Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign?

[MaGZ]

Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-refuses-return-white-446045.html

[Ausmerican]

Not many people are likely to follow that link. Unless, of course, they are in need of a laxative or ipecac, the functions of which reading the forums at stormfront can uncannily reproduce in rational people. But it seems like too much effort to have to shower after every couple of posts you read there.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I heard he received funds from alien pedophile baby killers.
:jaw-dropp

[Matteo Martini]

Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-refuses-return-white-446045.html

A donation of USD500 to influence a campaign which has raised USD18millions ( so far )?
Uh..
BTW, maybe Ron Paul should give back that money.
Dunno

[billydkid]

Influencing??? What does that mean? Because some ******** and idiots are stupid enough to contribute to a campaign that they are too stupid to recognize the anti-thesis of all they stand for, somehow that tars Ron Paul and he is being influenced by them? Is he supposed to screen every single contribution from a hundred thousand people in order to determine what their personal beliefs and foibles are? Is the money going to do more good in the hands of a man believes fundamentally in civil rights and civil liberties for all people or in the hands of white supremacists? Ron Paul has said, sure, I'll take their money. Their stupid to give it to me since I don't agree with them at all, but if they want to do that I'll use it to spread the message of liberty.

[Matteo Martini]

Influencing??? What does that mean? Because some ******** and idiots are stupid enough to contribute to a campaign that they are too stupid to recognize the anti-thesis of all they stand for, somehow that tars Ron Paul and he is being influenced by them? Is he supposed to screen every single contribution from a hundred thousand people in order to determine what their personal beliefs and foibles are? Is the money going to do more good in the hands of a man believes fundamentally in civil rights and civil liberties for all people or in the hands of white supremacists? Ron Paul has said, sure, I'll take their money. Their stupid to give it to me since I don't agree with them at all, but if they want to do that I'll use it to spread the message of liberty.

That was my point.

[The Mysterian]

He should renounce their support and donate the $ - that Don Black gave him - to maybe a Jewish organization. That ought to get those guys going!!

[The Mysterian]

He should renounce their support and donate the $500, that Don Black gave him, to maybe a Jewish organization. That ought to get those guys going!! LOL.

BTW, Paul has said in his own words he would have not supported the 1964 (?) Civil Rights Bill. There was also that statement written in his newsletter some years back saying that 'blacks were fleet footed.' So yes there is something to it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

BTW, Paul has said in his own words he would have not supported the 1964 (?) Civil Rights Bill.

I would recommend you look into more than just the headline. What was his reasoning?

[Donal]

Influencing??? What does that mean? Because some ******** and idiots are stupid enough to contribute to a campaign that they are too stupid to recognize the anti-thesis of all they stand for,

Wrong topic, guy. We are talking about white supremacists donating to Ron Paul. Thats kind of like oil drillers donating to Bush.

What described was more like Green Peace activists donating to Bush.

[rtalman]

Maybe I just have rose-colored glasses on, but I think that a candidate should not accept campaign donations from questionable sources. To her credit, Hillary Clinton returned campaign money tied to Hsu, and also returned money from Bill Clinton's 11th hour pardons. Edwards returned money from an attorney with a checkered past. Biden returned money from an oilman tied to the oil for food scandal.

No question in my mind; Ron Paul should return the money not just from Don Black, but any money donated through Stormfront.

[MaGZ]

Recently Ron Paul on Meet the Press said that Abe Lincoln should not have started the Civil War, saying losing 600,000 people was not worth fighting the conflict. This will win him support in the South where some think the South had the right to leave the Union. I suspect there is some overlap with those who believe this and the readers of Stormfront.

[rtalman]

Recently Ron Paul on Meet the Press said that Abe Lincoln should not have started the Civil WarSo he is as ignorant of history as he is misguided about the non-existent NAU. Good to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

[The Mysterian]

I would recommend you look into more than just the headline. What was his reasoning?

From the Ron Paul board!! Here it is!


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[144]



On The Voting Rights Act of 1965:



In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[143] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[144] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas' representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[145] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[145] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, Queens.[146]


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29809


This is the 21st Century not the 19th!!

[billydkid]

Recently Ron Paul on Meet the Press said that Abe Lincoln should not have started the Civil War, saying losing 600,000 people was not worth fighting the conflict. This will win him support in the South where some think the South had the right to leave the Union. I suspect there is some overlap with those who believe this and the readers of Stormfront.But you leave off a significant point - slavery would have ended well before the end of the 19th century without any war and without the deaths of all of these people. And up to this point is was widely assumed that the United States was a voluntary association of more or less independent states. Lincoln has been painted as a saint by history. The truth is much darker and more complicated than that.

[ZenFountain]

But you leave off a significant point - slavery would have ended well before the end of the 19th century without any war and without the deaths of all of these people.

The argument I most often hear along these lines is that slavery ended in other parts of the world, most notably England, relatively peacefully as nations industrialized and slave labor became impractical. However, that argument never seems to account for the prejudice and segregation that was ingrained into the deep south and would go on for another century after the failure of reconstruction with the same hypocritical states' rights arguments being used to defend Jim Crow. If The Confederacy was really about states' rights they should not have made protection of slavery mandatory for member states.

Not being an expert in the Civil War beyond Ken Burns level, I concluded that the Civil War was little more than another rich mans war fought by the poor man. Wealthy Southern aristocrats wanted slavery protected against all enemies with free trade and wealthy Northern industrialist wanted the southern states to industrialize and throw up throw up protective tariffs. At the mid level you had progressive idealist in the North that wanted slavery abolished and traditionalist in the South full of prejudice against "the negro race" and deeply suspicious of perceived Northern aggression against their way of life. It should come as no surprise that Buchanan and Piece are also considered two of the most ineffective leaders in American history, setting the stage for irreconcilable differences between North and South in 1861.

The Civil War is really a topic in of itself though and I admit that my knowledge here is lacking, I honestly tried to interest myself in pre-20th century American history in college but always found myself more interested in 20th century American history and classical history.

Moving on to Ron Paul, I have wondered what would happen if the so called modern states' rights crowd had their way with abortion and same sex unions. I do not imagine it would tear the union apart the same way slavery did on an ethical level, but I can imagine such a policy being a very bloody thorn in the side of state governments. What good would it do if abortion was banned in say, Kansas but legal in Colorado and Missouri? Any Kansan wanting an abortion could simply travel to Colorado or Missouri, only burdening them with travel and not preventing abortions.

Likewise, if same sex unions were recognized by the federal government but states were allowed to ban them for state law purposes and not obliged to recognized same sex unions consecrated in other states, you have only limited the states in which same sex couples can reside in while enjoying the full legal benefits of a union. I have always found the Paul position of not recognizing same sex unions on the federal level but leaving states to decide whether to recognize them on their level idiotic because one of the main federal benefits of a union is joint tax filing. Of course, Paul also wants to do away with the IRS but that's never going to happen, so his own argument is essentially unrealistic.

[senorpogo]

Paul was on Meet the Press this past Sunday. There he discussed both the Civil Rights Bill and the Civil War (amongst other things). If you're interested, I'm sure the video is posted on NBC's page.

As for the topic of this op, Russert didn't question him about the support from "white nationalists" (what a great euphemism!) which disappointed me. Paul's unwillingness to distance himself from the CT crowd and "white nationalists" is unnerving. I'd like to see a reporter hold his feet to the fire on a major stage.

[the escape plan]

I seriously doubt that Paul is talking to Don Black & Co.. He is just spending their money.

[Donal]

And that isn't a bad thing? He's either a crook that just takes people's money with no intention of working for them or he's cuddling up with white supremacists.

I think its good that Russert and the media really don't raise a stink about that asrea of support for RP because it puts them in the spotlight. Suddenly, they are going to have influence on the presidential election. There are just enough vocal lunatics to make themselves a nuissance.

Imagine, 6 mini-David Dukes each picking a major candidate to back. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Rudy, Huckabee, and Romney each have one getting on the news or YoutTube telling the world why that particular candidate is his choice.

How uncomfortable would that make you going into the polls?

[spiteme]

Ron Paul sings about states' rights & big bad government, and those are some of the white supremacists' favorite tunes.

[Donal]

Apparently by "states" they mean "uneducated, poor white guys".

[Darth Rotor]

Apparently by "states" they mean "uneducated, poor white guys".
Don't be a fool. If you are going to deal with the WN movement, it is best not to underestimate them.

The WN movement not necessarily poor, nor uneducated. Mostly white, sure.

