a question for ron paul detractors

[Turtle]

Yes, an impact on what they are talking about, but not really on the outcome. Unless of course he goes independent. Then in that case, its more hope and change.

They're talking, but it's a little early for major changes to have happened in order to show the outcome.

The USDA is in the process of closing a couple hundred offices which are more or less redundant, and will be laying off thousands. It's a small start, but it's a start nonetheless. Then you have this:

Obama takes on big government: `It has to change? - Boston.com

"Seeking more power to shrink the government, President Barack Obama on Friday suggested smashing six economic agencies into one, an election-year idea intended to halt bureaucratic nightmares and force Republicans to back him on one of their own favorite issues." (Despite it being a Ron Paul idea, not a favorite of the Republicans, as no Republican in my lifetime has ever reduced the size of government one wit).

Whether Ron Paul gets elected or not, the people of this country have embraced his ideas (at least many of them), and the president and Congress have no choice but to move towards those ideas. People want something different than the status quo, because the status quo ain't working. That's why Obama got elected in the first place. That's why the AWS protests happened. We're still quite early in this current iteration of revolution.

 

[RLENT]

like this ?

Hannity .... are you serious ?

I've seen Hannity lie and pervert truth so many times that I ran out of fingers and toes to count long, long ago ....

You do understand that Fox News is barred from our northern neighbor - simply because they have been found to lie, misreport, and pervert truth don't you ?

No, I'm talking more about this kind of virulent poison - Angry Evangelicalism - that has infected those who once followed Jesus .... and have instead converted to worshipping Jebus:

The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

 

[witness23]

Hannity .... are you serious ?

Yep......he's serious, that's the problem.

River rock I tell ya, river rock......

 

[AMonger]

It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. The table saw isn't to blame when the wood is cut incorrectly. Hammers aren't to blame when the nail is hammered into the wrong spot. Cruise Control isn't to blame when the vehicle rear-ends the one in front of it. Irregularities in punctuation and spelling are the result of the poster failing to correct any voice transcription (or autocorrect or his or her own fingers) caused punctuation and spelling mistakes prior to submitting the post.

Poor analogies. Going back to correct the huge number of innacuracies in voice transcription results negates the reason for having it, much like the vacuum cleaner of SNL's two "wild and crazy guys" from the 70s. The way the commie vacuum worked negated the reason for having it. But with the software, it's better to just make sure you're not seen as illiterate.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[witness23]

RLENT here's the problem. You and I (and a few others) are operating under the illusion that these lies, misconceptions and the constant feed of misinformation like the above example of Hannity, are so obvious that most Americans will see right through them.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

[RLENT]

Whether Ron Paul gets elected or not, the people of this country have embraced his ideas (at least many of them), and the president and Congress have no choice but to move towards those ideas.

Yup - and there is no greater evidence of this than the fact that, with the exception of foreign policy, the rest of those that share the stage with him have begun to mimic and parrot Dr. Paul's positions themselves ....

They problem that they have though, is they do this not out of any deeply-held beliefs or personal philosophy, but simply out of political expediency ......

While this type of ploy is certainly capable of taking in those who are prone to believe liars and dishonest men, many are not so inclined and are waking to up to truth .....

 

[AMonger]

It would more interesting to hear how some feel Ron Paul will be able to do any of the things he would like to with a hostile congress and stay true to the Constitution. BE SPECIFIC PLEASE. Generalities don't cut it.

That is just one of the problems with all of the candidates running for president. They speak volumes of words but say little.

Here are some steps he could take a right off the bat:

-- leave vacant the managerial positions of the offices and departments that are unconstitutional. direct the employees of those departments to sit at their desks and do nothing, or assign them menial tasks;

-- declare unconstitutional acts to be so and refuse to obey them;

-- the belief that the supreme court is the arbiter of constitutionality is a myth, and absent from the constitution. It's a role that the supreme court arrogated to itself. he would have to make his case on this to the american people, and fight for it, but that's what this is all about, isn't it?

-- he could abolish everything he saw as unconstitutional, and make the opposition fight him to reinstate it. If anyone has 'nads this size, it's him.


