You can’t go around using quotes that aren’t real, making stuff up is not going to lead any one to the truth, lately I have been asking people to verify some pretty strong statements and quotes and positions of various candidates that they make on freerepublic, and I get no response from most of them, or maybe an angry outburst with still no source, and then I see them posting it on other threads, that is spreading disinformation.
I’m rapidly learning that some people here are fact based and some think that they can assume something or desire to believe something and then cloak that assumption in what appears to be a fact and disseminate it to unsuspecting freepers.
If freerepublic is going to be source for information and not a DU type sewer of nonsense and false junk, then people can’t post here like they do at DU.
If you want to make your claims do, but be able to prove them.
Glad to see someone stand up for honesty in posts on a thread where it isn’t a popular position.
Kudos to you, sir.
So let me understand, because I’m just a professional mathematician and so this might be too hard for me:
Poster says, “Rand Paul said he believes X”.
Your response is, “No, Rand Paul — spokesman for his father’s campaign — said Ron Paul believes X.”
I suppose this is true but it doesn’t wholly absolve Rand Paul. He was working as a loyal soldier for his father’s campaign. He chose to associate with him and he is using his father’s organization.
Therefore, as both a son and disciple of Ron Paul, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the son, who communicated his father’s views, holds the same ones unless told otherwise.
It’s a reasonable assumption, for example, to assume that Robert Gibbs holds the views that he expresses everyday if he were to run for office.
Unfortunately for the Birchers-cloaked-as-libertarians that comprise the Paul camp (and note that for all of the differences we are to assume that Ron and Rand have with each other, a Paulbot will invariably defend both) the Pauls never have to be confronted with their views.
They never have to respond directly. They are always permitted the most generous interpretation of their remarks and are always permitted to say “that’s not what I said” without having to say what they really mean.