[pax_et_bonum]

I think Tau food is trying to discredit Perry.

I posted some questions to him or her, to which he or she didn't reply.

I'll ask again by re-posting to Tau food my earlier comment with questions:

*

“Instead, he called him a “side issue” in order to demean Bundy personally. Bundy is not the side issue; slavery is the side issue.”

—

“... in order to demean Bundy personally”?

Tau food, how can you, or anyone, discern the reason another person says something?

Why are you adding this sinister motive to Perry’s reasoning?

Are you trying to demean Perry?

[Tau Food]

I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier, but I had to leave for awhile. I didn't respond directly to your questions because I understood your questions to be rhetorical. Obviously, part of communication is to try to understand what others mean by what they say and the point that they are trying to make. I understood Perry to be trying to distance himself somewhat from Bundy because of comments attributed to Bundy regarding the effects of slavery. Why else would he suggest that Bundy is a side issue?

I just think that Perry could have separated himself from the alleged slavery remarks without diminishing the importance of Bundy's role in the struggle against Federal abuses by calling him a side issue. As I said, the real side issue is slavery and whatever views Bundy has on slavery should be irrelevant to his role in challenging Federal abuse.

I'm not trying to demean Perry even though it's obvious that I support Cruz for 2016. I don't think Perry is going to run anyway.

I know, I know - how can I possibly discern whether Perry will actually run? I guess my only defense is that I think I'm a good guesser. ;-)