David Duke, for starters, is neither uneducated, nor poor. That he has chosen to pander to people like Mahmoud of Iran is consistent with his old political preferences, and fashion choices. ;)

If Tim McVeigh was, as a CI, part of a WN inspired reaction to Waco, what makes you think others won't pursue that means to an end? I don't consider that a laughing matter.

DR

[The Mysterian]

Don't be a fool. If you are going to deal with the WN movement, it is best not to underestimate them.

The WN movement not necessarily poor, nor uneducated. Mostly white, sure.

David Duke, for starters, is neither uneducated, nor poor. That he has chosen to pander to people like Mahmoud of Iran is consistent with his old political preferences, and fashion choices. ;)


I think Donal means the rank and file WNs. I know Duke has a PhD.


If Tim McVeigh was, as a CI, part of a WN inspired reaction to Waco, what makes you think others won't pursue that means to an end? I don't consider that a laughing matter.

DR

They would. A problem is a lot of those WNs in the more violent part of the movement wind up getting killed or put in jail. So the chances of another one rising up is fairly cmall.

[Richard Masters]

He should renounce their support and donate the $500, that Don Black gave him, to maybe a Jewish organization. That ought to get those guys going!! LOL.

BTW, Paul has said in his own words he would have not supported the 1964 (?) Civil Rights Bill. There was also that statement written in his newsletter some years back saying that 'blacks were fleet footed.' So yes there is something to it.

Ron Paul did renounce their support. He did not donate the $500, because that would be illogical.

You are correct. Ron Paul would not have supported the Civil Rights Bill. However, the newsletter you quoted was not written by Ron Paul.

[Richard Masters]

Maybe I just have rose-colored glasses on, but I think that a candidate should not accept campaign donations from questionable sources. To her credit, Hillary Clinton returned campaign money tied to Hsu, and also returned money from Bill Clinton's 11th hour pardons. Edwards returned money from an attorney with a checkered past. Biden returned money from an oilman tied to the oil for food scandal.

No question in my mind; Ron Paul should return the money not just from Don Black, but any money donated through Stormfront.

Why should Ron Paul return the money? Because Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did it? What kid of reasoning is that? Argumentum ad populum?

[rtalman]

Why should Ron Paul return the money? Because Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did it? What kid of reasoning is that? Argumentum ad populum?Clinton and Biden acted correctly and properly.

By keeping and spending unquestionably tainted money, Paul is acting incorrectly and improperly. Why should I support a candidate that doesn't care about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?

[Richard Masters]

Paul was on Meet the Press this past Sunday. There he discussed both the Civil Rights Bill and the Civil War (amongst other things). If you're interested, I'm sure the video is posted on NBC's page.

As for the topic of this op, Russert didn't question him about the support from "white nationalists" (what a great euphemism!) which disappointed me. Paul's unwillingness to distance himself from the CT crowd and "white nationalists" is unnerving. I'd like to see a reporter hold his feet to the fire on a major stage.


Actually, Ron Paul was already asked about this. He does not want the support of white supremacists. I can't post URLs but you can look for his interview with PBS.

[Richard Masters]

Clinton and Biden acted correctly and properly.

By keeping and spending unquestionably tainted money, Paul is acting incorrectly and improperly.

What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?

Why should I support a candidate that doesn't care about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?

Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions.

[rtalman]

He does not want the support of white supremacists.Yet he accepts it.

A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum. Every press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection.

Further evidence that the media knows that Paul is a clown.

[rtalman]

What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?non sequitur much?



Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions.Yes, Ron Paul is the most logical clown since Sideshow Bob.

[Mister Agenda]

This might be of interest, given the topic, although it doesn't really answer the question:

The New York Times
December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm
Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
By The New York Times

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

[Donal]

I think Donal means the rank and file WNs. I know Duke has a PhD.



They would. A problem is a lot of those WNs in the more violent part of the movement wind up getting killed or put in jail. So the chances of another one rising up is fairly cmall.

To be honest, when it comes to the hard core idealogical movements, I don't think the leadership actually believes. I think they tend to know they've got power and just push the buttons of their supporters.

I think David Duke would give Jesse Jackson a blumpkin if it would help his political career.

[Richard Masters]

//"He does not want the support of white supremacists."

Yet he accepts it.

A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum. Every press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection.

Further evidence that the media knows that Paul is a clown.//

"Yet he accepts it."

So what? I'm against the Iraq war, but I would gladly take money from Bush, Cheney and Rudy Giuliani to stop it.

"A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum."

They would do the same thing whether or not he returned the money. But again, this is rather irrelevant.

"very press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection."

He hasn't "dogged" the question. He already responded.

Somehow you continue to engage in a guilt-by-association fallacy.

[Donal]

Guilt by Acceptance.

[Richard Masters]

" What is your definition of incorrectness and impropriety? If everyone jumps off a bridge is not jumping off a bridge improper and incorrect?
non sequitur much?

Actually, this is quite sequitur, since you began by arguing via an argumentum ad populum. So I reversed the tables on you and used the exact same argument, which would be non-sequitur, were it not mocking your original argument.

In other words, you are saying Ron Paul is wrong to keep the money because Hillary and Biden didn't keep the money. Your argument IS EXACTLY like the jumping off a bridge argument.

Non-sequitur.

Quote:
"Or you could ask yourself why you should support a candidate that thinks deeply about logic, instead of appealing to your emotions."

Yes, Ron Paul is the most logical clown since Sideshow Bob.

I'm not surprised you had no response here.

[Richard Masters]

Guilt by Acceptance.

Guilty of what by acceptance?

[Donal]

White supremacist support.

[senorpogo]

Actually, Ron Paul was already asked about this. He does not want the support of white supremacists. I can't post URLs but you can look for his interview with PBS.

I should have been more clear.

I'm well aware that he's said as much, but I think he'd be better served saying this in as high profile of a way as possible so as to kill this "Paul supporters = white supremacists" argument. Just from the conversation here it's obvious that the message hasn't gotten out.

[rtalman]

I'm not surprised you had no response here.Why bother responding? No amount of logic or reasoning can talk a cultist out of his cult.

[rtalman]

"very press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection."

He hasn't "dogged" the question. He already responded.

"Dogged by". Passive verb tense.

http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198791330&sr=8-1
I highly recommend it for cases like yours.

[Richard Masters]

"Guilt by acceptance of what?"
White supremacist support.

In other words, you are back to a guilt by association fallacy.

[Richard Masters]

"I'm well aware that he's said as much, but I think he'd be better served saying this in as high profile of a way as possible so as to kill this "Paul supporters = white supremacists" argument. Just from the conversation here it's obvious that the message hasn't gotten out."

You are right. It might help him avoid the question. The problem, however, isn't whether it serves him, but whether the assumption is illogical in the first place.

[Richard Masters]

//"I'm not surprised you had no response here."

Why bother responding? No amount of logic or reasoning can talk a cultist out of his cult.//

First, you are assuming you have used logic or reasoning. Second, you assume I'm a cultist in a cult. There is no strong basis for any of your assumptions - at least none that is reflected by your writing.

Please stop writing about Ron Paul if you are not willing to engage in honest debate.

[Richard Masters]

""Dogged by". Passive verb tense.

http://www.amazon.com/English-Gramma...8791330&sr=8-1
I highly recommend it for cases like yours."

Thank you. In cases like mine, where English is not my first language, English Grammar texts are quite useful.

[rtalman]

First, you are assuming you have used logic or reasoning.No, I am saying why bother with an obvious PaulBot?
Second, you assume I'm a cultist in a cult. There is no strong basis for any of your assumptions - at least none that is reflected by your writing.The evidence is reflected in your writing. Is that froth in the corner of your mouth?Please stop writing about Ron Paul if you are not willing to engage in honest debate.:v:

In only a few short weeks, like the Deanie Babies and Perotistas before them, the PaulBots will be just a memory, barely a pimple on the ass of history.

[Richard Masters]

No, I am saying why bother with an obvious PaulBot?
The evidence is reflected in your writing. Is that froth in the corner of your mouth?:v:

In only a few short weeks, like the Deanie Babies and Perotistas before them, the PaulBots will be just a memory, barely a pimple on the ass of history.

I've been into libertarianism long before I ever heard about Ron Paul.

I learned about Ron Paul on my own, through research. I wasn't inducted by a secret society or brainwashed. I convinced others to research Ron Paul, not the other way around.

The fact that you are unwilling to engage in honest debate shows that you are more likely to be a member of a cult than anyone you have baselessly criticized.

I will continue talking about liberty and Ron Paul long after the primaries, regardless of the result.

I suggest you do more research so you can be at an equal footing with so-called "cultists" who seem to destroy your every argument.

