New Website: Ron Paul Myths. Volunteers needed!
- Thread starter Patriot123
- Start date
Patriot123, I strongly suggest some revisions to the Third Party Candidate one. I don’t think it should address the possibility that Dr. Paul might run third party; that bit just confuses the issue and casts doubt on whether he is really Republican now.
Also, I don’t think this is the place to cut down Republicans or what Republicans stand for. As I understand it, Dr. Paul’s position is that it is current Republicans who have lost their way while he is the one who stands for true Republicanism. Anyway, whether his views are truly Republican is addressed in another myth, so I suggest that this one stay tightly focused on the fact that Ron Paul is a Republican.
I will suggest some new text to replace the bits about Dr. Paul’s views and the possibility of running third party.
Also, re the citations used in the earlier draft – I think use of cites should be very careful in order to avoid linking to unfair, biased, confusing or outdated articles if at all possible. For this reason I suggest eliminating the article called “Libertarian Ron Paul” as it suggests he is a libertarian rather than a Republican. I suggest eliminating the article about the unlikelihood of a third party bid because it reminds readers that such a bid is still possible. I suggest eliminating the “Ron Paul is Media Poison” article because it focuses on media bias rather than on Ron Paul’s announcement and Republican affiliation. And I suggest eliminating the video of the 2008 debate and replacing it with a video of his 2011 announcement.
In the next post I’ll post a proposed updated version for this myth.
Also, I don’t think this is the place to cut down Republicans or what Republicans stand for. As I understand it, Dr. Paul’s position is that it is current Republicans who have lost their way while he is the one who stands for true Republicanism. Anyway, whether his views are truly Republican is addressed in another myth, so I suggest that this one stay tightly focused on the fact that Ron Paul is a Republican.
I will suggest some new text to replace the bits about Dr. Paul’s views and the possibility of running third party.
Also, re the citations used in the earlier draft – I think use of cites should be very careful in order to avoid linking to unfair, biased, confusing or outdated articles if at all possible. For this reason I suggest eliminating the article called “Libertarian Ron Paul” as it suggests he is a libertarian rather than a Republican. I suggest eliminating the article about the unlikelihood of a third party bid because it reminds readers that such a bid is still possible. I suggest eliminating the “Ron Paul is Media Poison” article because it focuses on media bias rather than on Ron Paul’s announcement and Republican affiliation. And I suggest eliminating the video of the 2008 debate and replacing it with a video of his 2011 announcement.
In the next post I’ll post a proposed updated version for this myth.
Third party candidate
Here’s a suggested revised version of the third party candidate one.
MYTH: Ron Paul is a third party candidate.
FACT: Ron Paul is a Republican candidate.
• Ron Paul is a Republican
• Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 12 times as a Republican
• Ron Paul is seeking the GOP nomination for President
RON PAUL SAYS: “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years”
- Interview with George Stephanopoulos, May 13, 2011, Transcript at http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-13/ron-paul-im-running-for-president/
DETAILS:
Ron Paul is a Republican: He has been a Republican since the 1970s (except for two years in 1988 during which he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket). http://www.biography.com/articles/Ron-Paul-265881
Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 12 times as a Republican: He first served as a Congressman during the 1970s and 1980s. http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/candidate.html After a stint in the private sector as a physician running his own medical practice, he again was elected to Congress in 1996 and has served from then until the present. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009&Itemid=50 Ron Paul now represents the 14th District of Texas; his official Congressional website is at http://paul.house.gov/.
Seeking GOP Nomination: Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination on May 13, 2011. (Ron Paul Formally Enters Presidential Race, USA Today, May 13, 2011: http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ential-race-/1)
LEARN MORE:
Watch: Ron Paul announcing his candidacy for the GOP nomination (New Hampshire, May 13, 2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ripb57k3RMQ&feature=related
Read:
Ron Paul’s biography: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/
Rep. Ron Paul announces candidacy for President:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-ron-paul-announces-third-bid-for-presidency/
Here’s a suggested revised version of the third party candidate one.
