It actually does fit his writing style pretty well- the only difference is the position taken, which has been against racism (though only because it's "collectivism", that Randian bogeyman) ever since he started getting attention from the country at large rather than simply from Texas. As to Texas Monthly and the NY Times, I reject your appeal to authority and note that CBS believed that the Bush documents were real.
I only mentioned NYT and TM to show that there are people who have looked at the comments and accepted Paul's explanation. I didn't see it as making my argument true, just that not everyone agrees with the assertion that Ron Paul is a racist. I guess I'm just not inclined to agree with you on the writing style. The racist comments have a large use of basic adjectives that aren't as present in Paul's writing, and there is an obsession with race in the particular article that is nowhere else present in his writings. Like I said, I just don't see it. If you disagree, that's fine. I didn't really expect us to agree on this issue.
In the writings which he's chosen to make public, anyway.
But hey, let's ignore reality for a moment and suppose that Ron Paul didn't write that article from the Ron Paul Survivor Report. In that case, he's so incompetent that he apparently can't keep people from publishing racist filth with his name on it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ineffabelle) wrote2007-11-19 04:47 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
But hey, let's ignore reality for a moment and suppose that Ron Paul didn't write that article from the Ron Paul Survivor Report. In that case, he's so incompetent that he apparently can't keep people from publishing racist filth with his name on it.
no subject
no subject
...unless I'm right.
no subject