Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Well I'm not sure what rock you have been living under for the past year but here you go buddy:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...wsletters.html

Weak. You can't prove he wrote that. But I can prove he said this.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Weak. You can't prove he wrote that. But I can prove he said this.

Clearly you didn't press on the link because there is video evidence.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Clearly you didn't press on the link because there is video evidence.

Of what specifically? That a newsletter existed with his name on it?

Well, there is also video evidence he didn't write it and didn't read it, and that it goes against all his principles anyway.

Good try though. Maybe you'll think of something better next time.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Well, there is also video evidence he didn't write it and didn't read it, and that it goes against all his principles anyway.
.

Well since Paul said he never said it that puts an end to it - despite video evidence of him defending it. Paul would never lie! [/snark]

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Well since Paul said he never said it that puts an end to it - despite video evidence of him defending it. Paul would never lie! [/snark]

When I watch this video, I see him explicitly defending racist comments. Wait, no I don't. I see him referring to the newsletters as an exposition on monetary policy. That's not quite the same thing, is it?

Three or four malignant excerpts in 20 years of newsletters associated with, but not written by, your target of smear tactics is not worthy of any credence. Sure, Paul would have a vested interest in deflecting negative accusations, but his detractors also have a vested interest in conjuring them.

The burden of proof is on you though to supply the evidence to back up your claim, and a video on monetary policy is hardly damning. The fact you already resort to such a thing tells a lot.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

When I watch this video, I see him explicitly defending racist comments. Wait, no I don't. I see him referring to the newsletters as an exposition on monetary policy. That's not quite the same thing, is it?

Three or four malignant excerpts in 20 years of newsletters associated with, but not written by, your target of smear tactics is not worthy of any credence. Sure, Paul would have a vested interest in deflecting negative accusations, but his detractors also have a vested interest in conjuring them.

The burden of proof is on you though to supply the evidence to back up your claim, and a video on monetary policy is hardly damning. The fact you already resort to such a thing tells a lot.

The video shows him defending the black thieves are fleet of foot claim. What more evidence do you need? Clearly you have deluded yourself.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

The video shows him defending the black thieves are fleet of foot claim. What more evidence do you need? Clearly you have deluded yourself.

Now I'm starting to think you didn't watch either video.