The folly of progressives for Paul

[ProSense]

21. Well,

"Clarity...Yes, Atkins did try. He did a lazy job of it. I'd rather he didn't try and let someone more able do the job."

...I got that from your first comment. You didn't like the piece. What I don't get is why you tried to claim he didn't address the issues (as your comment above concedes) and then threw the newsletters into the argument?

Defensive? Yes, clearly that must be it. I'm sure it's not that I carefully delineate exactly what I'm saying because of the general gotcha tendency on this board. I'm sure that I'm not careful so that I can keep the lines of debate open instead of allowing them to be closed with a simple epithet: Paul-lover or something similar. This forum is full of people who love to read what they want instead of what's written and who will jump to conclusions faster than a jackrabbit. All that does is close minds and keep the old status quo arguments and thinking chugging along. Rather than have a debate of personalities, I'm a bit of an idealist who would prefer an actual debate of ideas. I must be crazy.

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Oh, and to my previous comment, current opposition to the Afghanistan war isn't unique to Paul. It also wasn't an intervention, and he voted for that war.