Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
One of my hugest pet-peeves is when someone who never served complains about the service of someone who did honorably, be it Paul, McCain, Bush, whomever. If a vet wants to go ahead and do so, I won't raise a peep, but for non-veterans, forget it.
Which is immaterial to the point: Ron Paul by his own admission served in a military he did not believe in solely for the cash.
He was a doctor with a private practice when he was commissioned. He certainly wasn't "moving on up" financially. And a very good portion of our guys and gals serving overseas currently enlisted due in large part for the financial benefits. Please don't smear them.
And what does that have to do with an article on Ron Paul's lies about the newsletters?
What a coincidence, here I am changing a dirty diaper on my son and the first ping I see is to a Ron Paul thread...
Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...
Who is changing the subject? Paul has apologized but others have not for their past actions. It is just pointing out a double standad. Paul screwed up big time and at least tried to make up for it. Fred and McCain didn’t even really try. If you want to raid Paul out of town on a rail, fine....but then don’t turn around and give people you like a free pass and who still refuse to apologize for their actions.
I see some have almost successfully changed the subject and buried the topic that Paul blatantly lied either in 1996 when he admitted he wrote the articles and they were just taken out of context or in 2001 (and this week) when he claimed he never wrote them and never saw them.
So supporting the murder of infants and disproportionately disarming minorities are signs of "sound character"?
Ahhh, should have Googled. It's Friday and I'm lazy.
Paul is not a racist; he just wants racist to believe he is while keeping non-racist convinced that he isn’t. //sarcasm off
I'm not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.
It's a ruse that was employed by Castro, Mugabe and Chavez as well.
It is currently being played by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
***************
It's an eye-opener for me.
“I guess changing the subject is easier than defending the indefensible.”
How funny! I was CORRECTING wideawake on his incorrect timetable about Fred’s support of Aristide!!! Now I’m ‘changing the subject?’
The proof is in the links below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=48#48
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=62#62
“You have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. You are using the classic Democrat defense of “everybody does it...””
Total lie. What are you, wideawake’s twin?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=48#48
The chick I was responding to in that post is one of the few Giulianites left here on FR. I just saw that Rudy item on the news before work and wanted to rub it in a bit. If you were here early last year and saw some of the nastiness the Rudy people were spewing against Fred, you'd understand.
“I’m not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.”
No he didn’t.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=62#62
Posting broken links to unsubstantiated information isn't "proof" - at least to normal people.
What is true:
Ron Paul admitted in 1996 he wrote the newsletters.
Ron Paul claimed in 2001 that he didn't write them.
Ron Paul's campaign has refused to release copies of his own newsletter to the media.
Either Ron paul was lying in 1996 or he is lying now.
Please tell me which was the lie: the 1996 affirmation or the 2001 denial?
I ask you again:
Was Paul lying in 1996 when he admitted authoring the newsletter?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
“Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...”
They are both free-market solutions for catching the production of sh*t?
“Foolishly stood by” describes his actions and his supporters well.
You still have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. Will you ever address the issue, or will you simply continue to deflect?
People who don't know how to pluralize words ending in "st" should not be allowed on the Internet.
LOL, good grief, RG has ZERO to do with RP’s ZERO accomplishments in office.
Speaking of websites, Ron Paul’s site is always “intertaining”.
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.