitting in.
EPT
