This whole smear campagn is a diversion. These people cannot argue the points, because they have long ago sold out. They use many fascist tactics to silence dissent (for example calling their opponants fascists, when that boot is clearly on the other foot). If you get on their nerves too much, i.e, post too much truth for them, they will red rep attack you. This smearing of Ron Paul is the same tactic writ large. They are bullies--nothing more. The good news is that they are scared
I don't think Ron Paul should turn down the money. Ron Paul doesn't have to agree with everything his supporters agree with, no two people on planet earth agree on the same thing, even a husband and wife will not agree on everything! Ron Paul can simply respond by saying that he supports free speech, and leave it at that. The establishment is trying hard to discredit Paul's campaign, but the man is not racist, not a Holocaust denier, and not a "911 truther." Obviously Ron Paul doesn't agree with the views of these groups, because some of these views are alien to his own message of freedom and individuality. Gtech, this thread is weak, your attack on Ron Paul is weak. It doesn't matter if those who donate money to him are skin heads or white supremacists, because as Americans, that is their right. Do I agree with these guys? Absolutely not. And who exactly are giving donations to Giuliani or Romney? I'm sure if you dig, you can't find plenty of donations from controversial sources if you look at the donations coming to the other candidates. If we want to play the "reject donations from certain organizations" game, we should start looking to see who donates money to Hillary, Romney, and Giuliani. But it doesn't matter, because who you accept money from for your campaign should not be important, what should be important is your political past and your political beliefs, and most importantly, your ability to do the job.
Tesla, great points. How about we return all PAC money, and all special interest groups money, and all lobbyist money, and all money from anyone who is generally considered undesirable or not very liked? Considering so many people who are opposed to Ron Paul argue his policies are impractical, I find the kind of suggestions you guys throw out hilarious as to how he should handle his supporters. He should publicly denounce every questionable objection, and return money from anyone that a lot of people just don't like. Who gives a shit? If it's legal money, it's that citizen's right. Besides that, as a spokesperson in his campaign said, if a white supremacist or anti-Semite or somebody else donates to Dr. Paul, who is fighting for equality and freedom, it's their loss. Dr. Paul is quite public about his record, his beliefs, and his plans, so if they wish to support him, even if his plans go counter to what he espouses, it'll suck to be them. This is again, just a big diversionary tactic to take the discussion away from the issues and turn it ad hominem. It's failing miserably, by the way.
That sort of defeats the message, though, doesn't it? What political beliefs and abilities does RP hold that draw these people? Some of them were quoted, then without any response, quickly swept under the carpet via denial. Followed by projectionism. So you agree with this? grim agrees with this? These are the very kinds of past statements RP has made, that would surely attract white supremacist groups, neo-nazis and other filth along that line. RP sees blacks as barbarians, but has a double standard when it comes to islamists that attack our country. When islamists are at hand, they are victims. It is "our" fault that they attack. But when it's blacks? The reason why RP will not denounce these groups, is that his past seems to indicate messages that have some mutual agreement. More importantly, to denounce groups like these, would severely diminish his support base. It's a two sided coin and no matter which side wins in the toss up, it hurts RP either way. Not unlike his foreign policy, his policy on such controversial issues that many are asking legitimate questions about, seems to be: inaction is the best course of action.
Source? Again, you're promoting a misinterpretation, one from Rudy Giuliani. RP has never said Islamists were victims, he said the attacks had motivation, and the motivations are not necessarily theological. The CIA and the 9/11 report back up this assertion. He doesn't denounce or endorse anyone. That's not how he works. You might be confused by an honest politician who doesn't spend all of his time currying favor with one group, at the expense of another. Those folks, if legally allowed to contribute under FEC rules, should do so. David Black of the KKK supporter GWB in 2000 and 2004. He was never denounced or condemned. You know why? They are Americans. And this is a land that protects free speech, so no matter what vile or evil thing they say, they cannot be excluded from the process, without compromising the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, a lot of people have grown up in the Nanny state, where everything has to be Politically Correct, and no one should ever criticize or dislike another. It's socialist brainwashing. Again, you've mis-interpreted his position, and again, I have corrected you on this before (you just chose to dance and duck responding). Paul's foreign policy is a traditional American foreign policy. The current policy mirrors the USSR, with wars of aggression, expansion of the empire and mercantilism. As far as inaction, Paul proposed a declaration of war for Iraq (that way certain DPers family members would already be home with the war won), he authorized going after Al Queda in Iraq, and he has twice proposed constitutionally based legislation to track and hunt Al Queda. I'm very pleased that after 3 months, you are only able to post the same old criticisms that have been addressed several times. It means that the assault on Paul's character is a straw man.
