What is needed is better medical care for our soldiers who have ptsd.

He represents the worst of libertarianism and yet he is a HERO to libertarians. Which just goes to show that without Rand libertarianism, and Classical Liberalism as well, are HOPELESS and LOST.

We need more guns at firing ranges. If people at firing ranges were better armed this tragedy would not have happened.

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle's family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

...what can Paul get out of Romney?

Is Paul going to give his support in lieu of more free-market initiatives, or do you think he'll throw all in for supporting Iran to get a nuke? Perhaps Paul will demand a seat on the UN for the Taliban.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty pissy. But Romney? C'mon! You and I would both blow Romney to get rid of Obama, but let's not pretend that he's anymore than another GOP wet boy.

And, for the record, if Romney does what he claims he will do for America, I'll fucking eat my words, and with relish. And a pickle.

Definately worth a chuckle!

(drum roll please)......................................MITT ROMNEY!!!!!! Mitt....Romney????

Oh yes, this story is gaining a lot of momentum right now. The Washington Post was the first to report on it. Now this story is picking up steam other places, see here and here.

If this rumor is true, wouldn't that be something? The candidate who postures (strong emphasis on postures) as the outsider and radical reformer is lining up behind and making plays on behalf of Romney? Ron Paul is throwing his support behind the most status-quo Republican in the field? Or as Desalvo put it: "Romney is an empty headed empty suit who supports status-deadly-quo."

The story seems to have much weight. Remember that Paul has gone after all the other candidates, but hasn't laid a finger on Romney. He attacked Backman very early on in the race. His campaign and supporters not only attacked Perry with gusto, they were spreading false and vicious rumors that he was cavorting with strippers. Then he was part of the huge ad campaign in Iowa against Gingrich. Now he's on the attack against Santorum. Where is his onslaught against Romney? Why does Romney get a pass?

According to the WaPo story, they've been friends since 2008 and their families get together. Romney often gives him nods during the debates.

Ron Paul has no chance, as he runs fourth nationally among candidates. He put all his eggs and organization into Iowa and NH, mostly, and if he couldn't gain momentum from there, there would be no possibility of him winning. In fact, he admitted he did not have a shot at the presidency. And staying in the race for the long haul takes away from the other candidates, not Romney. As WaPo states, his presence in the race keeps the conservative vote more fractured.

So why would Ron Paul cut a deal with Romney?

WaPo says so that Ron Paul and his son can speak at the convention. And NO concessions on foreign policy. If that is true, then that is just downright pathetic. If he is going to sell out to the status quo, one would think he would angle for more than that. I have fits of laughter at the thought of rabid Paulbots -- and all the efforts they have put in -- being sold down the river to the status quo and getting nothing but a couple of convention speeches in return. Too funny.

The other scenario is that Ron Paul has bargained to get Rand on the ticket as VP. Highly doubtful that would happen, but at least he would get something significant for his sell out if that is the bargain.

Michael

Goode's last ditch effort at word parsing.

Goode: "That's right, Michael. I acknowledged the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. For all I know (and right now, for all I care) he might have."

For all he cares? He doesn't care about the evidence, even if he ADMITS Ron Paul might have(!!!!) purposely published racial content to drum up business? Goode NOW admits the very possibility that he previously denied and used to smear me? Exactly. "For all he cares" the evidence might be on my side, but he can't be bothered with that when out to smear me. His motive could not be any clearer, i.e. smear me.

And his word parsing here runs right into a brick wall. So when Goode said: "I acknowledged no such thing, 'in fact' or otherwise.", what he REALLY meant is he DOES acknowledge "the idea" that Ron Paul purposely let the offensive matter into his newsletters to further business. Oh. Right. Sure. Well, that really changes things.

No, Goode is acknowledging the truth of the idea, or at least the very possibility that it is true. Goode has plainly acknowledged the possibility that Ron Paul let the material in on purpose in order to pander to the lowest elements, and is, in fact, STILL admitting the possibility , i.e. "For all I know (and right now, for all I care) he might have".

Well, if Goode is clearly acknowledging at least the possibility Ron Paul was purposely letting offensive material in the newsletters to drum up business, then he also has to acknowledge the possibility that Ron Paul was lying in 2008. Both cannot be true. So when he desperately clung to the 2008 statements as true, as Desalvo is doing -- and both are using to smear me -- Goode was lying.

And if he is acknowledging that Ron Paul lied in 2008, at least the possibility of it, then he is acknowledging he had no basis to call me a "smear-monger". He is acknowledging HE is smearing me. If he is going to throw out such accusations, should he not have more certainty of the evidence than: "for all he cares"?!?!

Exactly, he doesn't care about the evidence. He just wanted to smear me.

Goode: "I'm done here."

Yes, you are. You've been cooked from the very beginning, and now you've admitted not only the validity of my position, but also your nefarious motives.

Good night, Irene.

Michael

Goode two posts ago:

I did not "shrug off" the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. In fact, I acknowledged it.

That's right, Michael. I acknowledged the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. For all I know (and right now, for all I care) he might have. But I did not acknowledge that he had, in fact, done so. This is what I actually said.

The worst that can be said of Ron Paul is that, in willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name, he was pandering to the lowest elements of society.

I'm done here.

You wrote:

I think for the sake of your own sanity you should give up on the Ronroids. It's apparent enough how they bob and weave (just as Ron Paul has bobbed and weaved). For them it's just about "winning," and they can't accept that they've "lost." All very juvenile. You have more edifying things to focus on.

Indeed, I do. In Goode's case it is probably about winning, but Scott seems to have a level of self-induced True Believer blindness that I don't think I've ever seen. It really is astounding. I do have some points left to make about that.

Michael

PS. Hypocrisy appears to be the least of Goode's worries.

I think for the sake of your own sanity you should give up on the Ronroids. It's apparent enough how they bob and weave (just as Ron Paul has bobbed and weaved). For them it's just about "winning," and they can't accept that they've "lost." All very juvenile. You have more edifying things to focus on.

It's slightly puzzling to me that the original offending lines in the Ron Paul Letter—whatever the extent of Paul's own responsibility for them—while merely mildly "off" in my view, are the sort of thing the ultra-PC Baade would be all over like a rash if anyone else said/was associated with them. Why is this not so in the case of Ron Paul? The fact that he's a Goblian? But so are the other Republican contenders. I would say, go figure, except it's not worth the figuring.

As if to display his ignorance of the facts for us just one more time, Desalvo steps up to the plate.

Time and time again, from 2008 (when James Kirchik first broke the newsletter story) on, Ron Paul has claimed he did not write the articles, he did not read them until at least 10 years after the fact, and he does not know who wrote them. Check out this recent quote as one example:

I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written, and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this.”— Ron Paul, responding to more questions about the newsletters during an interview with CNN, Dec. 21, 2011

Call me crazy, Desalvo, but it's a bit difficult NOT to read them until 10 years after the fact (when the newsletters were defunct), yet purposely let the material into his newsletters to drum up business, don't you think?

To rectify Goode's statement with Ron Paul's, do you propose that Ron Paul suffered a case of amnesia?

Or how about his statements, as to CNN in 2008, when he said he did not know who wrote them.

Did he read them, not bother to ask who wrote them, and then send them out to drum up business? That would make the statements consistent. Is that your argument? You can stoop to that level of ridiculousness if you want.

