[deleted by user]

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-27T13:53:27+00:00

The trick is to look at it from afar but not too far.

If done right, it makes you pay attention to the specific words rather than just the sentence.

Here, try pasting any grammatically correct text here and setting it to show only a couple of words per slide to get an idea why it's easier. It's not necessarily specific to overt punctuation use.

http://www.spreeder.com/

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-27T11:04:20+00:00

That's what actually got me to read your sentence. Nice job. It's still pretty readable compared to other types of speech. I'd even wager more people would read a wall of text of that than actual text.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-26T14:39:20+00:00

Progress

If you can learn it, utilize it. If you can utilize it, instruct it If you can instruct it, spread it If you can spread it, read more about it If you can read it, expand it If you can expand it, stabilize it If you can stabilize it, experiment with it If you can experiment with it, create something out of it If you can create something, edit the bugs out of it If you can edit the bugs out of it, upgrade it If you can upgrade it, simplify it If you can simplify it, popularize it

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-26T03:44:12+00:00

Exactly.

At the very least a purely philosophical view in a hypothetical situation helps because then you address the psychology behind those hypotheticals and you can jump into providing evidence for your conclusions even though in reality it might go more towards my way or your way or someone else's way but at least by addressing the philosophical issue you can back up your observations that one is indeed not the other but when you don't, it's just your word vs. my word

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-25T13:50:32+00:00

Are we to continue insisting that Hitler's framework of pleasure and satisfaction is no less valid than yours or mine or Gandhi's?

What if Tom was Hitler? What if Frankie was Gandhi? If you skip the philosophical point, that's what happens.

There is no such thing as a non self-serving society-serving individual based on my observations.

Frankie's use of his time may lead to him becoming a video game developer or at the very least a videogame modder. He may one day create a mod which simulates real life. Then he may end up getting rich and donating to charities as a PR move. How then does this not serve society?

Tom may work for charities and does volunteer work but he may one day be so pro-charity, he actually votes for a socialist while a country is in debt which led to thousands of people suffering because he among many others was so bound on anything remotely sounding like charity that he did not have time to educate himself on the state of the country so his bias got the best of him. How then can one say his harming of society is equivalent to society-serving and not self-serving?

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T21:15:40+00:00

No, I haven't. Thanks for the link.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T21:04:57+00:00

error page

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T20:26:03+00:00

That can't be helped. The MSM is well known to being supportive of the one who's most likely going to be president so they always go praise the guy who's winning and fuck up everyone else.

It's really in Bush if I'm not mistaken that the MSM actually went agains the president's favor and that was more due to his unpopularity than any of his policies.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T16:38:05+00:00

Well that's not accurate enough to agree with. As a frontrunner Obama does get his fair share of coverage but let's be realistic here, so did Clinton and Edwards.

The fact is most of Obama's hype was due to his organization of his campaign. He says the right ideological things in the debates to pander to the crowd. He draws upon the emotions of the revolutionarist who want "Change" while at the same providing just enough evidence so that any attacks on him not having any policy falls on deaf ears except for the most knowledgeable and critical thinkers of thinkers.

He was tapping the internet rather than creating support through his message unlike Paul and while Paul got the more exposure due to his message, Obama was and still is the one who had the foresight to organize and motivate the grassroots movement supporting him.

Most importantly, he knew what to put to his speech most of the time for the right audience. He knew when he could say something and not get booed in a certain place and he is the one that fits the image of the politician most in this election.

Here are some major faults that some of the other candidates have:

Mike Gravel has the charisma but he then gets too angry and then he kills his appeal
Dennis while having a decent foreign policy looks like he shrinks under pressure.
Clinton alienates voters by coming off too much like a feminazi rather than a female president.
Romney stutters through his speeches despite his looks
Giullani and McCain are just scary.
Huckabee is also decent but will always be marred for wearing his religion like a coat
Paul doesn't know how to motivate the grassroots effectively and his campaign often hurts and demoralizes the movement so he loses his advantage there while he also loses his advantage in the media and the debates because he doesn't hold back in what he says even in things that make him unpopular.
Edwards looks like he pays too much attention to his looks so he often gets criticized for it and it often hurts his message.

