Ron Paul coordinator has KKK ties, organizers discover

You hear a lot of things in your head GT lol.

Must be worrying about all them TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRISTS all the time.

 

He also contradicts his own president . Gtech its unamerican to make your president out to be a liar. Bush said no wmd's and now u were saying that there are. Im saddened by this unamerican talk,. For the last time the president cant lieeeeeee.

 

Gtech is delusional, I already told him what he needs to do.

 

Does it bring back fond memories of being a page for a republican congressman?

 

So no example, interesting...

Putting words into others mouths yet again. I never said I approved of them, I also did not say I believe they are his.

Source for what? That white power people have supported Bush? I sourced this to you already Gtech.

Sigh Gtech thankyou for letting me easily own you yet again.
I have NEVER sourced Huffington post on a serious level, the story you posted also did not prove or even accuse RP of anything. Seriously is this the best you have got?

Yet again, for the pure pleasure of owing you Gtech, the only time I linked to the huffingtonpost was SARCASM

Where I link to the huffingtonpost
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=5007929&highlight=huffingtonpost#post5007929

I did a search to show how easy it was to find something on Romney, simply to prove how easy it is to find dirt on anyone, or an article claiming as such. i am not attacking Romney, I am showing 'using the huffingtonpost' how much of a joke that crap is. If anything I am ripping on the huffingtonpost, nice try there Gtech. Now are you going to drop this, or are you going to continue falsely claiming something as your usual?

Gtech read above, you were not even close to 'owning me' you were owned like a 2 dollar whore.

Yet you have yet to own me Gtech, you think you do. Like the 'surge' where you know more than our brave men and women fighting in Iraq.

No Gtech you did use it as a source, you are bolding them.
If you used Fox as a source, but the original comes from the Wal Street Journal, you are in reality using the Wal Street Journal as well.

Ahh but you keep bringing it up, so obviously you do.

Indicators are not 'proof' Gtech. Even your articles you've posted that I read state as much.

Not at all Gtech, I have stated the same all along. I do not see them as racist, furthermore there is no proof he even wrote them.

Nope Gtech the same position I have always had. It is not 'dual positions' to say #1 I don't see them as racist, #2 They are not proven to be his.

Any mention of them being RP's Gtech was attacking your logic, with your thoughts, not mine. I'm sure you'll look to twist instead of simply asking for clarification, I wouldnt' have it any other way.

 

Gtech OWNED!!! AGAIN!

 

just wanted to say im here to console Gtech if he needs a friend

 

Are you a psychiatrist?

 

Plenty of examples. I have no reason to believe you would be honest about it. For those who have super huge egos, it's not about the truth. It's about "owning" someone. Surely I'm not preaching to the choir here

Nope. Just making an honest observation. You take no issue with the racism, only those who bring it up. I'm already aware of the denial regarding the racist newsletters, the white supremacists outing him, the white supremacists supporting him and all his "code word" racist comments.

So no example, interesting...

You've already proven you have sourced huffpo. Not only that, but you give a pass to any number of people that tear "your" country down on a daily basis for doing so. Until it's about your candidate.

Best I've got? Nah, I'm just electing to be a better man about your desire to personally attack me, while giving white supremacists a pass.

That's a mighty big ego to believe you are so superior to anyone that disagrees with you, that you own them. Can you recall the medical term that revolves around that?

Can we get an update on your new position? Did you source huffpo, or did you not? Only two positions so far, can get get another just for fun's sake?

So that's your excuse? Interesting. But when guerilla and others source it, never a peep. Starting to get the picture? Drop what? Did you, or did you not source "huffpo?" It's a yes or no answer. It looks like you've already answered YES, but are so ashamed, that you need an excuse. Do others need an excuse for it as well? Or do you give them a pass?

I generally try to stay away from claiming to own someone. My view is, that anyone who is so personally insecure about their position(s) that needs to constantly remind those around them they "owned" someone, has a narcissism problem. Not naming any names, of course, but that's how I view it. If you are so insecure about yourself that you need to remind others (and seek their support) to proclaim "owning" someone, I won't hold you back.

I have. I'm just not consumed by a huge ego that I have to proclaim it all the time. I'm very comfortable with watching people insert themselves into the middle of a discussion as a drama queen to become the center of attention. Especially those that do so at a personal level, in order to avoid issues.

This is dishonest. I have not used KOS as a source. Viewing the source I provided originally disputes this dishonesty. I'm flattered that you want to abuse the truth about the source, to make it an issue to avoid discussion about yet another racist tie to ron paul.