It would also make him even MORE immoral for not bothering to even find who wrote them, but just sending them off because he thinks they are good for business.

What say you, Desalvo?

Michael

Goode two posts ago:

I did not "shrug off" the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. In fact, I acknowledged it.

Goode now:

Michael: "NOW, Goode is 'in fact' acknowledging that Ron Paul purposely left racist material in his newsletter to further his business."

I acknowledged no such thing, "in fact" or otherwise. Yet another misrepresentation from the mendacious Michael Moeller.

I report, you decide.

Happy days are here again!!!

Michael

NOW, Goode is "in fact" acknowledging that Ron Paul purposely left racist material in his newsletter to further his business.

I acknowledged no such thing, "in fact" or otherwise. Yet another misrepresentation from the mendacious Michael Moeller.

This deserves repeating.

Ad nauseum? As you will, Michael, but as far as I'm concerned the point of nausea has already been reached.

Unfortunately, Goode has just finished himself, and abandoned Desalvo.

Meh. I'm abandoning this discussion for the reason just cited.

I am parsing Richard's statements for you, because there is logical error in your response.

1. Ron Paul did not write racist words, and any racist words were not Ron Paul's.
2. Ron Paul may have let saucy material in his newsletter for profit.

There is nothing contradictory or at odds in those two statements. Nothing deceiving or misleading about this, in itself.

It may be "Game, Set, Match" as to your work on this forum -- and what you take as "proof" or "winning"...

You remind me a lot of Charlie Sheen right now.

I am parsing Richard's statements for you, because there is logical error in your response.

1. Ron Paul did not write racist words., and any racist words were not Ron Paul's.
2. Ron Paul may have let saucy material in his newsletter for profit.

There is nothing contradictory or at odds in those two statements. Nothing deceiving or misleading about this, in itself.

It may be "Game, Set, Match" as to your work on this forum -- and what you take as "proof" or "winning"...

You remind me a lot of Charlie Sheen right now.

Unfortunately, Goode has just finished himself, and abandoned Desalvo.

Goode wrote:

I did not "shrug off" the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. In fact, I acknowledged it.

And

Goode previously wrote:

Goode: It's nothing much to see. Michael's main problem, though, is that the words which are racist are not Ron Paul's and the words which are Ron Paul's are not racist.

The last of the above quotations is worth repeating, in bold, even though Michael has already copied and pasted it no fewer than a dozen times already.

Ron Paul: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Before, Goode said Ron Paul's words were not racist. AND he quoted Ron Paul's statement saying he has never uttered such words. Goode left out the part about where Ron Paul ALSO states he did not know who wrote such words (from CNN in 2008).

NOW, Goode is "in fact" acknowledging that Ron Paul purposely left racist material in his newsletter to further his business.

This deserves repeating. All along, Goode has stuck by Ron Paul's 2008 statements, which include Ron Paul saying he did not write the material and does not know who wrote the material. He has called me a "smear-monger" for pointing out that Ron Paul was probably lying in 2008.

NOW, Goode does an about face and, in his own words, acknowledges Ron Paul may have left the racist material in his newsletter.

Game. Set. Match.

That's what they call good lawyering. WhoooHaaaaa!!!

I'll be expecting a retraction from Goode any moment now.

Michael

I can advise that the proper application of the Moeller method in this particular case is to repeat your unsubstantiated charge that I called you a cyber-bully several more times on several more threads. Preferably after I have denied it.

Right on cue, the Smearmaster General himself appears to illustrate the Moeller method exactly as I just described it.

Goode could easily dispel any notion of his (1) whitewashing of racist material, (2) of trying to cover-up Ron Paul's risible 9-11 statements, and (3) shrugging off the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business

These charges are unsubstantiated. I did not "shrug off" the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. In fact, I acknowledged it. I did not try to "cover up" Ron Paul's 9-11 statements. And I did not "whitewash" any racist material. And I have denied (1) and (2) previously. But Moeller repeats the charges anyway, both here and here.

Here's another application of the Moeller method.

Goode earlier trying to malign me:

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible." (see Goode comment on Sat, 2011-10-15 07:58)

I thought I'd better give you this pre-emptively in case it occurs to Moeller to re-misconstrue the above as me whitewashing racist material. Never mind that he already deliberately misconstrued it as an attempt by me to malign him. I already asked Moeller how he thinks the above constitutes an attempt to malign him. Of course, he won't say, since the claim that I tried to malign him is, of course, an unsubstantiated charge.

I mean, Goode could easily dispel any notion of his (1) whitewashing of racist material, (2) of trying to cover-up Ron Paul's risible 9-11 statements, and (3) shrugging off the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business, while repeating a smear about Gingrich to distract from the argument. Oh yeah, he said he was just playing games on the Gingrich score. Uh-huh, sure, right-o.

If it was me, I would respond by tackling the evidence. The one way I would NOT respond is to ignore the evidence and make feeble assaults on the other person's character.

No, not Richard Goode. Instead of responding to the three points above and explaining why he did what he did, he calls me a "cyberbully". In my mind, such tactics show he has no explanation and is pretty much admitting his egregiously immoral behavior. But he can always dispel this by explaining his conduct in the three instances above.

From where I stand now, it looks like the little rat IS almost entirely drained of blood and has nothing left but open-mouth snarls. Hissssssssssssss!!

Michael

Now Goode is reduced to calling me a cyber bully? That's rich. ... Oh and just in case you had trouble distinguishing reality i ment Michael beat you up in a metaphorical sense.

Your suggestion that I called you a cyber bully is evidence that you have a serious reading comprehension problem, and/or you just like to make stuff up, to smear people.

Who do you think you are? Moeller's mini-me? If so, then I can advise that the proper application of the Moeller method in this particular case is to repeat your unsubstantiated charge that I called you a cyber-bully several more times on several more threads. Preferably after I have denied it.

Malicious evil and blackhearted ... what a creep ...

Actually, if your aspiration to smear-mongery is genuine, then your performance so far is impressive. Oh, and the sunglasses are a nice touch.

For 'mask' read 'southpark profile pic'

Now Goode is reduced to calling me a cyber bully? That's rich. You are still delusional and im not name calling just pointing out what everyone knows.

Oh and just in case you had trouble distinguishing reality i ment Michael beat you up in a metaphorical sense.

he has already beat you up one side and down the other multiple times, im actually shocked you have enough blood left in you to even type.

It's called cyber-bullying.

Cyberbullies get a perverse sense of satisfaction (called gratification) from sending people flame mail and hate mail. Flame mail is an email whose contents are designed to inflame and enrage. Hate mail is hatred (including prejudice, racism, sexism etc) in an email.

The anger of a serial bully is especially apparent when they come across someone who can see through them to espy the weak, inadequate, immature, dysfunctional aggressive individual behind the mask.

For 'mask', read 'sunglasses'.

Isn't that the goblinian calling the snot green...

There are many things one might call Michael Moeller, but green isn't one of them. He's an accomplished smear artist.

Isn't that the goblinian calling the snot green...

I dont need to defend him he has already beat you up one side and down the other multiple times, im actually shocked you have enough blood left in you to even type.

Michael is a patriot

You think? Then he's a traitor to his own cause.

The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. A little dishonest demagoguery goes a long way.

Michael is a patriot and once again Goode proves what a creep he is by opening his mouth.  

Next time Richard Goode runs for public office, I hope this stuff is brought to light.