MYTH: Ron Paul is a third party candidate.
FACT: Ron Paul is a Republican candidate.
• Ron Paul is a Republican
• Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 12 times as a Republican
• Ron Paul is seeking the GOP nomination for President
RON PAUL SAYS: “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years”
- Interview with George Stephanopoulos, May 13, 2011, Transcript at http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-13/ron-paul-im-running-for-president/
DETAILS:
Ron Paul is a Republican: He has been a Republican since the 1970s (except for two years in 1988 during which he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket). http://www.biography.com/articles/Ron-Paul-265881
Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 12 times as a Republican: He first served as a Congressman during the 1970s and 1980s. http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/candidate.html After a stint in the private sector as a physician running his own medical practice, he again was elected to Congress in 1996 and has served from then until the present. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009&Itemid=50 Ron Paul now represents the 14th District of Texas; his official Congressional website is at http://paul.house.gov/.
Seeking GOP Nomination: Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination on May 13, 2011. (Ron Paul Formally Enters Presidential Race, USA Today, May 13, 2011: http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ential-race-/1)
LEARN MORE:
Watch: Ron Paul announcing his candidacy for the GOP nomination (New Hampshire, May 13, 2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ripb57k3RMQ&feature=related
Read:
Ron Paul’s biography: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/
Rep. Ron Paul announces candidacy for President:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-ron-paul-announces-third-bid-for-presidency/
Patriot 123, a quick point on the "unelectable" one: I recommend changing "is soaring in the polls" to "does well in polls". Much as I would like him to be "soaring", I don't think a range from high single digits to low double digits can truthfully be described that way, and the obvious exaggeration will just undercut the believability of the rest of the text. I may have more comments on that one later but that's the most important one.
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
All right, your suggestions are definitely correct -- I can agree with much of what you said. I'll update the previously posted list of all the myths with your revision, and I'll revise the other ones you mentioned.
PastaRocket848
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,910
i know i probably sound like a broken record, but i've suggested it twice and no one has responded that i can tell: this site definitely needs a user submitted q/a section. and comments section for each issue so users can discuss the issues further. i think that would be VERY helpful for people who want clarification on the issues.
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
Your suggestion hasn't gone unnoticed
we're getting to all the suggestions, don't worry haha. Hopefully we'll be able to add this one in. I'll go ahead and add it to the long post I made, as well.PastaRocket848
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,910
thank you 
... this is shaping up to be quite a project.
EDIT: please please please fix the close-accordion button! it's driving me crazy and takes 30 seconds to fix lol. i can't seem to wrap my head around two different buttons for each direction, and i think most users nowadays are more accustomed to the jquery style up and down action.
quick fix.. far more intuitive interface... and it clean up the look of the divs displaying the issues.
... this is shaping up to be quite a project.EDIT: please please please fix the close-accordion button! it's driving me crazy and takes 30 seconds to fix lol. i can't seem to wrap my head around two different buttons for each direction, and i think most users nowadays are more accustomed to the jquery style up and down action.
quick fix.. far more intuitive interface... and it clean up the look of the divs displaying the issues.
Last edited:
Steve-in-NY
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,206
PastaRocket848:
Im not really familiar with jquery - Im more of a static page guy... but I have been doing what I can as per the suggestions.
The main concern was the linkablity (anchor link, div expanded) for the pages. Admittedly, the current method is just a dynamic script mod I got working.
Im really more of a network/server guy, but I have some experience in a bunch of fields and thought Id help out.
If you are a web person, then by all means feel free to help out. Id appreciate it. If youd like the code, Id be more than happy to send it to you... or you can just download it from the server. Let me know.
I still code by hand with notepad, and I admit, Im not very good. Any help is appreciated.
Im not really familiar with jquery - Im more of a static page guy... but I have been doing what I can as per the suggestions.
The main concern was the linkablity (anchor link, div expanded) for the pages. Admittedly, the current method is just a dynamic script mod I got working.
Im really more of a network/server guy, but I have some experience in a bunch of fields and thought Id help out.