[dudalb]

BTW, a number of Libetarians are actully quite critical of Paul.

[rtalman]

I've been into libertarianism long before I ever heard about Ron Paul.That explains a lot. Can't win with a Losertarian candidate, so you try to hitch your wagon to a RINO.
I learned about Ron Paul on my own, through research. I wasn't inducted by a secret society or brainwashed.How did the Kool-Aid taste? Was it Grape or Strawberry?
The fact that you are unwilling to engage in honest debate shows that you are more likely to be a member of a cult than anyone you have baselessly criticized.I have posted in several other threads regarding Ron Paul. I see no need to regurgitate the same information to a cultie.
I will continue talking about liberty and Ron Paul long after the primaries, regardless of the result.Really? Do you still talk about John Anderson as well? He represents the very acme of the Losertarian accomplishment in presidential elections.I suggest you do more research so you can be at an equal footing with so-called "cultists" who seem to destroy your every argument.I have researched Ron Paul.
He believes that nefarious forces will force the creation of the NAU and destroy the USA.:tinfoil
He disagreed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
He takes dirty money from sewer dwellers.
He has dozens of supporters nationwide, who believe they can win an election from the computers in their grandmothers' basements.
He is almost as relevant to the Republican nomination as Kucinich is to the Democratic nomination.

[Richard Masters]

"I have posted in several other threads regarding Ron Paul. I see no need to regurgitate the same information to a cultie."

Apparently you didn't even read my comments. Instead you resort to labels and ad hominem attacks. If you have discussed these topics before, then you should be winning the argument. In fact, if you have already discussed this information, it should be easy for you to provide a link to said information.

"He disagreed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Did you read why?

"He takes dirty money from sewer dwellers."

Huh?

"He has dozens of supporters nationwide, who believe they can win an election from the computers in their grandmothers' basements."

Do you have any facts to support your statement?

[leftysergeant]

When the clown starts denouncing the white nationalists as terrorists and enemies of humanity, and either slaps the Stormfront maggot over the head with a sack of the donated cash (preferrably all in pennies) or donates it to a Jewish cause to spite the slobbering twits at Stormfront, I will believe he is not a WN mole. Until then, he is just going to have to wear the stench of Stormfront.

[corplinx]

Reagan got donations from white supremacists. When the media asked him about it, he replied something along the lines of "if they are willing to change their views and back my ideas and my agenda, I'm all for it".

[The Mysterian]

Guilty of what by acceptance?

At the site 5t0rmf0rnt - intenionally misspelled - there are many Ron Paul links. He should tell them to take a hike, since Mr. Paul has been accused of bigotry.

[BTW, off topic but Kucinich lost my respect when he and his wife had said they would consider Ron Paul as a running mate.]

[Mister Agenda]

At the site 5t0rmf0rnt - intenionally misspelled - there are many Ron Paul links. He should tell them to take a hike, since Mr. Paul has been accused of bigotry.

[BTW, off topic but Kucinich lost my respect when he and his wife had said they would consider Ron Paul as a running mate.]

Possibly they know him better than you do? You must not have respected them very much in the first place if you are so blithely certain of their poor judgement when they disagree with you. If I respect someone I seriously consider their opinion when it disagrees with mine...that's part of what it means to respect someone, isn't it?

[The Mysterian]

Possibly they know him better than you do? You must not have respected them very much in the first place if you are so blithely certain of their poor judgement when they disagree with you. If I respect someone I seriously consider their opinion when it disagrees with mine...that's part of what it means to respect someone, isn't it?

Do you know what that website is?!?! WP/WN/Skihheads maybe?

[ZenFountain]

Possibly they know him better than you do? You must not have respected them very much in the first place if you are so blithely certain of their poor judgement when they disagree with you. If I respect someone I seriously consider their opinion when it disagrees with mine...that's part of what it means to respect someone, isn't it?

Curious if you have actually read Stormfront before...

Not sure if this is appropriate, but look at the bottom.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/233/tookrelativesonafricansss4.th.png (http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tookrelativesonafricansss4.png)

I accept this is a guilt by association fallacy, and furthermore than Paul has stated this is an unwanted association, but it still looks terrible. Imagine if an extreme Israeli Zionist board put up campaign ads for Hillary Clinton, the same crowd crying foul over the Paul-Stormfront association would likely jump on it like a pack of rabid hyenas. It is also important to note that the owner of Stormfront, not the members are responsible for the Ron Paul ads. The political realist on Stormfront actually seem to be pushing for Romney.

[Mister Agenda]

I have learned from JREF what the website is. I haven't visited it so I'm not familiar with their reasoning in supporting Paul. I presume they see something in his proposed policies they agree with. I hear they are against the war in Iraq and don't favor intrusive government.

If you were to tell me what candidate you favor, I could go to that website and start setting up links to his or her website. Then you would have to renounce your candidate. Right?

[rtalman]

If you were to tell me what candidate you favor, I could go to that website and start setting up links to his or her website. Then you would have to renounce your candidate. Right?
If my candidate (which I honestly haven't picked yet, everyone running for the Republican nomination has so far left me with a bad taste) kept donated money from these weasels, or others of their ilk, I could no longer support that candidate.

[ZenFountain]

I presume they see something in his proposed policies they agree with. I hear they are against the war in Iraq and don't favor intrusive government.

David Duke was the last openly white nationalist in a major public office, i.e. they (the white nationalist) have no chance of electing a white nationalist President that will promote their views. The next best option is an elected official that will leave you alone and try to roll back social programs that are perceived as benefiting poor minorities at the expense of wealthy white taxpayers.

If you were to tell me what candidate you favor, I could go to that website and start setting up links to his or her website. Then you would have to renounce your candidate. Right?

Huh? :confused:

[The Atheist]

Their stupid ...

:dl:

Don't be a fool. If you are going to deal with the WN movement, it is best not to underestimate them.

The WN movement not necessarily poor, nor uneducated. Mostly white, sure.

Bingo.

I have to say I'm amused by them having a pet candidate for the US Presidency.

Imagine if an extreme Israeli Zionist board put up campaign ads for Hillary Clinton, the same crowd crying foul over the Paul-Stormfront association would likely jump on it like a pack of rabid hyenas.

The slight difference being that Hillary would probably scream louder than any of them, while Paul is saying little about it and has kept the money.

[Mister Agenda]

David Duke was the last openly white nationalist in a major public office, i.e. they (the white nationalist) have no chance of electing a white nationalist President that will promote their views. The next best option is an elected official that will leave you alone and try to roll back social programs that are perceived as benefiting poor minorities at the expense of wealthy white taxpayers.

Huh? :confused:

Sorry about the confusion, Zen, I failed to quote rtalman. He was pointing out that some posters at that hateful website were showing links to Ron Paul sites. I was just pointing out that if that is some kind of standard it would be easy to discredit anyone you want.

[Mister Agenda]

:dl:

Bingo.

I have to say I'm amused by them having a pet candidate for the US Presidency.

The slight difference being that Hillary would probably scream louder than any of them, while Paul is saying little about it and has kept the money.

And the slight difference that it wasn't an organization that donated $500 to RP's campaign, it was an individual. Fortunately for all the other candidates, they rely on corporations or their own deep pockets rather than individuals donating under the $2300.00 limit for their funding and no one cares if, say, a pedophile gives Hillary a thousand dollars--at least not enough to make the effort to find out if any of her donors are registered sex offenders.

OTH, I don't have a problem if the media wants to rake Paul over the coals on this. They can grill him and quote him as much as they like, and if he can't take the heat that's his problem. I don't think it would hurt him. The vast majority of his supporters are not racists and don't believe he is one, either, and probably won't change their mind because of guilt by association. The vast majority of people who have heard of him and don't like him won't vote for him any less. The people who haven't heard of him won't vote for him except as a random protest. Some of the people who hear of him through negative media coverage will check him out and decide to vote for him. Although he is getting some coverage it remains a fraction of what other candidates still in the race are getting, enough people haven't heard of him that negative coverage is better than no coverage at all.

[Mister Agenda]

If my candidate (which I honestly haven't picked yet, everyone running for the Republican nomination has so far left me with a bad taste) kept donated money from these weasels, or others of their ilk, I could no longer support that candidate.

Fortunately for whatever candidate you select, no one is really interested in who their individual supporters are, and good luck finding out. At Paul's site you can see the names and cities of his donors as they come up. Even so, I think it only came up as an issue for Paul because the donor publicized his contribution.

Incidentally, I haven't been able to find fundraising status on any of the other candidates, Paul's is the only one that shows a running total. It would be handy for comparison purposes if every candidate did that.

