On Feb 10, 12:03 am, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:41 am, George Dance wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 3:14 am, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 8, 7:04 pm,GeorgeDance wrote:
>>>>>> newsletter.
>
>>>> It wasn't "his newsletter." He didn't print it. He wasn't the
>>>> publisher.
>
>>> Umm...yes he was!
>
>> Oh? Let's see your evidence, then.
Reread. CNN doesn't say he was the publisher. It says the articles
were "published under his name." Which they were. That doesn't make
him the publisher (and in fact he wasn't; my FAQ, which you obviously
didn't read, explains that).
> Do look at it this time, won't you? I read your bullshit link.
>
Oh, really? Yet you missed all this:
3. WHO was in charge?
3.1 "The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to
which Ron Paul lent his name." (3)
3.2 "Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron
Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report." (5)
3.3 "Timothy Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the
libertarian magazine Liberty, told reason.... 'I understood that
Burton S. Blumert was the moneybags that got all this started, that he
was the publisher,' Virkkala said. 'Lew Rockwell, editor and chief
writer; Jeff Tucker, assistant, probably a writer; Murray Rothbard,
cheering from the sidelines, probably ghosting now and then.'" (5)
3.4 "In the 1980s Nadia Hayes was Newsletter Publisher. Her assistant
was Jean McCiver.... Hayes was forced to resign ... in late 1988....
McIver then took over. She was assisted by David Mertz, better known
as David James" (7)
3.5 "Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less
Editor." (7)
3.6 "For the period in question, early 1990s, post Nadia Hayes, David
James, Jean McIver and Marc Elam were the entire Production Team and
Editors of the Newsletters." (7)
For citations see:
The "Newsletters" FAQ ver. 1.2
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435.html
>
>>> Was not the newsletter entitled the "Ron Paul Political Report"?
>
>> Until 1993, when it became the "Ron Paul Survival Report." Your
>> point?
>> [duplicate link snippped]
>
> The point, moron, is that's it's a little hard for him to claim he had
> nothing to do with it when his FUCKING NAME IS PART OF THE TITLE!
>
Don't lie, dearie; he never claimed "he had nothing to do with it." He
had a minority interest in the company that published the newsletters,
and wrote a minority of the articles. Read the CNN article you cited,
and you'll see what he actually claimed; that he hadn't written, or
read, the statements that were quoted. "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." (4)
For citations see:
The "Newsletters" FAQ ver. 1.2
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435.html
>
>>>> He wasn't the editor. He wasn't the author of those
>>>> statements.
>
>>> So who was?
>
>> Jean McIver, assisted by David Mertz.
>
>>> Why did Paul print them in his newsletter?
>
Sorry, I thought you were asking who the editor was. Jean McIver was
the editor/publisher, and Mertz was her assistant. I have no more idea
than anyone else who wrote those articles.
>> Maybe you should just read the articles and FAQ I linked to.
>
> No thanks,
Then why did you say earlier that you had read them? Do you wonder why
you get called a liar, when you contradict yourself so frequently?
> I'd rather not waste my time with another bullshit
> article. Just tell us here.
>
Anyone who's interested in learning about the subject will get a
better idea from reading the cited material; since that doesn't
include you, there's no point in talking to you at all except for the
opportunity to bump my articles.
So let's do that again:
The Ron Paul Reports
Separating fact from fiction regarding Ron Paul's newsletters from
the early 1990's.
- by George Dance
http://www.nolanchart.com/author383.html
>
>>>>Only one article is arguably "racist". Most of the so-
>>>> called "racism" is attacks on black liberal or progressive
>>>> politicians; RPPR also attacked white liberal or progressive
>>>> politicians.
>
>>> "A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron
>>> Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order
>>> was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to
>>> pick up their welfare checks.""
>
>> That's "one" quote from one article. (The very article I just
>> mentioned, BTW.)
>
> One is more than enough.
>
What's wrong with that statement? It's a statement of fact: the riots
stopped the day the welfare cheques came out. It's not nice pointing
out the rioters' color, but that's a matter of fact as well.
>
>>> First off, a "series" is more than one. And the above quote sure as
>>> hell doesn't look like an attack on liberals.
>
>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>>> Apparently, you can't count.
>
>> I count one quote in the above. How many did you get?
