Honestly, if you want to get "unbiased news".... look to foreign sources. It's still skewed a bit, but not as badly as on the home front. In essense, you have to realize that the truth is out there somewhere, but you have to do some work to get to it.

As for the constitution... the problem with it isn't that it's flawed, but that people use the "but it doesn't say I CAN'T, so I must be ALLOWED by default" reason to exploit it. That is why there are so many laws on the books, and why they are worded like they are. If people wouldn't look for loopholes, the law books would be the size of a comic book.

Face it, mankind isn't equipt to govern itself.

I don't watch Fox News often. I look at everything objectively, not using my own bias. A lot of the pundits at Fox clearly have their heads up their asses, just like CNN or MSNBC. They're called the Mainstream Media, and instead of bringing real news to the people, they bring DRAMA. People like drama. They like hearing about scandals and controversies. IMO, the MSM has done this with Ron Paul and found hardly any dirt on him, none of which is actually anything he actually wrote or agrees with.

I agree that other networks can be just as bad, but cmon. Fox takes the cake for nutcases. This is a primary reason I rarely watch the news anymore. I generally try to get my news from Digg or Reddit or some non partisan site.

All news in the US has a sensationalist slant. It's what engages advertisers and convinces them to advertise and titillates the audience. My best guess is that the views and statements expressed by talking heads on Fox resonates the least with your views and that's really why you single them out.

I don't agree that Fox has the greatest number of nutcases. I see them as pretty equally scattered amongst the networks. Frankly I'm not seeing anything specific from you on which we could discuss. Mostly just a venting of sentiment based on generalizations. I think best we can hope for is agreeing to disagree...except for US News in general sucking of course...

agreed lol. I don't think one man has the answer to all our problems and considering no man is perfect, that can make it difficult to decide who is going to be the leader of our country, let alone who I trust to not wreck my truck if I let them drive it. Character has a lot more to do with the Presidency than a lot of people think.

It's not necessarily what or who you know, but what kind of impression you can leave on the people, and that is the primary reason I like Ron Paul. The man's got integrity and honesty on his side and that doesn't really bode well for the current political system considering the majority of other candidates who have run up till this point have shown just exactly who's throat they're going to cut this week just to get some votes. I mean when Obama was running for President in 2008, I at least thought, you know, Ron Paul likely has 0 chance to win this race, and although I agree with some of Obama's ideas, having lived through the disastrous 8 years of having Bush in office, I have become skeptical of the entire political process.

Apathy is probably the best word to describe it. I felt like we were just going down a slippery slope and if something doesn't happen quickly, it might be impossible to reverse some of the fuck ups of previous Presidents. All I knew is I didn't want that crazy mofo McCain in office. Although I ended up not voting for Obama or anyone that year, I also did not take the time to educate myself to see that I could still write in my candidate's name of choice, so I ended up not voting for Ron Paul.

I'm not going to make that same mistake this time. I'm 26 and this will be my first time voting, so I'm putting it where I think it will count the most. Idealistically, Ron Paul has some flaws in respect to our military and a few other things, but in this shitty economic situation we're in right now, I think he's the only candidate who has the knowledge, experience and the fortitude to get shit done. He's the only guy that has actively fought against big government and corruption and I think he will help restore my personal liberties that are being destroyed even right now by our current President.

Is voting for Dr. Paul a risk? Yes, but what isn't? I've watched at least 20 debates, numerous YouTube videos on all the candidates, albeit mostly on Ron Paul, but that's just because his message resonates with me more than the others. All others just seek power. They want more control. They want to increase the size of the Federal Government and I'd rather have states compete against each other with a free and open market system.

He's what we need for the right now. Obviously he will only have 4-8 years in office at most, but the message he sends will hopefully restore faith to the people in our political system. And if Ron doesn't win the election this year, his son Rand Paul might run in 2016, so this message that we don't need the government to take care of us from cradle to grave is going to continue for many years to come and that's what makes Ron Paul so special. He's literally shaken the foundation of politics by sticking to his guns and telling it like it is.

Anyway, in other words, I endorse Ron Paul for President and even if he does not win the Republican nomination, I will still write his name in.

