First of all, this statement is a straw man. But taken at face value, aren't you actually arguing the point about blacks, by saying that they aren't making a good political decision by backing Ron Paul? Yes, I believe we must always stand behind the truth. Thank you. I see, so now we have shifted to the White Supremacist slander. You're like a broken record. The White supremacy "controversy" has been revoked by the NYT, and has been refuted because there is no accuracy with time and date to the accusations made. Although, Reagan and Bush got a lot of support from White Supremacists, so it would be in line with the Republican party history. You know White Will isn't going to vote for Obama. By all means post them. I'm happy to prove them wrong, again and again. It allows me to promote my candidate, and discredit you at the same time. Pretty much the best of both worlds.
Yes, you did. Early on, you said words to the affect that they were legitimate observations of the time and defended them. I'd be MORE than happy to go back and find the post(s). It might take a bit, but I can certainly dig them up. I'm really surprised you don't remember. I'd be happy to refresh that memory. Just let me know! You didn't know better. As I said, early on, RP supporters were confused. You actually defended the comments, until the objective became "hey, let's blame it on a ghostwriter!" Still no name on that ghostwriter, eh? So was RP lying in 1996, or 2001? So Ron Paul has rebutted himself? He defended his racist newsletter in 1996. Do you accept that RP and his campaign manager defended his racist newsletter then, given that I've provided a legitimate source with their own words? If you want to assert 2001 is correct, then you have to accept 1996 was a lie. Either way, his integrity is in question. It sure does explain why neonazis and white supremacists are flocking to his campaign though. It's not just one or two things, it's a whole series of issues surrounding racism, antisemitism, nenazis, etc. Way, way, way too main "coincidences" for any candidate. Two things come to mind. One, this is speculation on your part. Two, if he lied, then he has an integrity issue. What else will he lie about, but then again, why not name the ghostwriter? Why was someone with those views so close to RP, and why didn't RP read the newsletter before signing his name and sending out. None of those things make any sense, for someone who is supposedly reasonably smart (a doctor). Either way, it doesn't come out positive. It doesn't explain why a leading white nationalist exposed him, nor does it explain (or perhaps it does) why so many neonazis and white supremacists are flocking to his campaign. It's one thing, that ANY candidate has "some" fruits and undesirables, but we're talking a LOT of support coupled with past racial problems. Like I said, it's not just one thing...it's a series of them. Add in the Civil War to the mixture as well. Foot in mouth. I'm not threatened by RP at all. It's really just a matter of the options to talk about here. If all the liberals/progressives who used to talk about dem/repub issues and defend democrats, all the 9/11 troofers here, the conspiracy nuts, the anti-Americans and other nefarious groups that have made up the DP P&R section had voted how they traditionally vote, and chosen Democrat candidates, we'd be talking about them. But instead, they all jump shipped from the far left, the extreme far right, to join the republican party to vote for a libertarian. I mean, really, Guerilla, think about it. There's half a dozen RP groupies hanging out here, tapping each other on the ass, 24 hours a day. Up to a dozen at once, during peak hours. For the most part, there is one of me. A few of the "old timers" drop by every once in a blue moon. So what the hell else am I going to discuss, when the forum is spammed up with every thread about "OMG, it's RP - he'll save the world?" If all the nutters had jumped on the John Edwards beauty parlor, we'd be talking about them. You guys dictate the discussion by spamming up the forum. If it's not how great RP is, it's about how bad America sucks and how great terrorists are. I'll work with what you offer I doubt that. Don't think that I have time to read everything here though. I do not. Typically there is one of me, and half a dozen or more rabid RP supporters. I'm out numbered. I recognize that. It's still fun owning the group, just not enough time. I could say the same for RP. Though I have seen a few of the propaganda pics (I stay up over there too, because it's all there is to talk about here!). I saw a lot of rallies from a LOT of candidates, including Obama, in Iowa and NH. I haven't seen much of "color" anywhere, so far. Perhaps you were thinking these areas have more non-white ethnic groups than they actually have. It still doesn't excuse the racist newsletter RP wrote. Nor does it excuse your defense of it. I don't have too, others already have. That's why it was pointed out, that barely 90 people from the military, out of 2.2 million did. But the first one they interviewed was a Veteran, not active duty. Now, if you guys did your job right on these last money bombs, and people dishonestly put down they were military (anyone can say anything there!), then you may come out better. And I believe, as has been previously sourced by me, that Obama actually had more military support than EVERYONE. Let's not take his credit away, and be dishonest in doing it. When people lie about you, you need a mechanism to give people the opportunity to see the truth. The good thing for you, right now, is that your candidate is still polling single digits, and as such, not earned the right to media scrutiny yet. My candidate is doing fine. Moving up in the NH polls, holding first in SC, and the last polls I had showed him top 1-3 for just about every where else. I tend to agree with some of the RP supporters over on your forum...if you don't at least do third in NH, it's over. I also agree when they say the campaign doesn't have a clue about what they are doing, and when the say it's not about how much money is raised, but how it's spent. You can have all the money in the world, and it was a great effort to get RP "exposure" (the goal), but money doesn't buy votes. Romney learned this the hard way, and apparently RP is too.