Next time I run for public office, should the voting public visit this or any of the other numerous threads that Michael Moeller has sullied with his shameful smears, what will they see?

They'll see why Michael Moeller is a traitorous idiot.

...for the evasions and untruths peddled by Goode and Darren, which when they are rumbled for they quickly slither away again, only to reappear again somewhere touting the same nonsense all over again?

Gobbledygoode!

He even took offence when I called him on his qwackery by calling him delusional.

I was only calling him delusional as per his goblianity.  I stand corrected upon reading more of his posts I can objectively say he is delusional on pretty much every single post he makes.  Malicious evil and blackhearted also come to mind.

Richard Goode is undoubtedly the most immoral person I have ever seen on any internet forum, and this includes that some really despicable characters.

As I've had occasion to say in the past, Baade is *quintessential* in his evil, and embodies all evils at once. In that sense, he is the perfect poster-boy for evil and ensures that when we're accused of exaggerating, we can demonstrate that if anything, we're understating.

He's a psychopath, of course. The complete absence of moral scruple demonstrates that. But he's a psychopath who knows it and salaciously revels in it. Even I have been slow to realise that.

As I previously stated, I have no intention of playing Goode's pathetic games.

As those who have followed the Ron Paul debates, Goode has evaded liked a mad snake. He was asked particular questions eleven times, and he refused to answer each time. Yes, count them, eleven times. During that same time, I answered every one of his questions.

Now this depraved cretin thinks I am going to continue to play his pathetic games? No thanks.

Michael

A statement by Goode truly had me rubbing my eyes on what a whitewashing, evil-appeasing scum he can be.

When Goode tried to whitewash the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters by taking a benign quote and further stating there was "nothing much to see" (as reported here and here), I thought he had truly hit the depths of depravity.

Not to be outdone by that instance, he tried to misrepresent Ron Paul's statements about 9-11 by using the radio host's words, not Ron Paul's; thus, whitewashing and running cover for despicable statements again. (See here and here for Goode's treachery.)

And now he has sunk to a new and unimaginable low. Goode wrote:

The worst that can be said of Ron Paul is that, in willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name, he was pandering to the lowest elements of society. Is that the full extent of your inconvenient truths about Ron Paul?

BTW, did you know that Newt Gingrich defines marriage as between a man and a woman who does not have cancer?

Am I reading this correctly?!?! Is Goode merely shrugging off the very real possibility (especially based on the new testimony of his associates in the Washington Post article) that Ron Paul purposely left racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic content in his newsletters in order to pander to such low-lifes? WOW, just WOW. Does Goode not find this worthy of condemnation? Does he not think this makes Ron Paul unfit to be president? Inquiring minds want to know.

And what does Goode use as a counter-argument? He alludes to a false story about Gingrich.

The problem? Besides Goode reaching a new low with a new whitewashing of the most contemptible behavior?

He's repeating a false smear against Gingrich. That story has been debunked as false. By who? By the daughters of Newt Gingrich and his first wife. Now, unless Goode has some information that the daughters involved -- who were at the scenes of the divorce and the hospital room -- do not, then he compounded his wretched and immoral behavior by promoting another smear.

Richard Goode is undoubtedly the most immoral person I have ever seen on any internet forum, and this includes that some really despicable characters.

Next time Richard Goode runs for public office, I hope this stuff is brought to light.

Michael

Goode earlier trying to malign me:

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible." (see Goode comment on Sat, 2011-10-15 07:58)

How does this constitute an attempt to malign you?

...but Obama has betrayed his followers of that cause.

You may not know many of these Liberals because thay are typically brain-dead college kids and part of the X-Box generation.

Many people claimed that it was these voters who were responsible for Obama winning the last election.

No way. It is true that many on the left like his language, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, this does not mean that they would vote for him over Obama. Of all the liberals I know and who like his foreign policy, NONE would vote for him over Obama. None, and I know a lot of liberals. However, many conservatives would choose him over Romney or Gingrich.

Indeed, the polls bear this out. The last post I saw in a three-way race had Obama at 44%, Romney at 32%, and Paul at 18%. There have been a number of polls with roughly those numbers. And I wouldn't put it past Ron Paul to feed his vainglory without any regard for the fact he will be handing Obama the election.

Michael

...it would hurt Obama even more.

You would be surprised how many Liberal followers he has who are attracted to him for the same reason they were attracted to Obama last election. They think that Ron Paul is going to end "special interests" and dismantle the so-called "military-industrial" complex.

Ron Paul was never in it to begin with.

The last post was geared towards the dishonest tactics of Richard Goode, not an attempt to shoot down Ron Paul who never had a shot to win the nomination, anyway. (Although he could still play spoiler by running independent, and essentially hand the election to Obama if he so chooses.)

I've found this who debate eye-opening in terms of the True Believers behind Ron Paul and the lengths they will go to defend the guy. You may not be interested, but I find the phenomenon quite extraordinary.

Michael

But his son might. Not quite like son like father.

--Brant

It's now a two horse race and I doubt Paul will ever run for the Presidential nomination again.

As I have diligently documented, thus far Richard Goode has run cover and whitewashed the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters. Thus far, Richard Goode has run cover and whitewashed Ron Paul's statements re 9-11. And with each piece of treachery, he has the audacity to accuse me of smearing.

Well, it will be interesting to get Goode's take on the newest piece of evidence. Previously, when Goode was busy running cover and whitewashing for Ron Paul, Goode wrote:

The last of the above quotations is worth repeating, in bold, even though Michael has already copied and pasted it no fewer than a dozen times already.

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

As part of his whitewashing, Goode dutifully repeats Ron Paul's 2008 statement, as if there was nothing else to consider -- as if I had not laid out the other facts, issues, and discrepancies in Ron Paul's statements. No, Goode evaded all that completely.

Now let's see if Goode evades once again. Here is the newest piece of evidence in which a former secretary, an unnamed business associate, Ed Crane, and a former Paul aide talk about Ron Paul's "hands-on" approach to the newsletters. Here are some of the money quotes from the article:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Oh boy, that doesn't sound Goode. Among the many things I said on this topic was the following:

Ron Paul was either extremely incompetent in managing his own newsletter, or worse -- he was willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name and pandering to the lowest elements of society.

From the statements of those former associates, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Ron Paul was pandering to the lowest elements of society.

What does Goode make of this evidence? How is Goode going to whitewash the evidence or deflect this time in another attempt to smear me?

Or will Goode finally apologize for his misrepresentation of the facts and his attempts to smear me?

Stay tuned.

Michael

I come back to see Goode has continued his blatant dishonesty. I do not know how he is able to wake up in the morning and face himself, but that is his problem. Apparently, a lot of drugs does the trick.

When this whole controversy started, Goode pretended like there was "nothing much to see" in the newsletters -- all so he could claim that I was smearing Ron Paul.

Well, now the whole world knows about the content of the newsletter and agrees with me (not Goode's alleged "nothing much to see"), Goode can no longer hide behind that. But Goode does not have the integrity to apologize for the smear of me. No, he would rather continue on with the next smear.

So he says I am smearing Ron Paul by saying Ron Paul blames America for 9-11. I give him three videos that clearly support my point.

And what does Goode do to dispute my claim? Goode ignores Ron Paul's own words and tries to substitute the radio host's statement for Ron Paul's statement, then Goode claims I am smearing Ron Paul. Does Goode have some nerve or what?

