Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MB_722 on February 14, 2008, 12:19:38 PM
-
1
2
;)
-
note for Calmus, it is said here, as I have also witnessed, "he rallied progressive Americans"
Today's progressives:
The fourth and current Progressive movement grew out of social activism movements, Naderite and populist left political movements in conjunction with the civil rights, LBGT, women's, and environmental movements of the 1960s-1980s.[6] This exists as a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging in outlook from centrism (eg. Reform Party of the United States of America) to left-liberalism to social democracy (like the Green Party) and sometimes even democratic socialism (like the Socialist Party USA).
Modern progressivism includes political figures such as Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Rush Holt, Cynthia McKinney, David McReynolds, Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, Peter Camejo, and the late Paul Wellstone. Also in this category are many leaders in the women's movement, cosmopolitanism, labor movement, American civil rights movement, environmental movement, immigrant rights movement, and gay and lesbian rights movement. Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, and Urvashi Vaid.
Significant publications include The Progressive magazine, The Nation, The New Republic, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, In These Times, Counterpunch, and AlterNet.org. Broadcasting outlets include Air America Radio, the Pacifica Radio network, Democracy Now!, and certain community radio stations. Notable media voices include Alexander Cockburn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Al Franken, Juan Gonzalez, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, the late Molly Ivins, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy, Greg Palast, Randi Rhodes, Betsy Rosenberg, Ed Schultz and David Sirota.
Modern issues for "progressives" can include: electoral reform (including proportional representation and fusion candidates), environmental conservation, pollution control and environmentalism, universal health care, abolition of the death penalty, affordable housing, a viable Social Security System, renewable energy, gun control, "smart growth" urban development, a living wage and pro-union policies, among many others.
Examples of the broad range of progressive texts include: New Age Politics by Mark Satin; Why Americans Hate Politics by E.J. Dionne, Jr.; Community Building: Renewing Spirit & Learning in Business edited by Kazimierz Gozdz; Ecopolitics: Building a Green Society by Daniel Coleman; and Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.
The main current national progressive parties are the Democratic Party and the Green Party of the United States. The Democratic Party has major-party status in all fifty states, while there are state Green Parties or affiliates with the national Green Party in most states. The most succesful non-major state-level progressive party is the Vermont Progressive Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_progressivism
-
wow, these vids are right in line with what I've been yelling about. This is seriously fucked up.
-
I watched the first one. Not the most credible source. Looked like something shot in someone's basement.
-
I watched the first one. Not the most credible source. Looked like something shot in someone's basement.
what is it with you and packaging? so typical. thats all you have to complain about.
-
I watched the first one. Not the most credible source. Looked like something shot in someone's basement.
Well you're not going to get the major media to do it no matter how true the stuff might be since they'd be implicating themselves. That's not happening so you either see this done independently or not at all. That's fair to assume, then next it's just up to if the material he presented is true or false and I can say it is right in line with what you've seen me noting all along. When I watched this, there was no shock because I've been following this along the way. You can find account after account of these things documented over and over so I have to say, it may be budget, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
-
what is it with you and packaging? so typical. thats all you have to complain about.
That's not the only thing. They were citing "prison planet" as a source. ::) It would be different if they just showed an uninterrupted clip. Instead, there was heavy editing, blurry graphs, innuendo, etc.
-
Well you're not going to get the major media to do it no matter how true the stuff might be since they'd be implicating themselves. That's not happening so you either see this done independently or not at all. That's fair to assume, then next it's just up to if the material he presented is true or false and I can say it is right in line with what you've seen me noting all along. When I watched this, there was no shock because I've been following this along the way. You can find account after account of these things documented over and over so I have to say, it may be budget, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
So there was a mass media conspiracy to suppress Ron Paul? Why?
-
That's not the only thing. They were citing "prison planet" as a source. ::) It would be different if they just showed an uninterrupted clip. Instead, there was heavy editing, blurry graphs, innuendo, etc.
