Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Felch]

Americans, in my experiences, tend to be way too arrogant in expecting people from other countries to know the intricacies of our country. I am remembering roughly 10 years ago my cousins, all highly intelligent folks from Great Britain (who are now professionals in law & medicine) in their late teens / early 20s flabbergasted when entering Western New York State, until they were explained New York is a State as well as a City.

You've got a point. Even intelligent people can be ignorant of foreign cultures.

[Felch]

Holy ****, what is it with Ron Paul supporters and having delusions that the whole world is conspiring against Paul? Really, you think some British guy must know what old people in America think of an American television network and he's denying it as part of some half-baked plot to slander Ron Paul?

Conspiring? WTF? I don't think there's any half-baked plot, or conspiracy or anything like that. I think that Bugs is refusing to admit that there's any bias in spite of the evidence.

Seriously, when have you ever seen an election story that covers every candidate except the guy polling in second? ****ing Michele Bachmann got mentioned, and she's not even running anymore.

[OzzyKP]

Everyone knows Jon Stewart is a crazy conspiracy nut.



(and yea, this is a new clip from this week)

[Zevico]

Free speech and the First Amendment came up a bit earlier. My two cents--

1. The question of what free speech is, and what the First Amendment does, are separate and distinct. One is a concept, the other is a law. They are not equivalent in any sense. When discussing Citizens United, the legal question is not "what does this mean for free speech"?" That's the political question. The legal question is "how does the First Amendment apply to this case, if at all?"

2. The legal question requires you to determine what the First Amendment means. The text provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

3. What may be observed here is that the Amendment grants no rights to anyone. It is inaccurate to say that the United States Constitution grants you a right to free speech. The Amendment empowers courts to invalidate legislation that abridges "the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

4. Citizens United was not about the right to free speech or the grant of free speech to "corporations." Nor did it regard corporations as persons, and nor did it state that corporations had a right to free speech. It was not about rights at all. It was an application of the law. The First Amendment provides that Congress cannot "abridge"---limit--the freedom of speech (spoken communication), or of the press (written communication). One way in which persons can communicate with one another is in groups, corporate or otherwise. Laws restricting the ability of groups to communicate their views therefore violate the First Amendment-unless they are said by the Court to be "reasonable." (In fact it is not enough that a law restricting speech be "reasonable"--the test is actually phrased somewhat differently. I use the word "reasonable" because no amount of formulary will change the practical import of the issue. That being, "do the judges of the court think this law is sensible or not and why.")

5. The legal argument in favour of campaign laws does not rest on the assertion that corporations are not people. That is a misnomer. Possibly it is a political or moral argument in favour of such restrictions. Rather, the legal argument rests on the assertion that restrictions on the exercise of speech by groups of persons, corporate or otherwise, is necessary and desirable for good government.

[molly bloom]

I wholeheartedly agree that CBS news has become terrible....and they remain a well regarded and trusted source of news for millions of Americans.

Is this meant to be a recommendation for non-Americans to watch it or avoid it ? Or are you saying that Americans can't tell the difference between dross and gold ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You must realize that conservatives think CBS News is super liberal and hence "become terrible". FWIW, it is far less liberal than Fox News is conservative.

Though conservatives may have some reason to be wary because of the whole scandal with Dan Rather and forged documents criticizing Dubya's Texas Air National Guard record - but that is one incident.

[Felch]

Is this meant to be a recommendation for non-Americans to watch it or avoid it ? Or are you saying that Americans can't tell the difference between dross and gold ?

Figuratively speaking, Americans can't tell the difference between dross and gold. Please don't quote me on this in some later thread about American metallurgy expertise.

[Felch]

You must realize that conservatives think CBS News is super liberal and hence "become terrible". FWIW, it is far less liberal than Fox News is conservative.

Though conservatives may have some reason to be wary because of the whole scandal with Dan Rather and forged documents criticizing Dubya's Texas Air National Guard record - but that is one incident.

I'm not a traditional conservative, and I'm not the sort to view CBS as liberal. The incident I referred to, and that Molly saw fit to excise from the quotation, is CBS's recent news report that "forgot" to mention the second place candidate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

::shrug:: Fox News just about a month ago had a poll of Republican primary candidates, but above Romney's numbers was a picture of President Obama rather than Governor Romney.

[Felch]

Did they forget to mention Romney?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Felch]

Graphics get mixed up all the time. Some poor intern is told to slap something together at the last minute and you wind up with lots of mistakes. But Jan Crawford isn't an intern, she's CBS's chief political correspondent, and it's reasonable to expect her to mention the candidate polling second in a two and a half minute segment. Her silence speaks volumes.

[Jon Miller]

::shrug:: Fox News just about a month ago had a poll of Republican primary candidates, but above Romney's numbers was a picture of President Obama rather than Governor Romney.

My mom's husband watches fox news all the time (and other shows).

There is a lot of romney love there right now.

JM

[Wezil]

But Jan Crawford isn't an intern, she's CBS's chief political correspondent, and it's reasonable to expect her to mention the candidate polling second in a two and a half minute segment. Her silence speaks volumes.

Which is precisely why I would vote for Paul were I eligible. Any candidate that scares the **** out of the Establishment like he does would get my vote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Graphics get mixed up all the time. Some poor intern is told to slap something together at the last minute and you wind up with lots of mistakes. But Jan Crawford isn't an intern, she's CBS's chief political correspondent, and it's reasonable to expect her to mention the candidate polling second in a two and a half minute segment. Her silence speaks volumes.

And if CBS is as liberal as a lot of conservatives say (it is left of center, that's true), then they'd LOVE to pump up Ron Paul. For one that's a bruising Republican nomination fight, and #2, Paul scores lower against Obama head to head than Romney does:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html