Slander Ron Paul is supported by 9/11 Truthers, neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists, kooks, anti-semites, and white supremacists. Truth Yes, Ron Paul is supported by all of those groups. He's also supported by Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Protestants, Hispanics, Mormons, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, Libertarians, African Americans, Arab-Americans, Homeschoolers, Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Constitutionalists, Free Staters, Students, Children, Parents, Grand-Parents, Truckers, Union Workers, Politicians, Reporters, Gold Bugs, Canadians, Germans, Finns, Swedes, Belgians, Brits, and of course, the infamous French. He's supported by Tax Protesters, small government conservatives and homeschoolers. He's supported by small farmers, ranchers, and lawyers. He's supported by Pastors, Professors, Economists and Business owners. He's supported by gamblers, prostitutes and athletes. He's supported by soldiers (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines), he's supported by veterans. He's supported by rich people, poor people, and even some of the remnant of the middle class. He's supported by people who have done the wrong thing, done the right thing, and he's supported by people who haven't done a single thing. He's supported by voters who dropped out, and he's supported by voters who are just getting in. He's supported online and offline. He's supported actively in 29 countries. Some men support him, and strangely enough, some women support him too. There is even a monkey that supports him. There are waitresses that support him, there are doctors who support him. Occasionally, the odd anarchist or socialist ends up supporting him as well. People who support him like the American flag, the Confederate flag, and even their state flag. Some of his supporters were not born in America. Yes, legal immigrants support him and there might even be a few illegal immigrants who support him too. But regardless of how many people, across all ranks and files support him, an enormous amount of attention is going to be called to small groups of a much larger whole who support Ron Paul. Not why they support him, or what he has done to enable them. Only that they may be unpopular or undesirable, and that they support Dr. Paul. He's denounced 9/11 Truthers, and he's denounced White Supremacists. Some people believe their donations should be returned, but as Dr. Paul has pointed out, he's trying to win an election, not screen all 57,000 donors who contributed last Sunday for politically unpopular viewpoints. With 100,000 donors, how exactly is Dr. Paul to ascertain who believes what, and whether or not it agrees with him? He's using that money to further a message about the Constitution, individual liberty and sound money (3 interconnected topics). If White supremacists want to support the Constitution, I'm happy he takes their money. That's the beauty of Dr. Paul. He doesn't pander. He'll go on neocon TV and say exactly what he says on Alex Jones' radio show. He'll go up on the debate stage, in front of hostile crowds, and endure the boos, to tell the truth about foreign policy, and the looming financial crisis. He's not afraid to say that we should trade with Cuba, and point out that 50 years of sanctions haven't removed Castro from power. He's not afraid to say that we solved the Cuban Missle Crisis by removing missles from Turkey in a compromise. He's not afraid to say that the best way to protect the troops is to never send them into endless wars without a declaration and clear victory conditions. He's also not afraid to say that we have to stop subsidizing Israel, because we shouldn't subsidize anyone, and the arab neighbors of Israel get 3 times as much financial aid. But the slander continues and will continue. His campaign has started to reach critical mass, and as the establishment realizes that the more they try to refute his positions, the more popular they become. Because they are no longer hidden from the public, and people of conscience and of rational thought can see the clear line of honesty, history and sincerity. So the focus will be on who supports him, and how a $500 donation out of almost $28 million dollars raised totally compromises his campaign. How 3 or 10 White Supremacy websites somehow compromise the hundreds of sites devoted to sound money, liberty and the Constitution that also back Dr. Paul. I did forget a couple groups that do not endorse or support Dr. Paul. He doesn't get support from corporations, and he doesn't get support from lobbyists. He's not supported by the people who write unconstitutional Laws, and he's not supported by the people who brought us Iraq. You can also scratch globalists, and war profiteers. Under a Paul Presidency, these factions would wither or go bankrupt. Today, Dr. Paul addressed some of the accusations with Neil Cavuto from Fox, and he made his position quite clear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8 As you can see, it's a segment not on policy or the campaign, but Christmas ads and $500 donations from undesirables. In the end, Cavuto acquiesces to Dr. Paul's point. Gandhi had a theory about the evolution of a peaceful revolution. First they ignore you (check) Then they laugh at you (check) Then they attack you (we're at this point) Then you win. Any slander without a source, and proof should be discarded. I've spent a good portion of my time refuting or debunking the endless waves of stupidity and outright lies. The last time I checked, evidence was video, photo or audio. Not some forum or blog post, many of which are so poorly written and researched, that they can be dismissed on their face. Heck, even the White Supremacists can't all agree to support Dr. Paul, his message is so divergent from their own.