Classic "Final Cut" Power :)
It's so easy to do.
-
Classic "Final Cut" Power :)
It's so easy to do.
Yeah. Really undercuts the credibility of the piece when people do that.
-
So there was a mass media conspiracy to suppress Ron Paul? Why?
Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible. But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..." There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News. Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda. Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox. We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days. Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.
-
Yeah. Really undercuts the credibility of the piece when people do that.
I would think that if Ron Paul had a following outside the internet that he has in the internet that there would be some independent polling system or something that could show that. But he doesn't.
And as much as i like him and would vote for him he simply doesn't matter much now.
-
Prison Planet might get it wrong sometimes. wow. I hope nobody is telling me Fox/CNN and others don't get it wrong too. That would be a funny assertion. They get quite a bit right over at prison planet too.
-
Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible. But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..." There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News. Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda. Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox. We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days. Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.
Imagine if he had poll power behind him. They would have had no choice. If he even got 20% or even Hucks numbers a month ago.
If the man was 10 or 20 years younger he'd have his day eventually.
-
Did they conspire together, I doubt it. Is there a bias against the guy in the corporate media that would lead to frequent censorship, sure that's very possible. But I doubt all these networks got together and said, "let's screw Ron Paul... 3..2..1.. make it so..." There's massive motivation for Corporations, especially multinationals to not want a Ron Paul presidency along with other very well known bias such as with Fox News. Fox News has without a doubt been the most friendly and aligned with the neoconservative agenda. Ron Paul has been the biggest attacker of the neoconservative agenda so it's no shock to see the biggest attacks against Ron Paul happen on Fox News and the biggest censorship attempt happen by Fox. We all know the corporation sets the agenda these days. Ron Paul runs counter to much of that agenda.
I agree with some of this. I really don't trust the media. That said, I doubt networks like CNN and MSNBC really had anything against Paul.
-
I would think that if Ron Paul had a following outside the internet that he has in the internet that there would be some independent polling system or something that could show that. But he doesn't.
And as much as i like him and would vote for him he simply doesn't matter much now.
I agree. His support has been inflated by internet followers and people who bombard call-in polls. The election results bear (or bare?) that out.
-
Imagine if he had poll power behind him. They would have had no choice. If he even got 20% or even Hucks numbers a month ago.
If the man was 10 or 20 years younger he'd have his day eventually.
I'm really lost at the polling. I searched and searched for an independent polling agency or undertaking that took place without the bias toward Ron Paul and I could not find that one was ever done. Of course if it were to be done, it would have been funded by Ron Paul or a supporter and just discredited because of that. I don't know what's going on, I just know it seems off to me. All these numbers just go against my gut feelings. All time high disapproval in the two parties. All time high against the Iraq War even in the republican party although it's much higher with progressives. And the guy who does the best in the primaries is the guy most supportive of the war and most supportive of the course we've taken. He's been right there backing bush for much of this. One of the things I still think is likely is that a major portion of the Ron Paul support comes from people who are not registered republicans. It is true that he rallied progressives behind him, but how many progressives are registered republican. Even with me, by the time I announced he would be who I want, the deadline was passed to register republican. So maybe much of that support field is not going to translate in the polling or in the primaries and it would account for the clear seperation in what seems to be a large following and actual results. I just know there's something that seems very off.
-
I agree with some of this. I really don't trust the media. That said, I doubt networks like CNN and MSNBC really had anything against Paul.
Well as we know with Fox, they got their agenda and marching orders from the top on a daily basis. We also know that the other media outlets rushed to emulate the success of Fox News. We also know there has been a huge point made against media consolidation because of the corporations ability to push an agenda without any significant independent voice in the media. So many others have worried about the corporate media's ability in this area. So to me, it's not unshocking that marching orders would come down from the top that translated in some way to censorship.
-
I agree. His support has been inflated by internet followers and people who bombard call-in polls. The election results bear (or bare?) that out.
This is like saying internet followers aren't real people. It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet. Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over. So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this. Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.
