Tis is so desperate! A sad desperate attempt at smear, politics as usual for neocons, wait until they swiftboat McCain again, as they did on his last grab. The key to unraveling Kirchick's smear is the complete inaccuracy of his central claim - the contention that Ron Paul hates Martin Luther King and advocates the comments of others who inferred that King was a sexual pervert and a pedophile.
If Kirchick had bothered to actually check Ron Paul's voting record (real research doesn't seem to be his forte) he would have learned that on one of the very rare occasions when the Congressman has voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recogn...

Tis is so desperate! A sad desperate attempt at smear, politics as usual for neocons, wait until they swiftboat McCain again, as they did on his last grab. The key to unraveling Kirchick's smear is the complete inaccuracy of his central claim - the contention that Ron Paul hates Martin Luther King and advocates the comments of others who inferred that King was a sexual pervert and a pedophile.
If Kirchick had bothered to actually check Ron Paul's voting record (real research doesn't seem to be his forte) he would have learned that on one of the very rare occasions when the Congressman has voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.
"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January," writes Politifact.com.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010808_yellow_journalism.htm

Ron Paul is absolutely correct when he claims a revolution is beginning. And not only a revolution where lazy Americans finally wake up to realize how the real world works, but a revolution where Americans can achieve the ideals of political correctness without screwing it up so badly. I’m glad Paul is saying these “controversial” things, at least there’s SOME human being saying it! The reason why the controversy label is used is because the American public doesn’t want to be fed truth! The longer the American public tries to discard the legitimate theories Paul holds about government, politics, ethics and economics, the more the American public bears itself into an obsolete, overly orthodox...

Ron Paul is absolutely correct when he claims a revolution is beginning. And not only a revolution where lazy Americans finally wake up to realize how the real world works, but a revolution where Americans can achieve the ideals of political correctness without screwing it up so badly. I’m glad Paul is saying these “controversial” things, at least there’s SOME human being saying it! The reason why the controversy label is used is because the American public doesn’t want to be fed truth! The longer the American public tries to discard the legitimate theories Paul holds about government, politics, ethics and economics, the more the American public bears itself into an obsolete, overly orthodox, Victorian-like mindset that will screw over this country and has many times before. Be a kid again! Don’t throw around the word controversy so lightly! Start asking yourself if the established wisdom is really the ideology that’s tainted and/or corrupt! And above all, dig a little deeper into what Paul’s really saying with his statements.

Has anyone ever read any of the newsletters? There have been a couple released already where he uses first person and mentions his wife by name and talks about people he was working with in congress at the time they were written. If he didn't write them, then he should be suing the guy who didn't just write them in his name, but wrote them pretending to be him. And all the while, he was making money off those newsletters too. Heck, if he really didn't write them, then those subscribing to the newsletter should sue Paul, because they were sure written in a manner to make it seem as if it was him with the exception of a few issues where the guest author was named.

Me, I'm not big on conspirac...

Has anyone ever read any of the newsletters? There have been a couple released already where he uses first person and mentions his wife by name and talks about people he was working with in congress at the time they were written. If he didn't write them, then he should be suing the guy who didn't just write them in his name, but wrote them pretending to be him. And all the while, he was making money off those newsletters too. Heck, if he really didn't write them, then those subscribing to the newsletter should sue Paul, because they were sure written in a manner to make it seem as if it was him with the exception of a few issues where the guest author was named.

Me, I'm not big on conspiracies when there is a simple explanation that makes sense, and in this case, the simple explanation is that he wrote the newsletters.