ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"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.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
I'm not disputing the racism in the letters. I am disputing that Ron wrote them and that he agrees with those sentiments. Just as he said in his statement above.
Not exactly very big on accountability your chap, is he?
You think that accountability means "taking the blame for the words of others even though those words have nothing to do with one's view"? Crack open a dictionary, pronto.
We are expected to beleive that a newsletter went out for over a decade that Ron Paul had absolutely no part in producing, no authority over and did not even read? His denial does not say that at all. He does not deny funding the newsletter or that he read it. Nor does he say who actually did write the articles. You believe that the racism in those few snippets was representative of the whole newsletter for a period of ten years? What facts do you base this on?
The biggest failures of the Bush administration have been the abject lack of accountability. Bush blames everyone but himself for the mess in Iraq. It is hard to think of a single member of the administration who was sacked for their incompetence rather than the political inconveniences that their incompetence caused.
So now we are to accept the idea that you can publish a political newsletter to promote your thoughts on politics without taking responsibility for the contents? Sorry that simply does not wash.
"George Bush did something bad, therefore Ron Paul..." APApapapa! Stop right there. You're making Ron Paul the straw man of the Bush administration. Don't. Just don't.
It is a somewhat strange set of criteria that is set up by the media as well. Edwards is disqualified for paying too much for a haircut, Hillary because she is a robot. But Ron Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention. Ok, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS IF NOT IN THE MEDIA? And again with the "for over a decade".
If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations.
Oh please, would you believe George Bush if he offered an excuse as stupid as that. And even assuming, arguendo, that his version is true, that doesn't bode well for his managerial skills. Are you saying it's stupid or that is isn't true? Are you saying that Bush has shown a level of honesty and consistency even remotely approaching that of Paul? Why are you so intent of believing the dirt in question? Do you know what host brought this info to the media? Do you know that same host showed up to a Paul press conference with two hookers and their pimp and it made news as "brothel owner supports Paul", not as "CNN host shows up to news conference with two prostitutes"?
Do you know that on the day this dirt came out, the man who won the primary against Paul had in his last race to the same position hired one of the people convicted for the dirty tricks that were uncovered in the Watergate scandal?
It's clear we're talking about the country called "America", not a geographic region, because we're talking about its government (and the events of its founding in a past more recent than hundreds of millions of years ago).
You don't need to point out the obvious, we all know what country we're talking about
A country == a geographic region;
You apparently think that Amerigo Vespuci lived hundreds of millions of years ago
Now, the first point is a character flaw, but it's not worrisome. The second point is somewhat troubling, because you don't seem to grasp some very basic concept there, but the third point shows that your disconnect with history is tremendous.
I highly recommend that you take some kind of history class as soon as possible. Before you vote in any election, at the very least. In the meantime, refrain from exposing your thought process in open, public forums, you risk embarrassing yourself, and you're just adding noise to the signal.
Ha Hah hah, those idiots in Boston, getting all bent out of shape over a mere mysterious box with a seemingly innocuous cartoon light display surreptitiously bolted to a freeway support. I mean, there's no way someone who intended to collapse a freeway Would use a lightbright to do it. No, there is no way, dumbass.
If you can explain how all the english speaking countries are wrong, and Latin America and Russia are right, I'm all ears. The united states of america are named for the continent on which they are located. In english, "america" was shorthand for "the english colonies of america". That stuck, and as a shorthand, it can be used correctly in conversation.
Saying "in America, we have rights..." is correct. Defining "america" as only the states in the middle of the northern half of it is wrong, in the same way that saying "the world" and meaning only the 50 united states is wrong.
Talking about Hawaii and calling it America is insane:)
So not really so much ignorance as what I was taught due to where I am from Ignorance still, but you were the victim of a campaign of misinformation, so you were not at fault for your own ignorance. It is an emotionally potent oversimplification, much like pictorials of the prettiest people in one city of California end up being the prettiest people in The World when the media touts them.