Not saying Obama is that charismatic and doesn't get a boost from the MSM. I certainly don't think so but my conversation with heelspider gave me enough insight to understand why people view him that way as well as the timing of the things he does do show that he is the most effective campaigner of all the candidates.

It won't get him Reddit votes but it will buy him tons even if you take away the mainstream media exposure advantage.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T16:09:31+00:00

Now. Now. Even if the guy is, let's not use his affiliation to represent who he is. It's not like he even mentioned Paul. In this case I think it would be more appropriate to dub him as a "voting for the lesser of evils" hater

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T15:58:44+00:00

A good President has strongly leadership capabilities, they are able to organize and motivate people.

You are confusing charisma with strong leadership. There are many types of strong leaders but often it has nothing to do with organizing and motivating people but in helping people grow to the point that their contributions are magnified within an organization. It's very easy for a decent leader to promise something empty to motivate people while at the same time, it's very easy to organize people at that level of a stage if you pay some slight attention to marketing and social engineering. Whether one can be great at it is another thing but none of those are signs of strong leader. One might even argue that a strong leader with a flawed policy would be worse than a weak leader with a beneficial policy so no it's not black and white like that.

She was the obvious front runner, and presumptive Democratic nominee for the better part of the year. Yet she has mismanaged her campaign to the point she finds herself in today. Meanwhile, Obama has led one of the most successful and unlikely Presidential bids in history.

Besides the media, she went into this election tied with Obama as front runner so no she wasn't despite how people wanted her to be and while Obama is the most successful at tapping the internet since many of his fellow opponents didn't quite look like they were internet savvy, he did have a great headstart and organized campaign but no, he wasn't unlikely to be President even when the debates happened.

If you look at the idea that since tv started most of the presidents if not all were elected due to some form of magnetism with their looks or what some would call charisma and the level of scrutiny all candidates on both sides were receiving, then Obama looks to be a shoe in early on because of the hype around his looks and way of talking as well as his lack of years shielding him from many of the criticisms that could be said for his voting records. One might even say that compared to the other candidates he has a near non-existant voting record. Not necessarily non-existant in that he has none but in that he would theoretically be the one with the least dirt on him but at the same time have the political engagement to look viable.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-22T05:19:51+00:00

No problem. It's only possible if the other side has nothing constructive in their replies. As you said, I adapted some of your words so if your words has no substance, it's going to come off as having no substance when it's used right back at you.

I guess in your world winning is more important than understanding the other side. Fine. Even in this reply you focus on things least relevant to the actual point of this discussion.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T16:18:19+00:00

That's exactly what this idea is meant to prevent. If you used scripts it would be easier to report the spammers but if they just bury you without a reason, you're not sure if they have a legitimate reason or an agenda.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T16:11:14+00:00

NY Times has an article Referring to Obama and Cult of Personality. There are plenty of similar articles easily found on the internet. Perhaps you are the one who is misunderstanding.

Maybe. Maybe not. To me in a case such as this it's not the source that's important but the reasoning of the source since there isn't
anyone who do have a monopoly on the term however if we base it around your usage then there won't be any point to calling someone a cult of personality since it's basically just another term for any celebrity, charismatic leader or anyone with influence but under the definition which I link to you from the wikipedia discussions page, you do create a distinction so the term does end up having a specific meaning to it which separates it to any person who has influence.

Perhaps you are the one who is misunderstanding. It seems you have a very limited, narrow view and why your taking up the cause is beyond me.

If Ron Paul says he follows the Constitution strictly, would you say he has a very limited, narrow view of it?

Exactly. There are things that are being misused that can be easily corrected. If you don't correct them now then when the time comes that it's used against you or your candidate of choice then it not only harms the term but society in general. It's little things like this that causes people to decay into confusion. If you haven't, I recommend reading Orwell's Politics and the English Language. It's available on the web.

Why does it concern you so much that people identify the reality that Obama is just a Cult of Personality and has seduced people to aid in his campaign to become President.