It's also worth noting that Don Black himself has publicly announced he endorses Paul for his immigration and Iraq war views, and openly admits that Paul is not a friend of the white nationalist movement.
Don Black openly endorsed and supported GWB in 2000. The White Supremacists have always supported the Republicans. Paul's foreign and domestic policies are closer to Bush's positions in 2000, than any of the other candidates running today for the GOP nomination. Even Reagan was endorsed and supported by the KKK. Socialism isn't a friend of many American movements, and White Supremacy is one of those. Along with free marketers, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and old right Republicans of the Taft/Goldwater mold.
It may be worth starting a dedicated Ron Paul slander thread guerilla so that GT and the rest of the crazy gang can get their rocks off in there mate. If Paul makes as much of an impact as I think he is going to then you are going to have your work cut out with all these crazy neocon supporting pro-war lunatics sprouting their BS.
I've got to add my own personal experience here. I've been on a few sign waves now, and a couple canvassing events, along with other Republican events, all in support of Ron Paul. I'm very familiar and close with members of the Orlando Ron Paul Meetup. Diverse? You better believe it. Black & white, young & old, Republican and Democrat (and Indy/3rd party too!). People are truly getting inspired by his message. His supporters constantly have him and our movement under our own microscope. As I've said in a few previous posts, following the Beck interview it was mayhem on my Facebook group's message boards, as a few vocal truthers were combatting hundreds of people telling them that their beliefs need to be separate from the campaign. The thing that's funny about politics is people try to make ties between unrelated things, and that people like to polarize issues into one way or another. It's never that simple. Does supporting Ron Paul make me a truther, or make the movement a truther movement? Absolutely not. Ron is against it, the majority of his base is against it, the only association is a vocal minority who support Ron Paul and support a new 9/11 investigation. Does supporting Ron Paul make me a racist? Some racists also support Ron Paul. Absolutely not. As I said above, even the white nationalists debate if Paul is the best choice for them, and they openly admit that he's not so much in support of their movement, but in support of the free speech that lets their movement exist. The simple truth is that you get one vote, and in that vote you have to weigh pros and cons, things you support against things you don't, and it's never simple nor one sided. These claims are ridiculous, and once again distract away from the key thing during these elections, which is the issues. I'm going to take the higher ground from here on out. I'm not even going to give this crap justice, again, like Paul in his Beck interview. Paul has some stances I personally don't agree with. I'm leaning more and more libertarian everyday, but I'll openly admit I don't know all the issues. In particular, I definitely don't know enough about economic policy to participate in the debates Guerilla loves to engage earlpearl and others in. I consider myself a history buff, but I know I can't hold a candle to how well read Dr. Paul is on the issues and the history of our country and its Founding Fathers. That's why I find it all too comical to see a blogger on some no-name political rag write something along the lines of "Paul's views on ____ are infantile and naive, how ridiculous!" without ever qualifying why that's true, or why they are a pronounced expert in that particular field. And trust me, with the rising popularity of Dr. Paul, these hit pieces are all too common. I get a chuckle, because even if that person has some valid arguments, they've lost me before they ever made a point because of their approach. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar, as they say, and how does this writer plan to convince me and the world he's right when he can't even make an argument past an opening ad hominem? I digress. There is a reason that a Paul supporter is different from a Guiliani supporter or a Thompson supporter or a Huckabee supporter, and there is a reason this movement gets a bit out of control and unwieldly at times. It's because the message of the Constitution and personal/economic liberty goes beyond borders, political parties, and age groups. We have Meetups starting up in other countries, and I believe there was a Tea Party '07 event planned somewhere in Europe for earlier this week. Quite simply, most Paul supporters are not voting for the man but the movement. You can't slander that, you can't defeat that. That is not to say Paul isn't a great candidate; his record is impeccable, his resolve unwavering, even if he's not the best public speaker. In closing, this year has been crazy, it has awakened my political soul and given me some hope for America in the future, after a bleak couple of years. I'm confident that I'm on the right side of the battle, because me and my candidate back our beliefs with facts, with historical citations, with writings from influential people ranging from Jefferson to Locke to Rand to Friedman and everyone in between. When I look for rebuttals, I find marginalization in the media, I find ad hominem attacks, I find outrage without reason. Want to actually get some perspective on the kind of people behind this movement? Message me, message guerilla, get in touch through instant messaging or something more. Or even check out a local Meetup group; there are many, in every corner of the country, and they hold events often. Come out to a sign wave or a canvassing event or a fair we are at, and talk to us personally. It's all too easy to rant on the internet, and I can say that unfortunately a lot of our supporters get riled up easily because MSM doesn't exactly give the fairest representation of our platform or the coverage $6M in a day from 100,000 people deserves. I may not sell you on Ron Paul, but I can guaran-fucking-tee you'll stop throwing out these ridiculous labels when you realize that we are just mostly normal people who really care about the path of our country. I've never personally seen in my lifetime someone with the ability to unite people of different groups like Dr. Paul, and it's amazing to get a bunch of us together and see all those views mesh together under one movement. That is what Ron Paul 2008 is all about.
