racists might like Ron Paul because he represents people's individual freedoms. he's most liked by black voters so you can't pull the race card on Paul. there is no reason other than that. people from all walks of life support him, so there'll obviously be groups of people you can't identify with. not everyone voting will have blonde hair and blue eyes, nor will anyone's opinion be the same. i really can't understand why some of you aren't getting it. well actually, i think you do get it but you act like you don't just to make me out to look crazy. if people stopped screaming OMFG RACIST every 10 seconds, you might learn a thing're two. i mean, i could call anyone a racist if i wanted to and ruin their reputation, anyone can. what most people can't do is narrow down issues and actually THINK.
You missed my point if you think I was calling anyone a racist. I am questioning why these admitted racists support RP. And why are the nutcases who believe in every conspiracy support RP? Just like anytime some loony person here agrees with me or I with him, I have to question why. It would be like me agreeing with gworld or AGS on a subject, I would ask why or did something get lost in translation?
Hehehehe nice one nate lol. You have even greater neocon nuts supporting the current president, like some people on this forum . So whats the point. Lets talk about where paul stands on the things that will effect the american people the most, like not screwing up in iran like we did in the 1950's destroying their one chance at having true freedom by taking out their hero mossadegh and putting in a a pro american government dictator like the shah who had one of the most brutal nazi style ss storm trooper police force in the history of the world. Watch how debunked and his buddies will mildly switch the subject Ron Paul is my hero because he isnt afraid to speak the truth even though it might hurt some zombie flag wavers who dont care about freedom and democracy . Its about time america has a real man running for president. I cant believe i'm actually excited enough to vote again.
Reagan had support from neo-nazis and the KKK. So did Goldwater. Don Black of the infamous $500 donation to Ron Paul also worked for and/or donated to the GWB campaign. The fringe white groups have always supported the Republicans, and the ones who were most conservative. Not the Reform party, not the Constitution Party not the Libertarian party, and certainly not the Democrats. It's not a new phenomenon to see the support going to someone like Paul who is running on a platform not unlike Goldwater's in 1964. Frankly, I trust my own intellectual capacity to delve through issues like integrity and platform, more than relying on who shows up to the rallies as I cast my vote for leader of the free world. But to each their own.
Hell even read some of the comments from that one white power site who endorsed RP and you can see they don't actually like him, they surely do not see him as racist. They simply see a few things that may help their cause inadvertently. The way these people are going on and on about bad apple supporters, one would think they feel that WE the people are not worthy of freedoms as it 'might' help some scum as well. You know what's seriously funny? The quote you quoted from Gtech, something about more supporting Bush than RP. Wow that's a bit out there, it might be true but one can not take the so called 5% of likely republican votes who would vote for RP to mean the same as the percentage of Americans who say the president is doing a goog job. The numbers and meanings are totally different, not even in the same ball park. But I guess when someone makes a habit of wild distortions, something such as this appears to add up..
and i answered your question why.. he represents individual freedoms. however, i do like to add extra bits to my posts to get more people fired up. just because two people don't agree on every single issue doesn't mean there can't be common ground on a few important ones? that's called irrationality my friend and it's been going on in Congress and D.C. for decades now, when are we gonna wake up?
This is great news....further good news is that shrillary is fading quickly...especially here in SC. Osamabama and Oprah are campaigning together here today...so far it is a record crowd for osamabama (but I bet a lot of people are just going to see oprah)....
Ha you added "osama" to Obama's name. You're so clever and intellectual. I'm glad you decide to attack him based on his skin color, name, and clothes he wears instead of the issues he stands for. Bigot. Slander and libel is the neo-con way.
Obama has been a big disappointment to me thus far as I was hoping he would be stronger on the issues. That being said it's infuriating when people call him "Osama" - that's just the pinnacle of redneck style idiocy. As far as Ron Paul having some "distasteful" supporters - that very well should be the case. Ron Paul believes in freedom for everyone including those who he disagrees with. I too believe everyone deserves a voice in America. Even neo Nazis and racists. Censorship is a slippery slope. It should never be stood for. Ever. You can't make exceptions and say that censorship is OK in this case because these guys are "really wrong" ... Eventually someone may decide the same thing about what YOU believe.