If you are a web person, then by all means feel free to help out. Id appreciate it. If youd like the code, Id be more than happy to send it to you... or you can just download it from the server. Let me know.
I still code by hand with notepad, and I admit, Im not very good. Any help is appreciated.
Last edited:
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
Steve, in addition to the ones posted on Page 16 here's the last one as well. Just revised it a small bit with the citations! Thanks so much, Paul Fan, for all your hard work You're really a huge help.
To Do List:
-Revisions to be added from Page 16 and the one above.
-People are suggesting an Question-Answer section -- a section where users can submit questions about Dr. Paul, or submit more myths.
-People are saying that we should have just one link to open and close each myth instead of two. (Just read your post, Steve -- so ignore this one)
You're really a huge help.To Do List:
-Revisions to be added from Page 16 and the one above.
-People are suggesting an Question-Answer section -- a section where users can submit questions about Dr. Paul, or submit more myths.
-People are saying that we should have just one link to open and close each myth instead of two. (Just read your post, Steve -- so ignore this one)
Last edited:
PastaRocket848
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,910
i can probably help out... i work primarily with rails for backend/templating and jquery/haml for the views. the easiest thing to do would be to just drop the 'animatedcollapse.js' and go with the jquery you already have and a custom jquery-ui themed accordion element (it does the exact same thing as the 'animatedcollapse' only a little cleaner).
you can go here to design the theme (which is then still configurable with css/js of course), then putting it to use is actually much simpler in term of the code than what you already have. you should be able to handle it very easily, but if you need help i can do it for you. you will also have the option when you download the custom jquery-ui/theme to include or exclude other themed elements you may find helpful to keep the minified .js only as big as it has to be.
pm me if you need help, with anything at all.
EDIT: i just realized that with the jquery-ui accordion you're forced to keep one div open at all times. not sure if that's ok or if you'd be better off just using a javascript conditional to change the button from "open" to "close" based on the current state of the div. either way is easy enough.
you can go here to design the theme (which is then still configurable with css/js of course), then putting it to use is actually much simpler in term of the code than what you already have. you should be able to handle it very easily, but if you need help i can do it for you. you will also have the option when you download the custom jquery-ui/theme to include or exclude other themed elements you may find helpful to keep the minified .js only as big as it has to be.
pm me if you need help, with anything at all.
EDIT: i just realized that with the jquery-ui accordion you're forced to keep one div open at all times. not sure if that's ok or if you'd be better off just using a javascript conditional to change the button from "open" to "close" based on the current state of the div. either way is easy enough.
Last edited:
Steve-in-NY
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,206
Your pages are different from mine. I have the forums set to show 40/pg. Just cite the post # please. Thanks.
How about simply an email address? Otherwise I fear having a forum or disqus comment section might have a bunch of trolls on it. Easier to simply go through the emails and address what we want. Keep the garden walled, you know?
PastaRocket848:
Im going to look into that js a bit further. Im worried about the lack of anchor linking. I'll see what I can do. Thanks.
Last edited:
Patriot123, I'm not sure about the citation style you are suggesting, because there is no indication that the full cite will be provided lower down. Would it be possible to do it wikipedia style -with numbers that, if you click on them, you get taken down to the full cite? Alternatively, the first citation at least, and ideally all of them, should say ", link below" after the short reference.
Also, some of the short names you have added are unfortunately not accurate. For example, the cite now called "Harvard Law" is actually a cite to a single article, published in a particular journal that is one of many journals. In no way does it represent the views of Harvard Law School.
Sorry to be pedantic but if you want Ron Paul Myths to be a trusted site, then it needs to be trustworthy and that means accurate descriptions of sources. There are plenty of people -like me, I'm afraid -who don't believe anything on the internet unless a source is provided.
Maybe it would be better to do footnotes and then have the full name at the bottom. That could be done without additional coding just to get things started more quickly.
Sorry to be pedantic but if you want Ron Paul Myths to be a trusted site, then it needs to be trustworthy and that means accurate descriptions of sources. There are plenty of people -like me, I'm afraid -who don't believe anything on the internet unless a source is provided.