Get that job that you hate, the ones that take Rush out of context Still not bolding the Korean shop keeper part I see, ghee I wonder why.
See page one. The source provides a source for these statements. Not that it would make any difference. View the source on page one. It's from a 1992 news letter. RG had nothing to do with RP's choice of words. He suggests this all the time. Source for the CIA and 9/11 report to back this up? I'd love to see how these agencies believe 9/11 was "our" fault. Thank you for confirming. Were RP to denounce the scum that is mysteriously attracted to him (surely not because of words like we saw above), he'd have no one left to support him. Twice now, I've asked for a source for this statement and you've ignored it. I'd love to see a source. I can show numerous sources where Black was against Bush. Some people need more protection under the Constitution than others. We've both agreed on that in the past and know who needs more than others. Does this mean those that support RG, JM, MH, MR and other candidates can use this as an excuse? It has nothing to do with his past historical comments about blacks? Nothing to do with his long standing position on Israel, but rarely ever mentions any other country? Ah, that's what it is? So what is it when others oppose bigots that make racial statements, who just happen to inconveniently have the mad support of neo-nazi groups, anti-semitic groups, loonatic 9/11 troofers (who btw often blame 9/11 on Jews)? Incorrect again, on your part. Our FP is not built upon blaming America first and curling up into a ball waiting to be attacked. It does not include sitting idly by while others threaten our national security. Inaction is not always the best course of action. RP makes it clear when blacks throw a riot that he's not for terrorism, but when real terrorists attack our country, he eludes to the notion that it might be a government conspiracy and chastises our country at every turn. This is not the FP of anyone I recall in history. Source please? Sorry, my experience has been that RP supporters just make up facts when they are convenient. As I recall, RP had to be convinced pretty hard about Afghanistan. I'm very pleased that you've viewed it as the same criticism, when clearly the list has grown exponentially, as sourced on page one. It has grown in size of one little news letter that shows how he really feels, but is quickly dismissed as "but, but, but it wasn't his words!" (yeah, right!). Take a look at the source, guerilla. It's not the same and they have not been addressed. They are simply swept under the carpet and pretend they don't exist. That's what's happened here, yet again. I am thankful though, that *some* have admitted that his racist comments are what they stand behind. It does continue to shed light about who and why support him. What more could I ask for?
A Korean shop keeper is not running for the POTUS while making racial statements. That you don't take issue with such says a lot about your character. I guess it comes as no surprise though. When is Sears holding it's next "white" sale?
You're trying to claim someone a racist, yet in the same quotes you are bolding you leave the point out the person who wrote it is sticking up for Korean shop keepers. A true racist would not stick up for anyone other than their race, but I guess you missed that point. Doesn't shock me one bit. http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/01/16/bushs-racist-appointment/ Hey lets find more and more that we can call is 'racist' about public figures speeches, supporters, appointments, etc, etc. Simply the best you've got? I'd be willing to wager if this is all you have one could find more on Bush in a little search to point to 'racism' doesn't mean I'd believe it all. You I know would not, you'll only believe it when it goes with your agenda. --- Yet again if you read anything from RP above and beyond a few quote wonders you continue to post you'd see he does not see people as groups, but individuals. I know you wont read though, it would defeat your agenda.
Did the Korean shop keeper say those words, or did RP? Can someone be against one race (like blacks) and not another, or more against blacks, than another group? Or if RP is against blacks (as it appears to be), then he must equally be against all other races? That's the basis of your lame argument. Is that really the best you can do to sweep the issue under the carpet? You agree with those words, grim? That's what defines you as a person? Yes, I know you hate Bush. So much so, you even admitted your disappointment about the surge working in Iraq (finally, towards the end) was about Bush. You don't have to keep pointing that out to me, you've already convinced me.
