Add new comment

Submitted by Griffin (not verified) on Thu, 2008-03-20 09:27.

The Paul quote is great. The rest of the article is drivel. Here's what I sent the Crypt:

Does John Bresnahan understand English?

He claims that Paul believes "Spitzer climbed to power on the backs of political enemies he destroyed, making him not a swell guy, but he didn't deserve what happened to him" and yet no where in the entire article does he support this claim. He then goes on to claim that we should read his quotation of Dr Paul "for the enlightenment it gives into Paul's view of the world, which basically comes down to who controls the money" and again does not support his claim.

I read what he quoted from Dr Paul. It does not defend Spitzer, and the only unusual views are those in the Constitution. According to Bresnahan, Paul feels that Spitzer was taken down by using the same tools he himself used against others, illegitimate tools prohibited by the Supreme Law of the Land. Paul is also quoted as having said, "Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong." Can Bresnahan explain how that is interpreted as a defense of Spitzer? It seems very straightforward to me.

Reply



The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


*

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <b> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will be automatically converted to links
Verify comment authorship
Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
*
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.