First let me say I don't think Paul is a racist.

Having said that he deserves to be questioned on this vigorously and frequently. A newsletter baring his name put out outlandish and at times racist comments with no attribution. Many were written in the first person.

He says he didn't write it. Fine. He says he doesn't know who did. I find that a little less plausible. Did he never read the newsletter that bore his name? Did he just miss those issues the same way Obama happen to miss every racist America hating sermon Wright gave?

My hope would be at best he was guilty of gross negligence and poor judgement on the matter. But you Paul supporters getting your hackles up about "establishment" bringing it up are kidding yourselves if you think the MSM wouldn't hammer on this day and night if he was the nominee.

You guys have been begging for Paul to be taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land. This is what it looks like.

(12-20-2011 06:32 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  First let me say I don't think Paul is a racist.

Having said that he deserves to be questioned on this vigorously and frequently. A newsletter baring his name put out outlandish and at times racist comments with no attribution. Many were written in the first person.

He says he didn't write it. Fine. He says he doesn't know who did. I find that a little less plausible. Did he never read the newsletter that bore his name? Did he just miss those issues the same way Obama happen to miss every racist America hating sermon Wright gave?

My hope would be at best he was guilty of gross negligence and poor judgement on the matter. But you Paul supporters getting your hackles up about "establishment" bringing it up are kidding yourselves if you think the MSM wouldn't hammer on this day and night if he was the nominee.

You guys have been begging for Paul to be taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land. This is what it looks like.

He has been questioned rigorously. For 20 years. It is trotted out every campaign cycle and in every primary and in every general. At it fails at face value because the man's life work is so completely at odds with what was in that newsletter. That's why even the NAACP President in Austin went to bat for Paul. There is no absolutely way of knowing who wrote it. It is one of the 6 to 8 people who helped with the newsletter most likely ... but it could have been somebody they associate with as well. And do you think they're going to waltz right on out there and say "Yea I wrote that." Fat chance.

In a primary and general for one congressional district. This is a presidential campaign GTS. Paul has not been questioned on this at the national level. He's not sat on Meet the Press, 60 Minutes and a dozen other programs to answer it. He's not had it take up a full week's news cycle.

Paul has yet to know true rigor on this GTS. And you can bet he will if he even comes close to being a true contender.

(12-20-2011 06:32 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  First let me say I don't think Paul is a racist.

Having said that he deserves to be questioned on this vigorously and frequently. A newsletter baring his name put out outlandish and at times racist comments with no attribution. Many were written in the first person.

He says he didn't write it. Fine. He says he doesn't know who did. I find that a little less plausible. Did he never read the newsletter that bore his name? Did he just miss those issues the same way Obama happen to miss every racist America hating sermon Wright gave?

My hope would be at best he was guilty of gross negligence and poor judgement on the matter. But you Paul supporters getting your hackles up about "establishment" bringing it up are kidding yourselves if you think the MSM wouldn't hammer on this day and night if he was the nominee.

You guys have been begging for Paul to be taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land. This is what it looks like.

Bringing up the newsletters is perfectly fair game. If the Paul campaign is not prepared to debunk this and prove he had nothing to do with it (as he says) then they are fools or someone is a liar. Paul should be very frank about this (as he was in the last election) and put this to bed quickly.

Personally...I believe he had nothing to do with this and regrets not editing the news letter before publishing. There is nothing in the good doctors background that would indicate that he is a racist or a liar. If there was...there would be more evidence than this. His record in Congress and his principled stances over and over speak volumes for his character IMO.

(12-20-2011 07:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  In a primary and general for one congressional district. This is a presidential campaign GTS. Paul has not been questioned on this at the national level. He's not sat on Meet the Press, 60 Minutes and a dozen other programs to answer it. He's not had it take up a full week's news cycle.

Paul has yet to know true rigor on this GTS. And you can bet he will if he even comes close to being a true contender.

The person who probably wrote them was Lew Rockwell.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the...rs-2011-12

He was questioned about it on the national level in 2008. On countless televised programs.

You're not this naive GTS. You know full well he has not really been grilled over this. In 2008 he was a sideshow. If he gains serious momentum as a potential nominee he will be nailed on it from everywhere.

Newt has been grilled more about his credit line at Tiffany's than Paul has about this.

Fo is right. It will come and he and his campaign better be ready when it does.

Niner has a point. There's "Hey, I'm running for president" spotlight and then there's "I actually has a shot at the nomination" spotlight and then there's "United States Presidential Election" spotlight.

That "media bias" that the Palins and Cains of the world can't handle? That's called people stop believing what you tell them and look for themselves.

(12-21-2011 09:13 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  That "media bias" that the Palins and Cains of the world can't handle? That's called people stop believing what you tell them and look for themselves.

I think the "media bias" lies more in believing unquestioningly what Obama told them about things like the relationships with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, instead of looking for themselves.

He's asked one time about Ayers, he responds, "Oh he's just some guy in the neighborhood," and that's IT? That simply cannot be honest, objective, responsible journalism. Simply can't.

