Interesting article out this week about RP with a bushel of controversy and sources to such controversy. There's so much, and it's so disturbing, that it's not possible to post it all, so I've included some excerpts: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html Lots more, with sources, at the original link. Very disturbing, to say the least.
I have actually read that 92 article and its not quite as racist as it seems. He quotes some statistics and his remarks mirror those statistics. Of course I am inclined to believe the statistics are false due to profiling but gangs among black males in DC and crime was huge in the early 90's and I am sure a frosty old white man was easily out ran by his mugger. I could be mistaken but I also believe that RP claims it was written by a ghost writer and his name attached. As far as having ex kkk members support him, that sucks for him I suppose but its just as bad in my opinion as having fanatical right wingers as your voter base and really when it comes down to it kkk members have the right to say whatever they want and support whoever they want in this country for better or worse. But if they show up in my yard I am loosing the dogs on them.
As Paul gains support the neocons and their puppy supporters will try every trick in the book to try and discredit the guy. I am still hoping that he gets the call so GTech has to choose between supporting Paul or the Hill Dog!!!
I'm curious why you think that? I think she is tied into the party pretty heavy and will play ball with the Democrats as much as she has to to get that nomination.
Hill Dog is nailed on for the nomination Mia. It is just a case of who she is up against. My money is on Americas fake mayor Giuliani. It will be the classic South Park episode all over again. Let's get out and vote! Let's make our voices heard. We've been given the right to choose, between a douche and a turd. It’s democracy in action! Put your freedom to the test. A big fat turd or a stupid douche, which do you like best?
GTech, you've posted the casual associative slander consistent with the neocon attacks on the campaign. After reading them for months, I now find those accusations amusing. Ron Paul disavows violence, collectivism and hatred. But he doesn't disavow freedom of speech, or the rights of Americans to participate in the process. What's missing in the demands from his detractors (important note, these are his ardent enemies demanding condemnation, not his supporters) are the fact that he has not endorsed any of these groups. In fact, you've posted some fallacies they have sought to promote. 1. The link from stormfront is to an independent fund raising site that has no affiliation with the campaign. In fact, checking now, one can see that the button has not been updated, even though the fund raiser ended 11 days ago. 2. Don Black supported GWB in 2000 and 2004. Bush never condemned his support. 3. Williams is in no way affiliated with the campaign proper, he has merely chosen to participate in the grassroots, which is decentralized and has no leadership. This is typical slander. The best thing about it is, Paul can wipe out all of the criticism with a condemnation (which I hope he does not issue). Apparently, people don't have jack on him, only on the people who claim to support him. And that means, he's free of the scandals that mar men like Huckabee and Giuliani.
He's up to 6% among likely GOP voters nationally. You can probably double that if you include GOP leaning independents and new Republican party members. Recent NH poll (Union Leader, I think) had him ahead of Fred Thompson, Huckabee, etc. behind Giuliani, McCain and Romney.
What's funny is the right wing nuts who are against RP in my experience are the 'racists' Yet again tonight, talking to a few guys. 1 total RP supporter, 2 who may support him, one total Bush fanatic. The Bush fanatic right away called RP 'nuts' had no reason why, must of simply been something he heard on Hannity as he just talked about listening to his radio show Anyways guess who continued to make racial jokes all night long? Sure as hell wasn't the RP supporter, the 2 undecideds, it was the Bush supporter. I guess that makes Bush a racist This is not the first time Bush supporters have done this either, I however would not be idiotic enough to blame Bush for it, but then I guess some would.
They raise important questions that are still unaddressed, and continuing to mount every week, as more and more neonazi ties are uncovered. We've covered these things before. Ron Paul [insert anything here]. Saying it doesn't make it so. Ron Paul taught Jesus to walk on water. Considering who his supporters are, that goes without saying. He's not rejected any of these groups either. Previously you said he had. I challenged you with a call for a source that went unanswered. Facts are not fallacies. There is no disassociation here. One, I don't know anyone who actually argues whether it was associated with the campaign or not, it was direct support. The fact that it's still taking place, eleven days later, is not a feather in Paul's hat, but rather a disturbing illustrative point. Sources please? http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=don+black+bush+support&btnG=Google+Search I'm gathering there is a concerted effort to use the exact same phrasing used above, as it seems to crop up everywhere there is a RP discussion. I saw no one argue whether he was affiliated with "campaign proper" or not. A moot point, as it has no bearing here. It's just "another" inconvenient truth in a long list that continues to mount, raising disturbing questions. I've seen no slander at all, just straight forward facts and questions. Facts that are not pretty, to some, and perfectly excusable and acceptable to others. I'd say people have more than jack on him and that article sourced a considerable amount of "jack" that would leave anyone with even the remotest of morals and values wondering WTF was going on? But not everyone. I disagree completely. RP is not God (though some treat him as such) and he is not above scandals or answering for controversies that are growing out of control regarding his supporters and what he has backed in the past. I suppose I could conveniently make up some "pretend friends" that I just happened to talk to tonight, to paint a picture, but I'll leave that to the resident expert. For those who want the "facts," I'm surprised their fact finding mission stops where their support for someone starts. Well, not really.
I forgot when it doesn't go to Gtechs agenda it doesn't matter, it's not fact, now its 'pretend' Believe it or not Gtech it happened, the Bush lover made racial slur after racial slur. To the point of talking about going to a store and having a, well I wont use the language he did look him in the eyes and yeah, total disbelief at what he said. But yeah, that didn't happen Actual real life events, I see with my own eyes. But that doesn't matter, because a few publications that are dead set on going after a person they can not stand find a few links to some bad apples that support him, with nothing proving he supports them. I should expect nothing less, the 'resident expert' of crap has struck again.
BTW gtech, if RP has no support like you claim, why do you only demand answers of him? Why are you so worried about him? He has no support you claim, yet you only ask questions of him, and nobody else. Give me a break..
I came to this conclusion listening to him talk in one of the debates.. Sorry, just the impression I got... I like some of the messages that, when taken out of context and re-examined; makes perfect sense. The problem is, to me, as a speaker he does not come off as rational right away. He tends to sound like a raving lunatic. Good message or not, that is the impression I got. Hope this helps...
Doesn't this make him a better candidate? How can anybody take his 'rugged individualism' ideals seriously if he starts showing favoritism by aligning himself with any group? Paul said (I think it was to Wolf Blitzer, correct me if I am wrong) that the press' was disingenuous in labeling him as 'anti-war', 'anti-irs', 'anti-big-government', etc. Instead he prefers 'Pro-liberty', 'Pro-individual-rights' - you get the point. So if Paul publicly distances himself from any group (politically correct or not), wouldn't he be a bit of a hypocrite? Personally, I completely disagree with with white-supremacy/racist groups, but they have the same rights as any American does in supporting who they want.