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.
And all that that "affiliation" means is that he took their money. Does every politician automatically take on every value of every donor that gives him money? If I ride a bus with a racist, does that make me one? If I live in the same state as a pedophile, does that make me one? Furthermore, what would stop any of those people from donating to him anonymously, or under someone else's name?
His taking of their money does not mean in any way that he is beholden to them. He has stated repeatedly that he will gladly take the money of anyone who wants to donate, and then still do with it what he was planning on doing all along, which is to promote the same liberty he always has. If you have any argument for why this is impossible beyond vague words like "affiliation", please make it.
You people? Nice.
"You people" who make this assertion. Specificity is paramount to me.
Do you believe yourself when you say it isn't an issue?
Yes. I'll believe it is when someone shows me a reason why it is. Money changes hands all the time. The values of the spender do not get passed to the buyer unless that is part of the transaction, and I don't remember Ron Paul promising anything to anyone in exchange for donations except to do the same thing he would be doing without them.
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.
Your "stupid" is far more judgmental than my "You people".
Pick anyone famous, preferably an entertainment celebrity of some sort. Now do a Google search on them. In many cases you'll find web sites, forums, mailing list ... newsletters ... all sorts of things done and said "in their name". Is it really that hard to imagine that someone says something that is loosely tied to you that you didn't notice until long after the fact, and only then when other people noticed it and made a big deal of it?
The worse that he can be accused of in this matter is oversight, and even then, the level of that is nearly impossible to determine now because it's nearly impossible to know how much anyone, Paul or otherwise, knew about it in the first place. Oversight, nothing more. So he's human. Wow, what a burning scandal!
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.
No, I hold him responsible for that choice no less than any other. I'm simply waiting for a rational reason to be bothered by that choice.
Yep, real convincing to call it 'lazy thinking' when someone doesn't agree with you.
I don't call it lazy thinking because I disagree with it. I call it lazy thinking because it is. I'll repeat: if I take money at a store from a racist, do I become one because of our "affiliation"? What if I go to class with him? Live in the same apartment building? Share a common friend? Share a middle name? Have the same eye color? Have the same hair style? What precisely does the word "affiliation" mean? "Lazy thinking" general refers to a lack of being sufficiently discriminatory in evaluating ideas; referring to anything you can grab at as "affiliation" because it bolsters your view is exactly that.
I'll repeat, for the third time: if you are going to call Paul a liar and a racist, do it. Be clear in your meaning. That's certainly my goal.
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.
Do you actually know this, that that was his motivation? More to the point, do you have any proof that he even knew those statements existed before they came out publicly?