Pimply Faced Youth Admits to being a Liar and a Hack

T

Timshel

New member
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"

Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.

I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"

I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:



Hi Berin,

Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp

Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]

Best,
Jamie
Click to expand...


When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"

Patience, indeed.

Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.

The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in Washington, DC--Jamie's hometown--has found its earliest and strongest supporters in DC's gay community. It would not surprise me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay individuals--not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major party Presidential candidate of any state ever.
 
Pimply Faced Youth Admits to being a Liar and a Hack


Crap, I thought this thread was going to be about canadiankid
 
Why was there a need to create another thread about the very same subject by the very same person who created it?

When faced with opposition .. run and create another thread.
 
RStringfield said:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"

Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.

I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"

I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:






When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"

Patience, indeed.

Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
Click to expand...
Are we really now saying that statements that appeared in the Ron Paul Survival Guide or whatever it is called, that had his name on it and was racist should not be attributed to him because a GHOST WRITER wrote it? Is that the line of shit being sold here. "Um well Congressman Paul's name appeared on the publication and it MOST of the time proported to be his thoughts and his ideas but JUST THIS ONE TIME a racist Ghost Writer wrote it and he didn't review nor did he denounce it UNTIL such time as he decided to run for President." Let's see......mmmmm nope ain't buying it.
 
Socrtease said:
Are we really now saying that statements that appeared in the Ron Paul Survival Guide or whatever it is called, that had his name on it and was racist should not be attributed to him because a GHOST WRITER wrote it? Is that the line of shit being sold here. "Um well Congressman Paul's name appeared on the publication and it MOST of the time proported to be his thoughts and his ideas but JUST THIS ONE TIME a racist Ghost Writer wrote it and he didn't review nor did he denounce it UNTIL such time as he decided to run for President." Let's see......mmmmm nope ain't buying it.
Click to expand...

No one this side of a lobotomy is buying that bullshit .. thus 10% in Iowa, probably no more than 10% in NH and Paul is relegated to the trash dump of wannabe candidates.
 
blackascoal said:
No one this side of a lobotomy is buying that bullshit .. thus 10% in Iowa, probably no more than 10% in NH and Paul is relegated to the trash dump of wannabe candidates.
Click to expand...

Not bad for a candidate you were labeling defunct long ago when he was at 1% and 2%. I'd say we've won this one black.
 
blackascoal said:
Why was there a need to create another thread about the very same subject by the very same person who created it?

When faced with opposition .. run and create another thread.
Click to expand...

BACkpedal proves he does not actually read anything that might challenge his views.

The other thread dealt specifically with Kirchner's claim that Paul attended a neo confederate seminar.

What opposition. You did not actually respond on that, last I saw. I don't count comments about Paul's supporters to be a real response.
 
Socrtease said:
Only where expectations were so low can 10% be seen as a win.
Click to expand...

BAC was running around chirping about how RP was stuck at 2% and would never amount to anything. At the very least, he's bringing issues to table that need to be looked at. He's also the only candidate that actually answers questions when asked.

Skewered. Again.
 
Socrtease said:
Only where expectations were so low can 10% be seen as a win.
Click to expand...

10% is a win.

Straightforward, total win. We were told that Paul would never creep above 1 or 2%. His sole purpose, despite Rstring's claim to the contrary, in entering the Presidential race was to draw attention to issues of civil liberties and small government.

He has accomplished that in spades. 10% might as well be 60% for how far he has come and the visibility he has gotten.
 
Beefy said:
BAC was running around chirping about how RP was stuck at 2% and would never amount to anything. At the very least, he's bringing issues to table that need to be looked at. He's also the only candidate that actually answers questions when asked.

Skewered. Again.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Socrtease said:
Are we really now saying that statements that appeared in the Ron Paul Survival Guide or whatever it is called, that had his name on it and was racist should not be attributed to him because a GHOST WRITER wrote it? Is that the line of shit being sold here. "Um well Congressman Paul's name appeared on the publication and it MOST of the time proported to be his thoughts and his ideas but JUST THIS ONE TIME a racist Ghost Writer wrote it and he didn't review nor did he denounce it UNTIL such time as he decided to run for President." Let's see......mmmmm nope ain't buying it.
Click to expand...

No, we are not. He bears responsibility, but I don't see any indication that he wrote it. Probably came from Dondero. It sounds like his voice. He denounced this stuff long ago.
 
RStringfield said:
BACkpedal proves he does not actually read anything that might challenge his views.

The other thread dealt specifically with Kirchner's claim that Paul attended a neo confederate seminar.

What opposition. You did not actually respond on that, last I saw. I don't count comments about Paul's supporters to be a real response.
Click to expand...

The other thread has almost the exact same title and only a complete fool who deny that Paul attended the Neoconfederate Movement fest.

I've posted that truth here many times.

There was hardly a need to create to of the same threads about a failure who is never going to copme anywhere close to relevance.
 
But more important YL tell me that you buy that something was Ghost written in Ron Paul's news letter, a news letter that, as I said, most time was his thoughts and his beliefs just this one time gets a racist rant in it and it was not seen, reviewed, edited or even KNOWN about by Ron Paul. You really buy that shit? Cause no one else would.
 
Young Libertarian said:
10% is a win.

Straightforward, total win. We were told that Paul would never creep above 1 or 2%. His sole purpose, despite Rstring's claim to the contrary, in entering the Presidential race was to draw attention to issues of civil liberties and small government.

He has accomplished that in spades. 10% might as well be 60% for how far he has come and the visibility he has gotten.
Click to expand...

10% by any measure is creamed and only seen as a "win" by peoople who don't know shit about politics.
 
RStringfield said:
No, we are not. He bears responsibility, but I don't see any indication that he wrote it. Probably came from Dondero. It sounds like his voice. He denounced this stuff long ago.
Click to expand...
If his name is on it the buck stops there. Not with Dondero. And even if it does have his voice PAUL LET IT GO OUT. How do you let racist shit go out with your name on it and not KNOW what is on it?
 
no no no BAC because he finished a whole 8 percent higher than you said he is a winner. Because he finished above someone that didn't even campaign in that state he is a winner. When we get to Florida and he beats Rudy there I will admit he's a winner. When we get to New York and he gets within 10 of Rudy I will admit he's a winner. Hell I bet he doesn't even win TEXAS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top