You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[RLENT]

RLENT here's the problem. You and I (and a few others) are operating under the illusion that these lies, misconceptions and the constant feed of misinformation like the above example of Hannity, are so obvious that most Americans will see right through them.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I don't believe that for a minute .... obvious they always are not .... nevertheless, I have a great faith in my fellow citizens and my fellow man.

"Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but in the end truth will out."

- William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, 1596​

 

[AMonger]

If R.P. is elected, with his brand of foreign policy we will all be praying to Mecca 5 times a day.

You sure you don't mean the Poles?

The people you are worried about have nothing approaching the power to make that happen, and won't, probably ever. Unless your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek, that's a ridiculous objection.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[AMonger]

Maybe just maybe some of us do not belive that Paul is our last chance.Seems this talk of one person being the only person to beable to save this country is what got us 4 years of Obama.Thanks but no thanks.The thing some of you do not seem to get about paul is he can not do many of the things he says he will do with out the help of congress.

Now how many people really belive that congress would be in any hurry to help paul in any way shape or form???????

The last exit off a highway is the last exit, regardless of wishes to the contrary. recent events bear this out.

Voice transcription software ...

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[LDB]

Unfortunately your logic is correct ..... and when you and others applied it in the last election cycle y'all gave us Obama ....

Do you really want to repeat that and experience 4 more years .... ?

You apparently confuse me with the mouse in your pocket. I applied nothing that gave us Obama.

 

[AMonger]

R.P presidential campaign can be somed-up in a one short sentence :

" Osama's are better then Obama's "

No, it's "the bill of rights is better than privileges."

 

[RLENT]

"WE'all" had little to do with Paul not winning the the primary the last several times he ran.

He's ran twice, not including his current run .....

And yes, anyone who didn't vote for him certainly had something to do with his not winning any primary he's ran in ....

Such a sentiment seems to be a denial of personal responsibility, in an attempt to avoid culpability ...

If 100% of all EO members voted for him at ANY point he still would have lost.

Why would you would assume that my use of y'all was necessarily constrained to only those on EO - and not referring to a broader group that some here may be a part of ?

 

[layoutshooter]

He's ran twice, not including his current run .....

And yes, anyone who didn't vote for him certainly had something to do with his not winning any primary he's ran in ....

Such a sentiment seems to be a denial of personal responsibility, in an attempt to avoid culpability ...


Why would you would assume that my use of y'all was necessarily constrained to only those on EO - and not referring to a broader group that some here may be a part of?

Here is how I see it boiling down:

Only two of the Republican candidates stand any chance of the nomination. Romney and Paul.

Neither have ANY valid foreign policy experience. Romney has zero military experience, Paul has marginal military experience.

Romney has extensive executive experience in the private sector and one term of executive experience in the public sector.

Paul has no executive experience.

Paul has much more legislative experience than Romney.

Romney is a "closet neo-liberal" and Paul is a Libertarian.

Between the two I would vote for Paul but I would have to hold my nose if I do.

NO candidate from either party is suitable for my beliefs.

I refuse to get all "school girl gushy" over any of them.

Right now I am PRAYING for a miracle. Either a REAL candidate comes out of no where or a selective meteor hits 100% of all politicians and we get a "do over".

 

[AMonger]

He's ran twice, not including his current run .....

And yes, anyone who didn't vote for him certainly had something to do with his not winning any primary he's ran in ....

Such a sentiment seems to be a denial of personal responsibility, in an attempt to avoid culpability ...

And those who used to be defective reasoning of, " he can't win, so I won't vote for him" bear some responsibility for the lousy presidents we've had since then.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[Turtle]

Poor analogies. Going back to correct the huge number of innacuracies in voice transcription results negates the reason for having it, much like the vacuum cleaner of SNL's two "wild and crazy guys from the 70s. The way the commie vacuum worked negated the reason for having it. But with the software, it's better to just make sure you're not seen as illiterate.

