Aw geez -- was there really a need to turn a tech story into a shameless plug for a white supremacist conspiracy nut presidential candidate? Please keep politics out of it.
no kidding, every Ron Pauk post I read quickly ends with some right wing christian call to theocracy in a version of the united states that would make the klan happy.
The "shameless plug" appears to be yourself. Calling Dr. Paul these unfounded names speaks of a low-brow knuckle dragger with little intention or ability to discover the numerous qualities and greatness this man possesses. Before you slander a person, take the time to learn if you can even qualify to be in his company.
oh please, I've read the comments left by ron supporters. Comments like: he will bring Christ back into government! he'll make sure the ethnic make up of america is at least 50% northern european.
Further mixing conservative values with religious dogma, blurring the line on illegal immigration with racism, these are hardly the sort of values it will take to "save the country".
What a good little parrot you are Scott! Care to add anything else you've heard other people say or would you care to express an original thought? If you had done any research you'd realize how stupid you sound. I challenge you to prove one word you said about Ron Paul. You know something more common these days than intelligent, patriotic people posting comments about Ron Paul? Idiots like this muckraking without an ounce of proof. Scottgaertner.net, your resume makes you seem like an intelligent, if ego-centric, guy.(Seriously, who puts bad pics of themselves on their resume?!) Try doing some research and then expressing yourself. I suggest you start with Candidates@Goole: Ron Paul. View it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
anthony: The problem is, I hear/read stuff like this all the time. Check out craigslist, ron paul supporters spam the local news section with their garbage all the time.
Why shouldn't I judge someone by the company they keep, by the people the attract? There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy.
"There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy."
Nazis would support democrats against communists. Does it follow that democrats are nazis or that "there is something that caused the intolernat nazists to come out to support such party"?
Goddamnit, Engadget. I'd like to remind you editors that this is ENGADGET, with an emphasis on "GADGET".
Unless Mr. Paul is releasing a new cell phone with a 5 megapixel camera, 64MB of RAM and a 4.1" VGA touchscreen, I don't want to hear about him or any other politician. There's PLENTY of other politics blogs out there and I'm pretty sure if you guys really wanted you could request from Weblogs that a new one to be started.
Scott/eugene: Your post is nothing but a shameless ad hominem fallacy of association. By your logic, if a crazy with a keyboard posts 'kill bunny rabbits' on a Clinton blog then Clinton's platform is thus to kill bunny rabbits.
As I know that guilt by association logic is employed (usually) only by children, I am glad to know morons such as yourself won't be voting this election cycle.
Okay, if the overtly religious and racist bloggings by his supporters aren't enough, here's some of ron's own words:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
on the israel-lebanon war: "It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
ron on the seperation of church and state: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Further, while all you ron supporters would like to say that just because religious nut jobs and racists support Ron, that his has no bearing on Ron... why hasn't Ron come out and condemed these guys? Why does he accept their donations?
Of course, maybe Ron supporters don't see anything wrong with an american for white christians.
Again, since these are out of context, I can't make 100% truthful translations of them.
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Or, reworded for the ignorant "Going by DC's (ridiculous) criminal justice system, 95% of the cities criminals are blacks". Now, since I'm literate, I read that as "DC's c.j.s. is, probably unfairly, persecuting its black civilians."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
This one's trickier, since there is absoluately no context and no belying vocabulary. My take? "I (Ron Paul) define 'sensible government' as maintaining a free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Therefore, (3rd party) opinion polls consistently show that about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Dumbing it down further... "Only about 5% of blacks, as poll resultes show, share my (Ron Paul's) political opinions." I grant you it could have been worded a little clearer/politically correct.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
This is just a statement of experience, as far as I can see. Maybe he's never been robbed by a white teenager, or a Mexican one. If he had, perhaps his statement would reflect _that_ experience. I can't really speculate anything else; no context.
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
Statement of political opinion. Many Americans believe that the Israeli government gets overly-preferential treatment. That being said, I don't know much about their lobbying and therefore cannot attest/speculate any further.
on the israel-lebanon war: "It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
Sigh. Why are people still illiterate in this day and age. "Based on an objective reading of this resolution, it would seem that all of the terrorists [Lebonese] and all of the innocents/victims [Israelis] are on opposing sides. This seems unfair, especially considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among the 'terrorists' (Lebonese)." Dumbing it down more: "This resolution says that all of the Lebonese are terrorists and all of the Israelis are innocents or victims. Which seems unlikely, as the Lebonese have higher civilian casualties."
ron on the seperation of church and state: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
This is just a statement of logic. Any entities of power are going to vie against each other. Religion claims God surpasses the state, and since you can't really argue against that, secular government tries to more directly undermine religion's authority by limiting its interactions. Nothing in there says that he is _for_ the Christianization of our federal government. It just expresses that he believes the founding fathers wanted Christianity in the government, which I happen to disagree with. Churches are more successful at teaching morals and civility---that is, after all, part of their purpose, whereas it is not part of the government.
(I, for one, welcome the destruction of Christmas as a holiday.)
In summary, if you're illiterate, you probably don't like Ron Paul.
The N9 has arrived. What we can say from our first experience is that we're in the presence of a fantastically designed device with a gorgeous AMOLED screen and some highly responsive performance.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Aw geez -- was there really a need to turn a tech story into a shameless plug for a white supremacist conspiracy nut presidential candidate? Please keep politics out of it.
