PDA

View Full Version : Bradley present facts or shut up.




klamath
09-05-2008, 04:14 PM
You Bradley are the one making allegation against Paul's staff. If you have solid evidence that members of Ron Paul's staff are embezzling money it is you that had better start presenting unrefutable Facts. If what you say is true it is convicting Ron Paul. No one, not even a hands off person like Ron Paul would be able to bring members of his staff from organization to organization for the last twenty years and not know they are corrupt.
It is one thing to question leaders on their incompetence and entirely another when you start making accusation of embezzlement and you had better have your facts straight. If you really believe this, do not sneak around on public forums asking insinuating questions. You need to ask the people involved in private and you find enough evidence it is your duty to inform law enforcement.
If it is true you will be thanked by a heartsick group of people but If your accusations are false may you burn in hell for defaming and honorable man, his staff and his family.

It is time to clear the air or the entire CFL and works will come crashing down.

Below is the text of your statements.

"It's public record that Dr. Paul's 1988 campaign manager Nadia was convicted of embezzling six figures from a much smaller campaign war chest and went to jail for it. Kent Snyder, Joe Becker, Mike McHugh et al. were all part of her crew--and this one.

We know from that and the newsletters that, well, Dr. Paul is not a micromanager.

Joe Seehusen, I've been told by several of his former LP co-workers, was basically fired from the LP for funneling funds from their account to his "consulting" gigs and friends. Same circles who got lots of money to produce the "he's catching on" ads, etc.

As you pointed out in your Goldwater remembrance post (can't remember off-hand which thread), we know that there are people in politics who get in campaigns either to undermine them or for their own personal profit.

We know that the Congressional office and Lake Jackson thought the official presidential campaign in Arlington was spectacularly incompetently run. We know that many of them very close to Dr. Paul question whether those at the top aimed to win--and that they questioned Lew Moore's loyalty to Dr. Paul from a long time ago.

We know that the incompetents have been most aggressive and motivated only in attacking and lying about their critics. Saying Tom was disgruntled because he was fired (still CoS, last I saw) was a case in point. Whispering lies in the dark about me is another.

I'm saying your efforts to stifle whistleblowers and questioning is misplaced. I'd be happy to expound on all of these in the public forum if you'd like."
__________________

klamath
09-05-2008, 05:51 PM
Still waiting for 1 fact.

Bradley in DC
09-05-2008, 06:47 PM
There is fact and interpretation.

It is fact that Nadia Hayes ran Dr. Paul's 1988 race, was convicted for embezzlement and went to jail. The others I mentioned also worked on that campaign she managed.

It is what it is.

Do I know that there was embezzlement this time? No. (I'm not the guy to read the spreadsheets--I'm not qualified to make that charge.)

My point--interpretation--is that we should not just blindly follow unquestioningly people just because they work on an official campaign. Dr. Paul did not have those kinds of problems on his winning Congressional campaigns. My friends who worked on those winning ones (including the 2008 re-election one) have been unfailingly critical of the Arlington official presidential campaign headquarters.

More specifically, at a minimum, we know that some of the people running this past campaign don't know how to run campaigns (Dr. Paul got, what?, 15 votes?) and wouldn't know how to spot serious problems if they existed.

constituent
09-05-2008, 06:49 PM
You need to ask the people involved in private and you find enough evidence it is your duty to inform law enforcement.


fail.

absolute, indisputable fail.

right, wrong or otherwise, it is not ok to aid in putting someone else in the pokey.

in this regard the state never holds the higher ground.... no matter what comes of this, please understand that.

angelatc
09-05-2008, 07:28 PM
fail.

absolute, indisputable fail.

right, wrong or otherwise, it is not ok to aid in putting someone else in the pokey.

in this regard the state never holds the higher ground.... no matter what comes of this, please understand that.

If you respect property rights, then you need a means to enforce them. The proper thing to do is to go to the owner of the money and let them determine the best course of action.

klamath
09-05-2008, 08:06 PM
There is fact and interpretation.

It is fact that Nadia Hayes ran Dr. Paul's 1988 race, was convicted for embezzlement and went to jail. The others I mentioned also worked on that campaign she managed.

