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.
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.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that free market is not hands off the wheel. It's anti monopoly highly limited regulation market...
Thinking about your post a bit more, it really seems that no matter where it is in government corruption allows people with more money more power. No if and or but about it. It's quite likely that any system can work absent corruption, however getting there requires a distrustful active populace.
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.
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.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that free market is not hands off the wheel. It's anti monopoly highly limited regulation market...
Thinking about your post a bit more, it really seems that no matter where it is in government corruption allows people with more money more power. No if and or but about it. It's quite likely that any system can work absent corruption, however getting there requires a distrustful active populace.
In which column do you put employee and workplace regulation?
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.
Also, Income Tax.
Don't know about you, but ours is a temporary war measures tax... almost a century ago. lol. Government is such a troll.
CNN Iowa Exit Polls Not sure how they ran these questions as they are only highlighting the biggest results. 35% of those who value business leadership over government goes to Romney 47% those called themselves "very conservative"
40% of participants had never attended a caucus. 1/4 electorate independents. 48% of independents went to Paul. 50% of voters 17-29 went to Paul.
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.
Well healthcare is something that raises the general question of "can we pay for it at all?" We've been trying the privatized thing for awhile now and it just doesn't seem to be working. And if I'm not mistaken there are just a lot more secular charities now, so the church angle probably doesn't hold much ground.
Though this is a much stronger argument against privatizing charity than anything I've heard previously.
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.
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies.
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.
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.
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that free market is not hands off the wheel. It's anti monopoly highly limited regulation market...
Thinking about your post a bit more, it really seems that no matter where it is in government corruption allows people with more money more power. No if and or but about it. It's quite likely that any system can work absent corruption, however getting there requires a distrustful active populace.
In which column do you put employee and workplace regulation?
Be more specific please. I'm sure that I'd agree with some and disagree with others. Although I wouldn't rule out possible fundamental policy changes that obviates the need for many of them.
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.
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies.
Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time.
What does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please.
Are you suggesting they had an analog signal special effect on standby? For this sort of situation? Seems rather round-about when they could just not interview a Ron Paul sympathetic supporter in the first place.
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.
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies.
Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time.
What does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please.
Ok. The satellite failure that looks like digital bits going in and out is the transmission from a GEO satellite to your house. It is a digital signal bounced via satellite from a directTV uplink station then directly decoded at your house. In the case of the CNN failure, that satellite transmission is not going directly to your house: it is going from an uplink station at the field, to a satellite in geo, then back down to CNN in Atlanta. It is then processed in a number of ways and re-transmitted over cable to various directTV uplink stations. The encoders and decoders that CNN uses are very different from the ones that you use in your house. They are not analog, but the systems are very different, so when they fail they look very different.
And looking at the picture it is not only analog syncing, you can see square blocks of pixels turn green. Most likely the analog syncing part is caused by analog stuff in the video processing chain at CNN. You can see the frame freeze, and turn half green.
Alright, I'll give you that it looks like a decent interrupt filter. However, having watched that a couple of times, it's terrifying that the signal bounced at War with Iran and cut at Egypt defending itself. Either coincidence is the biggest prankster in the universe or the biggest conspirator. (man would that be a good soundbite!)
Here's a couple more though, in the first one, they basically openly admit to cutting someone off, and in the second one, it is of a fairly political subject, similar to this one with Ron Paul.
Those are of course just the ones on youtube, undoubtedly there are even more.
Also, have you ever watched Al'Jazeera? A large chunk of the world basically accepts that American news is worthless for real information.
On January 05 2012 13:58 Falling wrote: Are you suggesting they had an analog signal special effect on standby? For this sort of situation? Seems rather round-about when they could just not interview a Ron Paul sympathetic supporter in the first place.
Well, they could just never ever talk about him at all... that wouldn't be suspicious, now would it...
A part of me feels like people are just overreacting and looking for evidence that support whatever they believe, but another half of me feels like some big brother-ish companies want me to think exactly that.