Well, as luck should have it, here is the article Mark Levin was reading from re Ron Paul near the anniversary of 9-11. As you can see, Goode is blatantly misrepresenting what Levin put forth on his radio show because nowhere does Ron Paul (not Levin), say America was "in part" responsible for 9-11. No, Ron Paul provided such statements as the following:

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”
[...]
“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”
The congressman particularly decried U.S.-led bombings in foreign nations, saying that “almost always those individuals that they are trying to kill did not have any direct relationship” with threats to the U.S.
[...]
“(9/11) was one of the main motivations for getting your attention on why they hate us and want to kill us,” he said. “You could send 20 million people over there and all it would do is make our problems worse.”

These are Ron Paul's actual words, and they are risible. Does Goode care to defend them? Does he care to explain how this is NOT blaming America for 9-11 and giving Islamic ideology a pass? I can't wait for some more of Goode's stunning (non-)analysis and "diligent documentation" (read: obliteration) of the facts.

In addition, I asked Goode a ton of questions, including the statement re how America is "in part" responsible for 9-11, Goode's own agreement that American foreign policy was "in part" to blame for 9-11, and a number of related questions. Goode blissfully evaded the questions.

One thing that has always puzzled me: is Goode just plain stupid and can't remember what he said five minutes ago? Or is he malicious and stupid and hopes everybody else cannot read and is as stupid as he is? Those are the salient questions.

And all he had to do was apologize for his smears and malicious attacks on me. Too baade for Goode.

Michael

Goode earlier trying to malign me:

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible." (see Goode comment on Sat, 2011-10-15 07:58)

How does this constitute an attempt to malign you?

Vermin Supreme II (aka Richard Goode) gives no explanation -- much less an apology -- for his repeated misrepresentations of the facts, and the resulting smears lobbed in my direction. No, he will evade any moral responsibility and move on to the next smear.

Rodent.

Goode now:

It's nothing much to see. Michael's main problem, though, is that the words which are racist are not Ron Paul's and the words which are Ron Paul's are not racist.

Goode earlier trying to malign me:

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible." (see Goode comment on Sat, 2011-10-15 07:58)

Early in this thread, this little weasel Goode tried to use one of the more innocuous quotes to pretend there was not racist content in the newsletters. And he did this to try and smear me as if I was making a big deal out of nothing.

Well lo and behold, the scoundrel has changed gears now that the whole world knows the content of those newsletters. He has never admitted his misrepresentation, nor has he apologized for his earlier unfounded attack on me.

No, the scoundrel has now moved on to a new misrepresentation -- one which I have already debunked and he has ignored. Goode wrote:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

Problem is, as I already explained, this is only the 2008 statement and Goode is completely evading the ever-changing story of Ron Paul. In particular, Goode is evading the 1996 statements in which Ron Paul took ownership, then subsequently in 2001 when he blamed his campaign advisors for telling him to do so in 1996.

I have no idea why Goode evades this because I wrote it just two posts ago, as I explained in more detail:

So let's do a brief recap and see where you come out now.

During his 1996 Congressional run, Ron Paul's opponent made an issue of these quotes and he was asked about the quotes by multiple newspapers. The articles containing these quotes did not have by-lines, but Ron Paul did not deny writing them. In fact, he showed knowledge of what the quotes stated and said what he wrote was "taken out of context" and "misrepresented".

THEN, in 2001, Ron Paul said that his campaign told him that in 1996 the best course of action was to take ownership of the quotes, but he denied (in 2001) that he wrote them. When asked again in 2008, he denied writing the material and knowing who wrote the material. Keep in mind that Ron Paul promoted his newsletter in the media at the time it was written, and it was discovered that this newsletter was a big money-maker for him. If I recall correctly, he made $930,000 in 1993 off this newsletter. Let's also throw in the fact that Ron Paul acknowledges he wrote the economic material contained in those newsletters.

Now let me ask you: do you find Ron Paul's statement that he did not write and does not know who wrote that content to be a reasonable explanation? That is, in 1996 he evidenced knowledge of the material and took ownership of it, he promoted his newsletters in the media, he made big money from them, the newsletter probably had a small staff, and he acknowledges writing other material contained in those newsletters, yet he has no knowledge of who wrote the offending material? Tell me another.

Is Goode going to apologize for his unfounded attacks on me AND his complete distortion of the actual facts of the case?

We will see. WATCH THIS SPACE.

Michael

Let's do a brief recap.

Me: You say that major news outlets have repeated the facts you brought forth. Funny thing is, I don't recall that you brought forth any facts at all. You linked to other people's Ron Paul pages, and you quoted other people's smears of Ron Paul, but did you actually copy and paste the actual words that Ron Paul is alleged to have penned and/or uttered? I don't think you did.

Michael: Funny thing is, when you previously asked for the damning quotes, I provided them for you...on this very thread. All you have to do is scroll down this page to see multiple quotes from Texas newspapers re Ron Paul in 1996. How short is your memory? Or how about even earlier when I provided them after you said you read the links, and then you said there was "nothing much to see" after reading those links? I provided the damning quotes, then you shut your trap right quick. Now you pretend like I never provided them? Par for the course with you.

Me: Did you actually copy and paste the actual words that Ron Paul is alleged to have penned and/or uttered? I don't think you did.

Michael: Yes I did. When you asked for the racist statements here, I provided them here. Don't you remember your snide question asking me to "copy and paste, please"? Or you can see where I reposted them here and here.

...

I followed Michael's three links, and scoured this very thread, in search of (allegedly) Ron Paul's actual words that Michael actually copied and pasted, and this is the sum total of what I found.

"pro-Communist philanderer."

"order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

"hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

"an ex-cop I know"

"I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

"current events and statistical reports of the time."

"we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"taken out of context"

"misrepresented"

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist'"

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

It's nothing much to see. Michael's main problem, though, is that the words which are racist are not Ron Paul's and the words which are Ron Paul's are not racist.

The last of the above quotations is worth repeating, in bold, even though Michael has already copied and pasted it no fewer than a dozen times already.

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

(Cross-posted on the here)

On the "Why Ron Paul is a traitorous, libertarian idiot" thread I got maligned more than two months ago when I first brought up the issues of Ron Paul's newsletters and his unsavory associates. I was extremely gratified and happy to claim vindication when the media finally decided to vet Ron Paul and bring those issues to the fore.

Well, I am once again happy to put myself ahead of the curve. I have hammered away on that thread and this thread re Ron Paul's alleged fiscal responsibility, which is smoke and mirrors. Not only is his plan to cut certain departments unrealistic (i.e. he puts zeros in their columns and departments that would take years to unwind), but the main problem is he doesn't deal with entitlements. He actually increases them at a good clip, except for Medicare -- by far the least expensive, and he only puts a spending cap on that. All his bluster above reducing spending and individual rights, and the man leaves the biggest violators of both intact. Without attacking entitlements, Ron Paul is fundamentally unserious about spending.

Well lo and behold, this is now picking up some media attention. None other than Mark Steyn picks up on this article in The Weekly Standard arguing how Ron Paul has promulgated "the most timid fiscal policy put forward by any Republican presidential candidate this year". Take a good look at that article.

Now, look at Mark Steyn's adjustment of his opinion. He previously bought the conventional wisdom that Ron Paul was sound on fiscal policy, but when confronted with the facts, he adjusted his opinion accordingly. Mark Steyn's adjustment of his opinion is perfectly rational as he realigns it with the facts.