I used to think the same, but it turns out, in English, the continent is referred to as "the Americas" and America can be used for the country. You can also use the World to mean only the united states of America, but that doesn't make it right.
Good news about our increased chocolate rations, though!
I have never seen both continents referred to as "America" collectively before. Your ignorance is duly noted. Interestingly, you obviously didn't even look at the map linked in the post you responded to.
America is The name of the continent on which many countries, including the one you're talking about, are located. It is named after an Italian mapmaker, from drawings that did not feature the country you're discussing.
That's the very clear example. People know they voted for Paul, result says zero. What, the second time they ran the query, it came up with a different result? Bullshit. Something went wrong. I'd don't know or even care if it was intentional or not. If it can't even handle a primary, and has such an obvious and glaring error, we should not be using such a system. Especially if there is no way to verify the results. In related news, Ron Paul's name didn't make it on the CNN pie chart. There was a black wedge of equal size next to 9iu11anis' red slice of the pie, but somehow his neck-and-neck numbers weren't important enough to mention him by name.
Many Obama supporters I talked to on primary day mentioned that they were planning to support Ron Paul Ok, so you're the guy to ask: What's so great about your guy? Ron is the only candidate in any election I've seen in quite a long time that I've really liked, and the only excitement I've heard about Obama was racial, or about his charisma. I'm wondering if he's got some ideas to go with the charm. And since you're telling me that there's some support overlap between our guys, I figure you'd know what I'd like about yours:-)
likely scenario, it will simply be disregarded by most as a crazy conspiracy theory I can't, for the life of me, figure out why conspiracies are always assumed not to exist. I mean, it's not as though there's no one convicted of any conspiring, or anything. But it has become an automatism to link "conspiracy" with "crazy".
the XO design supports booting an alternate OS by holding down a button during startup. I have Debian installed on mine. Cool! How's that working out for you?
Simple things like closing an application-- err activity-- are inconsistent from activity to activity. I found at least three different ways depending on the activity. Sure, kids will figure it out... smart kids figure out everything. That doesn't mean it's a good UI or even an acceptable UI. Wouldn't that be because all those activities were developed independently from one another? In the rush to get everything done on time I'm betting no one coordinated their UI ideas with everyone else, and now each activity is built from the ground up without a unifying lead.
It is you guys bitching and moaning about such an evil company that doesn't want to donate anymore laptops to poor children; they are such assholes, on my God!.
They're trying to stop someone else from giving laptops to needy children, you idiot. They saw how much money was being moved to make it happen, and they want that money.
How is it that so many supposedly successful businesspersons seem to so readily forget that a little charity on a regular basis is necessary to keep the free market from imploding? It's simple greed. It can lead them to forget about charity, legality, proper book keeping, etc.
Who do you think is going to teach the children to read smartass?
Their school, you idiot. Just because someone somewhere is worse off than the kids who can use this to make a better life for themselves and their whole community is no reason not to help them too.
So if you think that the little dirt children are so needy that no other charity should exist to apply to anything beyond basic day-to-day survival, why don't you shut the fuck up, log off the internet, and go help them. Because bitching and moanoing about another layer of help won't feed anyone, hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"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.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
You think that accountability means "taking the blame for the words of others even though those words have nothing to do with one's view"? Crack open a dictionary, pronto. We are expected to beleive that a newsletter went out for over a decade that Ron Paul had absolutely no part in producing, no authority over and did not even read? His denial does not say that at all. He does not deny funding the newsletter or that he read it. Nor does he say who actually did write the articles. You believe that the racism in those few snippets was representative of the whole newsletter for a period of ten years?Not exactly very big on accountability your chap, is he?
What facts do you base this on? The biggest failures of the Bush administration have been the abject lack of accountability. Bush blames everyone but himself for the mess in Iraq. It is hard to think of a single member of the administration who was sacked for their incompetence rather than the political inconveniences that their incompetence caused.
