In 1996, Paul Wasn't Issuing Denials

Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 11, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

[wideawake]

In post #16 I said materially the same thing.

Saying he set the record straight in'01 is not an acknowledgement of the fact that he made the record crooked in the first place in '96.

Sp who was he protecting with his '96 lie? Who wrote those articles?

[Captain Kirk]

You’re triumph is hollow. We’ve only asked you a thousand times about Fred’s lies (entirely relavant to assessing the lies of another poliitician, Paul).

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“I applaud you for finally reversing your silly entrenced position and eventually admitting that Ron Paul lied in 1996.

It’s unfortunate that the question had to asked seven times in the same thread before you finally answered.”

No, I said the same thing in post #16, before you asked the question.

[Captain Kirk]

No, it is about whether we should hold accountable and condemn a politician who lies. I think we should. How about you?

[been_lurking]

Your lying about Fred’s record on Aristide made that a subject.

I have made no statements on this thread about Fred and/or Aristide. I defy you to show otherwise.

One again, a Ron Paul supporter is lying or deflecting instead of addressing the issue at hand. I take back what I said about Ron Paul supporters eventually learning.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Saying he set the record straight in’01 is not an acknowledgement of the fact that he made the record crooked in the first place in ‘96.”

Sure it is.

Set the record straight. Npw you’re picking on phrasing.

“Sp who was he protecting with his ‘96 lie? Who wrote those articles?”

I have no idea. If you find out, let me know.

I suggest you read a little more about thompson/aristide first though. It’s real interesting.

After all, Paul has no chance to win, but Thompson does.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“I have made no statements on this thread about Fred and/or Aristide. I defy you to show otherwise.”

That was supposed to be to wideawake.

Sorry the thread is fast and furious :)

See - I correct my misstatements. When will you and wideawake?

[jmc813]

Picard did WHOOPI GOLDBERG.

First of all, don't diss Listener sex 'till you've tried it. Second of all, Picard also hit thiss...

Discussion over.

[OCCASparky]

Having Paul around is a net plus.

I disagree. Maybe those young folks can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to challenge their Marxist/socialist professors or do some of their OWN work.

Problem with Paul is, a lot of the stuff he says SOUNDS good on the surface, but when you scratch the surface as to HOW he'd accomplish what he wants it's even less than smoke and mirrors--it's literally a vacuum.

The man even ADMITS he doesn't have a plan. How is that a net plus?

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“No, it is about whether we should hold accountable and condemn a politician who lies. I think we should. How about you?”

There ya go, changing the topic again! ;)

*guffaw*

[been_lurking]

We’ve only asked you a thousand times about Fred’s lies

This is a Ron Paul thread.

Take it to a Fred thread.

[jmc813]

You’re too late to this thread to talk about Paul, Ed. We’re now arguing which Star Trek series had the hottest chicks. Try to keep up.

[been_lurking]

When will you and wideawake?

Point me to one of my misstatements please.

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, lying matters and Ron Paul lied. I never thought you’d admit it or acknowledge that that type of thing mattered to you. Were you deprogrammed?

[wideawake]

We’ve only asked you a thousand times about Fred’s lies

?

Did Thompson at first deny that he supported Aristide against the Cedras coup, and then later admit it?

I thought he acknowledged it from the get-go.

In any case, to get back on topic, why can't Paul's campaign just give the name/names of the real authors of the newsletters?

Then there would be outside confirmation of his story and it would no longer be a question of his personal ideology, but only of his executive competence.

[mnehring]

The name that is being floated over in the campaign forums is Lew Rockwell. He was fired from the National Review for making similar statements and he did write for Paul at the time. This is all speculation (probably grasping at straws by the desperate) but the reason Paul hasn’t outed Rockwell is because he does so much for the campaign.

[jmc813]

If Janeway’s candidate had lied she’d condemn him.

Just ask Ensign (former Lieutenant) Tom Paris.

[jmc813]

You too, like your guru Run Paul, are a fraud. You’re a boob, and an clearly a gullible twit for following Run Paul meandering denials and acceptance; he is the al Qaeda apologist.

You said "boob".

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

and don't forget about

Kirk wins. :)

[wideawake]

After all, Paul has no chance to win, but Thompson does.

He does? Even Paul outpolled him in NH and IA.

RCP has him running 5th in MI and 4th/5th in SC.

Looks like he's toast.