Apply the same standard to everyone.

(12-21-2011 09:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2011 09:13 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  That "media bias" that the Palins and Cains of the world can't handle? That's called people stop believing what you tell them and look for themselves.

I think the "media bias" lies more in believing unquestioningly what Obama told them about things like the relationships with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, instead of looking for themselves.

He's asked one time about Ayers, he responds, "Oh he's just some guy in the neighborhood," and that's IT? That simply cannot be honest, objective, responsible journalism. Simply can't.

Apply the same standard to everyone.

Owl, the alternative is that it was looked at and it was a non-story. You have to admit that Fox harped on it but it didn't resonate. If they had found a smoking gun, it would have been a big deal.

Given his background in Chicago politics, I'm surprised that no major dirt on President Obama has come up. If the Clinton campaign couldn't find anything, then it's a reasonable assumption that there's nothing to find. Shocking as that may be.

(12-21-2011 09:38 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Owl, the alternative is that it was looked at and it was a non-story. You have to admit that Fox harped on it but it didn't resonate. If they had found a smoking gun, it would have been a big deal.
Given his background in Chicago politics, I'm surprised that no major dirt on President Obama has come up. If the Clinton campaign couldn't find anything, then it's a reasonable assumption that there's nothing to find. Shocking as that may be.

That certainly is the alternative. But you can't have a "story" without evidence, and the essence of the "Chicago way" has been remarkable effectiveness at suppression of evidence in case after case. You're not going to have a story unless someone talks, and in Chicago nobody EVER talks.

So let's assume the stories Obama told are true. He had no connection with Ayers except that he lived down the street, but he decided to hold his political coming-out party in Ayers's living room. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years, and regarded Wright as his spiritual mentor, but never got a hint of Wright's political sentiments, even though they're all over videotapes that are sold openly in the narthex of Wright's church. Do those really seem believable to you?

They do not to me. If I were running for office, I wouldn't be holding fundraisers in the homes of people with controversial stances that I disagreed with, and if I weren't running I wouldn't be hosting such an event for someone that I hadn't checked out pretty thoroughly or that I didn't strongly agree with. And I don't think I've ever sat in any church for more than about two services without having a pretty clear idea where the pastor stood, both politically and theologically.

It's kind of a res ipsa loquitur situation with me. I don't know exactly what happened, and it may be totally innocent. But I know enough to conclude that the official explanations are nonsensical. And I would expect a press that was doing its job to probe beyond what are obviously BS answers. Just as I would expect them to do with Cain or Palin or Paul or Clinton or Chris Dodd or Barney Franks.

And what I see is a press that finds any reason to dig deeper when the person has an R after his/her name, and any reason to take the first BS answer as gospel when there's a D instead. Fox is 100% the other way, and they look pretty stupid at times. But it's equally stupid and unprofessional and dishonest to be 100% either way.

(12-21-2011 10:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2011 09:38 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Owl, the alternative is that it was looked at and it was a non-story. You have to admit that Fox harped on it but it didn't resonate. If they had found a smoking gun, it would have been a big deal.
Given his background in Chicago politics, I'm surprised that no major dirt on President Obama has come up. If the Clinton campaign couldn't find anything, then it's a reasonable assumption that there's nothing to find. Shocking as that may be.

That certainly is the alternative. But you can't have a "story" without evidence, and the essence of the "Chicago way" has been remarkable effectiveness at suppression of evidence in case after case. You're not going to have a story unless someone talks, and in Chicago nobody EVER talks.

So let's assume the stories Obama told are true. He had no connection with Ayers except that he lived down the street, but he decided to hold his political coming-out party in Ayers's living room. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years, and regarded Wright as his spiritual mentor, but never got a hint of Wright's political sentiments, even though they're all over videotapes that are sold openly in the narthex of Wright's church. Do those really seem believable to you?

They do not to me. If I were running for office, I wouldn't be holding fundraisers in the homes of people with controversial stances that I disagreed with, and if I weren't running I wouldn't be hosting such an event for someone that I hadn't checked out pretty thoroughly or that I didn't strongly agree with. And I don't think I've ever sat in any church for more than about two services without having a pretty clear idea where the pastor stood, both politically and theologically.

It's kind of a res ipsa loquitur situation with me. I don't know exactly what happened, and it may be totally innocent. But I know enough to conclude that the official explanations are nonsensical. And I would expect a press that was doing its job to probe beyond what are obviously BS answers. Just as I would expect them to do with Cain or Palin or Paul or Clinton or Chris Dodd or Barney Franks.

And what I see is a press that finds any reason to dig deeper when the person has an R after his/her name, and any reason to take the first BS answer as gospel when there's a D instead. Fox is 100% the other way, and they look pretty stupid at times. But it's equally stupid and unprofessional and dishonest to be 100% either way.

