Told You He Was A Genius...

I am going to presume any talking dog is smart and reasonable.

So I was whammy-blammied with a truth bomb.  Well, sorta.  Okay, not at all. Just whammy-blammied;

 

canadiancynic CC

So ... how's that Ron Paul hero worship working out for you? http://t.co/TDtVUHCN Uh oh ... http://t.co/WZO9Y1lj Good luck with that.

...would be the clearest possible sign that they want to remake this country into a much meaner and more cruelly indifferent nation than the one nearly all Americans grew up in.

ThinkProgress compiled video of just a few of Paul’s many claims that basic laws and essential programs violate the Constitution. A short list includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.

I dont' see luck as logic will do me quite fine:
So here is my (simple) logic:
I don't think Ron Paul is my hero
You can have a value AND believe it is not within government jurisdiction operate within.  If one says, "I think x is important and I do not think x should be government paid" they are not 'mean' or 'cruel', necessarily.
Replace x with parenting.
Replace x with enjoying the chewing of bubble gum.
Use your imagination.
In order to make a point about being mean and cruel, you have to explain why x ought to be paid for by government...which this article clearly does not attempt to do.  Paul is not outlawing the care for others that previously would have fallen into the government jurisdiction...he is saying private sector does it better. We logically can't say, "the government is mean and cruel for not paying parents 1 million dollars per year to parent."  We have to explain why the government should pony up, then by not doing so, they are then mean and cruel.

Logically, canadiancynic, make a point on why certain functions should be within the government arena, explain how he is cutting the services in the said area...then perhaps your reference would have a valid point on being mean and cruel.

So, the article needs to communicate the logic of, "Ron Paul wants to eliminate 'x'.  'X' is within the inherent jurisdiction of the government therefore Ron Paul is responsible for 'x' and any fallout thereof due to cuts."  Then you can say, "By eliminating something the government is responsible for, they are being mean and cruel".  This makes sense and is much easier to 'work with'.  Much easier then: Ron Paul is cutting stuff (lots of stuff) therefore he is mean and cruel. I trust you can 'work with that'? 
(The corollary: any area that ought not to be within government jurisdiction needs to be cut.  I'm basically saying, if the government should be responsible, let them be.  If they should not be, then cut it: but at least have the debate, should they or should the not be responsible and why?)

P.S, (genuine compliment :) when you don't swear, you are funny and make smart connections...congrats on your tweets.