I said to sweep it under the carpet? Really I did, that's news to me. I personally would take it at as it's intended to be, unlike you who is lamely trying to make it more than it is. Who wrote it is against blacks for saying the truth? The numbers, you know, the same thing many blacks themselves have said. Our own laws have created this situation in many times, our own thinking of 'groups' something that RP does not think with, but you don't appear to see that. --I personally am reading it as a way to stop our current laws and way of thinking, not a racist agenda in the least. But I know any time someone talks about a 'race' 'color' someone can twist it, especially when they try to attack the problem. One would think the best method would be not to think in group mentality, something that RP is for, but you dont' want to hear that as it does not fit your agenda. What defines you as a person? Twisting, making up lies, avoiding, and that's about it. I admitted disappointment about the surge working? Seriously Gtech stop your lying, you make yourself to be more of a joke every time you type. I stated the same thing that OUR OWN MILITARY was saying, but you know I'm glad you know more than our military. Sitting in your office chair as office rambo and all. I admitted it was about Bush, wow seriously again more lies. Let me do some Gtech twisting. You admit to being a racist. 'don't you just love how using Gtechs own method of debating can turn around oh him' Yet again nice avoidance of Bush related racist materials. But you know, you have no 'double standard'
Yes, you did admit it was about Bush (regarding the Iraq surge). So theres' that answer. You said to sweep it under the carpet? No, I didn't say you did. I did point out the actions though. So you accept racial statements about blacks as truth? Fair enough, I was wondering why you kept trying to sweep them under the carpet and pretend it's not worth discussing. Now we see you accept them as well. Thank you. Admitted disappointment? You were disappointed. You were furious, in fact, that the surge worked. And, as that was about two months ago, the surge is still working and you were wrong then. Go ahead, pretend that were not. Might make up some "pretend friends" to back up your point as well! I'm surprised that this is the best you have? Considering that projectionism and narcissism are you favorite tactics, it's quite easy for me to counter. Perhaps it's time for a new strategy? Have you considered pathological lying? It's worked for AC and some others here. Just trying to help
Seriously Gtech I did admit it was only about Bush, wow news to me. I never said that Gtech, you tried to twist it to that. There goes Gtech with twisting to say it's racial, when in fact it's hitting the topic head on. RP does not see people as groups, with his thinking racial statements can not happen. But here you go trying to lamely twist a statement of 'black' into being racist, god forbid anyone try to go after the problem as Gtech will be there to twist it. All the time avoiding anything and everything not on his agenda. I see the statements as being everyone is so worried about racism it has made it impossible to treat people as individuals, causing the problems we are in now. You however are of course looking for a way to discredit RP so you are attacking it as racist. Look into it Gtech, if we get away the common view of 'groups' it makes total sense to me, get rid of the problem of looking at races and the problems of 'racism' go away. It is you who is bent up on races, not me. Gtech you are again lying. I was not 'furious' at anything, other than possibly your lies. I stated the same thing our own military stated, yet again glad you know more than our brave men and woman that are actually there. Gtech, so when did you get your degree again in psychiatry? The only liar here is you New strategy? Against you? LOL you've got to be kidding me, why change a strategy for a guy who can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.
No twisting, you finally acknowledged it. Don't make me go back and embarrass you again, and give you something new to twist and lie your way out of, by creating some alternate reality. My shoes are red today, not white. No amount of waffles can make them white. Look, if you are comfortable with a candidate that makes racial statements and choose to ignore them, or discount them, grim, I'm fine with that. If that's the kind of person you are, more power too you. While you may not care about racial statements, I'm sure some do. You don't have to work hard to convince me anymore, you've already convinced me that a few racial statements here and there about blacks are fine. If you can live with that, great! Fair enough?
No Gtech I'm willing to look at the statement for what it is, look at the candidate and what he states and stands for. I see it if you look at it correctly a good thing, blacks themselves admit problems are caused by the governments involvement, does that make them racist? You are trying to twist something into something I do not see it being, simply to discredit someone. Someone you claim has no 'chance' yet you fear so damn much. You appear to rather want to trash someone than look at what was said, you'd rather trash someone than actually see a way out of the 'racist' mentality. I don't see them as racial one bit, I see them for what it is. You are so afraid of one man so much that you must latch onto anything and everything to try to discredit him, fair enough?