It's no secret that legitimate questions one doesn't want to answer, are swept under the carpet as ad hominem or pesky strawmen. No strawman though, just a real question. After all, RP wrote the letter and he defended it. I'm not arguing anything FOR RP. RP's words, are NOT my words. Let's not turn your candidate's words over and give me credit for them. You just open yourself up for a world of hurt doing that. Actions speak louder than words. Ah, I forget that if it's any other candidate, it's called "facts," but if something is exposed about RP, it's called "slander" or a "smear." However, it is a legitimate issue. One that was never addressed. In fact, most issues, RP never really addresses. He hides behind his supporters and let's them try to figure out what is, and what isn't true, then watches them do his dirty work for him. This is untrue. I've corrected you on this previously, but you continue to misrepresent this in light of knowing the facts. One, this wasn't an issue started by the NYT. It was started by a white nationalist leader who exposed Ron Paul as "one of us" The NYT, a blog on the NYT, didn't pick up on it, for almost two weeks. They ran a story. The retracted a story. Not because it was unfactual, but because they didn't go in and investigate it. The choice was to do so (but why, when RP is doing 5%?) or retract it, because they didn't thoroughly investigate it. They DID NOT retract it, because it was untrue. It's a story, just waiting to happen. However, I can't see RP doing above 4th place in NH, so that will leave him at the bottom of the tier, once again. Yes, I do know. White Will is voting for (surprise, surprise!), Ron Paul. Gee, I can't think of any valid reason why, though That's mighty "white" of you, thank you! What's refreshing about your attempts to absolve RP from his racist newsletter, support from racists, etc, is that there will always be that one news article from 1996, where RP admitted to his racist writings, defended them, as did his campaign manager. To suggest that 2001 was accurate (I can't imagine why he would want to deny it, after all these years, nor why anyone should take his word, nor why there is no name behind the mysterious "ghostwriter"), is to admit that Ron Paul was dishonest in 1996. Either way, he's lying
Yes, please source them. Because without sources, you slandering me and further undermining your credibility. Again, source this, or stop slandering me. You're not making yourself look credible. I have posted it several times, you have read it. You're simply playing games and continually posting slander. You're creating a straw man argument. It doesn't hold up. I thought you were calling him a pathetic Doctor now for his service in the Air Force as a Flight surgeon. Change your tune? Has already been debunked, you're slandering again. Care to define "so many"? Do you have numbers to back up this latest round of slander? Or are you just bloviating again? Those Civil War comments will earn him a big bump in the South. Everyone who has studied history knows why the Civil War was fought, and it was not to end slavery. More slander. From a Clinton voter no less. Now suddenly you are a Republican, who doesn't have a clue about the party platform. Well, you certainly can't debate the war, health care, economics, foreign policy or immigration, so I can see how it is hard for you to adapt to an election time forum, focused a lot on issues. You can call it spamming, but the reality is that your candidate's supporters are few and far between online. You might be a force offline, but that is a different paradigm. Basically, you're where Ron Paul supporters were online 3 months ago. The terrorist and America sucks stuff is just more slander. You refuse to participate in issues debates, get your ass handed to you when you do, and then you result to petty name calling and story telling. Frankly, this forum is a lot smarter, and the discussions are a lot more interesting than when I arrived, and you and your brood were focused on attacking Muslims and Islam every day, until the forum got DDOS'd and the mods had to clean up your messes and install a stricter posting policy (now stickied). Well, you certainly haven't put much time into your Huckabee thread. I not only have time to absolutely own you, but participate in other threads, run my business, campaign and post Updates daily. Obama's rallies have been 60% African American. Paul pulls people of all ethnicities to his rallies. You aren't looking very hard. Slander and slander. More Ad Hominem attacks. I see, so you have no proof to refute it, even when Paul is pulling in more military donations than Obama. You're just making up facts now, or discrediting the ones already posted because "you think so". This is why you can't effectively participate in any issues debates. There is a higher standard than "I think so". Our next President can't be a guy who has to be briefed on economics, or health care, or foreign policy. We need someone who serves on the foreign relations and banking committees in the House, someone who has served in the military overseas, and someone who has actively worked in the Health Care field. You want a preacher, I want a politician. Someone who brings policy of his own, Congressional policy he has drafted, to the table. All of the "dirt" you try to slander my candidate with, has already been brought up in the media. They actually had to attack his stance on the Civil War from 20 years ago on Meet The Press, because there was nothing left to attack. Don't get cocky GTech. McCain and Romney are not going to go quietly into the night. Your guy is going to drop out long before mine. Pretty amazing that with a perceived, "inept campaign", we are the Q4 money leaders, and finished 5th in NH, 3% out of 3rd place. I noticed only 2 days after his Iowa bump in fund raising, we're back to out raising your candidate without any special efforts. 3rd or 4th in NH will be fine. The campaign is a marathon, not a sprint, and we're only through 2 of 50 states so far.
