Can Ron Paul win the WH if Rand Paul loses?

[specsaregood]

I agree that the statements on the newsletter aren't really that bad.
But this is what the media will do: It will repeat the following statement 24/7:

order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went to pick up their welfare checks

But is it true? Do the dates match up? Just wondering, not making judgements or claims.

 

[erowe1]

LOL. That is the convention.

Exactly.

 

[low preference guy]

All the words that are not in quotation marks are the writer's own words.

Which definition of "make up" are you using?

Are you using this one "fabricate: make up something artificial or untrue "?

So whenever someone puts something that is not in quotes is a lie?

 

[low preference guy]

But is it true? Do the dates match up? Just wondering, not making judgements or claims.

I don't know if it's true, but that's not really important for the media, unless Ron finds a way to fight them.

 

[erowe1]

Which definition of "make up" are you using?

Are you using this one "fabricate: make up something artificial or untrue "?

So whenever someone puts something that is not in quotes is a lie?

I'm not saying it's a lie. It's just the writer's own inference, and is not presented as anything more than that, and the reader has no reason to take it as anything more than that. If the writer wanted to lie and say that Williams clearly endorsed RP for president in Williams' own words, then he could have just made up a quote and misattributed it to Williams. But rather than lie he just said it as his own inference on the basis of the quote that he actually does attribute to Williams, which, again, is conspicuously not an endorsement.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not saying it's a lie. It's just the writer's own inference and is not presented as anything more than that. If the writer wanted to lie and say that Williams clearly endorsed RP for president in Williams' own words, then he could have just made up a quote and misattributed it to Williams. But rather than lie he just said it as his own inference on the basis of the quote that he actually does attribute to Williams, which, again, is conspicuously not an actual endorsement.

You did say that it's a lie when you said he made it up.

the Washington Times made it up

 

[erowe1]

You did say that it's a lie when you said he made it up.

Well, now that I've explained exactly what I meant by "made up" in the very quote which you give, your misunderstanding is hereby cured.

 

[low preference guy]

So you didn't say it's a lie? OK, there was no point in arguing then.

 

[specsaregood]

I don't know if it's true, but that's not really important for the media, unless Ron finds a way to fight them.

I realize that, was just wondering. The end of the riots does appear to coincide though with the checks getting out.

Jackson also visited a post office where hundreds of people were lined up waiting for their monthly Social Security or welfare checks. Many had no idea where they would cash the checks or spend the money on necessities because of the destruction of so many neighborhood shops and businesses.

http://100years.upi.com/sta_1992-05-01.html

And I can't find an exact quote, just lots of references but yes it does appear that the US postal service at the time announced they would stop deliverying mail to the areas affected by the riots until the riots were over.

So it very well could be true...

 

[skyorbit]

William's actually did endorse Ron Paul. He stated during the Mallard Fillmore incident that Ron Paul was already in the race and he'd support Paul.

Tracy

 

[erowe1]

William's actually did endorse Ron Paul. He stated during the Mallard Fillmore incident that Ron Paul was already in the race and he'd support Paul.

Tracy

The article we're talking about was during that. As far as I know, this is the entire basis for saying he endorsed RP.

Edit: Interestingly, wikipedia says he confirmed it in a lecture. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

 

[sailingaway]

I realize that, was just wondering. The end of the riots does appear to coincide though with the checks getting out.


http://100years.upi.com/sta_1992-05-01.html

And I can't find an exact quote, just lots of references but yes it does appear that the US postal service at the time announced they would stop deliverying mail to the areas affected by the riots until the riots were over.

So it very well could be true...

LOL!!

I read it as a snarky joke, I think it's hilarious you actually checked the dates...

 

[Agorism]

Doesn't seem like he was a big advocate of Paul though.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Anything that mentions black people in connection with anything negative is racist.

Your comments, for instance, are certainly racist. This entire thread is racist. Everyone here is racist for not immediately condemning you as a racist. If you try to deny it by saying "I am not a racist", that just makes your racism all the more insidious.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

A Rand Paul victory is critical. The primary win already gives Ron 6 months of glory.

 

[anaconda]

Rand will likely win (I suspect by another landslide as I think the controversies will actually result in an eventual bump ). I think Ron will run in 2012 and will convert another few million. If the Tea Party movement escalates, Rand may be a serious Presidential candidate in 2012. Then it may become strategy time as Ron and Rand will not want to split the Tea Party vote. If they are both polling high come primary time, one needs to drop out and endorse the other. I guess. Or something like that..

 

[KYJacksonian]

Rand will likely win (I suspect by another landslide as I think the controversies will actually result in an eventual bump ). I think Ron will run in 2012 and will convert another few million. If the Tea Party movement escalates, Rand may be a serious Presidential candidate in 2012. Then it may become strategy time as Ron and Rand will not want to split the Tea Party vote. If they are both polling high come primary time, one needs to drop out and endorse the other. I guess. Or something like that..

Well, I certainly wouldn't look to have two Pauls running on the GOP side. If Ron runs, I'd support him, but I would suspect that Ron would be vulnerable to an age argument; he looks great but 77 is 77. Rand represents youth and vigor.

OTOH, Reagan parried the age argument quite nicely.

 

[Fozz]

Rand will likely win (I suspect by another landslide as I think the controversies will actually result in an eventual bump ). I think Ron will run in 2012 and will convert another few million. If the Tea Party movement escalates, Rand may be a serious Presidential candidate in 2012.

No.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rand will likely win (I suspect by another landslide as I think the controversies will actually result in an eventual bump ). I think Ron will run in 2012 and will convert another few million. If the Tea Party movement escalates, Rand may be a serious Presidential candidate in 2012. Then it may become strategy time as Ron and Rand will not want to split the Tea Party vote. If they are both polling high come primary time, one needs to drop out and endorse the other. I guess. Or something like that..

To have *both* Ron Paul and Rand Paul running for President, competing for the GOP nomination??? That would be a hilarious scenario out of bizarro world, but I would laugh and love every minute if it happened!