Maybe it would be better to do footnotes and then have the full name at the bottom. That could be done without additional coding just to get things started more quickly.
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
Steve -- so 157, 158 and 171.
EDIT: Also Steve -- that sounds like a plan. The email address I have up for us is ronpaulmyths (at) gmail.com. Is there a way that we can add this to the site in the theme of "send us myths and suggestions" etc?
Paul Fan -- I mean... I dunno', I just feel as though the parenthetical citation itself implies it's below. Maybe that's the college student in me speaking, lol. I personally think it's fine -- academic papers always use parenthetical citations that reference their list of citations at the end of the paper. I took out the "see link below" because... well, I guess I've just been taught that in, at least academic papers, parenthetical citations are used. We can try the Wikipedia-style citations though if you like. Let's just... get what we have up, though, if that's all right? I just figure, a) the website is all ready live + we're getting some advertising courtesy of at least one Ron Paul news websites so far -- soon, and b) I want to call the Campaign and get their suggestions ASAP, lol. So we'll add the revisions, and if it becomes a problem we can definitely switch to Wikipedia-style citations, or prep them in the next few days -- if it isn't too much work for Steve, that is! Fair enough?
EDIT: Hang on, let me read your other post as well.
2nd EDIT: Fixed the Harvard Law citation. And no, it's fine -- the more criticism we get the better the site will be. You're absolutely right. Keep them coming, lol. I'm just a little nervous about getting the site up to at least a decent level, being as it is now live and we will be getting some coverage pretty soon. Footnotes are fine -- I just really don't have enough time to get that done right now -- maybe in a few hours, but not now. If someone else can get to it and re-post all the myths -- and reference them for Steve, that'd be great. Otherwise, I will try to get to it tonight. Whatever we do, though, we really should get this done by tonight and up on the site as soon as possible.
EDIT: Also Steve -- that sounds like a plan. The email address I have up for us is ronpaulmyths (at) gmail.com. Is there a way that we can add this to the site in the theme of "send us myths and suggestions" etc?
Paul Fan -- I mean... I dunno', I just feel as though the parenthetical citation itself implies it's below. Maybe that's the college student in me speaking, lol. I personally think it's fine -- academic papers always use parenthetical citations that reference their list of citations at the end of the paper. I took out the "see link below" because... well, I guess I've just been taught that in, at least academic papers, parenthetical citations are used. We can try the Wikipedia-style citations though if you like. Let's just... get what we have up, though, if that's all right? I just figure, a) the website is all ready live + we're getting some advertising courtesy of at least one Ron Paul news websites so far -- soon, and b) I want to call the Campaign and get their suggestions ASAP, lol. So we'll add the revisions, and if it becomes a problem we can definitely switch to Wikipedia-style citations, or prep them in the next few days -- if it isn't too much work for Steve, that is! Fair enough?
EDIT: Hang on, let me read your other post as well.
2nd EDIT: Fixed the Harvard Law citation. And no, it's fine -- the more criticism we get the better the site will be. You're absolutely right. Keep them coming, lol. I'm just a little nervous about getting the site up to at least a decent level, being as it is now live and we will be getting some coverage pretty soon. Footnotes are fine -- I just really don't have enough time to get that done right now -- maybe in a few hours, but not now. If someone else can get to it and re-post all the myths -- and reference them for Steve, that'd be great. Otherwise, I will try to get to it tonight. Whatever we do, though, we really should get this done by tonight and up on the site as soon as possible.
Last edited:
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
DONE! Oh... my god. That took way, way too long. Nonetheless, it's done -- Wikipedia-style citations.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tEDoBgcoDY7l3qMIHePzCz4AkbSRuPAtK1QhZcMX7v8/edit?hl=en_US
Yes, I know, it's a Google Doc (that you have to download, by the way -- its a .rtf file) and not on the forum. It's the only way I could retain the format and all with the raised numbers and all. You'll just have to add in the bold and all that stuff, unfortunately, later on -- if you like.
