Great find Steve. And I see at the bottom of the article there's another great link, to David Horowitz' powerful and sobering exposé about how Ron Paul is a vicious anti-Semite and anti-American.
It's an eyewitness report of something he said he saw. The people he spoke to. Do you have independent information about that event which belies his firsthand account?
I'm struck by how emotionally invested you and other Ron Paul supporters are in your candidate. Reminds me of Camping's devotees who went over the cliff for their glorious leader.
The article was a cheap hit job. Not a single direct quotation from the alleged anti-Semites (other than a few isolated words and phrases). Furthermore, since Swindle crudely slanders the "infamous anti-Semite Pat Buchanan," and since the "editor" (Swindle himself?) thinks that Horowitz' anti-Paul propaganda piece was a quality analysis, I feel there is no further need for comment on my part. Were you there? Do you have some sort of independent information about this event?
"I'm struck by how emotionally invested you and other Ron Paul supporters are in your candidate. Reminds me of Camping's devotees who went over the cliff for their glorious leader."
Steve, you tried to paint Ron Paul and his supporters as anti-Semites, on the very flimsiest of vague, hearsay evidence, from a blatant propagandist. Shame on you, and you deserve harsh criticism for that.
"Furthermore, since Swindle crudely slanders the 'infamous anti-Semite Pat Buchanan'"...
William F. Buckley came to the same conclusion.
"...and since the "editor" (Swindle himself?) thinks that Horowitz' anti-Paul propaganda piece was a quality analysis, I feel there is no further need for comment on my part."
That's just a diversionary tactic.
"Were you there? Do you have some sort of independent information about this event?"
I'm not the one who's challenging an eyewitness report, you are.
"Steve, you tried to paint Ron Paul and his supporters as anti-Semites, on the very flimsiest of vague, hearsay evidence, from a blatant propagandist."
i) By that logic, you could discount any testimonial evidence as "hearsay" evidence.
ii) He also linked to Ron Paul videos which confirm Paul's bias.
iii) As if you yourself are not a blatant propagandist for Ron Paul.
"Shame on you, and you deserve harsh criticism for that."
You identify with your candidate the way a rock star groupie or cult-member identifies with his idol.
When all else fails and you've backed yourself into a corner, start punching out some bullet points and dropping ad hominems, right?
Steve, I thought this time was going to be different. I was going to try my darndest to be very courteous in my tone with you in our recent discussions about Ron Paul. But then you had to get all "anti-Semite" on me.
"Steve, I thought this time was going to be different. I was going to try my darndest to be very courteous in my tone with you in our recent discussions about Ron Paul. But then you had to get all 'anti-Semite' on me."
This post wasn't about "Jeff." "Jeff" wasn't a named person in this post. I merely linked to an eyewitness report of an event involving Ron Paul supporters, among others.
The fact that you react in this ink-blot fashion says a lot about your guilt-complex, but nothing about my intentions.
And I wasn't saying you were trying to call me, specifically, an anti-Semite. Rather, that you don't seem to be interested in any sort of worthwhile, serious conversation about Ron Paul.
"And I wasn't saying you were trying to call me, specifically, an anti-Semite. Rather, that you don't seem to be interested in any sort of worthwhile, serious conversation about Ron Paul."
Isn't a conversation a two way street? But your comments including your first comment haven't exactly been very conducive to having a "conversation."
I'd add Steve Hays has had a lot of "conversations" with others about Ron Paul if you search the weblog.
Great find Steve. And I see at the bottom of the article there's another great link, to David Horowitz' powerful and sobering exposé about how Ron Paul is a vicious anti-Semite and anti-American.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious?
Since I didn't link to the Horowitz piece, you can't dismiss what I did link to through guilt by association.
ReplyDeleteI'll dismiss both, thank you very much, as they come from the same source. Were you trying to slander Ron Paul as an anti-Semite?
ReplyDeleteIt's an eyewitness report of something he said he saw. The people he spoke to. Do you have independent information about that event which belies his firsthand account?
ReplyDeleteI'm struck by how emotionally invested you and other Ron Paul supporters are in your candidate. Reminds me of Camping's devotees who went over the cliff for their glorious leader.
The article was a cheap hit job. Not a single direct quotation from the alleged anti-Semites (other than a few isolated words and phrases). Furthermore, since Swindle crudely slanders the "infamous anti-Semite Pat Buchanan," and since the "editor" (Swindle himself?) thinks that Horowitz' anti-Paul propaganda piece was a quality analysis, I feel there is no further need for comment on my part. Were you there? Do you have some sort of independent information about this event?
ReplyDelete"I'm struck by how emotionally invested you and other Ron Paul supporters are in your candidate. Reminds me of Camping's devotees who went over the cliff for their glorious leader."
Steve, you tried to paint Ron Paul and his supporters as anti-Semites, on the very flimsiest of vague, hearsay evidence, from a blatant propagandist. Shame on you, and you deserve harsh criticism for that.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, since Swindle crudely slanders the 'infamous anti-Semite Pat Buchanan'"...
William F. Buckley came to the same conclusion.
"...and since the "editor" (Swindle himself?) thinks that Horowitz' anti-Paul propaganda piece was a quality analysis, I feel there is no further need for comment on my part."
That's just a diversionary tactic.
"Were you there? Do you have some sort of independent information about this event?"
I'm not the one who's challenging an eyewitness report, you are.
"Steve, you tried to paint Ron Paul and his supporters as anti-Semites, on the very flimsiest of vague, hearsay evidence, from a blatant propagandist."
i) By that logic, you could discount any testimonial evidence as "hearsay" evidence.
ii) He also linked to Ron Paul videos which confirm Paul's bias.
iii) As if you yourself are not a blatant propagandist for Ron Paul.
"Shame on you, and you deserve harsh criticism for that."
You identify with your candidate the way a rock star groupie or cult-member identifies with his idol.
When all else fails and you've backed yourself into a corner, start punching out some bullet points and dropping ad hominems, right?
ReplyDeleteSteve, I thought this time was going to be different. I was going to try my darndest to be very courteous in my tone with you in our recent discussions about Ron Paul. But then you had to get all "anti-Semite" on me.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, I thought this time was going to be different. I was going to try my darndest to be very courteous in my tone with you in our recent discussions about Ron Paul. But then you had to get all 'anti-Semite' on me."
This post wasn't about "Jeff." "Jeff" wasn't a named person in this post. I merely linked to an eyewitness report of an event involving Ron Paul supporters, among others.
The fact that you react in this ink-blot fashion says a lot about your guilt-complex, but nothing about my intentions.
"Guilt-complex"? Um, no.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wasn't saying you were trying to call me, specifically, an anti-Semite. Rather, that you don't seem to be interested in any sort of worthwhile, serious conversation about Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteJeff said:
ReplyDelete"And I wasn't saying you were trying to call me, specifically, an anti-Semite. Rather, that you don't seem to be interested in any sort of worthwhile, serious conversation about Ron Paul."
Isn't a conversation a two way street? But your comments including your first comment haven't exactly been very conducive to having a "conversation."
I'd add Steve Hays has had a lot of "conversations" with others about Ron Paul if you search the weblog.
Hi NT,
ReplyDeleteFor evidence of my courteous conversational tone I would refer you to the comments from one of Steve's recent entries about Ron Paul.
This post of Steve's, by contrast, wasn't even worthy of conversation in the first place. The only thing it is worthy of is criticism.