It is what it is.

Do I know that there was embezzlement this time? No. (I'm not the guy to read the spreadsheets--I'm not qualified to make that charge.)

My point--interpretation--is that we should not just blindly follow unquestioningly people just because they work on an official campaign. Dr. Paul did not have those kinds of problems on his winning Congressional campaigns. My friends who worked on those winning ones (including the 2008 re-election one) have been unfailingly critical of the Arlington official presidential campaign headquarters.

More specifically, at a minimum, we know that some of the people running this past campaign don't know how to run campaigns (Dr. Paul got, what?, 15 votes?) and wouldn't know how to spot serious problems if they existed.

It is fair to debate the competence of the campaign until doomday and there are definately questions on that, however when you believe there is criminal wrongdoing there is a need to investigate in private. The majority of us do not personally know RP and his staff and have to judge our moral path by what we read and hear. Questions asked on a public forum that insinuate that RP's staff from the get go were involved in embezzlement will without doubt stop every dollar being donated to RP and his causes. There are members here already prepping to turn in the paperwork to start a FEC invesgation.

In our legal system a man is innocent until proven guilty. Let us please try and keep that in mind that until RP and his staff are proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt all of us must believe he in innocent.

MsDoodahs
09-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Start a process of critical examination



It's public record that Dr. Paul's 1988 campaign manager Nadia was convicted of embezzling six figures from a much smaller campaign war chest and went to jail for it.

Above is a statement of fact.

Now, employ a process of critical examination on the following statement:



Kent Snyder, Joe Becker, Mike McHugh et al. were all part of her crew--and this one.

Notice the use of "her crew." Intended to bring an image into your mind of a gang of thugs.

Next, the use of "- and this one." Here the goal is to to lead the reader to the automatic assumption of guilt on the part of Kent Snyder, Joe Becker, Mike McHugh, et al. Seed of doubt is planted.



We know from that and the newsletters that, well, Dr. Paul is not a micromanager."

Above is a statement of Bradley's opinion. It happens to be one I share.

Now, employ a process of critical examination on the following statement:


Joe Seehusen, I've been told by several of his former LP co-workers, was basically fired from the LP for funneling funds from their account to his "consulting" gigs and friends. Same circles who got lots of money to produce the "he's catching on" ads, etc."

"I've been told by several of his former LP co-workers." Revelation that he does not have first hand knowledge.

"basically fired" is not "fired." Seed of doubt is planted.

"funneling funds" is a phrase that makes what went on sound illegal, but were charges ever filed or anyone convicted? The reader is left with a negative image.

"Same circles" is vague. Was it the same entity or not? The seed of doubt is planted.

"who got lots of money to produce the 'he's catching on' ads, etc." Uses the dreadful "he's catching on ads" to stir negative reaction among supporters who hated those ads.

Okay. That is how it is done.

Start your own process of critical examination.

freelance
09-06-2008, 05:29 PM
There is fact and interpretation.

It is fact that Nadia Hayes ran Dr. Paul's 1988 race, was convicted for embezzlement and went to jail. The others I mentioned also worked on that campaign she managed.

It is what it is.

Do I know that there was embezzlement this time? No. (I'm not the guy to read the spreadsheets--I'm not qualified to make that charge.)

My point--interpretation--is that we should not just blindly follow unquestioningly people just because they work on an official campaign. Dr. Paul did not have those kinds of problems on his winning Congressional campaigns. My friends who worked on those winning ones (including the 2008 re-election one) have been unfailingly critical of the Arlington official presidential campaign headquarters.

More specifically, at a minimum, we know that some of the people running this past campaign don't know how to run campaigns (Dr. Paul got, what?, 15 votes?) and wouldn't know how to spot serious problems if they existed.

Damn Bradley, while not qualifying as libel, your insinuation is really over the top, since you say here, "I am not qualified to make that charge." If you're "not qualified to make that charge," then why would you dance right up to the line of making the charge and sullying their reputations in a public forum. You realize, of course, that everything written on the Internet is forever?