"George Bush did something bad, therefore Ron Paul..." APApapapa! Stop right there.So now we are to accept the idea that you can publish a political newsletter to promote your thoughts on politics without taking responsibility for the contents? Sorry that simply does not wash.
You're making Ron Paul the straw man of the Bush administration. Don't. Just don't. It is a somewhat strange set of criteria that is set up by the media as well. Edwards is disqualified for paying too much for a haircut, Hillary because she is a robot. But Ron Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention. Ok, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS IF NOT IN THE MEDIA?
And again with the "for over a decade".
Oh please, would you believe George Bush if he offered an excuse as stupid as that. And even assuming, arguendo, that his version is true, that doesn't bode well for his managerial skills. Are you saying it's stupid or that is isn't true?
Are you saying that Bush has shown a level of honesty and consistency even remotely approaching that of Paul?
Why are you so intent of believing the dirt in question?
Do you know what host brought this info to the media? Do you know that same host showed up to a Paul press conference with two hookers and their pimp and it made news as "brothel owner supports Paul", not as "CNN host shows up to news conference with two prostitutes"?
Do you know that on the day this dirt came out, the man who won the primary against Paul had in his last race to the same position hired one of the people convicted for the dirty tricks that were uncovered in the Watergate scandal?
Now, the first point is a character flaw, but it's not worrisome.
The second point is somewhat troubling, because you don't seem to grasp some very basic concept there, but the third point shows that your disconnect with history is tremendous.
I highly recommend that you take some kind of history class as soon as possible. Before you vote in any election, at the very least. In the meantime, refrain from exposing your thought process in open, public forums, you risk embarrassing yourself, and you're just adding noise to the signal.
No, there is no way, dumbass.
In english, "america" was shorthand for "the english colonies of america". That stuck, and as a shorthand, it can be used correctly in conversation.
Saying "in America, we have rights..." is correct.
Defining "america" as only the states in the middle of the northern half of it is wrong, in the same way that saying "the world" and meaning only the 50 united states is wrong.
Talking about Hawaii and calling it America is insane
It is an emotionally potent oversimplification, much like pictorials of the prettiest people in one city of California end up being the prettiest people in The World when the media touts them.
Good news about our increased chocolate rations, though!
Interestingly, you obviously didn't even look at the map linked in the post you responded to.
It is named after an Italian mapmaker, from drawings that did not feature the country you're discussing.
You may resume defending your rights.
Ron is the only candidate in any election I've seen in quite a long time that I've really liked, and the only excitement I've heard about Obama was racial, or about his charisma. I'm wondering if he's got some ideas to go with the charm. And since you're telling me that there's some support overlap between our guys, I figure you'd know what I'd like about yours
I mean, it's not as though there's no one convicted of any conspiring, or anything. But it has become an automatism to link "conspiracy" with "crazy".
Coworker's head, meet hardcover book...
In the rush to get everything done on time I'm betting no one coordinated their UI ideas with everyone else, and now each activity is built from the ground up without a unifying lead.
That's why god invented "version x.2"
I don't think MSFT is the driver
Hook 'em while they're young.They want to piggyback on educational programs to indoctrinate children into their monopoly.
Will there be a "mohawk" class, fool?
It is you guys bitching and moaning about such an evil company that doesn't want to donate anymore laptops to poor children; they are such assholes, on my God!.
They're trying to stop someone else from giving laptops to needy children, you idiot.They saw how much money was being moved to make it happen, and they want that money.
It can lead them to forget about charity, legality, proper book keeping, etc.
Who do you think is going to teach the children to read smartass?
Their school, you idiot. Just because someone somewhere is worse off than the kids who can use this to make a better life for themselves and their whole community is no reason not to help them too.So if you think that the little dirt children are so needy that no other charity should exist to apply to anything beyond basic day-to-day survival, why don't you shut the fuck up, log off the internet, and go help them. Because bitching and moanoing about another layer of help won't feed anyone, hypocrite.