Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)

[fhdz]

Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?

It's one of the possibilities, which range from "he was unaware" to "he is a hateful racist". I'm not sure we have enough good sources in this thread to know which of the possibilities is most likely to be true.

[Razgovory]

Why is reasonable to think he was unaware?

It's one of the possibilities, which range from "he was unaware" to "he is a hateful racist". I'm not sure we have enough good sources in this thread to know which of the possibilities is most likely to be true.

Well, I suppose it's also a possibility that he's an amnesiac and blanks out every time he reads his own material, or he's a vampire, or a secret communist, or he exists in 38 dimensions at once.  However, like the "he was unaware" possibility it doesn't seem very likely.

Actually this reminds of Hortlund claiming that Speer new nothing of Holocaust and no matter how much evidence you present to him, it was never enough.  Even when I posted a photo of Speer in one of the camps, it wasn't enough.  There was always the possibility he didn't know, and Hortlund hid behind this slim possibility no matter what.

So how would you go about "proving" he knew about what was in his own news letter?

[dps]

I find it plausible that lots of people in Congress don't really know exactly what's in their newsletters unless/until they get questions/complaints about the content.  I find it extremely implausible that everyone in Congress actually writes their own newsletters.

[fhdz]

Well, I suppose it's also a possibility that he's an amnesiac and blanks out every time he reads his own material, or he's a vampire, or a secret communist, or he exists in 38 dimensions at once.  However, like the "he was unaware" possibility it doesn't seem very likely.

Are all of those equally likely, Raz?

Actually this reminds of Hortlund claiming that Speer new nothing of Holocaust

Wow. That is a truly Marti-level analogy. Congratulations.

What adds a special level of thickheadedness to your already bizarre analogy is that I've made no claim that Paul was unaware. I've also made no claim that he is racist. I've made no claim about Paul at all, except to say that since the newsletters exist and have his name attached to them, the possibilities range from "he was unware" to "he was a hateful racist".

The only other argument I have made in this thread is that it is reasonable to not want a POTUS who does not know hateful things are being attached to his name.

Any other arguments you are claiming I've made are of your own invention, Raz.

Whatever sources are necessary for proof they have GOT to be better than the ones you've provided.

[Razgovory]

You have room to talk!  You already claimed I made an argument that I did not.  So save your insults and indignation.


They are all in the spectrum of possibility I suppose.  But of course you missed the point.  Those aren't likely possibilities, and neither is Paul not knowing what is in his own goddamn newsletter for years at a time.

Then what exactly is you position.  You claimed it's possible that he's unaware.  You seem to be hiding behind slim possibilities, which is why I brought up Hortlund.  Hortlund hid behind slim possibilities.  Saying "I don't know" is something of a cop out. You can never know for absolutely certain.  So take a guess.  Or how about this, what evidence would be required to sway you either way?  I asked you before, but you avoided giving a real answer.

[Razgovory]

I find it plausible that lots of people in Congress don't really know exactly what's in their newsletters unless/until they get questions/complaints about the content.  I find it extremely implausible that everyone in Congress actually writes their own newsletters.

Shame we aren't talking about every congressmen, just one.  Paul not a stupid man, he's got an eye for details.  As Pedantic as he comes off, I find it silly to think that he didn't know what was coming out of own office for years on end.

[fhdz]

You have room to talk!  You already claimed I made an argument that I did not.  So save your insults and indignation.

Fair enough. I will back off the insults if you do the same. I am sure it is possible that I misread "He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south."

Then what exactly is you position.

My position is that an accusation of racism in a modern-day politician is a serious one, so in order to make it you'd want to eliminate the possibility that he was unaware insofar as you could do that, and that your sources are insufficient to do that in my opinion. Don't try and read between the lines; it's exactly the position I say it is. Don't put words in my mouth.

You claimed it's possible that he's unaware.  You seem to be hiding behind slim possibilities, which is why I brought up Hortlund.

That's ridiculous. What the fuck am I hiding from? Your dazzling display of argumentative technique? I'm not voting for Paul, am not a Paul supporter, and don't support his son either.

Hortlund hid behind slim possibilities.  Saying "I don't know" is something of a cop out. You can never know for absolutely certain.  So take a guess.  Or how about this, what evidence would be required to sway you either way?  I asked you before, but you avoided giving a real answer.

My guess is irrelevant! Jesus, I hope you never serve on a jury. Based on next-to-no information on the subject in this thread, and possibly some misinformation (the kooky newsone.com article and the Reason article are the first I've ever heard on this topic) there is not enough data to make a good judgment either way. In those cases I like to assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. If a worthy news source published information about these newsletters and Paul's connection to them I'd be more than willing to say "yep, he's a racist". Can you come up with any more credible sources than newsone.com and Reason magazine (which, I remind you, say conflicting things on the matter) that link Paul to the content of these newsletters?

[Razgovory]

 

This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past.  I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him  because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.

[Ed Anger]

I have no position on this argument.

[fhdz]

This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past.  I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him  because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.

What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.

[Admiral Yi]

I think Raz should interpret Heterodiz's last post as a concession.

[fhdz]

I have no position on this argument.

[Razgovory]

Can you come up with any more credible sources than newsone.com and Reason magazine (which, I remind you, say conflicting things on the matter) that link Paul to the content of these newsletters?

Yes, I did. They had samples of the newsletters with his name on them form his office.  That's pretty good connection if you ask me.  The link I posted was the first one I found that had some of that actual newsletters on it (which is why I chose it).  The articles weren't conflicting, they were just spun in different ways.

Oh and they don't let me serve on juries for some reason.

[Razgovory]

This just reminds me of some of the arguments I've had with Fahdiz in the long past.  I hate ambiguity, always got in arguments with him  because he wasn't committing to one thing or another.

What you call ambiguity I call being sensible. I equally hate jumping to conclusions and half-baked opinions based on poor information and poor logic.

Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.

[fhdz]

He's actually the best by far of the Republican crew. I love "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Naturally, this will mean he cannot possibly get the nomination.

And as if on cue, he has backed away:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9253711-huntsman-tweaks-climate-change-tone-says-scientists-need-to-clarify-facts

So disappointing.