Posted on 05/06/2008 8:31:40 AM PDT by seanmerc
Sure, let’s vote in your buddy McCain so we can just sh*tcan the rest of the Constitution.
Reading is a great skill. You might try using it and actually read my posts before you jerk your knee and make a fool of yourself.
Hey, great picture of yourself. Was that you at the Festival of Fools?
As stated previously, I don't like McCain, but he's better than Ronnie.
Sounds like you are trying to spin again. Not surprising, just boring.
Comment:
The man certainly has some bizarre ideas when it comes to government.
Demonstrably false. On the Constitution alone, Paul has McCain beat by a long mile. Paul's warts on foreign policy can be tempered by Congress.
There ain't no fixing Juan McCainendez and his Gang of 14.
Follow the Constitution to the Letter.
What a crazy concept...
Actually that’s a picture of a goody.
LOL
That is, of course, your opinion. And it is demonstrably true that most people (yes, even conservatives) disagree with you.
Apparently not too boring. You were interested enough to post to me about it. ;)
You should add it to your profile. ;-)
Nah, wouldn’t fit. The picture appears to be of a male. But hey, interesting suggestion.
Yes. I care ultimately only about a person's individual actions. Obama's associations mainly bother me because his own philosophy, the one that he openly brags about, is not far from it at all, IMO.
IMO, a person's associations reflect on that individual. Obama attended Jerry's church for 20 years, by choice, so it is quite logical to disregard his recent sputterings and assume that Obama believes the same as his 'pastor'.
Now granted, Paul didn't choose to associate himself with the truthers in the same way Obama associated with Wright, but he accepted their money. Further he has had very questionable articles included in publications bearing his name. He himself has made what I would consider insane comments. So while Paul may not be a 'truther' per se, his association with them and others, as well as his own comments, gives me a negative picture of some of Paul's closely held beliefs.
Agreed. But not every mirror reflects accurately. Some are straight. Some are warped or broken.
so it is quite logical to disregard his recent sputterings and assume that Obama believes the same as his 'pastor'.
In his case, I would probably agree. However, if you are going to go that far, don't mince words, and come right out with what you are saying. You are saying that Obama is lying. OK, I have no problem with that.
But as I also said, if you think the same for Paul, say so. Don't drop hints and then back off. Either make your claim, or withdraw it.
Paul didn't choose to associate himself with the truthers in the same way Obama associated with Wright
Yes, and that makes all of the difference in the world. There is nothing more definitive about a person than their individual choices.
but he accepted their money
Do you people really believe yourselves when you say this is an issue? Paul takes their money because doing so does nothing to obligate himself to them, but makes him more empowered to spread his own message. This point has been made over and over. Giving their money back would be nothing more than meaningless political show. It's the kind of headline-grabbing action I expect from an Obama or a Clinton.
questionable articles included in publications bearing his name
Those have also long been debunked. Even the New York Times said that those statements sounded nothing like him. Would you disagree? Has he himself ever said anything remotely like that, anywhere? I don't know yet all of what happened there, but from all of my research, I have seen nothing more damning in this episode than Paul not watching closely enough what kinds of statements are applied to him; a notable error, but not remotely the big deal it's made out to be.
So why keep doing so? C'mon, snap out of it. The entire newsletter "controversy" has been little more than grasping at straws.
So while Paul may not be a 'truther' per se, his association with them and others, as well as his own comments, gives me a negative picture of some of Paul's closely held beliefs.
And that kind of mushing together of widely varying types of phenomena is exactly the kind of lazy thinking that slouches towards slander. I mean, why not also include "assocations" like he once rode a bus with a Klansman, or went to the same school as a prominent Democrat, or...?
With anyone, Paul, Clinton, Obama, McCain, whoever, I ultimately go on their actions, nothing more. Last I remember, individual responsibility was a hallmark of the Republican philosophy.
Absolutely, and although Ron is not affiliated with the Truthers in the same way that Obama is affiliated with Wright, he has chosen to be affiliated with them by accepting their campaign money even after it was pointed out to him.
Do you people really believe yourselves when you say this is an issue?
You people? Nice.
I can only speak for myself, and yes, it is an issue (and I believe myself when I say it is an issue) when it is pointed out to a the candidate that an unsavory group donated money to them, and they kept the money (and kept on taking it). Do you believe yourself when you say it isn't an issue?
Giving their money back would be nothing more than meaningless political show.
Sorry, not an opinion I share.
Those have also long been debunked.
Uh huh. And yet they appeared in a publication bearing his name. So, either he agrees with what was published, or he's too stupid to keep a handle on what is being published under his name. Either way, it's not a good thing.
The entire newsletter "controversy" has been little more than grasping at straws.
An opinion I do not share. He certainly had the opportunity to publish something else immediately after those articles appeared distancing himself from those comments. He didn't. He only denied them when it came out publicly, and he realized they weren't going over well.
And that kind of mushing together of widely varying types of phenomena is exactly the kind of lazy thinking that slouches towards slander.
LOL Gee, that'll convince me that Ronnie's an okay guy. Yep, real convincing to call it 'lazy thinking' when someone doesn't agree with you.
Last I remember, individual responsibility was a hallmark of the Republican philosophy.
And yet you don't want to hold Ronnie responsible for who he takes donations from or for controlling what is published under his name. Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.