BF2S Forums Media Conspiracy against Ron Paul.

Im sure you guys know more about medicine than Doctor Paul

eleven bravo wrote:

Im sure you guys know more about medicine than Doctor Paul

I know that vaccination programs work when you vaccinate as many people as possible.

Damn big evil government trying to force us to be immunized, is such a stupid position to take.

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Im sure you guys know more about medicine than Doctor Paul

I know that vaccination programs work when you vaccinate as many people as possible.

Damn big evil government trying to force us to be immunized, is such a stupid position to take.

He's not anti-vaccination, he's anti forced vaccination. Would you vaccinate your children? I would. So it doesn't have any effect on either of us then now does it?

If you choose not to, then your child develops measles it can spread to my child.

I thought that concept was obvious.

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I know that vaccination programs work when you vaccinate as many people as possible.

Damn big evil government trying to force us to be immunized, is such a stupid position to take.

He's not anti-vaccination, he's anti forced vaccination. Would you vaccinate your children? I would. So it doesn't have any effect on either of us then now does it?

If you choose not to, then your child develops measles it can spread to my child.

I thought that concept was obvious.

How does it spread to your child if your child is vaccinated? Stop being stupid.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Paul being a social conservative?  In which reality?
The guy is pretty darn libertarian (heck, he ran as a Libertarian once).

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3729717
read from there onward. I pointed out a few instances of him letting his social views bleed into legislation.

Why do people assume libertarian means social liberal?

Macbeth wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Paul being a social conservative?  In which reality?
The guy is pretty darn libertarian (heck, he ran as a Libertarian once).

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3729717
read from there onward. I pointed out a few instances of him letting his social views bleed into legislation.

Why do people assume libertarian means social liberal?

Meh...  All the Paul voters just need to vote for Gary Johnson instead.  He's got all the good stuff of Paul without the baggage and nutty stuff.

For some reason I'm suddenly reminded of this classic
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=68717

Call a redneck a warmonger and they say you're a name caller. What do they want us to call them?

Shahter wrote:

yeah, heard that before. that "argument" doesn't take into account a simple fact that just about everybody, including "savior capitalists" with their "free market", had a go in russia before bolsheviks and failed miserably. only stalin with "actions that had nothing to do with bringing SU into the 20th century" was successful, and not simply successful - the results that soviets had were nothing short of spectacular. "unforseen economical consequences" my arse.

So now you agree that Stalin and company knew exactly what would happen when they did what they did? And that the ultimate economic end game (an unsustainable system that collapsed) was known by them and their successors, yet they pressed with it anyway?

Or are you saying they knew millions would die, yet there would be short term economic gain, so it's all good.

Which one of those two awesome conclusions are we dealing with?

FEOS wrote:

If the US (and other countries) hadn't resorted to slavery, there would've been a different labor base upon which to build their respective economies--like the industrial North (which had its own evils). Yes, good and bad in all things. Millions of your own countrymen purposely killed? Seems overwhelmingly bad.

yeah. it seems so when taken out of context. extreme situations call for extreme measures to resolve them. the situation in 1917th wasn't simply extreme - it was a fucking catastrophe. the methods of the soviets were horrible - there, i said it - but who are you again to judge them? they succeeded where everybody else failed, and history doesn't deal in "what if"s.

I'm not judging it. I'm simply laying out what happened. History and everyone else (except, apparently you and a small minority like you) has judged it based on outcome vs actions...and found the cost/benefit equation to be sorely lacking.

FEOS wrote:

That many fewer people available to fight for the motherland ten years later... Would the Nazis have made it to Stalingrad if the Ukraine's population hadn't been significantly reduced by Stalin 10 years prior?

i said it numerous times - stalin didn't purposefully reduce any population and thinking so is absurd. the fucking population was one of the most valuable resources for soviet union, because, unlike many "civilized and progressive", soviets didn't have colonies or slaves. your version of "holodomor" is total fiction. if you look at the history of russia for, like, a hundred years immediately prior to 1917 you'll see that "holodomors" happened every time there was a bad harvest during those times. each and every fucking time. they reason it turned out so particularly bad under bolsheviks was, as i mentioned numerous times, was that the nation was in total turmoil as a whole. it's also worth noting that it was the last of those famines in history of russia. never again anything like that happened under bolsheviks. but that, of course, falls under "unforseen economical consequences" category, right?

Let's compare those cases (slaves and colonies) to purposefully killing millions of your own people by creating bad harvests by moving people from farms to cities and forcing inefficient/improper farming "for the state" because "the state" knows more about farming in that area than the farmers who have been farming it for centuries. Yes, slavery was horrific in that it forcibly placed humans in servitude to other humans. We fought a war over the issue (among others) 50-odd years before your own Bolshevik revolution. The end result was freed slaves, who then--despite massive discrimination (like other ethnic minorities in other nations)--began to make even more wonderful contributions to our society. Same with the colonies (India, for example) when they broke away from their colonial powers. In neither case did the offender just kill millions as a matter of policy in order to "make things better" and then, when things happened to get better, say "See? It was worth it to kill/let all those people die." Nobody in the US is arguing that slavery was "worth it" or "a good thing in the end" despite the huge boon to the Southern economy--there were far too many negatives associated with it.

