james1844
10-18-2007, 09:01 PM
Hi All,
Here is a lame weekly standard piece trying to deconstruct Paul's military support.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
Here is my response to it. I think this is a good approach.
------------------------------------------
Michael,
I'm surprised with you. I just read your piece criticizing Ron Paul's support from the military. What I don't get is why you're so critical.
Out of all the republican candidates currently running, Ron Paul has been the staunchest supporter of the rights of journalists such as yourself. Under a constitutionalist Paul presidency your right to write and advocate any position you choose would be explicitly protected under the first amendment.
Under a more security minded candidate like Giuliani your free speech rights would take a back seat to security concerns.
In short its not in your interest to criticize Paul, it baffles me why you're doing so.
Thanks,
James Carl Hendrickson
Here is a lame weekly standard piece trying to deconstruct Paul's military support.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
Here is my response to it. I think this is a good approach.
------------------------------------------
Michael,
I'm surprised with you. I just read your piece criticizing Ron Paul's support from the military. What I don't get is why you're so critical.
Out of all the republican candidates currently running, Ron Paul has been the staunchest supporter of the rights of journalists such as yourself. Under a constitutionalist Paul presidency your right to write and advocate any position you choose would be explicitly protected under the first amendment.
Under a more security minded candidate like Giuliani your free speech rights would take a back seat to security concerns.
In short its not in your interest to criticize Paul, it baffles me why you're doing so.
Thanks,
James Carl Hendrickson