The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the


Comment: The definition of rambling
The definition of rambling
To point out a grave error is rambling.
To report the error in a reasonable manner is rambling.
Is the error important enough to report?
Will those who repeat the error listen?
If they have a vested interest in repeating the error, then it is not an error, most likely.
When the shoe is on the other foot I have the same routine responses to my warnings.
Example:
On a forum populated by left leaning people I report to them that the use of the word capitalism as a word that you intend to define as crime has the opposite affect of warning the people on the right, assuming that your intent is to warn the people on the right concerning crime.
A person overhears a meeting whereby a number of people at a corporation have been dumping toxic material, which is highly poisonous, into the local water supply, to save money.
The person goes door to door warning the local population as to the crime in progress.
The local population leans to the right.
The person reaches the first house.
Knock, knock
"Hi" says the person, holding a glass of water for his thirsty daughter, as the thirsty daughter stands by the side of the parent answering the door.
"I have a message for you." Says the messenger.
"Yes, what is it?"
"Capitalism is here in your neighborhood." Warns the neighbor.
"Great!" says the Parent as the daughter drinks the poison water.
The rambling is rambling to the people on the left too, when they prefer not to hear the facts that point out how any tool, a gun, a form of democracy, a form of capitalism, is inert, lifeless, has no power of will, no capacity to respond, and cannot logically be held to account for anything.
If there is a crime to be committed, it will be a person, or a group of people acting the same way, perpetrating a crime, using a gun, or a form of democracy, or a form of capitalism, or a form of republic, or a pointed stick.
So why call a crime anything but a crime, what is the reasoning on either side of the isle for blaming things for the crimes done by people?
Both sides hear only rambling, in my experience, and that is another point worth pointing out, as it happens the criminals benefit from that willful ignorance.
Joe