I understand. It still comes back to the craftsman, however, who is either unwilling or too lazy to go back and correct whatever number of inaccuracies that may exist. You are what you post, regardless of the method used to type it. You and you alone are responsible for the method used, and whether or not you are satisfied with the result. If you have a Dvorak keyboard and you type blindly as if you have a Qwerty keyboard, you can't really blame the keyboard for actually submitting the resulting gibberish anymore than you can blame the voice recognition software for posting bad spelling and punctuation.

With texting in particular, people will say, "Autocorrect changed that," which is really nothing more than short for, "Autocorrect changed that, and then I failed to proofread and make corrections before sending the message." It's a method of avoiding responsibility for their actions by fallaciously blaming the tool used to create the error, rather than manning up and owning it.

Instead of rationalizing, perhaps a better disclaimer would be, "Irregularities in punctuation and spelling are the result of my being unwilling to ensure that any voice transcription errors created by the software are corrected before I submit the post."

 

[AMonger]

I understand. It still comes back to the craftsman, however, who is either unwilling or too lazy to go back and correct whatever number of inaccuracies that may exist. You are what you post, regardless of the method used to type it. You and you alone are responsible for the method used, and whether or not you are satisfied with the result. If you have a Dvorak keyboard and you type blindly as if you have a Qwerty keyboard, you can't really blame the keyboard for actually submitting the resulting gibberish anymore than you can blame the voice recognition software for posting bad spelling and punctuation.

With texting in particular, people will say, "Autocorrect changed that," which is really nothing more than short for, "Autocorrect changed that, and then I failed to proofread and make corrections before sending the message." It's a method of avoiding responsibility for their actions by fallaciously blaming the tool used to create the error, rather than manning up and owning it.

Instead of rationalizing, perhaps a better disclaimer would be, "Irregularities in punctuation and spelling are the result of my being unwilling to ensure that any voice transcription errors created by the software are corrected before I submit the post."

As I pointed out, the time and effort sprint going back and correcting software's mistakes would outweigh any time or effort savings in using it. And the time and effort savings are the point, it's reason for being.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[Pilgrim]

As I pointed out, the time and effort sprint going back and correcting software's mistakes would outweigh any time or effort savings in using it. And the time and effort savings are the point, it's reason for being.

It seems to be working pretty well and your messages are getting through. Not too many people on this site are overly concerned with spelling and punctuation anyway.

 

[Turtle]

It seems to be working pretty well and your messages are getting through. Not too many people on this site are overly concerned with spelling and punctuation anyway.

Which is why such a disclaimer from one of the people who regularly do point out bad punctuation is all the more ironic, and funny. I think whatever he's using seems to work rather well. Doesn't change the fact that he's blaming the tool for his posts, tho.

 

[AMonger]

It seems to be working pretty well and your messages are getting through. Not too many people on this site are overly concerned with spelling and punctuation anyway.

I know. I detest that. I take that into account when considering the validity of the content.

Can you imagine this letter to the editor?

"I wish to take isue with the idee that publik skools arnt' educytin are youngins proper-like. Me and my wife don't have nut in but 6th grade book-learnin, and we ternt out just fine! Well, me and muh wife, Ellie Mae, have to get back to the seement pond now.
/s/ Jethro Bodine"

I hate it when I read letters people post, saying they sent it to their congressman or posted it publicly, taking good, admirable positions on important topics concerning our freedom, and they're barely literate. It makes everybody holding that viewpoint look like a moron. The picture of conservatives that was painted by some Klinton (misspelling intentional) regime apparatchik as being under-educated and easily led didn't come from nowhere. It came from people who espoused their viewpoints, sounding like Larry, Darrel, and Darrel. Well, sounding like Larry, anyway; it'd be kind of hard to sound like Darrel or Darrel...

I reply something like, "You're correct on all points. Next time, though, how about getting someone else to actually write it for you?" Illiterate people don't like being called out on that, no matter how gently you express it.

So transcription software is great, to the degree it works, and in the age of virtual keyboards without the tactile feedback of a real keyboard, it's becoming necessary. But it's still a young technology, so in the meantime, one's choices are to either not use it; use it and point out that the errors are unintentional; use it and appear illiterate; or use it and then spend so much time correcting the errors that you may as well have typed it all.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.