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.