-
This is like saying internet followers aren't real people. It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet. Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over. So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this. Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.
Romney supporters should be shot on sight. 8)
-
This is like saying internet followers aren't real people. It also fails to point out that other candidates attempt to get the same momentum on the internet. Romney tried to manipulate this stuff bigtime and had people hitting straw polls and voting over and over and over. So it should be kept in context that it's just flat out wrong to say only Ron Paul supporters would spend the time to do this. Infact in the straw polls, there's documented video showing that the Ron Paul supporters each voted once and sat there yelling at the Romney supporters for going back to vote over and over.
I think internet followers are real people. What the election has shown so far, though, is those followers have exaggerated Ron Paul's support among the voters.
-
I watched the first one. Not the most credible source. Looked like something shot in someone's basement.
Some of the articles are taken from Associated press, Rueters, etc...but the images were blurry so they didn't help much.
-
Ron PAul thinks he got somewhat a of a fair break from the media in the beginning, (when most weren't paying attention anyway), but once the elections debates came on TV something changed. As other canidates starting dropping out he started getting less of a chance to speak then when all the canidates were in. The media did cover him less and less.
Some would argue that it's because no one was interested in voting for him, I think it's because his meesage was getting to too many people and the grassroots level was getting huge. I don't think some people liked that so there was a deliberate attempt to shut him up. Lets face it, without media coverage, you're fucked.
-
I think internet followers are real people. What the election has shown so far, though, is those followers have exaggerated Ron Paul's support among the voters.
Don't you think I have a possible real explanation in my theory that his support from progressives doesn't translate because they're not registered republicans? That would account for a larger following that wouldn't show up in polls or votes. I'm an example of that myself.
-
Don't you think I have a possible real explanation in my theory that his support from progressives doesn't translate because they're not registered republicans? That would account for a larger following that wouldn't show up in polls or votes. I'm an example of that myself.
Yes that could account for some of the disparity. But if he had true supporters who wanted him to be president they would register and vote. If his support is made up largely of people who can't or won't vote for him, then he's not and never has been a legitimate candidate.
-
Yes that could account for some of the disparity. But if he had true supporters who wanted him to be president they would register and vote. If his support is made up largely of people who can't or won't vote for him, then he's not and never has been a legitimate candidate.
not always the case, depending on the state, some can register last minute, many others have early deadlines and although this is their own fault, many are not aware that they need to be registered under the party by the deadline which is often well before the primary vote. This often happens with first time voters. They go in to vote and end up turned away because they didn't register under the party. This really comes to mind with Ron Paul because he did indeed have a large connection with the youth as was noted with the massive crowds he attracted at colleges and universities. In the end, I believe the large following is real and that there are probably real reasons it didn't translate in the polls and in actual votes. These people wouldn't be the ones called by pollster as they're going from registered lists and of course it's not going to translate into votes either. I'm actually surprised at how many people fail to register under the party for the candidate they want to vote for in the primary. And come to think of it, there's a pretty big failure to educate people on the aspects of our system in school so I guess it's not that shocking. In my case, I fail for two reasons. I didn't get convinced of Ron Paul until it was to late for my state and I am very reluctant to register republican. Big problem with me. So most of my support was geared with the hopes he would bail in time to run independent. I was almost sure he would and I'm not the only person who felt like that. There was a big call for him to do that. Probably from the progressive crowd he attracted. If you stop to think about it, it is a huge problem for a candidate from one party to gather a majority of support from another party. I can see how this would indeed cause the number problems we're seeing with Ron Paul.
