Ron Paul choice of the troops march on the white house

Originally posted by inimalist
a) People who support Paul care about soldiers, and those who don't, do not, because Paul is the only politician who opposes the wars. Therefore, by implication, someone who doesn't support Paul for economic or social reasons would be grouped with those who do not care about the soldiers.

b) People who support any politician, but also oppose the wars, care about soldiers.

answer "a" appears to be what you meant, because answer "b" is sort of redundant, or, at the very least, introduces a level of nuance into the equation that undermines the point you were making.

Seriously? 😬

Neither of those are correct.

C) Supporters of Ron Paul sympathize with the fallen soldiers from these wars:

"these people sympathize for the men and women whose lives are lose for a war"

Supporters of Ron Paul highly disagree with the wars:

"for a war they highly disagree with and for good reasons."

They also sympathize with the loss of innocent lives (not soldiers, but people of other nations such as Iraqi families) in these campaigns:

"They sympathize of the innocent lives caught in the mix"

And these campaigns are making us less safe, which is the entire point for many of these campaigns to begin with: it is the blowback from the killing of innocents:

"which only makes us less safe if you understand the concept of blowback."

Notice that at no point in his words did he say that those traits are mutually inclusive to only Ron Paul supporters. That was an injection of your own.

Now, I COULD be wrong, but I only took a face value reading of Mairuzu's post. He may have said all others, except Paul supporters, or war-mongering, innocent people, slayers. I have no idea.* I just wanted to comment on that section you quoted.

*That sounds like sarcasm, after a second reading. I promise, I am being sincere and I do not intend that to sound like sarcasm. Mairuzu very well could have made a statement similar to that in the past and that would explain why you responded to him like you have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Notice that at no point in his words did he say that those traits are mutually inclusive to only Ron Paul supporters. That was an injection of your own.

actually, that is option b, which undermines the point of what mairuzu was saying in the first place. If one can have all the positive qualities of a Paul supporter without being a Paul supporter, there is no reason to be a Paul supporter.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, that is option b, which undermines the point of what mairuzu was saying in the first place. If one can have all the positive qualities of a Paul supporter without being a Paul supporter, there is no reason to be a Paul supporter.

No, option B is still not correct.

In order for you option B to be correct, it would have to read as follows:

"Ron Paul supporters oppose the wars and care about soldiers."

Here is why: the set of politician supporters includes some supporters that are against the war. Some of them are for the war.

The set of Ron Paul Supporters is against the wars.*

You have taken that set statement and injected a new idea: the set of Ron Paul supporters have the exclusive claim to the anti-war movement. I contend that the set of anti-war peeps can and does overlap with the set of Ron Paul supporters, but is not mutually inclusive to the Ron Paul supporters: from Mairuzu's perspective.

*That's not true, however. Not all Ron Paul supporters are against the wars.

actually, mine is inclusive of people who oppose the war, yet might vote for a candidate who supports the war, intentionally.

someone could support Obama or Romney and also have the same qualities as described by Mairuzu. This was deliberate, because I would place myself in that category (aside from the supporting a candidate who is pro-war).

nothing, at all, suggests that anti-war is an exclusively Paul thing, by intention

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, mine is inclusive of people who oppose the war, yet might vote for a candidate who supports the war, intentionally.

someone could support Obama or Romney and also have the same qualities as described by Mairuzu. This was deliberate, because I would place myself in that category (aside from the supporting a candidate who is pro-war).

nothing, at all, suggests that anti-war is an exclusively Paul thing, by intention

But Mairuzu's point was not about other supporters: it was about the qualities of Ron Paul supporters. Injecting that set of "things that supporters of other candidates also like" is a red herring to his point. Further injecting the idea that Mairuzu meant that those qualities were exclusive to Ron Paul supporters is also just plain dishonest (but you said you thought your option B was most likely correct...you were only fleshing out what you thought might have been a potential interpretation of his point).

exactly, by describing Paul supporters, he is either contrasting them with other supporters, or identifying qualities that have nothing to do with Paul

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was just Rand Paul who indorsed Romney.

Don't be shocked if Rand Paul is Romney's choice for his running mate. ie Vice President Rand Paul.