Actually I think it is a joke because that is what ted kennedy called him.... But I guess that was ok... Back to RP - you guys are attacking me because I am questioning why some - or should I say MANY - of his supporters are extremists. Anyone who thinks would find it odd and ask why. Like I have said before I like most of what RP stands for and his record on voting that way has proven it, but why, and I will keep asking why, are the extremists so for him? People like AGS, neo-nazis and islamists on this forum love the guy and most aren't even American. It doesn't make you say hmmm? You would have to be a 'sheeeple'* not to say "hmmm" *Trademark used without permission.
Kennedy said it by mistake, big difference from that and saying it on purpose, I believe. I think I answered the question of why... To me it's quite obvious why extremists (at least US extremists) would like someone who is for civil liberties and free speech for everyone. They feel that their right to speak and believe what they want is under fire here in America so anyone who is pro free speech/civil liberties is going to draw their attention especially in comparison to the mainstream candidates for whom civil liberties seem to be an afterthought. ~ I would categorize myself as a far left wing liberal (couldn't get much farther from a racist or neo nazi here) who wishes that the excitement that is happening around Ron Paul was happening around Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. But it's not. And I feel like the issues that I disagree with Paul on (and there are quite a few) are really quite unimportant in comparison to the big issues that I feel he is 100% right on about: (1) Non Interventionist Foreign Policy (2) Civil Liberties. For me those 2 issues trump everything else and will cause me to support Ron Paul over any mainstream Dem. candidate. I think there's something special happening with the Ron Paul campaign and I feel like it would be a mistake not to support him just because I do not agree with him on everything. I think we need a shift at the core. While I think John Edwards or Barack Obama (and yes even Hillary Clinton) would be a huge improvement over George W Bush and much better than Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani... It's not enough. I want more. I feel like we deserve more. We deserve a president who stands up for our liberties. I'm so tired of politicians who don't think my civil liberties are important.
First of all, I think the extremism gets blown up, unless you think there are a lot of extremists in American society. I participate on the Ron Paul Forums which is a hotbed of grassroots activity. I'd say the tinfoil/militant types there are at best, 10%. If you watch the MeetUp group videos on YouTube, you'll see a lot of every day folks. If you see the rally videos, it's usually more of the same. I mean, we're talking about a guy who took in more than 38,000 individual donations at around $103 each in a single day. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when you consider that most of the top tier candidates do the bulk of their fund raising early, and court the max donors ($2,300) and yet Paul is now raising money in their league with donations almost 20 times smaller, there is a lot of popular and diverse support. Personally, I don't find it odd that so many people on the fringes are attracted to him. His message has been fringe for most of his career. How many constitutionalists are there in government today? How many congressmen never take paid junkets? How many are willing to be the only NO vote in the house, strictly on principle? How many draft as much legislation as he does? How many opt out of the Congressional pension because they see it as taking advantage of the tax payer? So again, I don't think that it's odd that a maverick attracts other mavericks and people holding extreme views. To me, it seems like he is the perfect candidate for a lot of people. I think AGS plays it up on a forum because his favorite foils like to diminish RP. So it's just another point to argue over. It's like the pundits who talk about how RP is doing so well on the net, and how other campaigns need to learn how to harness the net from his campaign, by spending money the right way, or by hiring the right people. They aren't getting it. It's not about who supports him, or how his campaign strategizes. It's about a little old man from Texas, who refuses to give up, refuses to compromise his principles and says what he thinks and does what he says he will do. And that attracts a lot of people because there is a void in politics everywhere. It's not just American politics that are full of corrupt panderers who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I mean, when you stack the two front runners up, Giuliani and Clinton, do you really see any differences, significant differences between them?
Other than them being of different sexes there is precious little difference, they'll both continue ruining America. What annoys me with people like Mia (apart from him being a GTech clone) is that he manifestly refuses to see the danger that the people that he supports pose to the world.
Obama is definitely a politician and knows how to double talk (aka dodge questions to appeal to everyone ), however, I don't see him being as big a threat as Clinton, Rudy, Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney.
Anyone think Hucks numbers went up while Giuliani's went down after he got booed on his stand on the 2nd ammendment? That was the nail in his coffin, looks like alot of people jumped ship over that and are currently seaking someone else. I wish at the debate they would have asked every candidate their thoughts on the 2nd amendment. I know around where I live many will not vote for someone who does not stand strongly on 2nd amendment rights.