Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:
Can you refute it?
Can you prove it? Find proof other than some nutjobs site looking to gain hits. How about a document? You know the thing they call proof? How much of the words (if true) were taken out of context? There is a heavy bias in the "editorial" if you can even call this wackjob that.
Is that the best you can do to refute this article???
This article is supported by Ron whats his names own documents....hmmm
/JEDIYoda's credibility
Now instead of attacking the message you attack me.......hmmmmmm
That`s an interesting spin...one of many I am sure I will find as I read down the thread and comments on all of them!!
(Enter Stage Right: The Victim Card)
The Victim Card: Oh teh noes! You are making a personal attack!
(The Victim Card picks up the phone and calls the Wahhhbulance)
Any bets on when JEDIYoda is finally going to realize this thing has been debunked ? Anyone?
quoted from a post by -- yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749
I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.
Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.
So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.
Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:
Can you refute it?
You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.
As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.
I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,
Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story
He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Old news.
/thread
/Pabster's credibility
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749
I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.
Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.
So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.
Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?
Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[54][55] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[56][57] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[58][59]
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[60] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:
Can you refute it?
You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.
As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.
I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,
Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story
He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm
That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*
Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png
JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!
You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:
Can you refute it?
You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.
As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.
I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,
Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story
He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm
That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*
Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png
JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!
You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.
:laugh: :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749
I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.
Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.
So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.
Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:
Can you refute it?
You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.
As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.
I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,
Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story
He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm
That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*
Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png
JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!
You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.
:laugh: :thumbsup:
So when Ron whats his name drops out of the race are you going to drink the koolaid that he offers you??
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749
I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.
Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.
So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.
No one has been able to refute anything. Just the usual trolling, smears, and personal attacks. That's fine. I'm immune to that bullshit.
Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?
It wasn't. They're shooting the messenger, because they hate the message. Too bad.
The sad thing is, I'm not "Anti" Ron Paul. I actually agree with the guy on many issues. I only loathe his legion of bots and spammers (many of them right here on this forum.)
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: loki8481
ron who?
yeah, the only ron you know is ron jeremy
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me guess, you work for fox?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749
I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.
Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.
So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.
No one has been able to refute anything. Just the usual trolling, smears, and personal attacks. That's fine. I'm immune to that bullshit.
Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?
It wasn't. They're shooting the messenger, because they hate the message. Too bad.
The sad thing is, I'm not "Anti" Ron Paul. I actually agree with the guy on many issues. I only loathe his legion of bots and spammers (many of them right here on this forum.)
Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?
If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?
If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?
OMG- again. Pabster, please, just stop posting flamebait. Don't you realize how fucked up this nation would be if it were up to the defendants to prove their innocence?
Originally posted by: lozina
OMG- again. Pabster, please, just stop posting flamebait.
Originally posted by: Pabster
If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Ron Paul has DEBUNKED THIS CRAP MANY MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by: Harvey
You're accusing Paul of some pretty ugly and offensive comments. If they're not true, those making such claims are guilty of libel (in print) or slander (spoken).
OTOH, truth is a 100% defense to any charges of libel or slander, but if you think the quotes are accurate, the burden of proof is on you. If it's NOT such an "obvious political smear", surely you could come up with credible original sources for the quotes. :roll:
Originally posted by: BradT
I have only been perusing P&N over the past couple of weeks for the primary/caucus action, but holy sh!t, what is Pabster's deal? Less than half of what he says is true, and just about ALL of what he says is purely to provoke others.