This is likely the reason why Ron Paul really never confronted Romney during the debates, it's been a game all along. Paul's a very clever man, dirty tactics though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't be shocked if Rand Paul is Romney's choice for his running mate. ie Vice President Rand Paul.

This is likely the reason why Ron Paul really never confronted Romney during the debates, it's been a game all along. Paul's a very clever man, dirty tactics though.

Wow, you sound negative.

My guess for Romney's pick is Paul Ryan, but who knows.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow, you sound negative.

My guess for Romney's pick is Paul Ryan, but who knows.

Negative, How so? Just stating what I see as a likely possibility. I don't care in the end though, as I still firmly believe Obama is going to win again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Negative, How so? Just stating what I see as a likely possibility. I don't care in the end though, as I still firmly believe Obama is going to win again.

Well, I would consider that negative. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I would consider that negative. 😉

Ha, fair enough.

Originally posted by inimalist
dude, you might as well have just said "I have no idea what I'm talking about"

some of the top MRI researchers and technicians in Canada just lost their jobs, and are essentially looking at leaving the country in order to continue their work, because of funding cuts from the government.

Some but not all?

Show me.

Originally posted by inimalist

corporations and private investors will not invest in basic and not immediately profitable research, and research paid for by corporations is demonstrably more likely to contain bias.

so, fail?

Do you speak for everyone?

Originally posted by inimalist

space X is applied [b]engineering that would have been impossible without decades of massive funding to space agencies from the federal government...

so, fail? [/B]

Alright, lets continue to spend the money we don't have and all will fail

so, fail?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Some but not all?

right, NRC had offices in Winnipeg, Calgary and Halifax. Other places in Canada have other arrangements, like London Ontario has a university that is also a hospital, and the MRI there is sometimes made available for research purposes. Potentially, someone like my supervisor, who rarely does MRI research, might be able to get time at a hospital at 3 in the morning, but for someone who depended on MRIs for their research, they can't work here any longer.

And it isn't like there are a lot of places for them to go. Very few academic institutions are hiring at the moment due to cuts and tenured profs not retiring. Not to mention, one of our provinces, Quebec, has had student protests going on 5 months now, over raises in tuition fees, indicating that universities really aren't in a position to be opening up to new faculty.

So, the articles I'll cite you below will say 47 people got fired and 44 remained on. What they don't mention is that the people who remain weren't the researchers, but the administrators. As the story goes, the employees were divided into two rooms, and the administrators, in one, were told they would be taken care of and the researchers were told they would be let go. That last part hasn't shown up in anything I've seen in the media, so take it however you want.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Show me.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120417/wpg_research_council_120417/20120417?hub=CalgaryHome

47 from Winnipeg, 7 from Calgary

http://twitter.com/NSLifeSciences/statuses/192670847918538752

Halifax seems ok

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/17/mb-nrc-biodiagnostics-budget-cuts.html

CBC reports, talks about 44 remaining employees

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/design-engineering/news/nrc-to-face-budget-changes-says-minister-59268

Federal Conservatives want to change the mandate of the NRC to be more industry friendly so it is profitable and efficient. Wait a second, that's what you say Ron Paul wants to do. And you know what, Gary Goodyear, the Conservative Minister for Science and Technology, is a chiropractor who thinks that qualifies him to be a science minister, the same way Paul thinks being a doctor qualifies him as a scientist. OMFG!!! no way, they are also both creationists!!!!

Funny how the two people discussed thus far who support your position on science funding are not scientists and believe in creationism.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Do you speak for everyone?

So, as far as I can tell it, you are suggesting science funding as something akin to charitable donation, right? People fund science because they feel it has some intrinsic value to them, blah blah blah, free market chooses best and brightest, right?

ok, best case scenario: The greatest minds of this generation end up trying to cure some one in a million genetic disease that a billionaire's son has because he can afford to hire all the best scientists, while either research on far more important diseases (if you want to be pragmatic) or whatever the scientists themselves may want to investigate (if you want to be individualistic) will forever go undone. Real progress will be incremental because the risky science that costs a lot and is highly likely to fail wont be done, and within 50 years America will be technologically behind even Europe, who will still be doing things like particle physics and such, incredibly expensive projects with high probabilities of failure that an executive would be kicked off his board for investing in according to business sense. The biggest problem would be that all of your best talent would leave to pursue their own research at other institutions around the world.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Alright, lets continue to spend the money we don't have and all will fail

Well, aside from the fact that I don't believe the same apocalyptic things about the economy that you do, and that, coming from a nation who both has policies that are the anathema of Paul's economically and had the most secure banks in the world along with one of the strongest growth rates through the recession in the West, I clearly see that it isn't an either/or situation, lets forget that and I'll just say this:

It will cost you more not to.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
so, fail?

lol, not my president

Originally posted by Mairuzu

Alright, lets continue to spend the money we don't have and all will fail

so, fail?