>
> Not only can I count, I can read. "A series of newsletters in the
> name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist
> remarks".
>
> Got that? A SERIES!
As I just explained, bimbo, CNN is including attacks on black liberal
and progressive politicians as part of the 'series.'
> Last time I checked, a series is more than one.
>
CNN does give one other quote, later in the article, for a grand total
of TWO. And yes, two is more than one. If you want to call two
articles a series, go right ahead.
>
>
>>> Oh, geeeeeee, that's reeeeeeeaaaaaaallll credible when compared to CNN
>>> and the New Republic
>
>> TNR already has been caught, twice, faking stories.
>
> Uh huh. Yeah. Sure. Right. Cite?
>
I haven't written that article yet, so I'll have to cite wikipedia:
1. "Stephen Glass scandal
"In 1998, features writer Stephen Glass was revealed in a Forbes
magazine investigation to have fabricated a story called "Hack
Heaven". A TNR investigation found that most of Glass' stories had
used or been based on fabricated information. The story of Glass's
fall and TNR editor Chuck Lane's handling of the scandal was
dramatized in a 2003 film Shattered Glass, based on a 1998 article in
Vanity Fair.[18]"
2. "Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy
Main article: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy
"In July 2007, after The New Republic published an article by an
American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops," allegations of
inadequate fact-checking were leveled against the magazine. Critics
alleged that the piece contained inconsistent details indicative of
fabrication. The identity of the anonymous soldier, Scott Thomas
Beauchamp, was revealed. Beauchamp was married to Elspeth Reeve, one
of the magazine's three fact-checkers. As a result of the controversy,
the New Republic and the United States Army launched investigations,
reaching different conclusions.[26][27][28]
"As of December 1, 2007, an article titled "The Fog of War" and
bearing the byline of Franklin Foer, postdate December 10, 2007, has
been available for professional critique. In the article, Foer writes
that the magazine can no longer stand behind the stories written by
Beauchamp.[29][30]"
For citations, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
>> Jamie may end up
>> as third case.
>
> Doubtful, since they were able to present the articles themselves as
> evidence.
Bimbo, I'm talking about Jamie Kirchick's earlier attempted expose,
about the Paul campaigning refusing to take calls from Jews. I don't
expect you to read anything, but for the benefit of any interested
readers,
Please read: "Kirchick, Paul and anti-Semitism"
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2564.html
>And since CNN is backing them up on this one.
>
No, CNN has dropped the story.
>>(Did you actually read my latest article on Kirchick?
>
> Who?
Jamie Kirchick, the author of the New Republic article mentioned in
your CNN story. Do try to learn something about what you're talking
about.
>>> , not to mention the words in Ron Paul's
>>> newsletter which, I should point out, HAS HIS NAME ON IT!!!!
>> No.
> "Ron Paul Political Report" Is his name not Ron Paul? Liar.
>>> QuotingDancein defence ofDance...wow, who'd a thought it?
>
>> I quote a lot of people, including your CNN article, as you may have
>> noticed.
>
> Quoting, but apparently not reading.
>
Yet you seem to be unaware of what that article actually says; either
that or you can't understand the meaning of:
"None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them"
>>> Not to mention in your half-assed article, you never actually
>>> challenge the evidence presented by CNN and the New Republic, just go
>>> on some bizarre tangent about the Daily Kos.
>
So you don't know anything about the Daily Kos' articles on the
newsletters, either. Figures.
>> Six articles so far, dear (speaking of not being able to count 8)
>
> I was only counting the ones which were actually relevant.
>
The entire series is relevant. Here, let's do another bump to let the
interested reader (if any) judge for himself.
The Ron Paul Reports
Separating fact from fiction regarding Ron Paul's newsletters from
the early 1990's.
- by George Dance
http://www.nolanchart.com/author383.html
>
>
>>> Damn, you're retarded.
>
>> That the best you can do? As Colbert says, It wouldn't be funny if it
>> weren't so sad.
>
> LOL, by my book I'm slapping you silly.
Yes, sooner or later in these threads you always get around to telling
your opponent that. That's one reason I've classed you as a kook.
And the following is an example of what I like to call your 'fantasy
world':
> Instead of challenging the
> facts, you just fall back on some inane, poorly-written looneytarian
> screeds written by some unknown right-wing hack which don't come close
> to making a case.