The position of pretty much every independent scholar is that the famine associated with those deaths was man-made and thus, entirely predictable and preventable...that most likely, Stalin and company knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences would be. This is based on other behavior for the man in other places at other times in history--it goes with his established pattern of behavior/personality. So the USSR was able to industrialize quickly. That's great. Was it worth the millions of lives lost to make it happen in the manner that it happened? Was the cost worth the benefit in the end? For you, that answer is clearly yes. For many of your countrymen who have written on the topic, the answer is clearly no.

FEOS wrote:

It's certainly more varied...which allows for at least a modicum of critical thought on the matter, rather than a single viewpoint. But your sig tells us your thoughts on open-mindedness, right? It's a bad thing.

of course it's more varied - in the ways that it provides for better understanding of what some of the more dominant "private interests" there currently are. always good to know, especially for the purposes of "democracy and freedom". pffft.

So if you understand what the slant is and you have varied sources, you can filter based on the known slant. If you have one source, with one filter, you never know if you're getting any variance in information.

FEOS wrote:

I don't know. I would assume some would have been paid for by Interpol (or similar organizations), some would have been done internally by other journalistic organizations, trying to figure out what happened.

why would anybody pay to have what actually happened reported?

FEOS wrote:

So how it's funded changes what it finds?

directly. the one who pays for the dinner usually gets to take the girl dancing.

FEOS wrote:

I guess that means that Russia doesn't fund anything...

it does. just like everybody else. in time they might even get better at this.

So I suppose if Russia had bothered to look into it--which would've required funding, btw--then nobody could trust their conclusions, either. Because they would've funded the investigations. You do realize that everything in this world must be paid for, right? And that doesn't make it automatically tainted in some way...

FEOS wrote:

So why do you think private interests are somehow evil?

not evil. private.

ooookkkk. That answer means nothing. They actually are publicly traded and their inner workings are generally transparent, as they are investigated, audited, etc. Do you just have an issue with them not being government-controlled?

FEOS wrote:

Perhaps the private interests are "interested" in ensuring the truth is out there for people to make their own decisions?

where's money in that?

Because there are enough sources for information that people can figure out if they're being fed BS and stop using a given source. That's where the money is (see ratings drops in CNN, MSNBC, etc and increase in ratings/use of alternative media).

FEOS wrote:

They certainly have a better track record of it than government-controlled media outlets do...

lol

The fact that you don't get/understand this shows how numbed by your own propaganda machine you've become, apparently...

i have personally spoken to many people, who were in gulags. the last thing your learn in places like that is what they are for and who the people around you truly are.

No different than any other prison from that perspective. There are always a few who do learn those things while they are in there. But true, most just keep their heads down and try to live day to day and get out. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

FEOS wrote:

Seriously. You act as if he heard about the prisons on a street corner and wrote a comic book about them.

you know, i've actually been raised in a family of soviet intelligentsia, only, unlike solzhnitsyn, i got to actually experience the world around me when ussr dissolved. i've a very good idea of what kinda person mr. solzhenitsyn was: "totally out of touch with reality" would describe him best.

Again with the "I live here, so that cancels out any other opinion--even of other people who have lived here" argument.

i never said anything "against the west" - only that your so called "freedom" has nothing to do with actual freedom, and "democracy" has devolved into an information manipulation tool. i never said that stuff was good or bad - just that it's not what you are trying to convince yourselves it is. you here are issuing labels and judging people and nations you have only been given second hand info about, not me.

Your position has inherent negativity. And for you to state that you are not issuing labels or judging is merely laughable.

FEOS wrote:

Even though you've provided zero sources to back up any of your arguments. And even if you did, I should just ignore them and discount them as propaganda.

i'm using the same sources you are. i'm just making different conclusions because i see it from different perspective - perspective you never had for reasons i already mentioned.

But the difference is, I honor your perspective as being different. I don't agree with it, and want to better understand why you have that perspective through discussion. You just discount different perspectives and try to shut down discussion with your approach of "I live here, you don't, anything you read is tainted by Russia haters, propaganda, blah blah blah" no sources, emotion-based, argument. That is the frustrating thing for me, at least.

Wall St bought another President - nice.

Obama should be able to run with that.

Jenspm wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You can't buy as much blanket media coverage with those sort of numbers.

The contributors should tell you all you need to know about this race anyway.

Shouldn't be legal..

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =N00009638 - 2008 obama contribution

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contr … =N00009638 - 2012 obama contribution

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wall St bought another President - nice.

Obama should be able to run with that.

Wall Street bought him too.

The problem is that banks own our system.  Granted, banks own a lot of governments -- including much of the EU.