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

[fhdz]

Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.

[DGuller]

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.

There is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears.  What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?

[Ideologue]

Gross.  But I guess I've seen weirder porn.

[fhdz]

There is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears.  What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?

It's possible he wrote them himself.
It's possible he didn't write them but knew about the contents and allowed them to be published, implying apathy at best and agreement at worst.
It's possible he didn't write them and didn't know they were being published until later. Do we know anything about the circulation of the newsletters?
It's possible he exists in 38 dimensions at once.

For any of these possibilities to bear some fruit, we are going to need better sources than newsone.com and Reason.

That's all.

I haven't been bothered to look for other sources because I'm not the one who accused Paul of racism. :shrug:

[Berkut]

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.

I would not read an MSNBC article on what he said and conclude he "back away".

He certainly temporized the message for his audience, but he did not say anything that could fairly be described as backing away.

He just said the glass was half empty for an audience that like half empty glasses instead of saying it was half full. If that is the worst of his pandering I ahve to deal with (and it sadly almost certainly is not), I will consider myself pretty fortunate.

[Razgovory]

There is a reasonable caution, and then there is just sticking your fingers in your ears.  What do you want, a smartphone recording of Ron Paul penning his newsletter?

It's possible he wrote them himself.
It's possible he didn't write them but knew about the contents and allowed them to be published, implying apathy at best and agreement at worst.
It's possible he didn't write them and didn't know they were being published until later. Do we know anything about the circulation of the newsletters?
It's possible he exists in 38 dimensions at once.

For any of these possibilities to bear some fruit, we are going to need better sources than newsone.com and Reason.

That's all.

I haven't been bothered to look for other sources because I'm not the one who accused Paul of racism. :shrug:

You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea.  I provided the blog site primarily because it had copies of the original documents. Those documents seem sufficient to me. To me "The Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection to Ron Paul.

[grumbler]

Yes, we are all familiar with your flighty indecisiveness.

 

I have no idea why you get pleasure out of these "debates."  Raz isn't reading what you are actually saying, so why bother?

[Razgovory]

I dunno why you comment, Grumbler.  Perhaps you could enlighten us with your wisdom of the aged.

[fhdz]

You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea.

The newsone.com blogger links to the Reason story as "proof" of his assertion of guilt. What lends doubt to the idea is that the Reason article doesn't even say what the newsone.com blogger thinks it says.

[Zoupa]

There's not much point in arguing with Raz, dude.

I like the guy, but let's face it. He's crazy.

[Razgovory]

You were the one to use Reason magazine to give doubt to the idea.

The newsone.com blogger links to the Reason story as "proof" of his assertion of guilt. What lends doubt to the idea is that the Reason article doesn't even say what the newsone.com blogger thinks it says.

Okay, what about the primary documents?

[Eddie Teach]

Okay, what about the primary documents?

Use of first person doesn't prove he wrote it himself.

[Razgovory]

Okay, what about the primary documents?

Use of first person doesn't prove he wrote it himself.

No, put the "Ron Paul Report" published by Ron Paul is a pretty good connection.  Fahdiz asked for a connection.

[dps]

Pretty sure that anyone with a printing press could whip up something titled "The Ron Paul Report" with a byline of "By Ron Paul" on it.  Heck, with desktop publishing you wouldn't even need a printing press.

I am not suggesting that this is what happened.  I've gotten newletters from my Representatives plenty of times, and I've always assumed that their staff put them together for them.  I've never figured that the Congressman actually wrote them themself.

Note though, that if your staff writes something on your behalf, and it goes out with your name on it, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call you to task for what it says.

[DGuller]

I do expect most written communication from Congerssmen to be written by his staffers.  I also expect all of the communication written by his staffers to be signed off on by him.  To allegedly be in la-la land regarding the contents of your newsletter for years is just not credible, unless Ron Paul treated his job as a joke and let all kinds of weirdos run the place.