I support a new 9/11 investigation but I wouldn't consider myself a "truther" - BUT I definitely think 9/11 deserved a better investigation than what it was given.
That is Paul's stance. He seeks a new investigation solely to look for idiocy on the part of our government, to look for people who let this slip by accident. He does not believe in any of the truther beliefs that we brought down our own towers or anything like that. He made this clear on Beck.
That's beautiful Fletch. People only have to go to the Ron Paul Flickr Group to see the "average Americans" who support Ron Paul. With regards to the original allegations by Bill White, posted by GTech. I've done some research, and the Lone Star Times is a neocon stronghold that banned Paul supporters some months ago. It's been so entirely anti-Paul, that in the wake of his fund raising success, is now trying to focus on actually raising funds for their own candidates (wow, took them long enough). Sourcing the Lone Star Times, is LittleGreenFootballs, another site that GTech frequents, and is decidedly anti-Paul. If you read their blog post, and "evidence", they have a public FEC report that confirms that the campaign spent $300+ dollars at the restaurant where these supposed meetings were happening, but neither who ate there, nor the fact that it is a very popular restaurant in Virginia. And best of all, they claim that the Taft club in New York is run by someone with ties to rascists. Specifically Pat Buchanan (who withered under the exact same attacks Ron Paul is now facing, slander is sloppy and repetitive of course), and his sister, Bay Buchanan, who is a top flight Presidential campaign manager WHO RUNS TOM TANCREDO'S CAMPAIGN. So yes, everyone who talks about the Constitution, and securing our borders, who disapproves of the UN, and wants to shrink the size of government, is apparently in on this massive right wing conspiracy that supported Goldwater and Reagan. Blog/forum posts by partisans and ideologues are no substitute for good research. I mean, does anyone else see the absolute foolishness that Dr. Paul would meet with White Supremacists at a Thai restaurant?
You wrote: Slander: bla blah Then: Truth: Yes, he is supported by those groups. So actually the statement you claim is slander is also "true". I seriously think you should get a girlfriend. You are spending way too much time posting Paul propaganda to this webmaster forum.
Thanks for re-iterating my point. The attempts at slanderare not only ridiculous, they are part of a bigger truth. Are you asking me out? I came to the conclusion I am not posting enough. I've decided to redouble my efforts. Thanks for the encouragement!
just want to share one more interesting link: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/200...-gaining-in-nevada-ron-paul-strong-zogby.html
Which has earned much respect in my book. I am so sick of those who pander and flip flop depending on what show they are on. I'm sure in the end it hurts him with many, but for his true base it increases their die hard support.
Looks like the White Supremacist who claims of meetings on Wednesdays @ a Thai restaurant are being debunked. http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...-paul-and-white-supremacists-fec-report-data/ Surprise, surprise. Kudos to the morons who read and link from LittleGreenFootBalls and HotAir. Too much AllahPundit on your brains. Of course, slander is the vehicle of the neoconservatives. When will they learn that slandering Ron Paul only makes his supporters work harder?
Is there a person he won't take money from drug dealers? Mafia hitman? or is it that even blood money is still acceptable to him?
Lol, I love reading LGF and Kos, both are great for a chuckle. Hey Guerilla, you ever see a circular picture, it's something we covered in a history class, and basically it's an almost closed circle? On the ends of the circle are radical groups like communists on the left, and Nazis on the right, and then it goes to more moderate groups as it moves towards the middle? I like to think of Kos and LGF as being the polar ends, and Paul is in the middle. on the other side of the circle. They are two completely different idealogies that share a lot of similarities and complete polarized ridiculousness, whereas Paul is the reasonable middle ground for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Do you have any evidence that the Don Black donation was blood money, or accrued through illegal means?
I believe Paul's stance is quite clear. Is the money legal? Yes, then keep it. I'm sure he'd gladly return money that was raised by questionable means. I think that is the problem here, people are blurring the distinction between undesirable and illegal. Paul is basically saying "If he supports me, so be it. It's about my politics, not his. I don't endorse his views, but if there is something about me he supports, I'll gladly take his money; it's money that can't be used to forward his own political agenda". Makes a lot of sense to me.
If you point the ends of the circle down, then it works as a great model to super impose on a Nolan Chart.