Not here, not by people like Scott DeSalvo. Nope, instead DeSalvo makes excuses for Ron Paul and maligns me -- with some sort of gorilla logic about how *I* must be a "big government" supporter by bringing forth Ron Paul's proposals on entitlements. You figure that out. Anyway, Steyn aptly names his post "Ignorance is Bliss" for those unwilling to look at the facts re entitlements and to put forth a proposal to deal with the entitlement bomb.

This has been a truly surreal experience for me. When Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kuncinch put forth foreign policy commensurate with Ron Paul's, they are roundly ridiculed. When Ron Paul does it, he is somehow a paragon of the Founders' vision. If Obama put forth Ron Paul's policy on entitlements, he would be rightly denounced. But somehow people around here are claiming Ron Paul is in the mold of the Founders on fiscal policy and individual rights.

Anyway, the point is: for those looking at the facts, are you going to use the rational approach of Mark Steyn, or "The Ignorance is Bliss" approach of Scott DeSalvo?

Here's some good quotes from Steyn, but remember you heard it from Moeller Time first.

Like many chaps round these parts, my general line on Ron Paul was that, as much as I think he’s out of his gourd on Iran et al, he performs a useful role in the GOP line-up talking up the virtues of constitutional conservatism. But this Weekly Standard piece by John McCormack suggests Paul is a humbug even on his core domestic turf: The entitlement state is the single biggest deformation to the Founders’ republic, and it downgrades not only America’s finances but its citizenry. Yet Paul has no serious proposal for dealing with it, and indeed promises voters that we won’t have to as long as we cut “overseas spending”.

This is hooey. As I point out in my book, well before the end of this decade interest payments on the debt will consume more of the federal budget than military spending. So you could abolish the Pentagon, sell off the fleet to Beijing and the nukes to Tehran and Khartoum and anybody else who wants ‘em, and we’d still be heading off the cliff. If a candidate isn’t talking about entitlement transformation, he’s unserious.
...
But Ron Paul, with his breezy indifference to the entitlement question, is peddling the same illusion Obama sold a gullible electorate in 2008 – that, if only America retreats from “Bush’s wars”, life can go on, and we’ll be fat and happy with literally not a care in the world. Big Government parochialism is an appealing fantasy because it suggests America’s fortunes can be restored without pain. But they can’t – and when Ron Paul tells you otherwise he’s talking hogwash."

Yes I did. When you asked for the racist statements here, I provided them here. Don't you remember your snide question asking me to "copy and paste, please"? Or you can see where I reposted them here and here.

If you had read the links like you said, you would realize that those quotes exerpted in the newspapers were taken from the Ron Paul Survival Report -- Ron Paul's newsletter.

So let's do a brief recap and see where you come out now.

During his 1996 Congressional run, Ron Paul's opponent made an issue of these quotes and he was asked about the quotes by multiple newspapers. The articles containing these quotes did not have by-lines, but Ron Paul did not deny writing them. In fact, he showed knowledge of what the quotes stated and said what he wrote was "taken out of context" and "misrepresented".

THEN, in 2001, Ron Paul said that his campaign told him that in 1996 the best course of action was to take ownership of the quotes, but he denied (in 2001) that he wrote them. When asked again in 2008, he denied writing the material and knowing who wrote the material. Keep in mind that Ron Paul promoted his newsletter in the media at the time it was written, and it was discovered that this newsletter was a big money-maker for him. If I recall correctly, he made $930,000 in 1993 off this newsletter. Let's also throw in the fact that Ron Paul acknowledges he wrote the economic material contained in those newsletters.

Now let me ask you: do you find Ron Paul's statement that he did not write and does not know who wrote that content to be a reasonable explanation? That is, in 1996 he evidenced knowledge of the material and took ownership of it, he promoted his newsletters in the media, he made big money from them, the newsletter probably had a small staff, and he acknowledges writing other material contained in those newsletters, yet he has no knowledge of who wrote the offending material? Tell me another.

But let's give Ron Paul every benefit of the doubt. At the very least, he has demonstrated extreme incompetence in letting a newsletter go out under his name, a newsletter that is making big money for him, and yet he can't be bothered to monitor its content. Is this the type of oversight you would exercise on something that was issued in your name, Goode? If that is how he runs an outfit, do you think he is fit to run the US federal government?

And that is where I think Marcus is missing the import of these newsletters. Most of the critics on the right, like myself, are not bogged down in the issue of whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. No, this episode demonstrates, at best, that he is extremely incompetent, or, at worst, he is pandering to the lowest elements of society.

In my mind, the most plausible explanation that accounts for all the facts is as follows. Remember that Reason magazine reported that it was an "open secret" in libertarian circles that Lew Rockwell wrote the offensive content. Since Ron Paul evidenced knowledge of the content in 1996, he at least knew who wrote it. However, Rockwell was his chief of staff at the time, and Ron Paul did not want to throw him under the bus. Ron Paul would also not throw Rockwell under the bus now because they are still joined at the hip and it would show Ron Paul was covering up for Rockwell in 1996, 2001, and 2008. Again, this explains the facts, but it is impossible to say who actually wrote the material given the evidence.

Either way -- whether he wrote the material or not -- the essential point remains the same. Ron Paul was either extremely incompetent in managing his own newsletter, or worse -- he was willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name and pandering to the lowest elements of society.

Michael

Among the many, often conflicting, statements on Ron Paul, Goode did say this:

Does Goode stand by that?

No.

"You say that major news outlets have repeated the facts you brought forth. Funny thing is, I don't recall that you brought forth any facts at all."

Funny thing is, when you previously asked for the damning quotes, I provided them for you...on this very thread. All you have to do is scroll down this page to see multiple quotes from Texas newspapers re Ron Paul in 1996. How short is your memory? Or how about even earlier when I provided them after you said you read the links, and then you said there was "nothing much to see" after reading those links? I provided the damning quotes, then you shut your trap right quick. Now you pretend like I never provided them?

You quote me out of context. Par for the course with you.

Did you actually copy and paste the actual words that Ron Paul is alleged to have penned and/or uttered? I don't think you did.

"It looks like you were surfing the wave of effluent that now threatens to inundate Ron Paul's campaign."

Interesting claim. So I was surfing a wave two months before this became big news? Is this part of your theory that the future has already happened?

"You say that major news outlets have repeated the facts you brought forth. Funny thing is, I don't recall that you brought forth any facts at all."

Funny thing is, when you previously asked for the damning quotes, I provided them for you...on this very thread. All you have to do is scroll down this page to see multiple quotes from Texas newspapers re Ron Paul in 1996. How short is your memory? Or how about even earlier when I provided them after you said you read the links, and then you said there was "nothing much to see" after reading those links? I provided the damning quotes, then you shut your trap right quick. Now you pretend like I never provided them? Par for the course with you.

Or the $500 donation from Don Black and Stormfront, which you did not have issue with and now pundits are making the exact same point I did?

Perhaps we can chalk this up to you not knowing what facts are, or maybe your perpetual reading problem, if not your memory.

Oh wait, you were one of the clowns claiming that I was "smearing" Ron Paul. You are still referring to other people's "smears" that I allegedly used, but you have not bothered to point out in what way I smeared him. You are perfectly at liberty to point out any smears I allegedly directed at Ron Paul.