Doesn't matter if you see them racial. You always claim something is not something by your own opinion, if it fits your agenda. As if your opinion was all that mattered. Thanks for confirming that this is the kind of things you stand behind. And we wonder why neo-nazis, white supremacists and racial nuts are supporting your candidate? Now we know why.
Thanks for showing all you care about is discrediting someone you fear. Adding the end of the quote, sure appears to me the writer is trying to hit the problem head on and fix it. Sometimes it's a dirty job, easily twisted by the likes of you. The writer is saying a fact, what our government is doing is taking money from one part of the country and giving it to another which is not a cure. How dare we try to fix things, how dare us not look at things as 'races' and instead look at individuals. You've proven all you'll do is latch onto one thing to try to discredit a man, instead of looking at the entire quote and for what it really is about.
No answer to what? That racial statements being swept under the carpet? I really don't expect an answer from you on that. You can if you want to, though. Huh? Repeated quote questioning Williams? Which quote is that? The one I've repeated that RP said in response to LA Riots, that you are introducing something alternate to cover up with? Come on, you know me better than that, grim So google now determines who is more racial than another? The actual link you provided is really interesting though. I had no idea he really had supported Bush, because I've seen some things by the guy that would indicate otherwise. Back then, it was something I was not aware of. Not surprisingly so, as the article is dated November 2000, just prior to the election. Did you find anything about anti-semites supporting him? How about delusional "troofers?" Oh, wait, they need 9/11 for that, didn't they? Obviously they are being more vocal about their support this time around, eh? No, I completely understand that some will draw bad apples. What I find interesting is, when someone seems to draw all the bad apples whose supporters (bad apples) are the majority (from my perspective). I find it interesting in the actual light of racism, that some choose to pretend it's not and dismiss it. RP doesn't have a monopoly on our Constitution. I believe all candidates stand behind it and I believe a great many of candidates, except RP, will protect our country from terrorist threats, instead of trying to blame our country for them and take on loony positions of conspiracies regarding them. I really don't care what you believe, one way or another. I'd have to respect you first, and that, you have not earned and probably never will.
Well played GTech, but it's all just rhetoric. I've repeatedly posted and sourced Iraq, Afghanistan and the authorization bills for the president to conduct a global manhunt for Bin Laden and Al Queda. Of course, you continue to ignore it, just as you continue to promote blog entries that reference a newsletter that none of us have seen personally, and no such scanned copy exists for anyone to verify. Luckily, Dr. Paul himself has owned up to a newsletter no once can produce, and explained that he did not write the piece. Any due diligence on your part would have ascertained that it simply is not consistent with any of his views, or any of the legislation that he has pursued in his 30 year career. Anyone wondering where Dr. Paul stands on racism, you can reference his books, his op-eds on Lew Rockwell and at Ron Paul Library and that is reflected on his Issues page located here, https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/ "Surrender Should NOT be an Option" by Ron Paul Here is Ron Paul' reading list for ignorant Giuliani that thought he knew a thing or two about the causes for 9/11. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/reading-list.html
Wow talk about being owned on something, then responding because you were. Still no answer to the quote of myself I asked you, but I know how you love to play the idiot. I'm not sweaping anything under the rug, I hit it head on. Sorry if it took away from your twisting and attacking. Your repeated quote, as in YOU Gtech, your own words using Williams against RP. Yet another twist by Gtech to try to take away from the true meaning of a post. Nope not at all Gtech, you are the one who used the link to google, claiming it all came from RP support sites. Yet the first link on the google search is an article about support from the same guy supporting RP that you have issues with, yet no issues from supporting Bush. So instead of seeing your hypocrisy you decide to twist again, classic Gtech. Not at all, obviously the only thing that you people can get on RP is through some of his supporters 'eh' What I find interesting is you give up all logic in order to bash a guy who 'has no chance' according to you and only bash him, nobody else. I find it funny that you can not see the statement you claim as racist as anything but racist as it wont fit your agenda. I find it funny you keep claiming the majority of RP's support are these bad apples 'same ones who supported Bush' yet you have no proof, yet you demand proof for everyone elses assertions. Ahh so him using facts, you know what the 9/11 commission stated, our own intelligence, etc that makes him 'blaming America' Great logic you have there Gtech Feeling is mutal, once you stop lying you 'might' earn a bit of respect. Until then though