If I may ask, and you are of course under no obligation to answer, but I was just wondering... why such an ardent fervor in the effort to seek out and then post here only the items which portray Ron Paul in a negative light, rather than trying to find a balanced honest light, to search for the complete truth instead of a settling for (or worse, promoting) a skewed truth?
It's a fair question, and I don't mind answering. To paraphrase the leading conservative radio voice, I
am balance. We aren't acting as news reporters here, and what we say doesn't have to be "fair and balanced", or objective. My recent posts about Ron Paul are no more biased than those made by his supporters that sing his praises to the heavens with no mention of the possibility of him having some negative issues. For an example of "ardent fervor", I suggest checking out the thread someone pointed out involving the "12/15 Debate Analysis" - specifically posts #2 and #4 about Michelle Bachmann.
On the flip side, one might ask a similar question of the Ron Paul supporters:
"Why such an ardent fervor in the effort to seek out and then post here only the items which portray Ron Paul in a positive light, rather than trying to find a balanced honest light, to search for the complete truth instead of a settling for (or worse, promoting) a skewed truth?"
This concept of rooting against someone, rather than for someone, mystifies me. It's like those who actually root for a new movie to fail at the box office. Why would they do that? In the case of Ron Paul, why would you do that? This isn't sarcasm, it's a serious question.
I'm not necessarily rooting against Ron Paul - I just don't think he's the best available candidate for the GOP nomination. People seen to be evaluating Gingrich and Romney by examining all their positives and negatives to arrive at a final conclusion - why not do the same with Paul?
By elaborating on the newsletter questions (which were originated by somebody else) and the John Birch Society business, I'm bringing to light the potential problems that will surely be introduced by his political opponents if he becomes a serious national candidate. The "baggage" of every other candidate - especially Gingrich - has been brought out for inspection and there's no reason Paul should be exempt from this process.
Since this is already a too-long answer to a short question, here's one more thought: disagreement with a political position does
not equate to
"hate" - period. Anyone (obviously not you) who tries to portray it as such is simply relying on a
lame emotional response because they lack a substantive counter-argument. There's no reason to gratuitously attack somebody's
personal integrity, honesty and
intelligence because of a difference in politics. I would ask "why can't everyone just play nice?" - but we all know that ain't gonna happen