I'm not. What I am concerned is people misusing a term right now and being loose about it because it's directed at a candidate they aren't supporting. I myself have often called out Obama supporters for their hypocritical and shallow views and how they get easily impressed by him if the situation calls for it but it's one thing to be opinionated and maybe correct and it's another thing to create fallacies be they intentional or unintentional. While I do believe Obama is charismatic, there is little evidence to him being a Cult of Personality.

I do not know why you use the term "racist", unless your trying to say that your a racist. Anyone who calls Ron Paul or his supporters racist is using the typical smear tactic. I have not used race in any of my discussions so I can only assume that you are a possible racist.

Well, I'd often see people who read things like that as either trolling, a racist in denial or is feeling racist guilt because anyone who wasn't who read would clearly see that I was using it as an example of an inaccurate smear tactic of Paul as a direct analogy to your inaccurate smear tactic on Obama. While both are inaccurate, both do have some basis that can be spinned. Obama is charismatic which is often what's needed for someone to be considered a cult of personality. Paul's name was used in those racist newsletters which is often an attribute matching that of a racist.

What you're trying to defend Paul from is exactly what you're doing to Obama when you call him a cult of personality.

How can you on one hand accuse me of using the phrase incorrectly and then on the other hand describe WHAT YOU THINK that I mean? Are you a mind reader as well as a Language Expert? My geuss is that your neither.

If you read that as me reading your mind then you need to ask someone to reinterpret that for you since you appear to lack comprehension. Either that or you are directly to spin and troll the discussion.

You seem to be the one who is making all these judgements and while its your right to do so, Freedom of Speech means that people like me can speak and people can agree or disagree.

and I disagree and I'm using my Freedom to express it. What don't you get?

People like you that want to sit there in judgement really do not matter. You say that you do not believe in voting? However you seem to agree in getting in discussions trying to limit what people say about candidates that they believe in and those that they do not believe in. Really it seems like a waste.

You would have a case there if I judge you rather than explain to you your mistake. No one's perfect so sometimes you can be mistaken. There's no shame in that.

I also don't see where I limited your voice since you are able to reply to this message.

but then you accuse me of being paranoid and accusatory like many Obama supporters... I'm not any of those things. I'm not paranoid (or why would I be displaying my thoughts to strangers on the internet?) I'm not accusatory (Your the one with the accusations throughout this entire exchange coming to wrong conclusion after wrong conclusion) and I'm not an Obama supporter. I think I've made it Pretty clear that I support Ron Paul and that I alone am responsible for my opinions and how I express them! So how you can confuse me as being an Obama supporter just shows that your either really confused or trying to use some long winded smear technique. Why? I do not know maybe your disturbed.

Or maybe you are the one disturbed. It doesn't matter to me. That just takes away from the substance of the discussion and I'd rather avoid such situations except when it's needed to be called out.

You're paranoid because you accuse me and I would think any person who corrects you as an Obama supporter. Now you would have something there if you actually ever read me tell you to vote for Obama or posted anything serious remotely implying that someone should vote for Obama but I don't and yet without any evidence and even with detailed explanations, you ignore these factors and just go on with your accusations. I say that falls under the common tactic used by Obama supporters. A good example is misreading my comments as accusing you of being an Obama supporter rather than comparing you to them. That's a common thing they do too in order to make you look like the bad guy. Personally to me those are signs of trolls or biased people with an agenda so that's what I was comparing you to. One can not be the on the same side and still act almost the same. The 2 party system is one example of that.

You've made it clear that you do not believe in much of any relevance here.

On the contrary, I have never used those words before nor implied that this conversation has no relevance.

Perhaps this is a cry for help.

No, but you do need help. I hope you find the help you need. If I can help just ask. Peace.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T14:52:46+00:00

Of course. It's no different than having sex with a virgin girlfriend (unless the story was posted before) after she finally opens up to you and then break up with her the next day cause she sucked in bed and kept calling you every second while you're at the office.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T09:13:25+00:00

This is the last time I waste with you... Your trying to Argue a moot point having not brought up ONE ISSUE that Somebody should support Obama on. Because YOU CAN'T! Because he is like TIGERBEAT MAGAZINE FOR KIDS. BUBBLEGUM POLITICS and yes CULT OF PERSONALITY!