Fact is, in your anatagonism towards me, you got busted smearing me, and now that the entire media is picking up on points I made over two months ago, you are left out in the cold. Nice to see you exposed for what you are.

Michael

The type of people in the UK that backed Obama, love Ron Paul.

The type of left-wing retards who support "occupy Wallstreet" and read the Guardian and the Independent, love Ron Paul.

This is bizarre in the extreme until one realises that his supporters are vehemently pro-Islam, anti-Isreal, anti-USA (they call it the military-industrial complex), anti-corporations (they call it greed). These are all popular positions with the left.

Fiscally he isn't on the left I would have thought, but on the right. So are his UK supporters thick, or what?

For example the following article from the UK independent: Enter stage right: now Ron Paul takes the lead

"As Romney falters, the latest frontrunner in the Republican nomination saga is the most extreme."

That this article is calling Paul a "right-wing extemist" worked their readership into a lather in the comments section.

For example one of the comments below: "Having always considered myself a liberal, I am shocked to find that I am now considered to be a right wing extremist by The Independent, as most of Ron Paul's ideas seem quite sane to me."

...did or didn't write in those supposedly racist newsletters.

The racism charge is always the last resort of liberal mainstream with nothing better to say.

I care more what his "official" policy and statement of today are, and they are dangerous to US security.

There was an interesting article in the Telegraph regarding the newletters...

Ron Paul's racist newsletters probably won't kill his lead in Iowa

"If any other presidential candidate were associated with this sort of race-baiting filth, they’d be out of the race by now. Yet, not only is Ron Paul still in the running, but he maintains his slim lead in the crucial first-in-the-nation state of Iowa. Moreover, a recent poll found that he is actually the most popular Republican candidate among non-whites. What in the name of Jesse Jackson is going on?...

...there was a serious political purpose behind the newsletters, says Michael Dougherty in The Atlantic. “As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. [His backers] actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s.” The idea was to tie together academic libertarianism (anti-government, anti-inflation) with “red neck” fascism. In the 1990s, working-class racism had taken on some of the tropes of anti-government paranoia, particularly on the issues of affirmative action (thought to benefit African-Americans) and support for Israel (thought to benefit Jewish Americans). The Paulite Libertarians hoped to tap into their anger to build a cross-party electoral coalition. Dougherty concludes that you could attribute this strategy “to the most malignant kind of cynicism or to a political desperation that made [Paul’s supporters] insane. Neither is particularly flattering.”...

For the majority of voters, Paul's newsletters will make him unelectable. But for the men and women who will brave Iowa's bad weather to vote for him, they won't matter at all. Paul isn't polling well in Iowa for all the usual reasons: good looks, moderate tone, great TV ads etc. No, it’s precisely because Ron Paul doesn’t have any of these things that he is in first place. In the crazy politics of 2012, the newsletter scandal – no matter how repugnant its content – reinforces Ron Paul's outsider message and is only likely to add to his momentum. So too is the Republican establishment’s violent reaction. Many voters will calculate that anyone who can get David Frum, Dick Morris and Karl Rove to hate him must be worth a second look."

When I brought up his newsletters and personal associations more than 2 months ago, Scott DeSalvo denounced me as "scummy" and misrepresenting Ron Paul's history. Not only have these news outlets repeated the facts I brought forth, but have uncovered many more unsavory aspects of Ron Paul's personal history.

It looks like you were surfing the wave of effluent that now threatens to inundate Ron Paul's campaign.

Perhaps it is late in the game

You say that major news outlets have repeated the facts you brought forth. Funny thing is, I don't recall that you brought forth any facts at all. You linked to other people's Ron Paul pages, and you quoted other people's smears of Ron Paul, but did you actually copy and paste the actual words that Ron Paul is alleged to have penned and/or uttered? I don't think you did.

I haven't had time to blog on this, but as everybody now knows, Ron Paul and his newsletters and personal associations are everywhere. Not only major news outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, Fox, etc, but every blog from across the political spectrum -- from liberal to conservative to libertarian.

When I brought up his newsletters and personal associations more than 2 months ago, Scott DeSalvo denounced me as "scummy" and misrepresenting Ron Paul's history. Not only have these news outlets repeated the facts I brought forth, but have uncovered many more unsavory aspects of Ron Paul's personal history.

Will DeSalvo retract his charge against me now that every news outlet and blog has been talking about it fincessantly for over two weeks? Or does DeSalvo also think that everybody from across the political spectrum bringing out these same facts (and more!) are also "scummy"?

Perhaps it is late in the game, but I am glad that other news outlets and blogs are now vetting Ron Paul and giving his personal history the attention it deserves.

Michael

As Ron Paul seeks to de-criminalize. Newt Gingrich seeks to exterminate.

Gary Johnson "In 1997 Newt Gingrich Proposed The Death Penalty For Marijuana Possession"

Newt's Speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition 2012

Part1

Part2

Part3 is the Q&A session and you can find it linked to the videos above.

...as candidate.

In the Guardian they are reporting the Democrats as saying Newt would be a gift to Obama's chances of re-election, they are more fearful of Romney.

Which makes me think that Gingrich is the right choice.

Given that he's made tonnes of mistakes which are already out on table and he has such a long history of fielding attacks against him, he might just have what it takes to beat Obama out of the two.

During the debate over the McCain-Levin amendment, which simply extends current protocol for the detention of enemy combatants, Rockwellians like Andrew Napolitano huffed and puffed about the unconstitutionality of the amendment and hyperventilated about hypothetical abuses against American citizens. I am not going to go over the legalities of that issue, except to point to the exceptional Andrew McCarthy and his debunking of their nonsense.

However, in response to McCarthy, Rand Paul said something very interesting here:

In the 1942 case Ex parte Quirin, the Court cited, and did not criticize, the government’s assertion that the one detained German alleged to be a naturalized U.S. citizen may have given up his citizenship by taking up arms against the United States. I tend to agree that taking up arms indicates a renunciation of citizenship. I have informed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) that I support legislation that would clarify when a citizen’s actions may cause him or her to lose citizenship, and I will work to give this debate more clarity.

Although Rand Paul is wrong on the facts and legalities of this debate, he verifies an extremely significant point. In an earlier response to Sandi, I made the same point that, in Ex Parte Quirin, SCOTUS refused to intrude of the Executive's discretion to have an American citizen caught on American soil tried by military commission and executed. Rand Paul's statement reads like a partial cribbing of my statement:

Just use common sense. There is no greater renunciation of one's citizenship than to declare war on it. The ultimate goal of those at war with the US is to end the US, so why on earth should they be granted all the rights and privileges of the American justice system? There is no legal requirement -- nor should there be -- for the military to endanger themselves in trying to capture somebody like al-Awlaki when they can simply take him out with a drone missile.

Yet, Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, is running around declaring that killing al-Awlaki was somehow against the "rule of law". Again, Ron Paul is just using buzzwords to grant himself the moral highground, while illustrating he has no idea what the law on enemy detention actually is. No idea whatsoever. The true result is that Ron Paul is once again providing aid and comfort to America's sworn enemies, thus demonstrating the immorality of his position. Even more ridiculous, the fact that he declared the bin Laden killing -- who is not a citizen -- was also against "the rule of law" is beyond obscene.

Rand Paul needs to sit down with his father and clarify at least this much about what the law actually is so that Ron Paul can stop making a fool of himself on the killings of people like al-Awlaki and bin Laden.