-
not always the case, depending on the state, some can register last minute, many others have early deadlines and although this is their own fault, many are not aware that they need to be registered under the party by the deadline which is often well before the primary vote. This often happens with first time voters. They go in to vote and end up turned away because they didn't register under the party. This really comes to mind with Ron Paul because he did indeed have a large connection with the youth as was noted with the massive crowds he attracted at colleges and universities. In the end, I believe the large following is real and that there are probably real reasons it didn't translate in the polls and in actual votes. These people wouldn't be the ones called by pollster as they're going from registered lists and of course it's not going to translate into votes either. I'm actually surprised at how many people fail to register under the party for the candidate they want to vote for in the primary. And come to think of it, there's a pretty big failure to educate people on the aspects of our system in school so I guess it's not that shocking. In my case, I fail for two reasons. I didn't get convinced of Ron Paul until it was to late for my state and I am very reluctant to register republican. Big problem with me. So most of my support was geared with the hopes he would bail in time to run independent. I was almost sure he would and I'm not the only person who felt like that. There was a big call for him to do that. Probably from the progressive crowd he attracted. If you stop to think about it, it is a huge problem for a candidate from one party to gather a majority of support from another party. I can see how this would indeed cause the number problems we're seeing with Ron Paul.
I'm sort of in the same boat. I'm going to vote for a Republican in the general, but I refuse to register as a Republican to vote in the primary, because I'm an independent.
I don't dispute he has a large following. I've only maintained that he didn't have the support to be elected president.
-
I'm sort of in the same boat. I'm going to vote for a Republican in the general, but I refuse to register as a Republican to vote in the primary, because I'm an independent.
I don't dispute he has a large following. I've only maintained that he didn't have the support to be elected president.
how's your state go? In some states registered independents can for either way in the primary.
-
oh and you kinda did allude to the support for Ron Paul not being authentic. But not a biggie. I do think that if he ran independent, he would stand to out perform Ross Perot. If he's looking to underline his message, I can't think of a better way than to take that shot. He wouldn't lose his seat. His voters are following his belief, not his party. They would elect him as an independent if he failed his run, I have no doubt of that. So I really believe he's making a colossal error not running as an independent. Whatever anyone believes, the one true statement is that the time is ripe for a third party candidate to show well in this election.
-
how's your state go? In some states registered independents can for either way in the primary.
Actually I should correct my prior statement. I don't think you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican to vote in the primary.
-
Actually I should correct my prior statement. I don't think you have to be registered as a Democrat or Republican to vote in the primary.
You have to be registered as a republican to vote for a republican, a dem to vote for a dem and depending on the state, and independent can vote either way. The deadline will make a huge difference. If there is no deadline, you can vote whatever and change your affiliation to how you want to vote.
-
oh and you kinda did allude to the support for Ron Paul not being authentic. But not a biggie. I do think that if he ran independent, he would stand to out perform Ross Perot. If he's looking to underline his message, I can't think of a better way than to take that shot. He wouldn't lose his seat. His voters are following his belief, not his party. They would elect him as an independent if he failed his run, I have no doubt of that. So I really believe he's making a colossal error not running as an independent. Whatever anyone believes, the one true statement is that the time ripe for a third party candidate to show well in this election.
I've questioned the extent of his support by people who will actually vote. So, while he may have a large following, I don't think he has a comparatively large number of voters who support him (not counting the people you mentioned who aren't registered). I don't give much credence to things like how many times a youtube video has been viewed. That means nothing to me and certainly does nothing to show he is a legitimate presidential candidate.
I doubt he would do better than Perot. He doesn't have the money or charisma and I doubt he is as popular as Perot was before he lost his mind.
-
Perot was before he lost his mind.
THE NINJAS ARE COMING THE NINJAS ARE COMING :D
-
THE NINJAS ARE COMING THE NINJAS ARE COMING :D
lol. ;D
-
lol. ;D
What the hell was that anyway? I remember sitting there listening to him and all of a sudden, we went into bullshit fantasy mode. ???
-
What the hell was that anyway? I remember sitting there listening to him and all of a sudden, we went into bullshit fantasy mode. ???
He said Bush Sr. was hiring people to try and ruin his daughter's wedding. Then he was talking to a room full of black folks and start talking about how his father had always been "good to you people." Then he dropped out of the race. Got back in, but the damage had been done.
