“A few were purged (George W. Bush leaps to mind) but once the newsletters came out, the “it’s guilt by association, they did it to Goldwater” line was much harder to push.”
The TNR critique was a left wing critique!
I guess we know where you stand now.
Noted.
The newsletters railed against political correctness, the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms, against abortion, and against the loss of US sovereignty.
In other cases, he claims Paul was ‘defending’ David Duke when if you looked at the newsletter, the author was actually comparing Bill Clinton to him. In a liberal’s mind, that’s defending.
Good to know where you stand. With Bill Clinton, for gun control like Bush, and for abortion.
You know what's really cute? No matter how many Nazis and Troofers back your guy, I can't recall anyone who opposes Paul saying that your support of Paul means you're Nazis. And yet, if someone cites a liberal attack on Paul (or even just criticizes him on their own) you guys accuse them of being leftists, or on the Giuliani payroll, or whatever. And then...here's the best part...you screech about "guilt by association."
As for where I stand, I'm a professional writer, and I know what it takes to put out a publication like a magazine or a newsletter. Anyone who says they published a newsletter for five years under their name without "micromanaging it" (i.e., reading the bloody thing) is either lying or stupid. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say "stupid."
Good to know where you stand. With Bill Clinton, for gun control like Bush, and for abortion.
Ah, now I see the great intellectual prowess that caused you to become a Paul supporter.