Michael

Newt Gingrich leads in Iowa Republican primary race

Poll puts Newt Gingrich on 25% in first primary contest with Ron Paul on 18% and Mitt Romney on 16%.

"A surge in support for Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has made him the new frontrunner in Iowa, which holds the first of next year's US primaries, according to a closely watched opinion poll.

Gingrich, a former speaker of the US House of Representatives, has support from 25% of likely Republican primary voters, up from 7% in late October, the poll conducted for The Des Moines Register newspaper found.

Texas Representative Ron Paul and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney finished second and third, with support at 18% and 16%, respectively.

Support for Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and former pizza magnate Herman Cain, who dropped out of the race on Saturday, was tied at 8%.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum each drew 6%, with former Utah governor Jon Huntsman at 2%.

The Iowa caucuses, scheduled for 3 January, kick off the state-by-state contests to choose the party presidential nominee who will challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

Cain led the field conducted in October. His departure, which came after the latest poll was conducted, reshapes the wide-open Republican race more clearly into a battle between Romney and Gingrich."

The Telegraph reports "groans of disappointment from some 200 supporters"

Tragedy ongoing, but I have a few minutes. As an aside, emotional upset at things like this has an utterly exhausting effect on me.

You wrote: "Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

Mistake #1: Assuming that I had not read or reviewed your prior postings regarding your Ron Paul quotes on the issue. I had and I explained what I very reasonably perceived as happening. I know you have at least scanned it, and instead of addressing it, you simply gloss over it, stating that my position on these things are not arguments supported by evidence, and that I was ignoring the quotes.

For the final time: I have read your "evidence" for what you accuse Dr. Paul of here (lying) -- quotations taken out of context over the period of years as to whether he wrote the offending newsletter bits or not. I did so before you ever accused me of not doing so.

I believe that it is all vague, and sort of patched together. These are oral statements, usually when Dr. Paul has to address these things, which are certainly uncomfortable, are are said extemporaneously, off the cuff, sometimes on live television or radio, sometimes with microphones shoved in his face.

Have you ever seen a Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Ford or Carter or Obama "gag" reel where they say the most preposterous things? For example, Obama, after a long day of campaigning, saying that he had been to 57 states on his campaign so far (America aint got that many)?

Or the more recent Obama gaffe where he "admits" that he was born in "Asia" (this is all over the internet right now.

Well, it turns out that he was addressing Asian leaders while in Hawaii, and was referring to his being "from" Hawaii. Which is still not technically correct, since I am not sure that Hawaii counts as "Asia" but he was, in part, what you would call "pandering" to the Asian leaders.

And, I guess, that you would call these quotations, from Obama and the others, as evidence that they are all liars.

And it may be true that they ARE all liars.

But your "evidence" is evidence of no such thing, and is motivated by the same dark motivations as those who parse and pick and choose and shuffle through interviews and spoken words to find what they are looking for.

Michael, ANYONE can do what you are trying to do to Paul using this technique to ANYONE who speaks in public regularly. The more political opponents one has, the easier it is to aggregate these quotes, because the faulty thinking is repeated ad nauseum.

I do not think your evidence here proves much, other than the fact that you seem to leave no technique or strategy in the cupboard when it comes to popping the Ron Paul balloon.

Mistake #2: Here you write: "Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

I am not sure I believe your summary of Ron Paul's statement in 1996 is accurate. I am pretty sure that Ron's statement in 2008 does NOT follow your summary in that above question.

And this brings us to false dichotomies. False alternatives. And that's why these questions are not particularly fair, and your call for an answer does not carry much weight.

Besides, rather than a "Yes or No" I have already answered them.

Some of the content was published in 1992. Some later in the 1990's. One statement from Paul on the issue was taken in 1996. Another from 2008. Now, it is 2011.

You think the most likely reason for what you see as different answers (upon which we cannot agree since the answers may refer to different passages in the newsletters, and for other reasons previously addressed) is that he is purposely lying?

I think you overestimate human consciousness and memory. I think that if you applied this same standard to your personal life, you would conclude that you, yourself, are a "liar" because I can guarantee that you uttered things in 1992, 1996 and 2008 that you do not remeber or will certainly mis-remember.

And please note -- ORAL STATEMENTS. Not stuff that is written down. Not Ron Paul being handed a transcript of what he said in, say, 1996, refreshing his memory, and THEN addressing it. These quotes, including the video which we cannot agree upon, are largely "gotcha" moments with the media or during interviews. ("Gotcha" moments refer to media interviewers applying the "tall poppy syndrome" during an interview to cut down a notable and thereby enhance their own reputation as a big-shot interviewer).

There was something else I wanted to write about on this, but I do not remember right now. I will come back to it if I can recall.

So, who is YOUR candidate, Michael? I ask because I am sincerely interested in who you think a better choice would be. Also, I could demonstrate pretty quickly how easy it is to attempt to do what you do to any public figure with a history of public speaking, though that is really not necessary. I'd rather move this to a discussion of the issues rather than continue to watch you spend your time trying to convince me or anyone else that you have any reliable evidence of Dr. Paul's dishonesty.

And Ron Paul shows the best grasp of the issues, though I would like to see him a bit more hawkish culturally and generally, so that those who are concerned that he would allow America to become a punching bag could be quickly disabused of that notion.

No problem. Good luck with your personal/family matters. I look forward to picking this up again when and if you return.

Michael

I am sorry that I haven't responded as I want to. Things are very busy at work and it looks like we have a very serious family matter going on for the next several days or so, but I haven't forgotten about you or this thread. Hopefully, when I return, we can pick up where we left off. There is a lot to say.

Now is not the time personally for me Michael, but I would appreciate your considering two things.

1. Public figures speak in public a lot. The spoken word is less precise than the written, and I think that you are expecting precision in the spoken word which no one displays, and a review of anyone's transcribed words, especially in extemporaneous interviews with "gotcha" moments, could, using your approach, result in charges of dishonesty which you would evidently support, but which reasonable people would not.

2. Questions which rely upon "facts not in evidence" or which require acceptance of things you regard as obviously-proven facts, but others do not, or which present a false dichotomy, are not fair questions and the moral claim or "demand" for an answer is not too compelling.

Must run. Have fun without me.

Richard, someone, please keep Michael entertained until I return.

[That last bit is tongue in cheek, ladies and gents...]

Henry Kissinger, member of the Bohemian Club, Council on Foreign Relations, Aspen Institute, the Bilderberg Group and hgihly likely the Club of Rome, along "with David Rockefeller and other banksters and globalists."

http://www.infowars.com/herman...

During your rage at a couple of questions, you intimated that you would spell out the "clear illogic" and "factual errors" of my position. I am operating on the assumption that you are a cut above your partner in crime Goode and do not just fling out claims, then refuse to back them up. Here are the simple questions again:

Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?

Thanks,
Michael

During your rage at a couple of questions, you intimated that you would spell out the "clear illogic" and "factual errors" of my position. I am operating on the assumption that you are a cut above your partner in crime Goode and do not just fling out claims, then refuse to back them up. Here are the simple questions again:

Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?

Thanks,
Michael

Apparently, Goode, you cannot tell the difference between a question and a statement. You simply copied and pasted one of my statements, you did not ask "questions". If you can formulate a question, yes, I fully intend to answer, but only after you've answered the following questions. We are up to eleven times now, whereby it is obvious to all now that you are an evader and bad faith writ large.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Eleventh time I've asked, BTW.)