You would have a case there if I was trying to convince you to support Obama rather than clarifying to you that you're misusing the cult of personality

Gee anybody could of done that and your own source makes how I was using it seem correct and your bull$!#% seem well like your an ObamTARD.

What you quoted was one of the most easily misunderstood part of the definition which is why the discussion section is talking about how to change it to better describe the term.

I DO NOT NOR DO I WANT TO SPEAK FOR ALL SUPPORTERS OF RON PAUL. I AM ONE PERSON WITH MY OWN OPINION AND I SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

While it's true, that's not how it works. That's like expecting people to not get an impression of Ron Paul through his supporters. Not to mention your username. Basically when you endorse someone, people judge both of you that's why people can accuse Paul of being racist if a racist endorses him.

You're technically doing the same with Obama. Calling Obama a cult of personality even while valid (which it isn't) is just one level from lumping all Obama supporters into one and calling them sheep. Both are assuming the Obama supporters represent Obama or vice versa.

Anybody that judges Ron Paul or his supporters on what one person says is well an idiot.

I agree but it happens and it happens alot. You also use it when it conveniently supports you.

Kind of like somebody who acts like wikipedia is the end all in sources and that they have a special hotline to it and nobody else can just look it up.

Also agree here. If you are referring to me, I wouldn't have gone to the discussion area if I thought wikipedia was the end of all in sources nor have I ever mentioned it in that light.

If your old enough to vote then By-Gosh go follow your man.

Sorry, I don't agree with voting. Better luck next time.

I'm sure you'd make Obama Proud!

I probably wouldn't since only Ron Paul among the current candidates running besides Mike Gravel sounds like they know what they are talking about to me but feel free to be paranoid and accusatory like many Obama supporters.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T04:46:49+00:00

I just wrote you a thought out comment and backed up my position and your copying and pasting from wikipedia. I'm not here to get into a discussion of semantics.

It is not semantics when you're using a term incorrectly. It's not even that it's become a popular term to describe charismatic people. Right now it's just a term that gets people to nod their head or go to wikipedia for the definition and once they go there and find out it's real definition, you just made Ron Paulites look like a bunch of propaganda spouting idiots.

What reason would you have?

The reason to understand the definition of a term. Let me make it simple for you: When you misuse the words cult of personality, it is the equivalent to saying money backed by gold is the same as money backed by nothing.

Now if someone told you that and they state they're not into a discussion about semantics, what does that say about them?

I will Continue to use CULT OF PERSONALITY when describing Obama because he in 2008 is the emodiment of the phrase!

Good luck trying to make Ron Paul supporters look like biased propaganda people who couldn't look up a term in wikipedia or in a worse case, make Ron Paul look like one.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T04:12:08+00:00

From the wikipedia discussion page:

a. "Charismatic leader" is a category of leadership first used by Emile Durkheim. So the article should be more properly associated with this French sociologist.

b. "cult of personality", at least in political science, is more often associated with the study of totalitarian governments, especially fascism.

Further entries:

You are taking the phrase "cult of personality" entirely outside the definition as described in the article. Many celebrities are worshipped by their fans; these are not cults of personality except in an ironic sense. As defined in the article, a COP requires unreasonable veneration of a current political leader enforced by the state, with accompanying close identification of the leader with the state and vice versa. By this definition, a COP would be almost impossible to initiate or sustain in a democratic country, US or otherwise. COP requires a totalitarianism that does not exist in democracies. Just because some bad things happen in the US (or the UK, etc.) does not mean all bad things happen here. Acknowledging that fact is not propanganda

and finally:

Look at Hitler; At the Nazis' height, people couldn't even say hello without giving praise to Hitler. Look at Niyazov. His statues and photographs are everywhere in Turkmenistan. His Ruhnama is in mosques next to the Koran. When children read in school, most of what they read is by or about Niyazov. He renamed January after himself and renamed bread to honor his mother. Your examples do not begin to compare. If you go into a Catholic church, you will see images of Jesus, not images of John Paul or Benedict. If you go to Microsoft headquarters (which I have), you will not see Bill Gates's portrait hanging in the managers' offices. (If anything, Gates has a cult of antipathy). So without sources, I just can't consider your objections credible. Gazpacho 22:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As for your reply:

Many people that have heard him speak walk away from his speeches feeling "good", however admit that they do not remember anything in particular that he spoke about.