[rtalman]

Fortunately for whatever candidate you select, no one is really interested in who their individual supporters are, and good luck finding out. At Paul's site you can see the names and cities of his donors as they come up. Even so, I think it only came up as an issue for Paul because the donor publicized his contribution.

Incidentally, I haven't been able to find fundraising status on any of the other candidates, Paul's is the only one that shows a running total. It would be handy for comparison purposes if every candidate did that.All campaign donations through Q3 (Q4 should be out in a few weeks)http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Ron Paul individual donors through Q3
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00005906&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A


Barack Obama individual donors through Q3
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks, rtalman. I know the Q3 numbers are available, but RP is the only candidate I could find a current # on (close to $19M for Q4, last I checked). More importantly, thanks for introducing me to opensecrets.org!

[The Atheist]

*sigh*

You're not very good at this, are you?

And the slight difference that it wasn't an organization that donated $500 to RP's campaign, it was an individual.

It was YOUR hypo that saw the Zionist group giving to Hillary. Maybe you could shoot that strawman down before making any for me.

And if you think Stormfront doesn't overwhelmingly approve of what Don Black's doing, it's time you went and checked.

...and no one cares if, say, a pedophile gives Hillary a thousand dollars--at least not enough to make the effort to find out if any of her donors are registered sex offenders.

Again, you've missed the point completely.

The only way that would work is if it were pointed out to Hillary and she refused to return the money.

When that happens, let us know.

OTH, I don't have a problem if the media wants to rake Paul over the coals on this.

Me neither. "Cremated" is the word you're after.

[rtalman]

Sorry about the confusion, Zen, I failed to quote rtalman. He was pointing out that some posters at that hateful website were showing links to Ron Paul sites. I was just pointing out that if that is some kind of standard it would be easy to discredit anyone you want.Not some posters. The webmaster. It is a large banner ad at the bottom of the frontpage. Certainly the Ron Paul IT geeks could IP ban Stormfront from routing donations if they wanted to. They must have had plenty of practice from running the LC forum.

[rtalman]

More importantly, thanks for introducing me to opensecrets.org!NP:)

I may have to rethink who I will support based on who my hero supports though... http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=&name=gates%2C+william&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

[Mister Agenda]

*sigh*

You're not very good at this, are you?

It was YOUR hypo that saw the Zionist group giving to Hillary. Maybe you could shoot that strawman down before making any for me.

Actually it wasn't MY hypo (?), re-read. You were responding to Zen. I merely pointed out an additional difference you had missed.

And if you think Stormfront doesn't overwhelmingly approve of what Don Black's doing, it's time you went and checked.

Don Black's approval rating among WNs is pretty much irrelevant. No one has made the case this group doesn't see some of it's interests aligning with Paul's such as bringing the troops home, getting rid of income tax, or whatever.

Again, you've missed the point completely.

The only way that would work is if it were pointed out to Hillary and she refused to return the money.

When that happens, let us know.

You missed MY point: no one is examining the other contributors to the other candidates with this level of scrutiny. Speaking only for myself, I don't care enough to try, although I expect I could find many examples of disreputable characters contributing to all the campaigns. Again, speaking for myself, I don't see the virtue of returning this man's money so he can use it to spread more hate. I would be happy if he paupered himself contributing to any of the candidate's campaigns.

Me neither. "Cremated" is the word you're after.

I would like to see that tested, but it won't happen, unfortunately.

[Mister Agenda]

NP:)

I may have to rethink who I will support based on who my hero supports though... http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=&name=gates%2C+william&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

If he gets the nomination and it looks like he will probaby be beaten by a neocon, based on what I know now, I would vote for him to avoid that fate.

[rtalman]

no one is examining the other contributors to the other candidates with this level of scrutiny.I have to disagree. I would bet cash money that most of the major candidates have several people they are paying to read through their opponent's FEC reports to see if they can find anything embarrassing. Politics at it's best!

[Mister Agenda]

Not some posters. The webmaster. It is a large banner ad at the bottom of the frontpage. Certainly the Ron Paul IT geeks could IP ban Stormfront from routing donations if they wanted to. They must have had plenty of practice from running the LC forum.

Thanks for the clarification. I retract my statement that anyone could do the same thing, and my apologies to everyone for speaking without being better informed. I haven't been to the site myself. I'm sure it's banned from work anyway. I hate to block free speech, but perhaps an exception, given that it wouldn't be the government doing it, would be acceptable in this particular case.

[Mister Agenda]

I have to disagree. I would bet cash money that most of the major candidates have several people they are paying to read through their opponent's FEC reports to see if they can find anything embarrassing. Politics at it's best!

You may be right but it is hard to believe they haven't dug up some of that kind of dirt already. It just doesn't make sense that only upright citizens contribute to ANYone's campaign. If they really wanted to play dirty they'd have one of their staffers anonymously bribe some low-life to contribute to a rival. I would think Huckabee might be particularly vulnerable. IMO, Obama is practically invulnerable to this tactic due to early smears.

[rtalman]

You may be right but it is hard to believe they haven't dug up some of that kind of dirt already. It just doesn't make sense that only upright citizens contribute to ANYone's campaign. If they really wanted to play dirty they'd have one of their staffers anonymously bribe some low-life to contribute to a rival. I would think Huckabee might be particularly vulnerable. IMO, Obama is practically invulnerable to this tactic due to early smears.I pointed out in an earlier post about Clinton, Edwards and Biden as a few examples of candidates that have returned money from questionable sources. I would guess that none of the candidates (including RP) look that closely at where the money comes from initially. What I would bet happens is: the opposition finds a questionable donation in the FEC report, leaks it to a friendly media outlet, a reporter goes up and asks the candidate "Hey, what about that $10 you got from X?", the candidate DAKs, acts contrite, and returns the money to avoid looking guilty by association if they care about appearances. If they don't care about appearances, they are in the wrong profession.

[Mister Agenda]

I remember your citations but I didn't remember any of them being from private individuals. It's easier to ID unsavory groups than unsavory individuals.

[Richard Masters]

When the clown starts denouncing the white nationalists as terrorists and enemies of humanity, and either slaps the Stormfront maggot over the head with a sack of the donated cash (preferrably all in pennies) or donates it to a Jewish cause to spite the slobbering twits at Stormfront, I will believe he is not a WN mole. Until then, he is just going to have to wear the stench of Stormfront.

Sounds like you are not a critical thinker. I suggest you read about ALL-OR-NOTHING thinking, it seems to suit you.

[Richard Masters]

At the site 5t0rmf0rnt - intenionally misspelled - there are many Ron Paul links. He should tell them to take a hike, since Mr. Paul has been accused of bigotry.

[BTW, off topic but Kucinich lost my respect when he and his wife had said they would consider Ron Paul as a running mate.]

He already did denounce them. You should do more research.

I though this board would reflect some rationality. But in your case, there is none.

[Richard Masters]

If my candidate (which I honestly haven't picked yet, everyone running for the Republican nomination has so far left me with a bad taste) kept donated money from these weasels, or others of their ilk, I could no longer support that candidate.

What's your rationale for doing so? Do you have any?

[Richard Masters]

Not some posters. The webmaster. It is a large banner ad at the bottom of the frontpage. Certainly the Ron Paul IT geeks could IP ban Stormfront from routing donations if they wanted to. They must have had plenty of practice from running the LC forum.

Why should they bow to your wishes?

The point of libertarianism is liberty. If some idiot wants to post links to his website to Ron Paul's he is entitled to. That's what liberty is about.

[Richard Masters]

I have to disagree. I would bet cash money that most of the major candidates have several people they are paying to read through their opponent's FEC reports to see if they can find anything embarrassing. Politics at it's best!

Really? When are you going to complain about Hillary's donations by racists?

[leftysergeant]

"He takes dirty money from sewer dwellers."

Huh?


He actively seeks the votes of white nationalists by appearing on moonbat venues like Arctic Beacon and Prison Planet.

That he didn't tell the Stormfront people where to stick their dirty money means to me that he is cool with having their support.

If you lie down with rabid pit bulls, rising up with fleas is the least of your public image problems.

[MaGZ]

Yet he accepts it.

A Republican with anything more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination would be pilloried by the press over accepting donations from such scum. Every press conference, photo-op, and campaign appearance would find that candidate dogged by question after question from reporters about his white supremacist connection.

Further evidence that the media knows that Paul is a clown.

The MSM will attack Ron Paul over the $500 donation if that is what it takes to bring Paul down. As of yet Paul is not a threat to the Establishment, when he becomes a threat then the MSM will take the gloves off. They know by attacking Paul over the donation they raise attention to Don Black and Stormfront. They rather not go this route, but only if necessary.

