Romney Money Now Used Against Ron Paul?????
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
It's really a badly written story. The author presents a premise that Paul is racist and otherwise pure evil, yet he screwed the pooch and failed utterly to provide a credible foundation for the premise when he used Paul's own quotes from the book, all of which are NOT racist, but are the basics of the philosophy of accountability of responsibility and in equal rights for all citizens, in accordance with the US Constitution. Apparently, that's a bad thing. Apparently, people shouldn't have to be responsible for their own health care or any and all negative consequences of their actions and lifestyles, and that special interest groups should have their own set of special rights afforded just for them. <snort>
Last edited:
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
And would you think that the majority of people would dig as deep as you or will they just remember the headline? You can bet the "big money" is counting on the latter and they're probably right.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You should spend some time reading not only the articles, but the readers comments which are below them .....
There's a funny thing that can happen when someone attempts to practice journalism in a biased manner in furtherance of an agenda .....
The CIA covered this by coining a term to refer to an analogous situation, in reference to certain covert activities - it was: blowback
It's why the longer they (the media) attempt to do it, and the more desperate they get in doing so, the better it gets - there is no downside
Last edited:
Paul was on Fox News this morning and talked about this. He pretty much explained it sufficently. Much ado about nothing
imo. The title of the thread suggests Romney brought this out?
Chris Wallace Grills Ron Paul Over 1987 Book Passages On Sexual Harassment, AIDS | Mediaite
imo. The title of the thread suggests Romney brought this out?
Chris Wallace Grills Ron Paul Over 1987 Book Passages On Sexual Harassment, AIDS | Mediaite
It's well known (among newspaper editors and reporters, and those of us who took journalism courses in school, anyway) that most people read either the headline only, or the headline plus the first four paragraphs of a story, before moving on to something else.
That's why, in a big important news story, you want to get all the major facts and the Five Ws into those first four paragraphs if possible, and then go about expounding on them later in the piece with the details. The "First Four" is considered the lead of the story, to introduce the story and to peak (or lose in some cases) interest in what is to follow. Because the "First Four" is what it is, many people stop reading after that, or close to it.
In an article of bias (most Blogs), the same rules apply, where those first four paragraphs are the most important, and are often completely out of step with the rest of the piece, as in the case of this one.
Two journalism tenants are:
It's interesting to read a news article, or one that's passed off as such, and note what's in the first four paragraphs as compared to the rest of the story. It can reveal a lot about the author, their education, biases, and whether they are being thorough and/or truthful in their article. You can figure this stuff out (and call "load of crap") even if you don't know all the facts and are ignorant of the story, just by how it is written. It lets you quickly and easily filter out the "load of crap" from the stuff that deserves a little more attention.
That's why, in a big important news story, you want to get all the major facts and the Five Ws into those first four paragraphs if possible, and then go about expounding on them later in the piece with the details. The "First Four" is considered the lead of the story, to introduce the story and to peak (or lose in some cases) interest in what is to follow. Because the "First Four" is what it is, many people stop reading after that, or close to it.
In an article of bias (most Blogs), the same rules apply, where those first four paragraphs are the most important, and are often completely out of step with the rest of the piece, as in the case of this one.
Two journalism tenants are:
- Finish the story before you begin to think of the headline. If you try to write the headline before you write the story, your headline might cause your story to go in the wrong direction.
- You should be able to write a headline that generally describes the whole story from just the first four paragraphs. Those paragraphs are the lead of the story, and if they do not tell the reader what the whole story is about, they should be rewritten.
It's interesting to read a news article, or one that's passed off as such, and note what's in the first four paragraphs as compared to the rest of the story. It can reveal a lot about the author, their education, biases, and whether they are being thorough and/or truthful in their article. You can figure this stuff out (and call "load of crap") even if you don't know all the facts and are ignorant of the story, just by how it is written. It lets you quickly and easily filter out the "load of crap" from the stuff that deserves a little more attention.
That's the first time I heard those tenants of journalism - I always read the whole article, and then [my favorite part!] the comments following it.
Guess I'm a tenant in a different place.
Gotcha!
[It's so rare for the Shelled One to make a blunder like that {tenant/tenet} I just HAD to go there, lol - but now I'll be checking out the first 4 vs the rest of the article, for sure.
Guess I'm a tenant in a different place.
Gotcha!
[It's so rare for the Shelled One to make a blunder like that {tenant/tenet} I just HAD to go there, lol - but now I'll be checking out the first 4 vs the rest of the article, for sure.
"It's well known (among newspaper editors and reporters, and those of us who took journalism courses in school, anyway) that most people read either the headline only, or the headline plus the first four paragraphs of a story, before moving on to something else."
The first time I learn about this was in grade school when we were taught how to read a newspaper. Then it was again taught in high school English. I always thought that this was standard fair in education.
The first time I learn about this was in grade school when we were taught how to read a newspaper. Then it was again taught in high school English. I always thought that this was standard fair in education.
Lets face facts here folks, Ron Paul is never going to make his way to the top with or without the press. I know his supporters do not want to hear that but it is the truth, his views although right on many fronts are just to different to get to the top with. Kind of one of those people that will break ground to make the path easier for those who come behind him.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But you got to face the fact that even if he doesn't win, he wins.
Yes he is cutting a path through the forest of stupidity but if he gets the nomination - which he may - I think that there will be a change in congress to follow what the people will see is someone who is talking with them and not to them.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
I agree, no Ron Paul supporter I....I just don't like this "money thing".
