It's remarkable how you can squeeze so many errors into so few words.

First, GermanStar did not provide any more context than I did. He merely provided some other statements that Paul made that were remotely related to the part I quoted. When he complained that I didn't post the full article, I provided a link to it, even though the link was readily available through my original post.

Second, the "context" provided by GermanStar missed my point. The point of my original question was how a politician overcomes a statement attributed to him that "95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Regardless of how one takes that statement, I think it is a remarkable thing for a politician to say. My guess is that he will be punished by the voters for having said it, so context really has little to do with the point of my post. That is not because I am not interested in context. It is because context is hard to convey to the voters.

Third, you have again accused me of dishonesty. Whenever I have called you on it in the past, you have provided "substantiation" that was completely beside the point. If you would take the time to read what I say, and only what I say, without adding your own interpretations, then you would know that your accusation is baseless. Of course, since we are complete strangers, you should already know that your slur against me is without any basis.

Fourth, you have constantly misinterpreted what I've said. For example, you still don't understand why Bill Clinton's statements in 1998 do not relate to the statements I made about George Bush. You made a good point with those quotes from 1998, and I said so at the time, but the point you made has nothing to do with what I said about W.

Fifth, the moderators have asked us to refrain from personal insults. Why do you disrespect their reasonable request?