[MaGZ]

This might be of interest, given the topic, although it doesn't really answer the question:

The New York Times
December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm
Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
By The New York Times

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

Don’t trust White, trust Black.

[leftysergeant]

They attack the donation because it is apparent that RP sought it and that RP has made no comment disrespectful to the lowest vermin on earth to disassociate himself from them.

He made the choice to lie down with those flea-ridden mutts. I shall not hand him the flea powder.

[MaGZ]

When the clown starts denouncing the white nationalists as terrorists and enemies of humanity, and either slaps the Stormfront maggot over the head with a sack of the donated cash (preferrably all in pennies) or donates it to a Jewish cause to spite the slobbering twits at Stormfront, I will believe he is not a WN mole. Until then, he is just going to have to wear the stench of Stormfront.

White Nationalists moles:
Senator Trent Lott?
Rep. Bob Barr?
Rep. Ron Paul?

[The Mysterian]

He already did denounce them. You should do more research.

I though this board would reflect some rationality. But in your case, there is none.

Yeah yeah. So why hasn't he told them to take off the links. Has his campaign blocked SF's IP address? I don't think so.

As long as you want to get personal people like you are crazier than the looney Ron Paul.

[leftysergeant]

White Nationalists moles:
Senator Trent Lott?

Thinnly, if at all, camoflauged member of a domestic terrorist group, in that he is a member of the Conservative Citizens' Council, KKK in business suits.

Rep. Bob Barr?

A religious bigot, but I never got the impression he was that much a racist.

Rep. Ron Paul?

He jumped into that mangy kennel himself. It isn't my fault that he is tracking something smelly across the carpet.

[Richard Masters]

He actively seeks the votes of white nationalists by appearing on moonbat venues like Arctic Beacon and Prison Planet.

That he didn't tell the Stormfront people where to stick their dirty money means to me that he is cool with having their support.

If you lie down with rabid pit bulls, rising up with fleas is the least of your public image problems.

You are clearly misinformed as Ron Paul did denounce white supremacists and their philosophies.

That he didn't tell the Stormfront people where to stick their dirty money means to me that he is cool with having their support.

And this is logical why?

You are asking Ron Paul to give money to white supremacists. Sounds like you have your priorities a little mixed up, doesn't it? So much for critical thinking.

[Richard Masters]

The MSM will attack Ron Paul over the $500 donation if that is what it takes to bring Paul down. As of yet Paul is not a threat to the Establishment, when he becomes a threat then the MSM will take the gloves off. They know by attacking Paul over the donation they raise attention to Don Black and Stormfront. They rather not go this route, but only if necessary.

They already have.

[Richard Masters]

They attack the donation because it is apparent that RP sought it and that RP has made no comment disrespectful to the lowest vermin on earth to disassociate himself from them.

He made the choice to lie down with those flea-ridden mutts. I shall not hand him the flea powder.

Ron Paul sought it? Do you have any evidence?

When are you going to denounce Hillary Clinton for taking money from Defense Industry Lobbyists?

When are you going to denounce Hillary Clinton for earmarking money for racists?

Seems to me you are just being hypocritical.

[Dr Adequate]

Are White Nationalists influencing the Ron Paul campaign? "Influencing" ... no, that's not quite the word.

I believe that "tainting" is the mot juste. Or perhaps "sullying".

Hmm ... "dirtying" ... "befouling" ... "soiling" ... "besmirching" ... they're all good too. But I'll go with "tainting".

Yes, MaGZ, you people have tainted Ron Paul with your dirt, but don't worry --- that's not the only thing that'll make him unelectable, it's not your fault.

[leftysergeant]

Ron Paul sought it? Do you have any evidence?

What percentage of the audience of people like A. Jones do you figure might be white nationalists? I know I find him linking to a lot of their "legals." I have never heard Jones denounce creeps like Bollyn and Hufschmid and D.B. Smith. Even Dylan Avery referrenced Bollyn in the early versions of Loose Change. Fellow travelers, all of them.

When are you going to denounce Hillary Clinton for taking money from Defense Industry Lobbyists?

Hillary is a distant 8th choice for me out of the field of Democratic candidates. Pointless argument. My top three are Edwards, Obama and Dodd. Hillary is too cozey with the crank journalist Murdock for my tastes, but just a lot better than the GOP crowd.

And what is that "earmark for racists" remark about? You got some 'splainin' to do.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That explains a lot. Can't win with a Losertarian candidate, so you try to hitch your wagon to a RINO.

Politics is not a sport.

What you wrote here is very telling. Gotta' be a winner mentality. Ideas do not matter as much as winning. :(

Do you also support the New York Yankees and Duke basketball?

[WildCat]

Do you also support the New York Yankees and Duke basketball?
The Yankees are the Evil Empire, Duke runs a clean program and actually graduates most of its basketball players.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The Yankees are the Evil Empire, Duke runs a clean program and actually graduates most of its basketball players.

Duke does not run a clean program.

That is beside the point.

The point is that the statement I quoted reveled that the poster was interested in winning and not the ideas.

[rtalman]

Politics is not a sport. Maybe not, but I follow politics with the same passing interest as I follow sports. Whether who I like wins or not, I am relatively certain the Earth will continue to spin on the same axis.

Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Here I am, just the same, despite all of the dire pronouncements of the losing party before and after every election cycle.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe not, but I follow politics with the same passing interest as I follow sports. Whether who I like wins or not, I am relatively certain the Earth will continue to spin on the same axis.

Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Here I am, just the same, despite all of the dire pronouncements of the losing party before and after every election cycle.

Do you really think America is the same politically as it was in 1976?

[Checkmite]

You are asking Ron Paul to give money to white supremacists. Sounds like you have your priorities a little mixed up, doesn't it? So much for critical thinking.


Oh my God, that's great. Oh, gee, Ron Paul can't give the money back, because that would be giving money to white supremacists! That would be bad!

Of course, if Ron Paul had refused to so happily accept the donation in the FIRST place, we wouldn't have this problem.

Still, there is a logical conclusion to be derived from your misshapen line of reasoning. Ron Paul should in fact solicit as many donations from white supremacists as he can, so as to deprive them of even more money!

You are unbelievable.

Sweet m'f'ing Jesus.

[Elizabeth I]

Politics is not a sport.

What you wrote here is very telling. Gotta' be a winner mentality. Ideas do not matter as much as winning. :(

Do you also support the New York Yankees and Duke basketball?

The difficulty is that if you don't win, you can't govern. If you can't govern, you can't implement your ideas.

I've been trying to explain this to my far-left friends for years. They don't get it any better than you do.

[rtalman]

Do you really think America is the same politically as it was in 1976?In essence, America is the same politically as it was in 1876.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The difficulty is that if you don't win, you can't govern. If you can't govern, you can't implement your ideas.

I've been trying to explain this to my far-left friends for years. They don't get it any better than you do.

What I think you are missing is that the current two parties move in the same general direction.

The fact that you implied that "YOU" would govern shows that you have; as many do, succumbed to the thought that your interests are served by one of the two parties.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In essence, America is the same politically as it was in 1876.

Really?

Would you make a comparison of Federal responsibilities in 1876 and today?
:boggled:

[rtalman]

Really?

Would you make a comparison of Federal responsibilities in 1876 and today?
:boggled:I do not speak of the playing field; I speak of the game.

Football has changed over the years; equipment has changed, rules have changed, the goalposts have moved, but it is still essentially the same game of running, blocking and tackling.

So too has politics changed; the right to vote has been added to include all adults, the age definition of adult has changed, more states have been added to the electorate, but it is still essentially the same game.

[rtalman]

Really? When are you going to complain about Hillary's donations by racists?I am not voting in her party's primary. I am voting in the R) primary.

You have asked on several occasions why Ron Paul should bow to my wishes... He is asking me for my vote. If he wants my vote, he needs to show the wisdom and judgment necessary to lead our nation.

I kind of liked Ron Paul:

He is a nice poke in the eye to the establishment.

We share much the same view of the function of the Constitution and state's rights.

I like his view on Iraq, and I do not disagree with bringing our troops home from other places abroad.

He is off the mark on the NAU, but since it doesn't exist anyway, not that big a deal to me. If he would make a good leader overall, he can ward off tigers by wearing his pajamas all he wants.

He doesn't whole-heartedly embrace evolution, BFD. I don't know or really care how any of the other candidates feel about creationism, ID, or any of the other crap. It is not an issue I spend any time worrying about.