Did it show poor judgement? Yes. But President Obama didn't do the things that Ayers did and he didn't say the things that Wright said. So if, as you admit, there's no evidence of anything other than guilt by association, then that's all the press can report. And they did.

But people don't care. The story didn't generate enough interest to make it profitable to keep in the headlines. The bigger story was Rezko, but again, it didn't catch on with Americans. The real bias in the media is revenue, not politics.

(12-21-2011 10:21 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Did it show poor judgement? Yes. But President Obama didn't do the things that Ayers did and he didn't say the things that Wright said. So if, as you admit, there's no evidence of anything other than guilt by association, then that's all the press can report. And they did.

You misstate what I said.

If the "official" explanations are correct--that Ayers was just "some guy in the neighborhood" and that Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years without knowing what he was preaching--then there is nothing but poor judgement and guilt by association. But those explanations are nonsensical in view of known facts.

What we don't have is any explanation that takes into account those known facts, and the media didn't make much of an effort to go further. It's equivalent to Herman Cain saying, "I never sexually harassed anyone," and the media saying, "Right, he never sexually harassed anyone, move along."

Quote:But people don't care. The story didn't generate enough interest to make it profitable to keep in the headlines. The bigger story was Rezko, but again, it didn't catch on with Americans. The real bias in the media is revenue, not politics.

Rezco may or may not have been the bigger story, again depending on what is the true nature of the Ayers and Wright relationships. There are too many unknowns about all three situations, and the known "facts" in each situation don't add up.

This is NOT conspiracy theorizing. Conspiracy theories apply when the facts add up but someone is convinced otherwise. Here, the known facts simply don't make sense, in any of the three situations, and yet the media stood back and let the guy become president without making a legitimate effort to find an explanation that makes sense.

(12-21-2011 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2011 10:21 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Did it show poor judgement? Yes. But President Obama didn't do the things that Ayers did and he didn't say the things that Wright said. So if, as you admit, there's no evidence of anything other than guilt by association, then that's all the press can report. And they did.

You misstate what I said.

If the "official" explanations are correct--that Ayers was just "some guy in the neighborhood" and that Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years without knowing what he was preaching--then there is nothing but poor judgement and guilt by association. But those explanations are nonsensical in view of known facts.

What we don't have is any explanation that takes into account those known facts, and the media didn't make much of an effort to go further. It's equivalent to Herman Cain saying, "I never sexually harassed anyone," and the media saying, "Right, he never sexually harassed anyone, move along."

Quote:But people don't care. The story didn't generate enough interest to make it profitable to keep in the headlines. The bigger story was Rezko, but again, it didn't catch on with Americans. The real bias in the media is revenue, not politics.

Rezco may or may not have been the bigger story, again depending on what is the true nature of the Ayers and Wright relationships. There are too many unknowns about all three situations, and the known "facts" in each situation don't add up.

This is NOT conspiracy theorizing. Conspiracy theories apply when the facts add up but someone is convinced otherwise. Here, the known facts simply don't make sense, in any of the three situations, and yet the media stood back and let the guy become president without making a legitimate effort to find an explanation that makes sense.

I did not intend to put any words in your mouth. If we don't have facts that point to an alternative, then it's just suspicion. I will concede that Obama was given the benefit of the doubt in this case, but that's reasonable given how little evidence there was of anything worse than guilt by association. We can condemn his lame response but if there's nothing else to go on, the story dies.

What made Cain's situation a bigger deal was that it was true that there have been multiple settlements paid for sexual harassment claims and at least one alleged mistress. That's a fact. There were enough facts to keep the story in the news.

But again, it goes back to what's profitable to report and what's not. The bias is by how many hits the website gets.

(12-21-2011 01:51 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I did not intend to put any words in your mouth. If we don't have facts that point to an alternative, then it's just suspicion. I will concede that Obama was given the benefit of the doubt in this case, but that's reasonable given how little evidence there was of anything worse than guilt by association. We can condemn his lame response but if there's nothing else to go on, the story dies.

Apology accepted.

In each of the three situations we have at least one fact that points very strongly toward an alternative. That fact, in each of the three situations, is that the explanation we are asked to believe makes no sense.

Quote:What made Cain's situation a bigger deal was that it was true that there have been multiple settlements paid for sexual harassment claims and at least one alleged mistress. That's a fact. There were enough facts to keep the story in the news.
But again, it goes back to what's profitable to report and what's not. The bias is by how many hits the website gets.

The events you describe that made Cain's situation bigger did not exist the first time he was asked. If the media had accepted his story, lock-stock-and-barrel, it might still have gotten big because the women making the allegations were motivated to come forward. In Obama's case, I'm quite certain that Wright, Ayers, and Rezco have no motivation to come forward with additional information. And it's the Chicago way--close ranks and keep silent. That makes it harder to dig up the real facts, but it doesn't make an obviously false story true.

In each of the three cases we're basically given an explanation that says, "This is nothing, move along." The only problem is that the three explanations we are given can't possibly be true. And nobody except maybe Hannity (who I would not describe as competent) really appears to have dug further.