Originally posted by Detour
there are 10 reasons posted up there
and you only discuss one of them.
First, I find it telling that you would suggest you have 10 reasons when the 10th "reason" is simply a summation of the other 9.
Additionally, the closest thing you have here that resembles truth is your citation (not your interpretation) of the opensecrets.org record.
Your 1st is a purely non-scientific youtube vid created by someone with too much time on their hands. What credentials do they have in the field of
detecting deception? What credentials do you have in said field? Furthermore, what makes you think that he isn't looking to his wife, or campaign
manager, or some other person when he looks one way or the other?
Your 2nd suggests that RP would intentionally, and maliciously defraud the government over some travel expenses. Isn't it more plausible that if in
fact there was double charging that, it was an honest mistake? Have you ever had to claim travel expenses, especially for government travel? It is not
a simple process.
The headline of your third suggests that even you don't really believe the assertion when you apply question marks to the clearly unfounded
accusation.
Your 4th suggests that RP has openly challenged the release of any record that is constitutionally required to determine his eligibility to be POTUS.
A week contention at best.
Your 5th is bordering on the absurd. Once again, you take someone elses video (meant to show concern for the candidate) and attempt to apply some
medical diagnosis of your own. Are you a neurologist or an MD skilled in diagnosing such things?
Your 6th is to cite the opinion of TYT? That's clearly an objective source.
Your 7th doesn't have ANY basis in truth and is pure speculation. Could you have at least provided some visual link to some family tree some
where?
Your 8th has no basis in rationale thought just because someone may or may not be affiliated with the Bilderberg organization. This suggests that you
buy into the conspiracy theory surrounding the organization (not that it's uncommon on this forum). Seriously though, I don't care. I do know that
the individual in question was one of the founders of PayPal, a business that I've used in the past and trust.
your 9th is based purely on a lighter if not, ridiculous question about age and taking office during one of the debates. Paul suggested that he would
release his medical records but that it would likely only be one page and then challenged the other candidates to a 25 mile bike ride in the heat of
Texas as a testament to his health and level of fitness. Later, he pointed out that such questions about age are prohibited by law (age
discrimination) when anyone seeks employment.
I'm not really sure why I took the time to reply to your cry for attention but, suffice it to say, not many here are going to buy into your drivel.
Do us all a favor next time, and "research" something a little less important so that we might at least be entertained for our time spent reading
your OP.
ESV