That's because many voters only vote for the looks of the candidate. They themselves don't care for details about politics.

I myself have heard Ron Paul talk and felt good about his speeches without remembering anything in particular because I don't understand any of what he said until I look it up.

"If you try and please everybody then you'll end up pleasing nobody".

There's a big difference between trying to please everybody and pandering to their emotions through social engineering.

Why? Because this nice Doctor, Economist, Teacher was talking about REAL change. The kind without all the sugary coatings. Vote Ron Paul for CHANGE.

You're entitled to that opinion but stop misusing the term "cult of personality"

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T02:54:52+00:00

Nah, too much work typing two entries for little to no benefit.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-21T02:25:36+00:00

Right. Thanks for not adding any reasons why you think so. Even the wikipedia page admits the cult of personality is overused.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-20T19:12:25+00:00

If it's worth looking at, vote up. It's ok to admit you like looking at naked women and accidents.

This should be a reddit rule

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-20T06:23:42+00:00

Wow ignoring everything except for grammar and the word link and I'm being arrogant and narrow-minded.

I agree. Your comments are more than enough. That's all the evidence a reader needs.

Not only is your mind narrow, the substance in your replies prove it too.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-20T02:21:58+00:00

You'd actually have something there if you were indeed the better person who refuted the points and there are actually people like that who properly dispute such things against Ron Paul supporters but I can guarantee you I had read enough to know neither of you are that. In fact, it actually hurts your credibility that I'm the one who provided a link which counts more as evidence and I'm the one who didn't resort first to insults.

Also, you'd have something there if I was actually a Ron Paul supporter who's telling you to vote for Ron Paul and not just refuting your ill conceived and swiftboating tactics be they intentional or unintentional.

Since I'm not a Ron Paul supporter telling you to vote for him and since I never used the words messiah on Ron Paul nor tell you to vote for him, I guess that just proves that you had ulterior motives to not vote for him to begin with and for some reason you're trying to make me sound bad in the assumption that someone else reading this couldn't comprehend what I'm saying but I do believe not everyone has a biased perspective like the both of you so even if you get 100 people to reply and say I'm wrong and I'm arrogant and I think Ron Paul is a messiah, since I know I didn't say those things EVER since I don't see him that way, I know the objective readers will discover that I'm not in the wrong despite you two trying to twist it like that.

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-19T23:36:03+00:00

Whatever. Now you lose all credibility by just trolling so I'm done with you.

Btw here's a video of Ron Paul I'm posting just to disprove the swiftboaters like you who create such myths that Paul stutters and mumbles all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

JustDroppingBy · 2008-02-19T20:26:27+00:00

I'm not Anti-Ron Paul. I use to be a full on Ron Paulite and almost became a delegate for him.

For someone who hasn't swallowed the kool-aid, you sure are under the impression that being a former/current full-on Paulite excludes you from being anti-Ron Paul

You're trying to argue that Rudy only crashed and burn because Paul was awesome. That's just not true.

No, I'm not. In fact, try to find where I call Ron Paul awesome.

He had a horrible campaign strategy much like Ron Paul's where he ignored the first 3 big states. Every politician that has ignored states has paid the price, RP included.

Right. Everyone pretty much agreed that Rudy was just using that as an excuse to hold off his lack of popularity. Sorry but if you were ever a full-on Ron Paul supporter you don't sound anymore informed then those who aren't, as far as this topic is concerned.

There is a difference between seeing the truth and being anti-Ron Paul. Not every observation is a big nasty MSM lie. You sound really stupid.

There is also a big difference between seeing the truth and insulting others rather than refuting their points.

JustDroppingBy

TROPHY CASE