Posted on 01/08/2008 11:04:11 AM PST by mnehring
In fairness, McCain was singing a 50's hit in response to a question that begged the song. (Barbara-Ann).
Ron Paul may prove worse than a kook with this thread's revelations.
So you support a candidate who wants to do away with the bill of rights and has already taken a big chunk out of the first amendment, and you want to do this by only allowing those people who agree with your fascist point of view to post on conservative websites
I think the time has come to purge all Ron Paul supporters from conservative websites and so forth
At least you're consistent, but why are you posting here. Your ideas would be a better match at DU. The purge anyone who doesn't post exactly what they want.
Ron Paul is partially right when he talks about “issues” but his anti-warism is over the top.
I think he is part of those who would say terrorism against the United States is “the Jews fault.”
Let the liberals do the anal exams on Paul’s record.
I have better things to worry about.
The quote I saw was politically incorrect, but so what? Does this offend anyone? What about this?
No matter how much you mince words, the purpose of this post, as well as the article itself, was to disparage Dr. Paul by associating him with racism. As for my post in regard to his Republican ideals, it is as apropos here as it is anywhere his name and reputation are unfairly under attack.
I don't mince words. I report the facts. There are all kinds of threads on this forum that can be considered disparaging of one individual or another. That context is in the eye of the beholder.
You view it as disparaging because you support Paul. I view it as information that is critical toward understanding a political opportunist.
If you don't like the material that's posted on this forum you have an option. I don't believe I need to tell you what that is.
Wrong. I'll defend anyone whose name is unfairly associated with racism. The tactics whereby this attempt was made are better suited to the DBM's thuggish rhetoric. Fine with me if you want to support and indulge such tactics (guilt by false association as a legitimate talking point), but I would have thought better of you, since you seem to be the expert in what constitutes legitimate debate.
The unfairness of this is an opinion. One which I do not share with you.
Have a good day.
The problem is the campaign yesterday pawned anyone who tries to defend the comments.
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.”
I read this whole article but not all of the comments that were made about it so please excuse me if I repeat something that someone else said.
The New Republic is a legitimate opinion magazine, albeit a liberal one, and this article is quite credible. Ron Paul cannot claim to be ignorant about the content of newsletters that he published over a period of many years. Even if he did not agree with everything that was written in these newsletters, he is certainly responsible for disseminating the views of those who did. After all, he wasn’t obligated to publish anything that he did not approve of or agree with.
Ron Paul is a kook, a conspiracy theorist and a bigot. He may have sound opinions on a few issues but that doesn’t mean that he is fit to be President because he isn’t.
Update in post #337- looks like the national review had scanned copies, some with paul’s signature on them. The full newsletter can be read, not just pull quotes (that doesn’t make it any better for paul.)
You might want to post a correction.
Here is where it linked.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950390/posts?page=145#141
The Naitonal Review had scanned copies so it moved past just their opinion, we now can look at the full news letters without weeding through the national review’s opinion.
Yes, but the link on the other thread takes us to New Republic, not National Review.
Oh, sorry, I flip those names around a lot :->
The fact that you seem to revel in bashing the folks who have not managed to wrap their heads around the whole issue and are still discovering the inconsistencies in the smear is more revealing of your character.
Your postings reveal a taste for sowing discord and confusion. You do not write to enlighten the reader and enhance the accuracy of discussion, Instead, you seek confusion and irritation it's own sake.
You should know by now New Republic is on the record for passing fiction as fact, lying about it, and in general diminishing it's reputation, e.g. the Scott Thomas affair. You have allied yourself with the enemies of truth and champions of discord.
In reading the similar attacks on Ron Paul defenders on this subject in the blogosphere, I find a great deal of duplication including outright cut and paste operations. This smacks of an attempt to "google-bomb" the subject so as to make it difficult for the curious to discover anything other than the smear.
I invite you to read for yourself what Ron Paul has to say about racism.
You think it is me? Go visit the meetup groups and forums, they are pissed off and how the campaign handled this.
This is news, and your ‘messiah’ doesn’t have a hands-off sticker on his head. If he can’t handle this heat, how will he handle real problems as president?
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.”
Kind of makes it hard now to defend the comments doesn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.