No, you're doing more than that. When you say things like "If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?" and "No one has been able to refute anything." you're actively defending the validity of the quotes. If you can't prove any of it, you're spewing shit and calling, or at least implying that it's fact.
I have no interest in voting for Ron Paul, but the quotes are very disturbing. They're also the same kind of crap scumbags like Karl Rove put out when they swiftboated John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry.
If that's what you stand for, it's just further confirmation that you're an unethical, immoral POS who doesn't give a damn about the truth... You know... like ass licking Bushwhacko sycophants.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
That's right where I would expect RP to be. Pretty good numbers considering he'll probably run independent and get similar numbers all the way to November. Which IMO is why Pabster keeps starting senseless threads like these. Paul is poised to play the same role that Perot did back in '92.
Xonoahbin
Senior member
- Aug 16, 2005
- 883
- 0
- 71
Oh it's OK dooode! I'd say you have the right to your free speech, but I'm not sure it's included in the six amendments of the bill of rights. I don't know what you people are talking about with your ten amendments.
Bill of Rights Pared Down to a Manageable Six
Well, there we go. Bill of rights is six. I win. What's that? You want to discredit me? Hah, yeah right. I just proved it using that article. Prove it's not credible and prove that I'm wrong! You can't!
Your logic is wonderful, but it's 100% incorrect. Please stop trolling.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Someone may have some nodding acquaintance with almost every nut job conspiracy theory in the world, and if that understanding of other theories of events moves the minds of others, that understanding and self education is a good thing. Only if you can prove they are now advocating only those theories far out theori4s to the exclusion of others is it a bad thing. Its a somewhat a scientific question, one has to have the open mind to look at all explanations, and then pick by the facts. And also share other explanations with others and not censor everything but the your one politically correct version. With censorship and denial the worse crimes possible.
Like another poster said, the burden of proof is on the OP that Paul is therefore a nut. And it more proves that PAUL is widely read and others have bunker minds.
Like another poster said, the burden of proof is on the OP that Paul is therefore a nut. And it more proves that PAUL is widely read and others have bunker minds.
http://www.reuters.com/article...08-Jan-2008+BW20080108
Ron appears to admit the newsletters are true, i.e. they were printed, and under his name, but disavows some of the content.
Very recently Mitt Ronmey ran an ad with false information about an opponent, (McCain i believe) over an immigration bill. When called on it he was asked about it, and he said he did not approve the ad.
At what point are people not held to what comes from their 'camp.' My understanding this was not a one time deal but many articles spread out of the course of years. This coupled with racists support of Ron Paul (i.e. Stormfront) a more detailed explanation should be given.
Here is the original story with copies of the newsletters in question.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/st...43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Except for the fact that your article can actually be refuted
Text
Text
Text
Hell, I am tired of linking, here's the direct google search:
Text
Now, does that exist in your refutaion of the article, or are you really that daft?
Insofar as the question at hand, and being someone who hasn't made any sort of choice yet, I do believe some allegations of actions do need to be scrutinized, and this is one of those cases.
Surely, if he isn't the person who wrote these comments, would it be that difficult to clear his own name in this matter?
Look at the links i posted, they show the original scans, from 1978 up to the early 90's. It was HIS newsletter, and he even admitted that.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
But they're not his opinions.
When you're a fringe candidate, you're going to get supporters from the fringe. That doesn't make the candidate responsible for everything they say.
And right, wrong, or indifferent, they have the right to speak as much as anyone else, whether you might like what they have to say or not.
Here's an analogy... some people here don't like me because I tend to be confrontational and mock and be sarcastic to be people with silly, extremist, or strongly partisan opinions. But OTOH, I would never think to silence them. From Stormfront to the communist party, they have the right to speak regardless of whether I like what they have to say or not.
However, there are people who would like to silence such speech, either directly or (even worse) indirectly by holding people not actually responsible for such speech accountable by proxy, like you're doing here. And those are the people that I really don't like.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter