To: Horgad who wrote (20727 ) 1/19/2010 2:13:28 PM From: Jim S 6 Recommendations Respond to of 50006 "Jim, no offense but your "free" thinking opinions sound like they are still securely and safetly inside the box. We can listen to what you are saying by turning on the TV or any other mass media source." No offense taken. I've read your post several times trying to figure out what you're saying. Near as I can tell, you're trying to say, "Jim S, I can see you're right, but I don't want to think that way." Ok, I can live with that. I got confused right off the bat, when you say I'm a "free thinker," but I'm stuck "inside the box." Huh? I'da thunk that "free thinking" would be, by definition, "outside the box." I wish you COULD get my point from the MSM. During Ron Paul's Prez candidacy, I listened to as many interviews as I could with him, and never once heard anyone ask him HOW he could unwind the US from its current foreign entanglements, or what that would result in. Any time they'd get even close, he'd skip away from the subject and talk about the money we "waste" overseas, not a plan for extricating ourselves. I very much wanted to hear him talk about that, but the MSM just let it pass. "the people that come here have decided that the mainstream message is 99% bogus...easy to spot that the mainstream message is a pack of lies, but then you are left with the extremely difficult task of sifting through the reams of information and false information to try and figure out what is what." Well, I agree partially. I'd say the the MSM OPINION and SLANT is LARGELY bogus and self-promoting. Not that it's "99% bogus" in its entirety. As I said in my initial post, Paul has some really interesting ideas. My problem with him is that he doesn't flesh out programs or results if his ideas were to be implemented. One of his ideas that I really like, and that might soon become law, is the audit of the Fed. What bothers me about that is that it might lead to Congress getting its sticky, fat fingers into the business of the Fed. Transparency is one thing, Congressional meddling is something else again, as was shown with Fannie and Freddy. I'm still waiting for someone to debate the substance of my initial post, not simply disagree because they don't WANT to agree. "Glen Beck ...spews a strange mix of truths and lies" Once again, I say, "Huh?" I watch his program fairly regularly, and haven't seen any "lies" at all. (Unless you count that he misspelled a word once.) I can think of a lot of reasons to dislike Beck, but I can't fault his facts.