Wait no, not epic...what's that other word..oh yes...pathetic.

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly, by describing Paul supporters, he is either contrasting them with other supporters, or identifying qualities that have nothing to do with Paul

Or he is, as he did, positively describing attributes of Ron Paul supporters. You're the one injecting other meanings about people other than Ron Paul supporters.

Kind of like me saying that active Mormons are generally educated Christians. While true, it does mean that all other Christians are not educated: it's just a positive assertion of what Mormons are that describes a majority and has nothing to do with other Christians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or he is, as he did, positively describing attributes of Ron Paul supporters. You're the one injecting other meanings about people other than Ron Paul supporters.

Kind of like me saying that active Mormons are generally educated Christians. While true, it does mean that all other Christians are not educated: it's just a positive assertion of what Mormons are that describes a majority and has nothing to do with other Christians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or he is, as he did, positively describing attributes of Ron Paul supporters. You're the one injecting other meanings about people other than Ron Paul supporters.

Kind of like me saying that active Mormons are generally educated Christians. While true, it does mean that all other Christians are not educated: it's just a positive assertion of what Mormons are that describes a majority and has nothing to do with other Christians.

a vaccuous statement decontextualized from any conversational relevance is nearly identical to my option b.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or he is, as he did, positively describing attributes of Ron Paul supporters. You're the one injecting other meanings about people other than Ron Paul supporters.

So you think Marizu's most likely intent was to say absolutely nothing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I would consider that negative. 😉

You know unlike you,I can admit it when i am wrong and your right.You mentioned earlier that Ron will probably endorce Mittens now that Rand has and I said that wont happen but at this point I think he will as well and the reason being is because Ron is all of a sudden out of nowhere attacking santorium now.WTF? why attack HIM now.

He is attacking HIM feriously but he is treating Mittens with kid gloves.I am beginning to wonder if they have both been in on it all along for reasons I wont get into since its only a theory I cant prove.But its hard to imiagine him not being in on it just pretending to be on our side since he is doing that.It just makes no sense at all unless thats the case.Rand has already sold out and betrayed his supporters.Kinda like Ted Kennedy sold out his brothers so it would be no surprise.

btw,that wasnt the main reason i was posting here,the main reason is we were talking earlier about zionest jews.Knowing you I will probably be accused of being anti semitic but you know what? as you will see if you watch this 15 minute video,you'll see for yourself that the Zionest israels murder palestinian women and children and control the corporate media.

Zionest jew Murdoch as i said before,owns 82 billion dollars of the corporate media.They said that out in the open on CNN news one night.I cwas shocked and could not believe they came right out and admitted it that niight when I was watching it.

Congress is bought off and paid for by them.The good ones like Dennis Kucinich for instance a true patriot in congress who believes in the constitution and is not bought off and paid for them,they get rid of people like them.

The zionest are globalist jews who seek world domination and murder innocent women and children. again you can see that for yourself if you watch this short 15 minute video here below.I know you have the time to look at it because you spend hours here all the time.check it out.the proof is in the pudding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TvSiYu8z2M&feature=youtu.be
If thats being ant-semitiic for hating zionests for their globalization and murdering innocent palestinians like they always do,then Im proud of that fact. 😄 I was under the impression that YOU did not approve of those kind of people as well? 🙄

Before it appeared that Ron Paul has been a sellout to the american people I would have said that thats why the zionets fear him because he does not endorce them like Obama and Romney do.

Both as you can tell from that video,are controlled by the zionets. I have always thought ron paul wasnt but I may be wrong,he just may be as well and that has all been a show he has put on for the american people.we wotn really know for sure till after the elections.

Mr Parker, maybe he (Ron) realizes that he can do more good for the nation with Romney as president, then he could with an Obama second term.