Wrong. The proof exists, it has been exposed. I do appreciate when you deny it though. It does speak volumes.

The proof has already been exposed. I'm already aware that you agree with his racist comments and don't see a problem with them. That's actually part of the point As you so eloquently admit, you don't see them as racist. That speaks volumes about you, by your own admission.

You forgot a position there. Three is the count, right? We could go for four. Feeling lucky?

Are you suggesting you are not being clear? John Kerry had to reclarify his multiple positions all the time. Is a pattern emerging here?

Grim, I'm flattered that through your own admission, you believe all those newsletters were not racist remarks. This is your undoing here. You want it both ways. You want to deny he wrote them, without any explanation as to why Ron Paul's personal comments were in these newsletters. Without any explanation as to why it's on his letter head. Without any explanation as to why his signature is on some. Without any explanation as to why RP stated he didn't know about them, but sources have uncovered news articles in the past where RP had defended them.

But on the other side, you also want the world to believe that the racist statements in his personal newsletters are not a problem for you, that the comments are acceptable to you.

And you want me to believe you are not intelligent enough to see all that? You really want to convince me that you are so absent of thought and intellect, that you willfully do not see the racist comments or all the "proof" that exists? You really want to deny that RP defended these newsletters in 1996, and now says he's not aware of them? I find it hard to believe, that someone who is so "fixated" on owning anyone he doesn't like, would want them to believe he was that unintelligent.

If you insist on convincing me that you are that unintelligent, who am I to disagree?

 

Nope guerilla, but it doesnt take one to see that gtech has gone off the deep end. Lets all get together and give the guy a group hug. Now hes spouting information to call president bush a liar. Is he an american or is he unamerican. Talk about flip-flopping. lol

 

Thanks, that's very kind of you pingy. I'm truly flattered that you have convinced yourself that I need some consoling, however, I can assure you I'm fine.

I can't help but laugh when I see the group effort to try and convince each other that you've done a great job defending Ron Pauls racism. I see it on the Ron Paul forums all the time, so I'm very familiar with the group level self-congratulatory efforts.

I'm sure it gives a warm, cozy feeling inside

 

You know the first step to curing a problem is admitting that you have one. You have a sad case of DID (Dissociative Disorder), I suggest you seek professional help.

 

Nope Gtech 'owning' you bring up all the time, I do as well as 'owning' is the truth. But for you to rip on me for 'owing' is pretty funny as you claim it all the time.

I do not find the articles 'racist' plus yet again they have not been proven to be written by him. I take issue with people like you who do nothing more than bash someone 'who has no chance' using any source they possibly can. Where is the proof of this 'white supremacist' outing him again? I'm still waiting on that. You claim they are 'code words' I guess I could say 'tearing down america' is code word for Natzi, doesn't make it true.

LOL Gtech I asked you what source you wanted, and instead of saying what you wanted a source for you butcher what I said and try to act as though I have no example. Give me a break, all you had to do is say what you wanted a source for!

Lovely example of bolding only a part again, I clearly state I did source the huffington post, it was a sarcastic post. You are acting like I used the source for an actual serious post, of which I most certainly did not. Now you are trying to claim I am saying I did not source it, yet I said I did.

Speaking of 'about your candidate' you're willing to let your candidate speak badly of gays, but when RP 'might' have written something you'll use it at every chance. Interesting..

I never gave white supremacists a pass, you are the one taking their word to trash a war vet NOT me.

When did you get your degree to be a shrink again? What would be the medical condition when you're proven wrong but can not admit to it? I'm sure you've been under treatment for years, maybe one of these years the treatement will work. I am hoping for you..

Ahh Gtech the LIAR. I state I sourced it for SARCASM, there were no 2 positions.. You however have proven yet again to not care about truth and honesty, it's amazing that I'm sure you think you are actually correct here. Anyone with a 2nd grade education can see I state I sourced it for a sarcastic post, not using them for an actual serious reason.

I could care less if someone else used it as a source. Why would I 'give a peep'? You are trully making no sense here, others can use whatever source they want, you do all the time.

Gtech it's simple, I used the source on a sarcastic level, NOT using the source as a serious source of news. There is a huge difference. In your logic here I could not link to a funny story on a news page as that would make me 'sourcing' the site. I do not use the information on the link to claim it is accurate, I actually rip on it. There is a difference Gtech, even you with your limited brain function should be able to see that.

No Gtech you actually use it alot I only remind you on how very wrong you are, when you continue to try to claim you're correct but you've been proven wrong over and over. "owned' is just an easy way of saying you've been proven wrong Gtech, how often I have to type it I might as well save some space on the server.