Aw geez -- was there really a need to post your uneducated comment? Please keep your opinion out of it.
no kidding, every Ron Pauk post I read quickly ends with some right wing christian call to theocracy in a version of the united states that would make the klan happy.
'please keep politics out of it'
Says the man who just referred to the politician as a 'white supremacist conspiracy nut'?
The "shameless plug" appears to be yourself. Calling Dr. Paul these unfounded names speaks of a low-brow knuckle dragger with little intention or ability to discover the numerous qualities and greatness this man possesses. Before you slander a person, take the time to learn if you can even qualify to be in his company.
Slander without basis is a direct reflection of its source.
oh please, I've read the comments left by ron supporters. Comments like:
he will bring Christ back into government!
he'll make sure the ethnic make up of america is at least 50% northern european.
Further mixing conservative values with religious dogma, blurring the line on illegal immigration with racism, these are hardly the sort of values it will take to "save the country".
eugene, [just about] every politician out there has some followers that are 'crazy' or 'on the fringe.' Do not kill the man for what others says.
What a good little parrot you are Scott! Care to add anything else you've heard other people say or would you care to express an original thought? If you had done any research you'd realize how stupid you sound. I challenge you to prove one word you said about Ron Paul. You know something more common these days than intelligent, patriotic people posting comments about Ron Paul? Idiots like this muckraking without an ounce of proof. Scottgaertner.net, your resume makes you seem like an intelligent, if ego-centric, guy.(Seriously, who puts bad pics of themselves on their resume?!) Try doing some research and then expressing yourself. I suggest you start with Candidates@Goole: Ron Paul. View it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
anthony: The problem is, I hear/read stuff like this all the time. Check out craigslist, ron paul supporters spam the local news section with their garbage all the time.
Why shouldn't I judge someone by the company they keep, by the people the attract? There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy.
"There has to be something there that would cause intolerant religious fanatics, racists and bigots to come out of the woodwork to support this guy."
Nazis would support democrats against communists. Does it follow that democrats are nazis or that "there is something that caused the intolernat nazists to come out to support such party"?
Goddamnit, Engadget. I'd like to remind you editors that this is ENGADGET, with an emphasis on "GADGET".
Unless Mr. Paul is releasing a new cell phone with a 5 megapixel camera, 64MB of RAM and a 4.1" VGA touchscreen, I don't want to hear about him or any other politician. There's PLENTY of other politics blogs out there and I'm pretty sure if you guys really wanted you could request from Weblogs that a new one to be started.
Scott/eugene: Your post is nothing but a shameless ad hominem fallacy of association. By your logic, if a crazy with a keyboard posts 'kill bunny rabbits' on a Clinton blog then Clinton's platform is thus to kill bunny rabbits.
@eugene:
As I know that guilt by association logic is employed (usually) only by children, I am glad to know morons such as yourself won't be voting this election cycle.
Okay, if the overtly religious and racist bloggings by his supporters aren't enough, here's some of ron's own words:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Further, while all you ron supporters would like to say that just because religious nut jobs and racists support Ron, that his has no bearing on Ron... why hasn't Ron come out and condemed these guys? Why does he accept their donations?
Of course, maybe Ron supporters don't see anything wrong with an american for white christians.
Again, since these are out of context, I can't make 100% truthful translations of them.
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Or, reworded for the ignorant "Going by DC's (ridiculous) criminal justice system, 95% of the cities criminals are blacks". Now, since I'm literate, I read that as "DC's c.j.s. is, probably unfairly, persecuting its black civilians."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
This one's trickier, since there is absoluately no context and no belying vocabulary. My take? "I (Ron Paul) define 'sensible government' as maintaining a free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Therefore, (3rd party) opinion polls consistently show that about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Dumbing it down further... "Only about 5% of blacks, as poll resultes show, share my (Ron Paul's) political opinions." I grant you it could have been worded a little clearer/politically correct.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
This is just a statement of experience, as far as I can see. Maybe he's never been robbed by a white teenager, or a Mexican one. If he had, perhaps his statement would reflect _that_ experience. I can't really speculate anything else; no context.
"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
Statement of political opinion. Many Americans believe that the Israeli government gets overly-preferential treatment. That being said, I don't know much about their lobbying and therefore cannot attest/speculate any further.
on the israel-lebanon war:
"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."
Sigh. Why are people still illiterate in this day and age. "Based on an objective reading of this resolution, it would seem that all of the terrorists [Lebonese] and all of the innocents/victims [Israelis] are on opposing sides. This seems unfair, especially considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among the 'terrorists' (Lebonese)." Dumbing it down more: "This resolution says that all of the Lebonese are terrorists and all of the Israelis are innocents or victims. Which seems unlikely, as the Lebonese have higher civilian casualties."
ron on the seperation of church and state:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
This is just a statement of logic. Any entities of power are going to vie against each other. Religion claims God surpasses the state, and since you can't really argue against that, secular government tries to more directly undermine religion's authority by limiting its interactions. Nothing in there says that he is _for_ the Christianization of our federal government. It just expresses that he believes the founding fathers wanted Christianity in the government, which I happen to disagree with. Churches are more successful at teaching morals and civility---that is, after all, part of their purpose, whereas it is not part of the government.
(I, for one, welcome the destruction of Christmas as a holiday.)
In summary, if you're illiterate, you probably don't like Ron Paul.
ho hum