reply to post by captainplanet
I don't know that the newsletter cost any money to receive. I don't know that it carried any paid advertisements. I don't know that it were free.
What I do know is that it was published for decades. Whether it was kept around for money or as a campaign tool, it
was kept around. And
regardless of any reason mentioned or not mentioned, it was important enough to continue being published.
So, it was just a newsletter, eh? Well, what seems to be obvious is that the newsletter was not important enough to Ron Paul that he would even
wonder what was going on with it from time to time. The level of responsibility shouldn't matter to a person who is responsible. It's not that the
running of a nation carries more responsibility than the publishing of a newsletter. It's that someone who is supposed to be in charge with an
important asset, whether it be his name, his newsletter, or his country should act accordingly. It's about management. Ron Paul appears to have
knowledge of other persons running his newsletter, so tell me, how does he know this?
There are more questions that could be asked about this that point to why Ron Paul is not believable on this issue. It is strange that for the claims
that
he makes that he or somebody in his employ, his service, his past employ, or past service cannot locate one person that had direct
responsibility for Paul's newsletter. That's just not to be believed. That's not dramatic, that's unbelievable. Ghostwriters are real persons,
they are not ghosts. That's the point. Someone would know the identity of the ghostwriters. The point of adding a bit a drama to my last post,
distracting it may have been, was to highlight the pure fiction of Ron Paul's story. That by him saying that he takes "moral responsibility" that
also means that no one else should be held accountable. This is not a ghost hunt or a witch hunt. We know by evidence of the existence of the
newsletters and Ron Paul's statements that at least a team of people, small or large, were responsible for the newsletters.
For some reason Paul has chosen not to let us know who really is responsible. Saying, "I take moral responsibility" is not the same as saying, "I
take responsibility". So Paul takes "moral responsibility" for what was done, but, by his own assertion, he did not write the newsletters.
That's doublespeak. And, I might add, it's pretty good. His audience gets a denial and they get the idea that Paul is taking responsibility for
what happened. Heck, taking "moral responsibility" is not even the same as saying, "I take responsibility for the fact that something bad
happened" or "...good happened". It just talk that's designed to get people to get the idea the Ron Paul is taking responsibility, even though he
didn't actually say that he is taking responsibility. Talk about divide and conquer, there's confusion for you.
At any rate, Ron Paul is only asking for votes that would get him closer to being the President of the United States. In my opinion, that's plenty
good reason to know what types of people he has associated with in his past. Specifically, those whom he entrusted with his newsletter.
[edit on 12-1-2008 by Areal51]
