Tweets are important.
Is this it for Ron Paul?
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
Tweets are important.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I have NO idea who "tweeted", other than "Tweety" and the half a zillion birds around here. How many of those "tweets" are from "professional tweeters"?
You picture makes sense to you why?
You picture makes sense to you why?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Assuming that you are speaking to me, it's an example of what is known as cognitive dissonance - perhaps a somewhat analogous cognitive dissonance - very similar to how some so-called "Christians" clamor for the "death penalty" (interestingly, in often relatively minor matters - such as trespass) - whilst claiming to follow One who preached no such thing.
In fact, he preached quite the opposite.
In fact, he preached quite the opposite.
He also accepted the death penalty.
BUT, in the real world of today, in politics, one can love some, like some and HATE some policies of any given candidate but still feel that in the end that candidate suits enough of their wants and needs to support them for office.
As many have told me in here, one cannot wait for the PERFECT candidate, one often has to SETTLE for the one that comes even close.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The careless use of indefinite personal pronouns without first laying the groundwork for who you are referring to doesn't do a whole lot in terms of making it clear who you are speaking of ....
Last edited:
The use of indefinite personal pronouns without first laying the groundwork for who you are referring to doesn't do a whole lot in terms of making it clear who you are speaking of ....
Feel better now? You know darn well who I was speaking of since I quoted you and in the prior post asked about the picture.
Clear of whom you are speaking.
There are "clear people' in here?
Not heard that term for a LONG time!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Not particularly.
I'll feel better when I understand the meaning and intent of what you wrote.
Clearly, I don't - otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to point out to you that your flawed sentence construction makes it impossible to divine who you are referring to.
Rather than replying as you did, you could have just simply made it clear who you were referring to .....
So, just to make it incredibly easy for you:
When you said "he" who were you referring to ?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah I wuz wonderin' about thatClear of whom you are speaking.
Always had trouble with that who/whom thing ....
No, you would bother to point out a flawed sentence just
because you enjoy doing that.
You mentioned Christians beliefs etc. and how the ONE preached against the death penalty. I must assume, since only your picture eve came close to making it clear that you were speaking of Jesus. Not that you ever said it. Jesus is the "he" I was referring too, but then you did know that.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No, actually I ignore and let a lot of that sorta thing slide .... except when it prevents me from clearly understanding what is being said in something I'm thinking I might like to respond to ...
But I attempted and took some responsibility to make my communication clear by capitalizing "One" - in recognition of the Deity ....
Further, I would assume that most folks know who it is that Christians claim to follow (even if some making that claim clearly don't)
Thank you.
Actually I didn't ..... probably due to the fact that the indefinite personal pronoun "He" (capitalized) was used at the beginning of a sentence ..... rather than in middle ......
Had you said something like "..... and "He" ..... I would have recognized who you were referring to.
And now that I understand who you were referring to, I will respond to previous comments shortly.
Last edited:
OKEE DOKEE, if you did not truly understand, fair enough.
Yeah I wuz wonderin' about that
Always had trouble with that who/whom thing ....
More of the pedant in me, ending a sentence with a preposition, more so than the who/whom thing, actually. While the who/whom thing is a real deal grammar thing and it does make a difference despite normal conversational language rarely seeing the difference, the prepositional ending is mostly a result of the teachings in school of other pedants who believed that English was inferior to Latin and should be improved by forcing it onto the Procrustean bed of Latin grammar. But English is more descended from an ancestral German dialect than it is from Latin, so certain of the rules based on Latin grammar simply do not fit the structure of English.
"Where are you at?" is good example of a sentence where the extraneous preposition should definitely be left off... of.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
He accepted the imposition of it personally on Himself - as the price He had to pay for the salvation of others.
He never personally advocated or practiced imposing it on others, nor did He advocate that His followers impose it on others (.... to say nothing of practicing it in a preemptive manner .....
)As previously stated, what He advocated is exactly the opposite - therefore, actually rejecting it (and further, if as a believer, ya wanna go all metaphysical, He rejected it by overcoming it ....)
The above, while largely true, is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making:
Many folks who claim to be "Christians" hold philosophical and ideological positions which are in direct conflict with the philosophy, admonitions and practices of the very individual who they claim to follow.
This is what is known is hypocrisy - functionally, it is living a lie ....
Just no getting around that fact - and the conclusion to be drawn from that is, to my mind, fairly obvious ....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
If I had actually understood, I simply would have replied ....
I was commenting on the comparisons of the pictures. In religious beliefs there is seldom any middle ground. For one to claim to follow a religious figure (not at all limited to Christians) and then proceed to break from that for what ever reason is hypocrisy.
Politics on the the other hand is NOT the same. Using Mr. Paul as an example. It is entirely possible to lend one's support to him even IF one does not agree with his foreign policy ideas. That would not be hypocrisy, it would be a disagreement with one segment of Mr. Paul's ideas.
I DO, however, find the use of those two particular pictures rather interesting.
Politics on the the other hand is NOT the same. Using Mr. Paul as an example. It is entirely possible to lend one's support to him even IF one does not agree with his foreign policy ideas. That would not be hypocrisy, it would be a disagreement with one segment of Mr. Paul's ideas.
I DO, however, find the use of those two particular pictures rather interesting.