[Captain Kirk]

On the other hand (and I doubt this is wht the thread or Petronski were TRYING to say), this insignificantly tiny datapoint hardly is evidence that anyone who supports Paul is likely to be a member of Stormfront or any other such organization, or that Paul has in any way condoned or solicited such support.

None of this matters. Everything will be done by Petronski to smear a good and decent man just because he happens to advocate the same foreign policy position on foreign wars that a majority of freepers advocated when Clinton was in office (remember Kosovo?)

[tpaine]

tacticalogic wrote:

I realize politics can be a nasty business, but the fact is what's going on here is a plain old Borking.

'Borking', -- a verb meaning "to attack a person's reputation and views unfairly".

I agree, the mans reputation is being smeared.

However, fair questions are being raised about his constitutional views on war-making powers, - questions that he has not [to date] answered satisfactorily.

So, - just like Bork, he has brought the whirlwind down on his own head.

TL:
I know there's some legitimate questions involved, but I don't see this as having the potential to provide any rational answers.

Captain Kirk wrote:
-- a good and decent man [is smeared] just because he happens to advocate the same foreign policy position on foreign wars that a majority of freepers advocated when Clinton was in office (remember Kosovo?)

Good point, capt'n, -- one that illustrates this controversy over war powers does have the potential to provide rational answers.

Many here saw Kosovo as clintonian politics, cynically cloaked as 'saving the world for democracy'.
I doubt any here see Iraq in that light.

[BlackElk]

CK: If you are going to attack Petronski by name, you ought to display the courage to ping him to your attack on him. As to “smearing” paleoPaulie’s character, there is not much to smear.

[Petronski]

I guess Scottie beamed up your balls.