handy, then it would be great if you could post where to get them or see them. i've heard this over and over and over again but never have seen anyone produce anything real. It seems like it would be an easy question to torpedo him at the debates too, but no one has yet to ask it or bring it up....put up or...you know.

Also, for christ sake, leave Glenn alone. He's a human being...and not God. Its one thing to want to discuss an interesting point or two that you believe is up for debate, but for heaven's sake if you have lost faith in him as God or hate his guts, start your own damn blog and show him what's what!

I mean it. I'm not saying there aren't any, I just want to know if they really exist. Certainly, its important to me to know if someone I'm going to support thinks in that way or wants people to believe he does. Anyone out there that can source the Fleetfoot-gate?

Here's the link to the original Houston Chronicle article

http://www .chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I spaced betwwen the www and the .chron, so that no one thinks that this is spam or virus stuff--but please cut, past, fix and take a look. Ok, so I am convinced. According to the Chron, there is even more and worse-sounding stuff that Paul wrote in his newsletter about African Americans. The newsletter was not meant for public consumption but was only sent to affirmed supporters.

Additionally, the accusations were made in the context of a Texas congressional race in 1996 by Paul's democratic opponent, Charles Morris.

While I will continue to support Paul's stand against the Iraq war, and like the fact that he's out there in the Republican ranks to make the others look like buffoons, this is a little too much for me. You would have to explicity state these things in any examination of Ron Paul to get a fair portrait of him.

Just to clarify. I am not anti-Paul anymore than I am pro-Obama, Hillary or Kucinich. You don't get to be political contender for the office of President by being nice or honest. The bottom line is: who knows what any of these people think.

That being said. Everyone on both sides of our two party system should be judged with all the available information possible. Such scrutiny would still make Paul the only viable candidate on the Republican side, given what we know about the racism, homophobia, authoritarianism, bloodthirst and just sheer mendacity and plasticity of the other Republicans. An equal parsing of the Dems thins out the field quite a bit, too, leaving at best Kucinich. That is if you consider honesty, concreteness and lack of bs to be characteristic of viability.

Whatever Paul's views, he is the only one out there engaging in an honest debate about foreign policy and getting certain ideas into the mainstream. That is less a support of him, than an indictment of our political system and media.

But the media flooded the air-waves and RF-cables with "he's unwinnable" crap. That's what happened to Dean, it would be nice if people acknowledged that Dean wasn't simply an implosion, but an engineered routing, especially now when its relevant....

Given the fact that Democrats have been holding hands with the Republicans on this issue since day one. I think of all the ways Democrats could have done something. And then something like this happens and it really does make anyone who supports Dems look--to the average person--like a bunch of frivolous idiots. We could have cut the purse strings on this war years ago. And then there's the recent revelation of all the earmarks that Democrats score off these funding bills. Frankly, Democrats have completely lost the confidence of the entire nation over the last decade--at least Republicans have an agenda! Democrats seem to want to keep their constituency quiet while they do the dirty work with the Republicans.

This is quickly becoming the defacto blog of Chris Sinnard and others. It seems obvious that many of the anonymous responses to posts are probably their own in hiding. But please, can people stop responding to silly, insulting post-bait? They'll get bored and move on.

I think what's insidious about martial law and why it can and has worked here and everywhere is that it does not affect everybody. The government would just be going after x, y, and z--and the majority of people are a, b, and c. It seems reasonable to the majority, so the minority sacrifice. I have lived in towns with martial law during periods. In the 90's the SF city government banned all demonstrations during the Rodney King thing; most people supported that because most people don't protest. But the rest of us were in jail. The sheriff defended his policy by stating that no windows had been broken, and most nodded their heads in agreement.

Also, I lived in New Orleans when it had a 9 through 17 year old curfew--breakers of the curfew were jailed, but again, it seemed reasonable to most people who weren't in that age group. Just saying. In some sense, especially if you are Islamic or Arab, or even just black or latino, you are already experiencing some level of martial law.

...sheesh

damn it

I was all set to write something about Shooter's hallucinations but this was a perfect response.

"Would someone please be kind enough to let shooter out? I don't want to disturb the cat."

-- William Timberman

HA!