Now it's past midnight, and I have a 9AM class. I think I'm going to go to sleep now.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tEDoBgcoDY7l3qMIHePzCz4AkbSRuPAtK1QhZcMX7v8/edit?hl=en_US
Yes, I know, it's a Google Doc (that you have to download, by the way -- its a .rtf file) and not on the forum. It's the only way I could retain the format and all with the raised numbers and all. You'll just have to add in the bold and all that stuff, unfortunately, later on -- if you like.
Now it's past midnight, and I have a 9AM class. I think I'm going to go to sleep now.
Last edited:
Patriot 123 - Wow. That looks fantastic! It suddenly looks incredibly authoritative! No one could possibly read that and say, "well, I'm not sure that's right, I actually heard something different, what proof do you have..."
Sorry it took you so long to do; how can I help in the future in terms of format to save you that work? I don't know anything about coding so I hope that can be duplicated on the site.
One thing - why are there colons after the numbers? Some are superscript and some aren't so it looks a bit odd - perhaps that will be corrected when it goes up on the site. Also, on the book cites, I would suggest a comma and a lower case p for page.
Just an idea - maybe the format should be changed slightly under Learn More so the headings are Read, Watch, and Sources? Because let's face it, people like to know that footnotes are there but they rarely want to double-check themselves. Maybe if we had three headings then that would allow highlighting of the best videos/articles in the Read and Watch sections, but all the sources could be listed in the Sources section to give that authoritative air to the whole piece. What do you think? (It wouldn't have to be done right away, just for any new ones and then going back when you had time).
Sorry it took you so long to do; how can I help in the future in terms of format to save you that work? I don't know anything about coding so I hope that can be duplicated on the site.
One thing - why are there colons after the numbers? Some are superscript and some aren't so it looks a bit odd - perhaps that will be corrected when it goes up on the site. Also, on the book cites, I would suggest a comma and a lower case p for page.
Just an idea - maybe the format should be changed slightly under Learn More so the headings are Read, Watch, and Sources? Because let's face it, people like to know that footnotes are there but they rarely want to double-check themselves. Maybe if we had three headings then that would allow highlighting of the best videos/articles in the Read and Watch sections, but all the sources could be listed in the Sources section to give that authoritative air to the whole piece. What do you think? (It wouldn't have to be done right away, just for any new ones and then going back when you had time).
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
...lol. Give me until noon ESTish. After my 9AM class I'll try to get to this. and then I'll post the revision.
Last edited:
Patriot123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,195
Okay. I fixed the colons and everything else, but I couldn't find any citations that weren't superscript. Where'd you see it? Maybe it was just a glitch with that last document -- take a look at this one?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cFcbbpid4KsSblzl7TPP1MvhjvhHmwsoZ8hjT9Ge87U/edit?hl=en_US
And right -- the format of the bottom part, I think we'll... get to that for future ones, and then right -- go back at a later time, if we have time, and edit the ones we've got. For the format, well, let's just try to follow what we've got here, now, as closely as possible. Superscripts for citations, etc.
Steve -- if Paul Fan thinks its now all right, I guess this'll be the final, final revision for now haha -- I hope. For coding purposes, as Paul Fan stated, do we need special tags to get the superscripts to work? Or can they just be pasted onto the website? If so, what sort of tag? Would you like me to do that?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cFcbbpid4KsSblzl7TPP1MvhjvhHmwsoZ8hjT9Ge87U/edit?hl=en_US
And right -- the format of the bottom part, I think we'll... get to that for future ones, and then right -- go back at a later time, if we have time, and edit the ones we've got. For the format, well, let's just try to follow what we've got here, now, as closely as possible. Superscripts for citations, etc.
Steve -- if Paul Fan thinks its now all right, I guess this'll be the final, final revision for now
haha -- I hope. For coding purposes, as Paul Fan stated, do we need special tags to get the superscripts to work? Or can they just be pasted onto the website? If so, what sort of tag? Would you like me to do that?