I had thought Gtech was an honest man. he was just very passionate about his country. But unfortunately, I was wrong in believing that. Gtech has been using all sorts of fabricated lies, and keeps reposting them even after these allegations have been refuted. Where is your honesty Gtech? Why don't you acknowledge your errors? Is is so clear you cannot get away with such blatant lying. We have Google to refute your allegations. Gtech, you've lost all credibility on this forum.
And yet you are being very selective about which words you use. Reminds me of Mike Huckabee half quoting the Constitution during the ABC debate. He left out the best part, on purpose I suppose. Well you did say I was "hiding" behind the truth. And have accused me before of "hiding" behind the Constitution. I wonder what sort of America you live in, where people have to hide from truth and the rule of law? More Ad Hominem attacks. Thanks for the word smear though. That's a good one, but not as strong as slander when describing your posts. It was posted on a forum, by a guy the White Nationalists reject. Then it was refuted and I posted it here (you read the rebuttal, but will deny you did as usual), then the NYT picked it up, and the editor retracted the story after investigation. Read the Editor's note. I welcome it. It's already been refuted. The top tier is 5, finishing 4th would beat two of Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani, all 3 of whom have been national front runners at one point in this cycle. A GREAT victory. Jerry Falwell is voting for Mike Huckabee. 'Nuff said. I'm still waiting for an answer from you. Do you think African Americans are making a bad political decision by supporting Ron Paul or not?
He lost credibility when there were no WMDs found, and Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Then he lost credibility when his little gang on the forum triggered a period of DDOS attacks by harassing Muslim forum members. Of course, there was his recent banning for remarks about Muslims, and his miraculous unbanning following that. It's good to have friends in high places. He probably lost credibility long before those events, but they are the ones who stick in my mind.
Not at all. You'll notice the absence of several regulars here over the last couple months. They've probably taken their hate rhetoric to some other site.
Actually guerilla, gtech still tried to defend that there were wmd's in iraq heheheheheh. also no al qiada in iraq.Those were lost cases and he still tried to defend them. he also tried to defend out taking out of mossadegh. On both cases he knew the truth and still tried to twist his info around about mossadegh to first make him a communist, then make him a socialist lol. Im surprised he didnt transform mossadegh into a nazi lol. If he had admitted his error on these 2 topics i would have stopped bringing them up but it makes me go hmmmmm on why he would keep twisting these rock hard facts around to suit his beliefs. Like i said before the truth is the truth, you cant sugar coat it.
Well, this was an opportunity to make a case for Ron Paul which the OP wanted. As usual, GTech did everything to combat it, using lies and false attacks as usual. You would think he would contrast his candidate and make a case for why his guy is better. But he can't and didn't. Hopefully the OP still got some useful information from this thread, and GTech's attempt at astro-turfing failed.
LOL yup. He will dig out his world famous DigitalPoint post with a load of quotes from idiots saying there were WMD's, even though pretty much everyone in the whole world knows that there were none.
I've seen an interview with him I think on Fox of CNN after Benazir Bhutto was killed and they asked him if Musharraf is over thrown would he go into Pakistan to secure the nukes and then responds by going on a rant about loose nukes in Eastern Europe/Russia then when asked to response to the question he said we shouldn't do anything about we should let the people of Pakistan deal with them. So we should do more to secure nukes in Eastern/Europe and Russia but not do anything about securing the nukes in Pakistan which could get into the hands of terrorist.
Go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and read about his positions and platform. If you are loathe to read, you can also check out the plethora of videos on the web where Ron Paul discusses his positions. A couple of good ones are: Ron Paul on Candidates@Google Ron Paul interview on PBS' NOW (see the extended interview video) ~~ soniqhost, did you see this? Ron Paul Is Correct About Pakistan (History News Network / George Mason University) Do you think that an extremist terrorist group is going to somehow become a viable political entity in the country or steal a nuke from the Pakistan military?
Can you give a source? Not to mention 'loose' nukes are totally different than secured nukes in a country that currently is having some problems. If he'd say we should secure nukes in Pakistan then I guess we should take down many other countries to secure them. Totally different situations, I would hope anyone could see that. It's like saying we should recover stolen gold but leave the gold at a bank that currently is having some financial difficulty and trying to claim both instances are the same thing.
I laughed at it, like I laugh at almost all XKCD comics, but it isn't that accurate. Haven't ever read any of those books, nor do I follow blogs about Ron Paul.
Sure doesn't describe me. With the same logic, I guess anyone who can not have a logical and truthful thought in this forum is a Huck fan