Michael

Please state whether or not you intend to answer the following questions.

I think there is evidence on both sides, but not sufficient enough to claim either way.

Baade's bad faith has been a matter of some notoriety pretty much from the get-go. But I find it uniquely illuminating to let him display it unimpeded. If someone postulated a being like Baade to me I wouldn't believe him (the someone, I mean); this way the evidence is there for all to see. I derive invaluable insights into the nature of the enemy. He's a reminder that Rand didn't make anything or anyone up, and if anything was guilty of understatement.

We live in a world where very very few people indeed are on the level. While this disgusts me, it also intrigues me. I want to better understand why it might be so. Baade provides some of the best clues in town.

Don't let him get to you. You've trounced him many times over, on this thread in particular—more times than are worthy of your laser-beam intellect and scrupulous honesty. We can all see the infantile games he plays. Treat him as an invaluable and ongoing reminder of what advocates of life on the level are up against.

Is there a limit to the number times Goode evades before he is moderated to the "play pen for children"? Your site, obviously, but he actually made claims here about the video, and has evaded answering questions 10 times now. By his own standards, even, he is a smear artist. Is there a greater show of bad faith?

Michael

Yeah, I know what you are saying. My thought was Goode was trying to exclude not being racist from the field of non-claims -- in an attempt to make some point or another. His statement is not exhaustive. In any event, I don't claim Ron Paul is racist, and I don't claim he is not racist -- to be complete about it.

Michael

1) One must either claim Ron Paul is a racist or not claim Ron Paul is a racist.
2) One must either claim Ron Paul is a racist or claim Ron Paul is not a racist.

I think Richard was stating 1 (or similar) and you were hearing 2.
1 is true.
2 is false.

I don't have numeracy problems. I have trouble updating the count of how many times I've asked the questions when I cut and paste those questions. You've evaded answering every time so far.

I'll answer your previous question, but you need to respond to the bolded statement below and provide answers first. This has gone on 10 times now. I need a show of good faith from you.

Please state whether or not you intend to answer the following questions. Your intention here is key for a certain purpose.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Tenth time I've asked, BTW.)

I see you also have some numeracy problems.

DO you or DON'T you?

Do as instructed in the bolded portion below, and I will answer your question, and if you go ahead and answer those questions, I will answer any other questions you have. I need a show of good faith from you. You keep evading.

Please state whether or not you intend to answer the following questions. Your intention here is key for a certain purpose.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Eighth time I've asked, BTW.)

Michael

You DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist.

True or false?

Goode:

"A question you have obstinately refused to understand, let alone answer."

Yes, I did, but you are either too dense to grasp the answer, or cannot read. I said the evidence is insufficient to claim whether Ron Paul is or is not a racist. He's made statements on both sides of the issue of racism, and I do not find the evidence sufficient either way. Ergo, I do not make a claim either way, which is perfectly legitimate.

You simply repeated your own statement. Please give us the finer points of this grand statement where allegedly one must (read: "got to") claim Ron Paul is or is not a racist:

Either you DO claim that Ron Paul is a racist, or you DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist. It's got to be one or the other. Which is it?

Please state whether or not you intend to answer the following questions. Your intention here is key for a certain purpose.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Eighth time I've asked, BTW.)

Michael

You are imbecilic. No end to your imbecility.

Here's what I said.

Either you DO claim that Ron Paul is a racist, or you DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist. It's got to be one or the other. Which is it?

A question you have obstinately refused to understand, let alone answer. Reed, however, was kind enough to answer it on your behalf.

Michael doesn't claim/believe Ron Paul is a racist.

You DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist.

You are unbelievable. No end to your games.

Here's your statement:

"Either you DO claim that Ron Paul is a racist, or you DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist. It's got to be one or the other. Which is it?"

This was after your "free" lesson the Law of Non-contradiction. Last time, Goode, to answer the questions. I assume you do not want to be caught labeling yourself a smear artist, right? Good, now answer.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Seventh time I've asked, BTW.)

I am referring to your misuse of the Law of Non-Contradiction when urging that one must say whether Ron Paul is a racist or not.

Where did I urge that one must say whether Ron Paul is a racist or not?

Copy and paste, please.

Playing games? I am referring to your misuse of the Law of Non-Contradiction when urging that one must say whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. You've been corrected many times on this now. Stop stalling and evading, just answer the first question (followed by the other two), which should clear everything right up for you if you are still confused.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Seventh time I've asked, BTW.)

Michael

Do you think repeating yourself makes your points any more valid?

What are the points (to which you refer) of my last two comments?

Linz and I pointed out why you are off your rocker.

Grinning like retards, the pair of you.

Do you think repeating yourself makes your points any more valid? Linz and I pointed out why you are off your rocker. Seriously, not even you are this dumb. *I* even refuse to believe you are.

Let me ask you again: Do you acknowledge that one cannot have enough evidence to make a judgment? (Again, see my jury example for the help you need.)

Once you are done answering 'yes' to that question, you have the following questions still out there, and if you don't answer you are a smear artist by your own standards.

1. Who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was accurate:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Sixth time I've asked, BTW.)

who has noticed that this thread is insane, taken as a whole?

--Brant

[Objectivism agrees with Aristotle’s formulation of the Law of Non-Contradiction]: These truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others. And all men use them, because they are true of being qua being . . . . For a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis . . . . Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.

Either you DO claim that Ron Paul is a racist, or you DON'T claim that Ron Paul is a racist. It's got to be one or the other.

the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states whatever is the case is the case, that something cannot be the case and not be the case simultaneously

You're back. Fantastic. And we see you have your pom-poms out again. No scorecard this time, but we can always count on you to cheerlead from the sidelines. Now, if Reed wants to open the box and pull out an actual argument -- as opposed to a bald assertion -- so we can see if it is dead or alive, he is certainly welcome to.

I'm glad you are back, because you previously wrote this:

"That's how smear artists operate. No straight answers. Just insinuation and innuendo."

I asked the following questions five times now, and you have not given an answer, much less a straight one. I am even going to narrow the list to just two questions to make it easier for you. If you refuse to give straight answers after I've asked five times, I will take it as an admission on your part that you are a smear artist.

1. In the Hannity interview, Ron Paul claimed that "somebody put those words in his mouth" and he didn't "go out and volunteer" the statements. Since you claimed this is not a lie, who put those words in Ron Paul's mouth and who strong-armed him into making those statements?

2. You said the following quote from Scott was an accurate summation of what Ron Paul said to Hannity:

"RON PAUL ADMITS THE QUOTE, CLARIFIES THAT HE DIDN"T OFFER IT BUT WAS LEAD INTO IT BY THE INTERVIWER AND RESTATES IT IN A POLITE WAY TO HANNITY!"

Please quote from the transcript here where Ron Paul says the above.

Copy and paste, please. (Fifth time I've asked, BTW.)

Michael

People like you give people who wear sunglasses in their profile pictures a good name.

Scott:

"Mischaracterizing the facts and placing the darkest and most rotten spin on possible conclusions?"

BTW, they are questions, not "conclusions"; thus, there are no conclusions of mine that require your agreement. You can answer them according to your own conclusions and reasoning. I have no idea what is so difficult for you here, and why you are flying off into a rage over a couple of simple questions.

Michael