[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, he was wrong to allow his name to be used without maintaining close editorial control over what was said.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the case, why did he defend the words as his own 4 years later, in the 1996 Houston Chronicle article?

And in 2001, why did he claim they were written by a staffer, rather than a source outside his campaign, as was asserted by "unnamed sources" in 2007?

[ QUOTE ]
I choose to believe those words were in fact not written by him because they are totally at odds with everything else he has said or written.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they are at odds with everything else he has said or written, why did he defend them in both 1996 and 2001 interviews as being accurate "in context to current events"?

[ QUOTE ]

When it comes down to it, it is impossible to prove one way or the other - ultimately we'll get nowhere.


[/ QUOTE ]


It may be impossible to prove whether or not Paul is inherently a racist, but it is most definately a matter of fact that he participated in asserting and defending these particular racist views, as backed by the facts above.

It had previously been asserted that these claims were false, hence the desire to discuss the relevant facts and credible sources in the abscence of childish name-calling and other rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
I choose to believe the side with *vastly* more evidence. You will keep harping on the same one thing. Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "one thing" appears to be the systematic defense of a despicably racist viewpoint over the course of 10+ years.

I understand you may think it "isn't a big deal", but this man is running for President, after all. It's kind of a big deal to the folks who Paul appears to be bigoted against.