He is plain wrong on his historical view on civil rights. But that is stare decisis, and I can live with the disagreement.

Then we come to the issue that really resonates with me. He has entangled himself (or allowed himself to be entangled with) racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, holocaust-denying pieces of ****. Ron, get off the dime, stand up and denounce these scumbags for what they are.

Romney called a press conference and gave a speech that put to rest (whether you like what he said or not) the Mormon question. If Paul wants my vote, he needs to do the same with the scumbag question.

[Elizabeth I]

The difficulty is that if you don't win, you can't govern. If you can't govern, you can't implement your ideas.

I've been trying to explain this to my far-left friends for years. They don't get it any better than you do.

What I think you are missing is that the current two parties move in the same general direction.

The fact that you implied that "YOU" would govern shows that you have; as many do, succumbed to the thought that your interests are served by one of the two parties.

Huh?

First, you have NO idea what I think about any political parties, or any of their candidates.

Second, will you explain what kind of effect any candidate can hope to have is he/she does not get elected? If you don't win, you can't govern.

[Richard Masters]

Oh my God, that's great. Oh, gee, Ron Paul can't give the money back, because that would be giving money to white supremacists! That would be bad!

Of course, if Ron Paul had refused to so happily accept the donation in the FIRST place, we wouldn't have this problem.

Still, there is a logical conclusion to be derived from your misshapen line of reasoning. Ron Paul should in fact solicit as many donations from white supremacists as he can, so as to deprive them of even more money!

You are unbelievable.

Sweet m'f'ing Jesus.

"Ron Paul should in fact solicit as many donations from white supremacists as he can, so as to deprive them of even more money!"

Is there something wrong with depriving racists of money? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. But hey, if you enjoy giving money to racists, I'm sure the KKK will appreciate your donations.

[Richard Masters]

What percentage of the audience of people like A. Jones do you figure might be white nationalists? I know I find him linking to a lot of their "legals." I have never heard Jones denounce creeps like Bollyn and Hufschmid and D.B. Smith. Even Dylan Avery referrenced Bollyn in the early versions of Loose Change. Fellow travelers, all of them.



Hillary is a distant 8th choice for me out of the field of Democratic candidates. Pointless argument. My top three are Edwards, Obama and Dodd. Hillary is too cozey with the crank journalist Murdock for my tastes, but just a lot better than the GOP crowd.

And what is that "earmark for racists" remark about? You got some 'splainin' to do.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001

[NeoRicen]

"Ron Paul should in fact solicit as many donations from white supremacists as he can, so as to deprive them of even more money!"

Is there something wrong with depriving racists of money? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. But hey, if you enjoy giving money to racists, I'm sure the KKK will appreciate your donations.

That is really, really, really screwed up logic.

You don't think if that was your goal they wouldn't catch on?

[MaGZ]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001

Of course James Watson gives money to Hillary Clinton. After all he is trying to keep Obama from becoming president.

[leftysergeant]

These two fools with the old doofus are purportedly Don Black and his son. Looks to me like maybe RP did solicit their support.

[leftysergeant]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001

That doesn't explain much.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That doesn't explain much.

It explains that Hillary Clinton used her office as Senator to give $900,000 of taxpayer monies to a racist.

[MaGZ]

These two fools with the old doofus are purportedly Don Black and his son. Looks to me like maybe RP did solicit their support.

Could you tell us when and where this photo was taken?

[OneShotKi11]

At the next debate Ron Paul should take $500 and through the **** into the crowd and tell everyone to go **** themselves.

There goes your dam racist donated money. I bet you people would pick it up and then they would be the scum taking a white nationalists money.

I dont understand what is the big problem with racist believing in Ron Pauls ideas!!!

[Mister Agenda]

Could you tell us when and where this photo was taken?

I'll bet I can tell you in general. It was at a rally or straw poll where a lot of people lined up to get their picture taken with Ron Paul. Whenever any politician gets their picture taken with any random person, you can rationally conclude that the politician solicited their support knowing who they are and what they believe.

[Dr Adequate]

I'll bet I can tell you in general. It was at a rally or straw poll where a lot of people lined up to get their picture taken with Ron Paul. Whenever any politician gets their picture taken with any random person, you can rationally conclude that the politician solicited their support knowing who they are and what they believe. Well, that sounds halfway plausible, so please will you post a photo of Barack Obama posing with Don Black?

OK, let's make it easy. Any Republican candidate other than Ron Paul?

In your own time.

[dudalb]

They attack the donation because it is apparent that RP sought it and that RP has made no comment disrespectful to the lowest vermin on earth to disassociate himself from them.

He made the choice to lie down with those flea-ridden mutts. I shall not hand him the flea powder.

Exactly. If Paul wanted to end this controversy,all he need do is say that although he cannot keep a group from endorsing him,he can denounce such support and say he does not want it,and refuse to accept money from them.Paul has not done so.
In the unlikely event that Paul becomes a factor in the election,don't think his opponents will not make hay out of this.

[dudalb]

The verbal gymnastics of the Paul supporters to excuse and/or justify Paul's trying to have it both ways on racist support is quite amusing.
I was not a big fan of Perot back in 1992,and though he was a borderline kook,but at least Perot had enough sense to announce early on that he did not want the support of racist/White Supremists organizations.
This whole mess is another reason why Paul will amount to nothing when all is said and done,the guy does not know how to run a campaign.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, that sounds halfway plausible, so please will you post a photo of Barack Obama posing with Don Black?

OK, let's make it easy. Any Republican candidate other than Ron Paul?

In your own time.

Are you still in high school?

[Richard Masters]

That is really, really, really screwed up logic.

You don't think if that was your goal they wouldn't catch on?

No, it's not screwed up logic. Counter-intuitive, maybe.

"You don't think if that was your goal they wouldn't catch on?"

Your ultimate goal need not be to deprive racists of money in order to realize that returning a donation by a racist would be illogical whether or not you oppose their ideology.

If your goal is to appease the ignorant masses, then it would be better to return the donation.

If you want to be logical, make a point, and resist appeasing the ignorant masses because doing so might result in a slippery slope, then the most logical thing to do would be to denounce racist ideology, and explain the logic behind your decision to keep the money.

I defer to Dr. Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LasYYAaO4c

In my opinion this results in a PR nightmare for Ron Paul, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't define whether Ron Paul is actually racist or not.

[Mister Agenda]

I hope this is both relevant and not redundant with someone else's post:

http: //www. youtube.com/watch?v=QqPhrqllHzY

[Darth Rotor]

The argument I most often hear along these lines is that slavery ended in other parts of the world, most notably England, relatively peacefully as nations industrialized and slave labor became impractical. However, that argument never seems to account for the prejudice and segregation that was ingrained into the deep south and would go on for another century after the failure of reconstruction with the same hypocritical states' rights arguments being used to defend Jim Crow.
Of course, there is no, nor has there ever been, any prejudice nor segregation in England, and surely no antipathy towards wogs and other foreigners, eh? :p

The Reconstruction is another matter for another thread.

DR

[Checkmite]

Is there something wrong with depriving racists of money?


Nice attempt at rationalization, but such convoluted verbal cartwheeling serves only to expose a lack of integrity on the part of whomever chooses to "deprive" racists of money in that fashion.

Apparently you missed the fact that Ron Paul accepting their donations and using them to win isn't an example of racists being "deprived" of anything; but rather of their voluntarily-chosen investment paying off handsomely.

[Richard Masters]

Nice attempt at rationalization, but such convoluted verbal cartwheeling serves only to expose a lack of integrity on the part of whomever chooses to "deprive" racists of money in that fashion.

What lack of integrity? You continue to base the immorality of the action of receiving money on some assumption that is unfounded. Stop jumping to conclusions.

Apparently you missed the fact that Ron Paul accepting their donations and using them to win isn't an example of racists being "deprived" of anything; but rather of their voluntarily-chosen investment paying off handsomely.

Do you not share something with racists? Like your tendency to jump to conclusions? Or the fact that you are a mammal?

If you gave money to Ron Paul so he could buy you milk, and a white supremacist gave Ron Paul money for the same reason, is accepting money from you any different from accepting money from the white supremacist?

[Richard Masters]

These two fools with the old doofus are purportedly Don Black and his son. Looks to me like maybe RP did solicit their support.

Do you realize how many people have pictures of themselves with Ron Paul?

[NeoRicen]

What lack of integrity? You continue to base the immorality of the action of receiving money on some assumption that is unfounded. Stop jumping to conclusions.



Do you not share something with racists? Like your tendency to jump to conclusions? Or the fact that you are a mammal?