Gtech if anyone is the 'center of attention' it would be you, constantly joining thread after thread, even when it has nothing to do with RP to bash him. I guess with your logic I can NEVER join a thread as I am the center of attention. I post 1/10 or less of others on here, but yeah I'm the 'center of attention' Again you are changing the subect as you can not win the battle. Gtech you are the queen of personal attacks, I get to read your personal attacks damn near daily.

The source you posted used them as a source, within their article is information sourced by KOS of which you bolded. You most certainly did use KOS as a source, it's right there in black and white.

Indicators are not proof yet again, even your articles do not say it's definitely him. Even if it's him it does not change my mind, to me it's seriously a non issue.

The statements I have read do not come acrossed as racist to me at all. Poorly worded yes, racist, not at all. I never said I agree with them, nor did I say I don't see a problem with them. You love making shit up don't you?

I have not changed a position at all Gtech, nice try. When you can't win a debate, bring out all the parlour tricks.

Nope not at all Gtech, I'm suggesting you're like those who 'misquote' Rush all the time that you hate. You are one in the same, you try to act like you know what someone else meant when they post, you take bits and pieces, totally out of context and put them together to make the words you wished they made.

I'm glad you're flattered. It's my undoing, seriously? To me your undoing is your continued bash fest of RP, bashing at every chance, taking every source possible, showing you do not care about facts, all you care about is bashing him. You do it so much it's to the point that I can not even take you seriously as it's apparent all you care about is destroying him 'the guy with no chance'

I do not want it both ways Gtech, yet again. #1 I do not see them as being racist. #2 It's all been gone over, over and over, it still is not proven he wrote them. Guerilla alone has schooled you on this over and over. Yet you persist, it's laughable at best.

Yet again making shit up. I do not see them as 'racist' that is far from saying they are totally acceptable to me.

It's very easy Gtech, come on you can not be this stupid.

#1 I do not see them as being racist.
#2 It is not proven he even wrote them
This is not 'two sides' otherwise I guess Nukes and Bio weapons in Iraq is 'two sides' God forbid there be more than one reason, as that is '2 sides' in Gtech world.

Are you serious here Gtech? Are you drunk might I ask as you're coming off to me as you hit the hooch a bit early tonight.

Sigh Gtech, this has been gone over and over and over.
Yet again
#1 I do not see them as being racist.
#2 It has not been proven he wrote them.
How about a #3 and you'll say this is another side, when in fact it's simply yet again a reason. #2 is a non issue to me as I do NOT see them as being racist! How can you not comprehend this is beyond me.

Gtech I seriously am shocked and amazed at how close minded you are. 100% seriously, I was trying to give Huck a chance. I even told my wife during the debate he came off better to me, better than the others, especially Romney and McCain, Rudy, etc. Although I still prefer RP's platform greatly I liked his stance on the building up the US instead of giving tax rebates.

While trying to give Huck a chance I have been trying to be more in the middle, yet your posts still scream to me as someone who is simply closed minded and unable to see his candidate has some of the same stances that he is bitching and moaning about another for.

I gave up my RP avatar, I have debated with multiple RP posters, I am trying to be in the middle. Yet all I see from you is RP sucks and nothing more..

 

Projecting your own inadequacies onto me. If you are so insecure that you have to proclaim "ownage" in every debate, I'm fine with that. It says a lot more about you than it does me. My ego is fine. I don't have to proclaim something that is so obvious.

This is so full of double standards and hypocrisy, it's a bit overwhelming to know where to begin. Thank you again for confirming you do not see racist comments as racist. This speaks volumes more about you than I ever could, and you're doing it on your own. Thank you. I disagree about you taking issue though. You certainly don't take issue with anyone bringing up points about other candidates, or when certain members start threads about a candidate being a "war criminal" and most especially the countless posts here bashing Bush, for which you have also been a part of.

It's interesting. For the past few years, many of the same people here, including you, have bashed America, Bush, Republicans and countless others relentlessly. You've been a part of it. And now, suddenly, you don't like it when ONLY ONE candidate has issues that are brought up.

Bill White has already outed Ron Paul. Ron Paul's newsletters simply confirm the facts.

I don't have to butcher what you say. You do it for me.

So is this a flip or a flop? You did source it, you didn't source it, you only sourced it in a certain manner, but you didn't source it, but yet you claim you admitted you did source it. Where's a John Kerry adviser when you need one?