-
He said Bush Sr. was hiring people to try and ruin his daughter's wedding. Then he was talking to a room full of black folks and start talking about how his father had always been "good to you people." Then he dropped out of the race. Got back in, but the damage had been done.
Actually at the end, death threats to his family came in and he said fuck that.
-
He said Bush Sr. was hiring people to try and ruin his daughter's wedding. Then he was talking to a room full of black folks and start talking about how his father had always been "good to you people." Then he dropped out of the race. Got back in, but the damage had been done.
yea, that was crazy. That's when I determined he never wanted to be president but was in it to disrupt Bush's chances. I think he had a vendetta against Bush and it was a power/revenge move. Just a guess. If I remember right, there were some past issues between the two. Something about the hostages maybe?
-
That's not the only thing. They were citing "prison planet" as a source. ::) It would be different if they just showed an uninterrupted clip. Instead, there was heavy editing, blurry graphs, innuendo, etc.
Right, and a "good" source would be CNN, NBC, CBS, CSPAN, etc... you know, the channels that discuss the senate hearings on a baseball player's juicing habits while thousands of American families are losing their homes, the economy is at the verge of recesion and Americans are dying overseas for no apparent reason whatsoever.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter and I do not know more than you do, but I do know that the media in this country is OFFICIALLY full-o-shit. Hence, in my opinion, prison planet is as good a source as CNN.
-
Right, and a "good" source would be CNN, NBC, CBS, CSPAN, etc... you know, the channels that discuss the senate hearings on a baseball player's juicing habits while thousands of American families are losing their homes, the economy is at the verge of recesion and Americans are dying overseas for no apparent reason whatsoever.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter and I do not know more than you do, but I do know that the media in this country is OFFICIALLY full-o-shit. Hence, in my opinion, prison planet is as good a source as CNN.
Isn't prison planet one of the prime sources for that 911 conspiracy crap?
I have a lot of problems with the mainstream media too, but you can't really put C-SPAN in the category of any other news outlet. They are the best and most unbiased source of political news on TV.
-
Isn't prison planet one of the prime sources for that 911 conspiracy crap?
I have a lot of problems with the mainstream media too, but you can't really put C-SPAN in the category of any other news outlet. They are the best and most unbiased source of political news on TV.
it's not crap 8)
-
it's not crap 8)
How about "horse manure"? :D
-
How about "horse manure"? :D
nope 8)
-
nope 8)
"Cow dung"? O.K. I'm done. :)
-
"Cow dung"? O.K. I'm done. :)
no 8) O.K. Me Too
-
Isn't prison planet one of the prime sources for that 911 conspiracy crap?
I have a lot of problems with the mainstream media too, but you can't really put C-SPAN in the category of any other news outlet. They are the best and most unbiased source of political news on TV.
To be honest with you, I have no idea whether prison planet is behind the 9/11 conspiracy thing, but I do know that CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, "sold us" a war against a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. So when it comes to credibility I'm pretty much of the opinion that prison planet/CNN/CSPAN/NBC are all the same shit: propaganda machines.
As far as CSPAN is concerned... I do not watch much TV anymore so I can't really tell you how unbiased or skewed they are. For the moment I have not heard anything, any criticism, from the other channels, so they must be following orders pretty well. Meaning they are probably not be deviating all that much from "official" discourse.
-
bump
and it appears he was censored here. The getbig primary poll thread is gone. Paul won that by a mile. I didn't delete it.
-
bump
and it appears he was censored here. The getbig primary poll thread is gone. Paul won that by a mile. I didn't delete it.
Another conspiracy theory. lol
But maybe he did get a whopping 20 votes (or whatever) on the getbig.com poll. And he ruled myspace. And was the king youtube video views. Etc., etc.
-
The results of the 2008 primary. He didn't win a single state. And the only reason he came in second or third in some states is he stayed in the race after every other viable candidate had dropped out.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#302