If you gave money to Ron Paul so he could buy you milk, and a white supremacist gave Ron Paul money for the same reason, is accepting money from you any different from accepting money from the white supremacist?
He's not buying milk, he's trying to run the most powerful nation on Earth!

[leftysergeant]

Do you realize how many people have pictures of themselves with Ron Paul?

I expect RP or the people around him to know not to let rabid dogs that close to the candidate.

The old cooot is not fit to govern. no attention to details that might get him killed. Supposed these two terrorist slimeballs had been Muslims with an interest in offing him, instead of white nationalists with the intent to use him to advance their RaHoWa.

And now that the idiot knows who they were, why has he not denounced them and their ill-gotten money?

[Patejdl]

RP explained why he took those 500$. How could someone even think that it is an actual investment for them!!??? Crazy world we're living in....

If white supremacists donated money to a schooling project for blacks in poor communities, should the organization running that program return the money even if it was used for a very good cause?? What if it was their white-supremacist goal?? To have less black people uneducated so they woudln't have to bitch about it so much.

Same with Ron Paul. Ron Paul beleives his goals are good and so there is no problem in using money for a good cause. Ron Pauls goals give NO and I say that again NO goddamn privileges to white racists. His goals are meant to be for everyone and especially black people would feel less burden if some of his ideas would be implemented. Guys just get real. For 500$ he's not going to be their bitch for christ's sake. If they think he's going to be their bitch then ha-ha stupid white racists, bad for you.

And about stormfront.org. I took a good look at their forum and spent quite alot of time ther. Yes there are many white racists but there are also white nationalists. While racists are complete and utter trash the white nationalists do not seem to promote or beleive in any kind of racism. Is it wrong to be proud to be white?? Is it bad to be proud to be black??

What Ron Paul did was the most logical thing. Yeah I admit it might be hard to understand why this is the best option but if you're an inteligent person who doesn't get irrationaly emotional, you will understand it. It's more of an emotional problem than rational and people tend to be more of emotional creatures.

+ this is what I think is important to say : Life is not only about people's preferences. If Ron Paul is smart then he knows it might outrage some people but a politician should not do only things that are emotionaly ok with the people. If he looses the election ,who cares. If there was something good in his message the smart people will understand it and maybe some of them will try to implement those things when they get to a political important places. Who knows.....

[Checkmite]

What lack of integrity? You continue to base the immorality of the action of receiving money on some assumption that is unfounded. Stop jumping to conclusions.

The sort of lack of integrity demonstrated by ALL those who don't care how they get money, so long as they get money. And I don't think anybody has said anything about "immorality", so stop setting up straw arguments.

If you gave money to Ron Paul so he could buy you milk, and a white supremacist gave Ron Paul money for the same reason, is accepting money from you any different from accepting money from the white supremacist?

Of course it is. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever keeping myself from associating with white supremacists in any way at all. It's not rocket science, and the sole reason for it is because of how repugnant I find them. Ron Paul seems to think they're not so bad, after all, so long as he can get money out it.

[Checkmite]

If white supremacists donated money to a schooling project for blacks in poor communities, should the organization running that program return the money even if it was used for a very good cause?? What if it was their white-supremacist goal?? To have less black people uneducated so they woudln't have to bitch about it so much.

I've had a few discussions with people, even on this forum, over the years about martial arts, and why they're not for me - I prefer to avoid or flee from violent confrontation if it's at all possible, which it practically always is. The funny thing is, certain die-hard martial artists are so convinced that learning a martial art is necessary for everyone, they begin trying to convince you by concocting a series of ever-more-ridiculous scenarios. Sometimes these scenarios reach the pinnacle of absurdity - "What if you're walking down a street at night and are suddenly ambushed by sixteen ninjas with Uzis??? How are you going to avoid that?"

You just posed a "sixteen ninjas" scenario.

And about stormfront.org. I took a good look at their forum and spent quite alot of time ther. Yes there are many white racists but there are also white nationalists. While racists are complete and utter trash the white nationalists do not seem to promote or beleive in any kind of racism. Is it wrong to be proud to be white?? Is it bad to be proud to be black??

To be truthful, I've never understood why anybody would be "proud" of something over which they have absolutely zero control. I'm proud of what I do.

[Patejdl]

Actually we have a scenario where some kooky white supremacists gave money to Ron Paul for a "good thing". So this is your "sixteen ninjas" situation and it's as real as it gets. That's what i've been talking about the whole time. The situation occured already. See the connection?? You did not explain why Ron Paul should return the money.

Now what's really is questionable if Ron Paul's goals really that good?? He sure beleives his message is good. But what if his goals would do more damage. Now this is a far more greater dillema than some few bucks from a few idiots.

[Checkmite]

Actually we have a scenario where some kooky white supremacists gave money to Ron Paul for a "good thing". So this is your "sixteen ninjas" situation and it's as real as it gets. That's what i've been talking about the whole time. The situation occured already. See the connection?? You did not explain why Ron Paul should return the money.

No, we have a scenario where white supremacists gave money to Ron Paul in order to help him win an election because they are of the opinion he would advance their goals, which is NOT a "good thing".

Ron Paul should have rejected the money because if white supremacy is as horrible as he (only later) claimed it is, the principled thing to do would be to try and win his election without their "help".

[Mister Agenda]

Ron Paul should have rejected the money because if white supremacy is as horrible as he (only later) claimed it is, the principled thing to do would be to try and win his election without their "help".

You call it principled, others call it PC pandering. Is there no room for persons of principle to disagree on what the principled thing to do is or is anyone who doesn't agree with your position automatically to be considered unprincipled?

We tend to judge these things emotionally, and are often unable to articulate WHY one particular action in a morally gray area is wrong and another is right. Our 'arguments' often amount to no more than: "It just is, okay?!".

A universal ethical calculus that gives us all the same answers has yet to be devised. Until we have that, I think some good principles regarding judgement of the actions of others are "take people's word for what they think" and "when in doubt, tolerate."

Ron Paul only lacks integrity if he fails to act according to HIS principles. One of which is thrift. :rolleyes:

[Patejdl]

Checkmite : If you hadn't notice I already covered that in my first post. I hate to repeat myself but yes I didn't made it clear that it's not about what does the donor think but it's about the thing that is being donated to. And that "thing" is Ron Paul's message. And the positivity or negativity of Ron Paul's message is what should be investigated. So ha-ha stupid white supremacists :p

No need to explain it more.

I beleive i'm right and you beleive you're right. Now what can we do about it because clearly at this moment we won't come to an agreement and what if we never will. The best would be to have a history-designing-time-machine to see if Ron Paul's presidency would pay off. But even that's sometimes hard to proove even if you have all facts on the table.

It's just way more easier to say that dowsing is not better than chance alone and that is a fact. Thank spaghettimonster that there are issues that can be resolved without any doubt or emotional attachment.

[Checkmite]

Ron Paul only lacks integrity if he fails to act according to HIS principles. One of which is thrift. :rolleyes:

Oh, absolutely. The white supremacists' money IS green, after all. I guess it's just a matter of what's more important to Ron Paul (the money, it turns out).

[Checkmite]

Checkmite : If you hadn't notice I already covered that in my first post. I hate to repeat myself but yes I didn't made it clear that it's not about what does the donor think but it's about the thing that is being donated to.


The ends justify the means, do they?

[Dr Adequate]

Same with Ron Paul. Ron Paul beleives his goals are good and so there is no problem in using money for a good cause. On the one hand, you justify Ron Paul's behavior as a pragmatic means to further his goals. On the other hand, accepting the money is going to do his image more damage than can be offset by however much advertising $500 can buy you. So if he's not in sympathy with these people's goals, then one has to question his judgement.

If you regard this point as trivial, then where do you draw the line? Should Ron Paul accept money from al Qaeda? Well, it's all for a good cause, isn't it ... ?

If, on the other hand, he is prepared to draw the line somewhere, then I for one think that he should draw it so that Stormfront is on the other side of the line from him.

[Richard Masters]

I expect RP or the people around him to know not to let rabid dogs that close to the candidate.

The old cooot is not fit to govern. no attention to details that might get him killed. Supposed these two terrorist slimeballs had been Muslims with an interest in offing him, instead of white nationalists with the intent to use him to advance their RaHoWa.

And now that the idiot knows who they were, why has he not denounced them and their ill-gotten money?

He did denounce racists. You need to inform yourself.

[Richard Masters]

He's not buying milk, he's trying to run the most powerful nation on Earth!

You are missing the point. If the money from different contributors is going to be used for the same thing, and that thing is good, then why should any money be returned?