Kube, are you aware that if the proper paperwork isn't filed(at a cost of $200, last I checked), that a write in vote is wasted? The reality is, even if 10 million people write my name on the presidential ballot, if I haven't filed to have my name listed as a write in option, the votes will be discarded.

Ain't that a bitch?

I'm sure Ron's campaign people have taken care of that $200 fee, especially considering how much money Ron Paul has made from donations and such.

But yeah. that does suck. I don't think there is a fee for the voter though, only the candidate.

The fact that there are people that will defend FOX News is seriously concerning. All television media is cartellized in the hands of a few powerful people who *think* they have control over people (and to an extent, they do, as evidence by the fact that there's a handful of people who regularly pay fealty to their television Gods), but in reality, it's dwindling. There's a reason why they're (the entertainment/news/etc industries) fighting so damn hard to pass a SOPA-like law. It's going to happen, eventually, such is the nature of Government.

I'd have to check, but that may be on a per-state basis, but yeah, it's $$ the candidate has to put up, not the voter. Although, it wouldn't surprise me one iota if they put some sort of "voting tax" in place.

Still, I don't think there should be a fee involved to put your name on the ballot. Maybe a form to fill out, but it should be every citizens right to be able to put their name on the ballot without a fee for doing so. However, it's pretty much negated by the electoral college, that does NOT have to follow the "popular" vote.

Well I'm sure you've seen the crazies trying to get their names on the ballot. I'm sure it's to prevent a bunch people wanting to be on there for advertising purposes.

didnt stop trump. Was pretty obvious he was pulling a big political stunt.. and it worked. Pretty sad imo

agreed, but hey, he's his own salesman. Not gonna knock him for finding new ways to attract people to watch his TV shows or buy his crap.

No, but it makes a complete mockery of our values, and whatnot.

If I were republican, I'd pick Ron Paul more than likely. I watched his youtube videos, and he was on the ball about stuff instead of these other jackholes.

It's sad that he's getting shut out as much as he is. I guess it's funding, or people cant accept the truth anymore.

Ron paul does seem to be the smartest republican right now. It's a pity he can't really speak very well. He ends up rambling in the debates - he doesn't know when to stop talking. He strikes me as a man with so many things to say that he gets confused trying to get it all out.

Honestly though, if Ron Paul appeals to people like me, he won't get the nomination. Mitt romney is the most bush-like idiot so i'm pretty sure he'll get the republican nomination.

(and Obama will win)

If you look at the 2016 election though, Ron Paul's son Rand Paul has a lot of similar views as his father does and he speaks a lot more clearly. If Ron does not win this election, you better believe his son will run in 2016. The message is only getting louder and the movement cannot be stopped. Hopefully this election will be the tipping point, but who knows?

I think Ron would make a good adviser :)

that is why you watch both msnbc/cnn and fox news (or whatever other news stations you watch.) then pick them appart your self don't rely on the news to provide you with your opinions. its like when you have to write a report in school, instead of using wikipedia you go to the sources on the bottom of the article and you read those and use those as references.

also fox news all fox news is a different bias unlike the rest of the stations who are biased towards the democrats, fox news is biased towards the republicans. so it doesn't really matter if you want to hear something from a republican point of view then you listen to fox if you want to hear something biased towards the democrats you listen to the any other news outlet. you be really surprised all the shit they both leave out. i still think msnbc/cnn is far worse than fox. that and when i watch msnbc or most of the other news-stations i get nauseated.

ps: personally i just use the internet now, screw the Fucking news I just stopped watching it... :rolleyes: (saddens me more than anything.)

You have to watch the news though. I feel that the more I watch the news, the more that galvanizes my hatred for biased journalism if you can even call it journalism anymore. But I also agree on getting information from the internet. You need both, the internet to see the TRUTH and the news on TV to see how ridiculous networks will get just to ignore someone like Ron Paul.

I can't stand fox news... the amount of shit they spew is just obsurd. MSNBC is just as bad, but with dems. The only "news" I watch on tv now a days is the daily show with jon stewart, and the colbert report. Tend to just stick to the internet for information, though that shit is off a lot too.

To each his own...but you really want to call Stewart or Colbert "news"? I don't see where they're any different from Hannity or Anderson Cooper... They're entertainers pandering to a certain demographic.

Either way, I certainly want to ignore a common usage of double quotes.