who wants pudding?

Who are you saying lied? About what?

If you discovered a lie by someone in the story you linked to, please share it; I've read it several times, and have yet to see it.

What you do have is Ron Paul saying (in 1996) that descriptions of some articles in his old newsletters as being racist were name-calling, race-baiting, and demogoguery; and saying (in 2001 and 2008) that he didn't write those articles. No lie there.

No, I'm sorry, I really did mean to identify myself as the liar - the previous post said it would be the last on the topic, and it wasn't...

Sort of cherry-picking, aren't you? Note that he at the time did not deny writing them. He's saying now that he "couldn't" deny it back then. But his comments from the time do more than "fail to deny":

"Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"'If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?' Dr. Paul asked.

"In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"'If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,' Dr. Paul said.

"He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

"Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: 'Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.'

'These aren't my figures,' Dr. Paul said Tuesday. 'That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.'"

That's just from the first article quoted in the Reason article, from the Dallas Morning News, May 22, 1996. So, if he: didn't write the articles; knew at the time he didn't write them; finds and has always found such sentiments reprehensible; and wanted to deny writing them, but "couldn't", why did he go the opposite direction in 1996 and defend them?

Note that in his interview with Wolf Blitzer, he also said that he didn't read the newsletters... "Matter of fact, some of the things you just read, i wouldn't have recognized them."

To give him the benefit of the doubt, let's say he forgot. Someone else wrote something in his name that got him accused before and now again as being a racist, but it wasn't apparently very memorable for him...

How much of this can the reasonable person buy? How flexible is reality?(http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/10/ron-paul-talks-to-wolf-blitzer-about-the-newsletter-story/)

He's right about the war. He's right about some other things. Kudos to his supporters that want and are willing to fight for change. I just think a common sense look at this situation, whether you agree with his politics or not, says it's the wrong guy.

Rob you're wasting time talking too much sense to a band of people that NEVER make sense. Their "logic" continues to defy and they're too blind to begin interpreting what you say. I apologize for being nearly as hystrionic as these Ron Paul internet-trolls (NEARLY.), but you're trying to have a dialogue with people who won't listen. Show me an avid Ron Paul fanatic who, after seeing evidence that his leanings might be less-than-noble, that he just might conflict with their values, then decides that Ron Paul is not their candidate -- I will regain a bit of faith in humanity.

Oh, and one of my new favorites is the argument "so? even if he is a racist that doesn't mean he can't be a good president." GULP. Really?!?! You're not kidding when you say that???? As Flavor Flav would say, wowwwwwwwwww.

Now, knowing you to be fair-minded to a fault, I understand if you choose not to let my post live. But I'm willing to be the voice of "what the hell are you guys thinking" if you'll allow it.