[Richard Masters]

The sort of lack of integrity demonstrated by ALL those who don't care how they get money, so long as they get money. And I don't think anybody has said anything about "immorality", so stop setting up straw arguments.

I thought a lack of integrity in character was understood as having to do with immorality. So maybe you should define lack of integrity for me. Is it related to morality or not? And if so, then it is not a straw man argument, and you should answer the question.

Of course it is. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever keeping myself from associating with white supremacists in any way at all.

Wow! How do you do it?

It's not rocket science, and the sole reason for it is because of how repugnant I find them.

OK...

Ron Paul seems to think they're not so bad, after all, so long as he can get money out it.

I find them repugnant as well, but that doesn't mean I can't associate with them. Would you refuse to get help from a racist person in order to save someone who is drowning?

[Checkmite]

I find them repugnant as well, but that doesn't mean I can't associate with them. Would you refuse to get help from a racist person in order to save someone who is drowning?

Not quite the same as a "sixteen ninjas" scenario, but just as extreme and beside the point. "What if you had no choice but to be around a white supremacist?" Well, when I have no choice, I have no choice; I can live. But when I do have a choice, I distance myself whenever possible.

Ron Paul, likewise, had a choice. He decided that, as long as he gets some money out of it, it's OK to accept the support of white supremacists. Hey, he certainly has every right to make that choice - no question there. But I disagree with his choice, and consider it just another reason in the long list of reasons I can't support him.

[Richard Masters]

Not quite the same as a "sixteen ninjas" scenario, but just as extreme and beside the point. "What if you had no choice but to be around a white supremacist?" Well, when I have no choice, I have no choice; I can live. But when I do have a choice, I distance myself whenever possible.

Ron Paul, likewise, had a choice. He decided that, as long as he gets some money out of it, it's OK to accept the support of white supremacists. Hey, he certainly has every right to make that choice - no question there. But I disagree with his choice, and consider it just another reason in the long list of reasons I can't support him.

So you disagree with him, but you don't have a logical reason why it is wrong; Only your prejudice.

[Checkmite]

Well, there's no "logical reason" why I would prefer not to have a candidate who believes we all need to be saved from the New World Order, either; but I do, and Ron Paul is, unfortunately, such a candidate.

[volatile]

Coming to this thread late, but I just thought this (http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/223225/) might be of interest. (LINK IS SFW BUT THE SITE IT IS HOSTED ON, SUICIDEGIRLS.COM, IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO YOU ANY FAVOURS IF YOUR BOSS TRAWLS YOUR BROWSING HISTORY)

Not the most highbrow of news sites, but a poster over at SG has compiled some (linked and evidenced) racist snippets from the Ron Paul Report, a newsletter RP circulated in the early 90s that was apparently very popular in the Survivalist crowd. A direct link to the quotes at the Austin Chronicle (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html) might be of use to those of you with filtering.

[Richard Masters]

Coming to this thread late, but I just thought this (http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/223225/) might be of interest. (LINK IS SFW BUT THE SITE IT IS HOSTED ON, SUICIDEGIRLS.COM, IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO YOU ANY FAVOURS IF YOUR BOSS TRAWLS YOUR BROWSING HISTORY)

Not the most highbrow of news sites, but a poster over at SG has compiled some (linked and evidenced) racist snippets from the Ron Paul Report, a newsletter RP circulated in the early 90s that was apparently very popular in the Survivalist crowd. A direct link to the quotes at the Austin Chronicle (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html) might be of use to those of you with filtering.

Yes, you are a little late:


In races against Hillary Clinton or Obama, Ron Paul receives more votes from black voters than other Republicans.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/

Ron Paul admires Muhammad Ali,

Muhammad Ali's 65th birthday.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070117-38&bill=hr110-58#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002F mgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm110mx002Fmcrmx 002Fmh20070117-38.xmlElementm12m0m0m

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.

In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.

He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.

I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.

[admires] Rosa Parks,

Wolf Blitzer CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVwuYKGIn38

and denounces racism.

PBS Special
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP1kVMEtP_U

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

:crowded:

[volatile]

Oh, that's alright then. :rolleyes:

Guess David Duke and all the people at Stormfront who are so firmly behind him must be missing something...

[Richard Masters]

Oh, that's alright then. :rolleyes:

Guess David Duke and all the people at Stormfront who are so firmly behind him must be missing something...

They may be attracted to Ron Paul's stance on affirmative action.

There are many different reasons why someone may support a candidate.

[volatile]

The Ron Paul Report quotes (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793) Ron Paul as saying "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal". That sounds quite racist to me; doesn't it to you? Read the whole article, too - it even quotes the Journal of Historical Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Historical_Review) and encourages people to sign up for subscriptions!

Here's a question for you - if someone, particularly a politician running a Presidential campaign, is racist in private and against racism in public, which of those two positions would more likely represent his real views?

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he isn't racist, the just conclusion is thus that he's stupid. If organisations whose only reason for existing is to seek a racially segregated society praise you, might that not concern you somewhat? If organisations like the John Birch Society, who believe that The Civil Rights Movement was a conspiracy against white America, invited you for dinner, might you not decline? If someone like the leader of the Patriot Network invites you to support their cause (have you read their website? They think the Federal government is The AntiChrist (http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Our_Purpose.htm) fercrissakes!), might you not decline?

Ron Paul is either racist, stupid, or both.

[volatile]

They may be attracted to Ron Paul's stance on affirmative action.

There are many different reasons why someone may support a candidate.

And there are many reasons why someone wouldn't. Me, I like to look at the full picture before throwing my support wholeheartedly towards someone - do you think it's OK to support a racist candidate, for example, because you like their stance on foreign policy?

[Mister Agenda]

The Ron Paul Report quotes (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793) Ron Paul as saying "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal". That sounds quite racist to me; doesn't it to you? Read the whole article, too - it even quotes the Journal of Historical Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Historical_Review) and encourages people to sign up for subscriptions!

Here's a question for you - if someone, particularly a politician running a Presidential campaign, is racist in private and against racism in public, which of those two positions would more likely represent his real views?

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he isn't racist, the just conclusion is thus that he's stupid. If organisations whose only reason for existing is to seek a racially segregated society praise you, might that not concern you somewhat? If organisations like the John Birch Society, who believe that The Civil Rights Movement was a conspiracy against white America, invited you for dinner, might you not decline? If someone like the leader of the Patriot Network invites you to support their cause (have you read their website? They think the Federal government is The AntiChrist (http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Our_Purpose.htm) fercrissakes!), might you not decline?

Ron Paul is either racist, stupid, or both.

I don't believe he's racist, I do believe his diavowal of those writings as being by a staffer who was fired over it. I may have to concede stupid though, as he should have personally reviewed whatever was going out under his name, even if he was traveling at the time. A slight mitigating factor is I doubt he was considering running for president in 07 at the time.

[volatile]

I don't believe he's racist, I do believe his diavowal of those writings as being by a staffer who was fired over it. I may have to concede stupid though, as he should have personally reviewed whatever was going out under his name, even if he was traveling at the time. A slight mitigating factor is I doubt he was considering running for president in 07 at the time.

That, my friend, is bordering on the delusional. You're an apologist in a way that borders on cultish.

You seriously believe that Ron Paul never read, wrote, or endorsed any of the Ron Paul Reports? Even if that's true, that makes him massively incompetent.

[volatile]

You'll also note, of course, that RP has not issued denials or retractions of any of these, and indeed has refused to release the full back-run of the RPR because, and I quote (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html), "Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings."

[Patejdl]

Well, there's no "logical reason" why I would prefer not to have a candidate who believes we all need to be saved from the New World Order, either; but I do, and Ron Paul is, unfortunately, such a candidate.
Where on earth did you see Ron Paul saying that he wants to save the world from new world order?? :jaw-dropp

Let's say that people who beleive in globalism really want to work toward this new world order goal. Now there is this question if globalism is really a natural force bringing people together. What if new world order is really being worked on and RP beleives that it is a bad idea. So by saying what you said you either don't beleive that people with influence are really working toward globalism (or even smaller goals) or you think that globalism is a good thing. I don't know.

A little boring but very true and real story. You know I had this luck of having an old ex girlfriend who's mom married an old scottish gent who was an old mason (yes a freemason). While she was for 2 weeks off to scotland I spent nice 2 weeks with her daughter at their house. I was also there when they returned and while I was in kitchen I heard their quite long conversation in the living room. When I was listening to their conversation, comfortably sitting in the kitchen preparing tea I did not really know what they were talking about because I had a lack of info that time on these things. But somehow I knew I wasn't really supposed to hear that. I quitely waited for them to leave the room an