My candidate hasn't spoken badly of gays. He's spoken of the behavior. To assert this moral equivalent scenario, you have to accept that your candidate has spoken very badly of gays, as his newsletters have shown. I see you are struggling with whether he did write his own newsletters, that has his personal comments, his letter head, his signatures; that he claims to know nothing about, yet mysteriously defended them in 1996. How do you reconcile that with the delusion that 1) they are not racist, and 2) he didn't write them? Think about that and get back to me.

I disagree. You are doing it now. Rather than address this instance of white supremacy (just another in a long series), once again, you chose to attack the messenger for being aware. I can only conclude you are ashamed that you support a racist candidate.

You've not proven anything. You never do. It's all shades of gray and distortion, at best. This is no different.

Another personal attack. Instead of addressing the issue of your candidate's white supremacy problem, you've made it person against the messenger. Imagine if you stood up for your country, just once, with the same motivation you stand up for an exposed racist.

I don't expect you would give a peep to someone on "your team." That's my point. Thanks for confirming it.

I never made a condition about whether it was serious or not. Those are your conditions. I simply pointed out you had. You are the one making excuses, not I.

Source. I rarely ever use such, even when it's overwhelming. I don't have to. "Ownage" is your gig. You remind yourself and those you seek support from of it often.

Projection and denial. I put you on ignore a while back for this very reason. Interjecting yourself into every thread as a way to become the center of attention. I've pointed it out often. I'm flattered that you now attempt to project it onto me. It tells me you are well aware of it, and in order to rationalize the shortcoming, you project it back onto me. This defines psychological projection.

Winning the battle is your gig. Ownage and all the attention.

So you retract the dishonest statement that I used KOS as a source? Because clearly you are confirming now (flip or a flop?) (position one, or position two?) that I did not source KOS, but rather the source I used did. Meanwhile, never really addressing the racist issue.

I already know it doesn't change your mind. That is quite clear in your attempted discussion. It's actually part of my point. It's a flip, or a flop. Early on, you denied such things and said if it was ever proven, you'd join me and stop supporting him. Then it was proven. And now, you claim you don't care if your candidate is a racist. That's all I seek. I already knew it, it just took you umpteen posts of taking things personal, instead of addressing the issue.

Thank you for confirming you do not care if your candidate is a racist. About time you stood up like a man.

Perhaps there is a deeper reason why they do not come off as racist. After all, you don't care if he is or not. They are racist. There is no question. It may just be that you have a different standard on how you perceive Blacks and Jews.

Always about winning with you You've changed positions so many times, a chameleon couldn't keep up with you!

Projecting onto Rush now? Good Lord. Kind of reminds me of some of the coverage of Drew Pederson. Reporters are always saying he has a classic symptom. "It's everyone else's fault but his."

Absolutely! I'm flattered and it's your own undoing. But then you were finally man enough to admit what I knew all along...that you don't care that your candidate is a racist.

No need to continue the drama. That pretty much makes my point.

I've never known you to not want it both ways. Having it both ways means you can never be wrong. We know how important that is

Denial is not schooling.

I know. Apparently you agree with his racist comments. There's no other way you could say they are not racist, when they are. But then again, for someone like you, who might be used to these sort of racist statements, perhaps they are reasonable to you. That's certainly the picture you are painting.

I understand that racist comments may not appear to be racist to someone who is accustomed to their use. If your denial has taken you so far, that you honestly want me to believe you are not intelligent enough to see they are racist comments, who am I to stand in your way? I'm convinced!

I'm always serious, grim

You do not have to convince me that you see racist comments as acceptable. I'm already convinced.

Drama. Please save the drama. It's not your forte.

I'm closed minded, yet you believe racist comments are not racist. I guess you are open minded to somethings, and not so open minded to others.

No problems bitching about Bush, or America, eh? We know who you give a pass to and who you do not.

Sounds like RP has replaced Bush and America. Interesting how the tides change. "America sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans suck, terrorists are cool, Iran is a great political endorsement." I see what you take issue with and what you do not.

 

Gtech, if you would ever decide to stop the lying and twisting let me know

 

Yeah, let me know too. Hopefully I am still alive by then.

 

Don't hold your breath unless you're near an ER

 

The question is why are these types of people attracted to Ron Paul?

 

If you dont know after all the info grim, guerilla and everyone posted then maybe something is wrong lol. How about going through their old posts and actually reading then.

 

I really tip my hat to GRIM for the length of his posts trying to educate GTech but I fear he is wasting his time.

Better to keep it to one line bursts IMO because GT doesn't listen and will never admit to his insanity.