Replies

The "out of context" quotes in the smear article are mixed in topic. If a person defends the premise that say, race rioters are essentially barbarians, it does not follow that he agrees with the premise that "Barbara Jordan was a half-educated victimologist".

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.

Yawn, sorry ghandi, but news is news. Paul is subject to criticism just like McCain, Romney, Rudy, Hillary, or Obama. You’ll also notice that I also initially posted the standard campaign response that these were not written by him, several hours before the campaign did. The problem is, now scanned copies are released with everything in context.

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?

BTW, the actual comment you are responding to, re 'small minded' isn't my words, that is directly from the campaign.

“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?

BTW, how do I know that link you posted was actually written by Paul? Sure, it has his name on it and is on something he published, but the campaign just told me that there have been ghost writers putting stuff out in his name that he isn’t responsible for.

The news letters had Paul’s name on it to, a couple even had his signature. If the campaign is going to tell me those are not legit, it seems a fair conclusion to question everything as we don’t know if it was ghost written and really express his views? If he is that out of control of what is written in his name, he has bigger problems than coming in near the bottom in votes.