Well, they could just never ever talk about him at all... that wouldn't be suspicious, now would it...
Well that's pretty much par for the course. And that I can pretty much accept. Media has their own bias and has unprecedented control as kingmaker and they completely wrote him off as a 'serious candidate' whatever that means. I didn't think Santorum was a 'serious candidate.'
But cutting off Ron Paul fans with special effects seems reaching too far. Fox News has no problem just talking over anyone they disagree with. I don't even know why some of them even bother interviewing, they mostly like to preach and lecture. But considering CNN is sooo infatuated with their new technology toys, it almost makes sense that they would have the high tech version of the Fox News interrupt. Almost. I ain't biting.
On January 05 2012 14:17 NtroP wrote: Well, they could just never ever talk about him at all... that wouldn't be suspicious, now would it...
So? Isn't that how the entire 2008 election went? It just seems like they did it so well before that it shouldn't matter what they do this time. Can't they just do the same thing they did 4 years ago?
I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
All I see is a single irrelevant soldier being cut off. It's hardly content that will change the outcome of the election, and if CNN truly wanted to keep Ron Paul off the air, they would've simply not interviewed the guy (they're in the paul headquarters for crying out loud). I agree that the media aren't paying a whole lot of attention to the guy, simply because he runs every time and then flames out every single time. Nobody serious covered the Ralph Nader presidential campaigns either.
I think the main reason so many Ron Paul supporters keep seeing conspiracies in everything is because, frankly, quite a few of them can't accept that the ideas they have are in fact fringe ideas that get rejected by most of the population.
lol guys , I can't believe I found so much resistance by my post . Since Dr Paul's campaign he has been mocked , ignored and crap talked by all the major news outlets . An honorable US soldier supporting him would go against the past actions of CNN for example . WOW , is it not logical that it would happen ? Just put 2 and 2 together and you have your result . You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to say : hmmm most people are frustrated , and even tho some people completely disagree Ron Paul and think of him as an extremist , some people would pick him because they lost the faith in the status quo , and who knows mb now they want to pick him . His ideas goes against the status quo , and we all know the major news outlets do 95% of their works ONLY for profit , I mean it makes sense rofl , TV is business , you need money .... Come on guys this has nothing to do with conspiracies , It's major news outlets past activites+this action = makes complete sense. It follows a pattern.
About to one who accused me of 9/11 stuff What I've said is backed 100% by proofs and official documents , now if you are just like those fundamentalist religion people who bash people who against your beliefs , that's your problem.They went out of their way to refute all the other 9/11 truthers evidence blabla , but this one they didn't start because they know they have nothing real to start on. This piece of evidence is completely irrefutable but this is not the place to talk about it because it's not the topic and etc + anyways I didn't started it , some dude accused other guys of being conspiracy nuts(wasn't even me) and posting a sarcastic picture
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.
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies.
Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time.
What does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please.
That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol:
When most of the Ron Paul supporters in this thread are conspiracy theorists and propagandists, it becomes more and more difficult to take his campaign seriously.
Geraldo Rivera can report with a crystal clear signal from outside Sadam Hussein's palace with mortars going off all around him, but the minute someone tries to criticize Israel or the United States' foreign policy......"signal failed"....yea right lol
. How much does this suck , honest honorable man who sacrificed his life for his country is now under investigation for saying that what they're doing is not the very best option..
koreasilver - anyways , you don't have a really smart and honest candidate , so you either fall in the places , conspiracy ville or stupid fundamentalist religion anti-drugs ville -flip-floping guy depending on who gives the most cash --- In the Republican race. Hey , whoever is anti war on drugs has my support , and Dr Paul was talking against the war on drugs back in 1980's when everyone was like " just say no" and they were flaming him on TV , so you can't say oh well , when he gets in office for sure he won't try to decriminalize "illegal" substance usage .
EPT