I was taught headline and first 4 paragraphs. I was also taught that U.S. newspapers were written aimed at the 8th grade level. One other thing that I was taught was that the word "news" was an acronym for "North, East, West, South". I seem to remember learning about newspapers etc in about the 4th or 5th grades.
The book deal brought up by Chris Wallace turned out to be nothing, and Paul did well with his clarification. However, Paul was also on ABC's This Week and got hit again with the newsletter problems and was essentially asked why Paul didn't have a clue about the inflammatory statements being printed in a newsletter that bore his name and had him listed as editor and publisher. Paul struggled with this issue, and had to admit that this was a "flaw" in his management style. Talk about an understatement! It simply defies credibility that a well-known public figure like Ron Paul could go for a period of 10-15 years and not get ANY FEEDBACK from any of his staffers, constituents or congressional colleagues regarding the racist and homophobic comments being published in his newsletters.
He's either a totally incompetent manager or a liar. Disavowing the comments and claiming he didn't write them will be viewed as a completely inadequate response for most of the voting public. The point he doesn't address is that these newsletters were published once or twice a month; regardless of how many staffers or ghost writers he had, he should have allowed time to proof read one or two newsletters each month before they went to the printer. To claim he couldn't manage to do this is absurd.
Ron Paul: 'Human Flaw' on Newsletter Oversight - YouTube
No it doesn't.
Strawman. That assumes he was managing the newsletters, and/or he knew about them at the time.
Most of the voting public could care less about his old newsletters. They are much more concerned with the economy and jobs.
He "should have allowed time" also assumes he was involved with the newsletters on an intimate level, and cared at least as much about them as the medical practice he was involved with full-time.
The Newsers, much like the Birthers, are obsessed with the wrong thing.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Washington DC Tea Party Founder endorses Dr. Paul:
Writes Lisa Miller, founder of Tea Party WDC:
DC TEA PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES RON PAUL
Writes Lisa Miller, founder of Tea Party WDC:
"I’ve been a supporter of Michele Bachmann since I founded Tea Party WDC in the spring of 2009. I’ve appreciated her stalwart support of Tea Party activities and in her speeches she maintained allegiance to our principles of fiscal responsibility, Constitutional limited government and free markets.
It wasn’t until I was sexually assaulted by a female TSA employee at Reagan National Airport in September on my way to Florida for the Tea Party Presidential debate that I took another look at her vote for the Patriot Act, which created the conditions for the assault. As the risk/benefit can’t justify the body x-rays or the pat downs on domestic flights I realized that their are all types of mal-investment. Preying upon fear is just another tactic to justify more government spending. As I live a few miles from the Pentagon, I realized that I had fallen for it too.
I was please to find (Ron Paul) hadn’t passed much legislation. As we are choking on all the laws and regulation Congress produces, his instinct not to add to our burden was refreshing.
Ron Paul’s platform proposes the deepest cuts in a manner that, by the end of his Presidency, the private sector will have not only recovered the jobs eliminated but be on our way to full employment.
I applaud his well thought out policy prescriptions in consolidating and streamlining enumerated powers so we have a stronger military with more effective strategic tactics when dealing with real threats. We will have less civilian and military casualties with better relations and business opportunities the world over.
Our debt is our greatest National Security risk…
No government program will ever match the strengths of a free market. The math says we can’t wait another four years to cut government spending. The misguided view that big government can be “fixed” would be a disaster and would continue this horrid slide into poverty and impotence.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a more just society where the most people have the most opportunity."
It wasn’t until I was sexually assaulted by a female TSA employee at Reagan National Airport in September on my way to Florida for the Tea Party Presidential debate that I took another look at her vote for the Patriot Act, which created the conditions for the assault. As the risk/benefit can’t justify the body x-rays or the pat downs on domestic flights I realized that their are all types of mal-investment. Preying upon fear is just another tactic to justify more government spending. As I live a few miles from the Pentagon, I realized that I had fallen for it too.
I was please to find (Ron Paul) hadn’t passed much legislation. As we are choking on all the laws and regulation Congress produces, his instinct not to add to our burden was refreshing.
Ron Paul’s platform proposes the deepest cuts in a manner that, by the end of his Presidency, the private sector will have not only recovered the jobs eliminated but be on our way to full employment.
I applaud his well thought out policy prescriptions in consolidating and streamlining enumerated powers so we have a stronger military with more effective strategic tactics when dealing with real threats. We will have less civilian and military casualties with better relations and business opportunities the world over.
Our debt is our greatest National Security risk…
No government program will ever match the strengths of a free market. The math says we can’t wait another four years to cut government spending. The misguided view that big government can be “fixed” would be a disaster and would continue this horrid slide into poverty and impotence.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a more just society where the most people have the most opportunity."
DC TEA PARTY FOUNDER ENDORSES RON PAUL
This lady is crazy. Everybody knows the job of a legislator is to legislate as much as possible. The more laws the better. Everybody knows the job of government is to take our money and spend it in a way that's best for us, because the government knows what's best for us. Everybody knows it's better to have our military spread out across the globe and meddling and threatening other countries and their people, than it is to have a solid military that is best prepared to handle actual threats versus manufactured threats we can squash at our leisure. Everybody knows that a big government is better than a small government. This lady is crazy.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah .... besides .... who needs that freedom crap anyways ?
Liberty ?
It's just a bunch hooey ......