So what? that still doesn't change the fact that Paul didn't say that "Ed Brown is Gandhi/MLK", as was obviously implied by the comment. He simply used them as examples of civil disobedience in other contexts, and people like you read "Ed Brown" and "Gandhi", and decide to conflate everything and draw you own conclusions. You probably saw it posted on some blog you frequent and took their word for it instead of bothering to watch the clip yourself.

Paul:

you seem very excitable....

I am. My goat was feeling generous last night and I hopped up on all the kool aid.

Paul himself apparently doesn't have any solutions to our dilemmas, and at least as expressed by his devotees here, he doesn't mean what he says, he doesn't intend to follow through on his rhetoric, he proposes measures that he doesn't intend to support, and electing him would change nothing... immediately.

You seem to confusing Paul with all the other presidential candidates.

FYI, your use of italics in your quoting style doesn't help mask your presence. I guess we all have our tells?

Yeah, that income tax has sure paved the way for the US, hasn't it? The IRS and the Fed, using inflation to pave the road to empire since 1913. How Byzantine...

The way they tarred and feathered all of those tax collectors back in the day. Have things changed that much where taring and feathering someone is no longer considered a sign of respect?

If this blog disappeared tomorrow I would never have any contact with anyone in these comments again and my life would go on uninterrupted. I'll just spend more time trolling another board.

So what? Since when has that stopped anyone, including you, from assuming otherwise? That is why you attacked him on it using an argument that was taken out of context to begin with. Let me guess, you did it to show everyone how it does not necessarily mean that he believes these things himself? You tried to attack Paul with the Brown case but you didn't bother doing your homework, so now comes the talking. Keep talk talk talking, talker.

When he loses every primary.

They should bring up the recent indictment of Bernard Kerik, Ghoul's police commissioner, personal friend, and the man Ghoul's picked as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He was indicted for conspiracy, fraud, and making false statment under oath.

Ghouls like to brag about all this wisdom he has from his executive experience. It translates into a meme of "Giuliani has good judgement. Just look at 9/11"

His opponents want to hammer him, and they are already bringing this issue up. How can the people trust Ghoul's judgement, on sheer principle, if the man he recommended for the head of homeland security is even being indicted for lying to the White House, fraud, and conspiracy.

McCain has already started taking shots at the Kerik situation:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/09/post_192.html?hpid=topnews

Doesn't anybody remember his term as NYC mayor before 9/11/2001? No. We don't remember anything.

The other Republican candidates are going to remind everyone, using Kerik as an example.

how sorry I am that Glenn self-immolated on the Ron Paul bonfire, but as a socially retarded racist misogynist homophobic moron with delusions of grandeur I sure am enjoying Chris Sinnard's new blog here on Salon.

I comment on a handful of articles and it is my blog now? I'm flattered. I didn't know you had given it to me. Thanks, Darkie, but I know that it is Glenn's blog, not nobody Chris Sinnard' blog, and my presence doesn't even register as a mousefart. I am just glad that he is writing articles about RP.

Don't cry tiger, chin up. You'll have your ball back soon enough.

What's sad is how so many seem to have had GG painted a certain way, and then he goes and does something silly and what you perceive as "uncharacteristic", like writing a positive article about Ron Paul. Now you are all butthurt because your perceptions and expectations didn't match up, and so the effort is underway to get reprogram GG and get him back to "thinking" the way you expect him to.

To me, THAT is sad.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 9/11 is one of those taboos in America that is not to be discussed. You know, like AIPAC, the anything about the Eugenics movement, or the nature of the governments of our Democracy spreading Police State Friends in the War of Terror, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In the US, those who want to be perceived as "serious" are to label all of the above "conspiracy" and dismiss it. Poof. It's gone, just like that. No more controversy. Even Fearless Leader told us not to buy into "outrageous conspiracy theories". Do you dare challenge his highness the Chimperor?

There you go, you had to throw that hook in with the word "credible". I know that to you, any of the names I mention will not be considered "credible" by you. You will do nothing but pigeon hole whoever I name, make personal attacks, call them names, and smear them for not being "credible" enough, then promote the people you perceive as "credible", i.e. entrenched establishment mouthpieces, probably straight from the pages of Foreign Affairs, who are saying nothing but a churched up version of "stay the course". That is your modus operandi, so why bother naming names?

Nice try though. Who exactly is "credible"? Does credible mean supporting establishment positions re: everything?