Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A small, but I think quite telling note, regarding the Ron Paul/newsletter drama....
The false accusations of racism against Paul go back to an article published Jan 8, 2008, one day before the New Hampshire primary, in the liberal journal The New Republic. The author was Jamie Kirchick, and the title was Angry White Man: the Bigoted Past of Ron Paul."
One thing from Ramsey's article I found very interesting: the author of the TNR piece admits that it is disingenous--in effect that he is just a troll who enjoys provocation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsey
There was even a statement from Kirchick himself, writing in a personal email to Berin M. Szoka of Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul. Szoka wrote thathe had met Kirchick at a Reason magazine party in Washington, D.C. Szoka posted Kirchick's letter. It included this statement: "Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist."
So basically you have this one guy, a self-admitted troll, running off the cliff, but with para-glider strapped to his back. And thousands of sheeple media, lefties, and yes Republican Paul-haters, following right off the cliff, only with no para-glider. It's going to be quite a mess in the ravine when eventually they all hit.
A small, but I think quite telling note, regarding the Ron Paul/newsletter drama....
The false accusations of racism against Paul go back to an article published Jan 8, 2008, one day before the New Hampshire primary, in the liberal journal The New Republic. The author was Jamie Kirchick, and the title was Angry White Man: the Bigoted Past of Ron Paul."
One thing from Ramsey's article I found very interesting: the author of the TNR piece admits that it is disingenous--in effect that he is just a troll who enjoys provocation:
So basically you have this one guy, a self-admitted troll, running off the cliff, but with para-glider strapped to his back. And thousands of sheeple media, lefties, and yes Republican Paul-haters, following right off the cliff, only with no para-glider. It's going to be quite a mess in the ravine when eventually they all hit.
Be carefull attacking the messenger, sme here got a lot of egg on their face doing that with th Cain mess. That said I do not believe Paul is a racist, but at the same ime he has made statements that the racists out there loved, even though I doubt he meant them to be such. Paul is smart man in many was but sometimes when sart men ry to make a point the ignorant (no matter the Party) will read it through their own rose colored glasses and see what they want to see. Is what it is, anyone running for POTUS should be prepared to explain anything they ever did in the past, Obama has had to do and so has everyone in the past before him. FYI, walking out on CNN because they brought it up did not show his statesmanship in a good light, he should have simply addressed it and put the issue to bed, now the accusations will continue to fly, huge mistake OMO.
'Be careful attacking the messenger?' I quoted his own self-admission. In essence he attacked himself. Not sure what the reference to Cain is or what this has to do with that.
I don't think it was much of a mistake to walk out on CNN. I guess we'll find out in Jan. I am not really a Paul backer, btw. Is it too much to ask journalists to do their homework & realize when the questions have already been answered, and the topic can be put to bed? I wonder if CNN will badger Obama about his ties to Rev. Wright in the general election. I don't think that they should, and I doubt that they will, but we'll see.
Be carefull attacking the messenger, sme here got a lot of egg on their face doing that with th Cain mess. That said I do not believe Paul is a racist, but at the same ime he has made statements that the racists out there loved, even though I doubt he meant them to be such. Paul is smart man in many was but sometimes when sart men ry to make a point the ignorant (no matter the Party) will read it through their own rose colored glasses and see what they want to see. Is what it is, anyone running for POTUS should be prepared to explain anything they ever did in the past, Obama has had to do and so has everyone in the past before him. FYI, walking out on CNN because they brought it up did not show his statesmanship in a good light, he should have simply addressed it and put the issue to bed, now the accusations will continue to fly, huge mistake OMO.
He already addressed it twice to CNN the previous couple of days. Your post on this issue is a huge mistake IMO
So basically you have this one guy, a self-admitted troll, running off the cliff, but with para-glider strapped to his back. And thousands of sheeple media, lefties, and yes Republican Paul-haters, following right off the cliff, only with no para-glider. It's going to be quite a mess in the ravine when eventually they all hit.
Ron Paul can prove he's not a racist by making sure everyone knows he endorsed Cynthia McKinney. On the other hand, that would substantiate the looney talk.
I didn't know about McKinney or had forgotten. I assume that was in her third party run. I've always said that I'm much more bothered by Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones than these bogus racist allegations.
'Be careful attacking the messenger?' I quoted his own self-admission. In essence he attacked himself. Not sure what the reference to Cain is or what this has to do with that.
I don't think it was much of a mistake to walk out on CNN. I guess we'll find out in Jan. I am not really a Paul backer, btw. Is it too much to ask journalists to do their homework & realize when the questions have already been answered, and the topic can be put to bed? I wonder if CNN will badger Obama about his ties to Rev. Wright in the general election. I don't think that they should, and I doubt that they will, but we'll see.
I think Casper's point is, it doesn't matter what motived the orginal reporter who brought the newsletters issue to light had back in 2008.
This Kirchick guy could be the world's biggest troll- Dr Paul is still stuck with the responsibility of explaining the content of the flyers that went out under his name.
I think Casper's point is, it doesn't matter what motived the orginal reporter who brought the newsletters issue to light had back in 2008.
This Kirchick guy could be the world's biggest troll- Dr Paul is still stuck with the responsibility of explaining the content of the flyers that went out under his name.
Point taken--he had to explain the newsletters regardless of the motive of the messenger. And he did. I just think it's interesting that the messenger turns out to be a self-admitted troll and the MSM is still taking his bait, long after the matter should have been dispensed with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
