WARNING
SOME LINKS IN THIS POST LEAD
TO REPUGNANT NEO-NAZI WEBSITES
In yesterday’s thread discussing the Republican debate on Tuesday, several people, including me, commented on the seemingly tacit acceptance of support from Neo-Nazis and white supremacists by Dr. Ron Paul.
First, let me say this: I am NOT claiming that Ron Paul is a racist or a Neo-Nazi.
I do think it is very strange that so many of these groups are rallying around Dr. Paul.
That said, the simple fact is that the white nationalist website Stormfront.org features Ron Paul’s campaign banner prominently on their front page–thus providing a direct link from the leading White Supremacist site on the web to Dr. Paul’s on-line donation form.
Note–there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul’s campaign itself is responsible for this appearing on the site; instead, it looks like the Nazi owner put it there himself.
Still, as LGF and others have noticed…
- The Nazis over at Stormfront are urging all skinheads to spam the online polls in favor of Ron Paul. Here’s a youtube audio of Stormfront Radio’s commercial for Ron Paul.
- Paul is so popular with these scumbags that even the presidential candidate of the American Nazi Party is complaining that Paul is stealing his support base!
- Ron Paul is the favored candidate of David Duke.
So what is it about Dr. Paul that has Neo-Nazis and white supremacists flocking to his campaign?
And if YOU were running for President and suddenly found that all sorts of racist nut-jobs were jumping on your bandwagon, wouldn’t this fact make you stop for a minute and go “Huh, I wonder what is going on here? Why do all these racist loony bigots mistakenly think I’m their man? And what am I going to do about it to make sure they and everyone else are disabused of this notion?”
I asked numerous times yesterday for a response from the Ron Paul supporters who descend upon LST at the mere mention of their hero’s name. Not a single person could provide evidence that Dr. Paul has publicly repudiated the support or racists and Neo-Nazis. Not one!
One person compared it to the Klan’s “support” of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but when presented with evidence that Reagan quickly, publicly and absolutely disavowed such support, he had nothing more to say.
I have searched for over a week now trying to find a similar public statement from Ron Paul, and come up with nothing.
I understand that Dr. Paul cannot be held responsible for every knuckle-headed Nazi who decides to put a donation link to his campaign on their racist website.
But I do, however, think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to speak out officially and demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist.
If the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul with do this I will gladly publish his statement here.
Update: question mark added to the title 
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
302 Responses to “Friends In Low Places?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Sounds like an eminently fair request to me……….
I thought they called him their saviour….
his writings address it well:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=284
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=508
Recently Ron Paul has addressed in LTE to a NH paper inaccuracies in their article, I would not be surprised to see more of this in the future when such claims make it to the media. We all know he does not support pre-emptive strikes
#3 Stephene
It’s good to see that Dr. Paul has written in the past that racism and bigotry are repugnant and stupid.
It should make it very easy for his campaign to issue an official press release specifically disavowing the support of Neo-Nazis, and demanding that they take the donation link to his campaign off their website.
While they are at it… it shouldn’t be hard for the campaign’s web-guy to look at Stormfront’s IP address and track which donations were made to the campaign from people following that link.
Those donations should be rejected, and the money returned.
Glad this will be so easy to settle.
stephene, nothing in either of those two writings mentions this issue. They are both responses to how people responded to other’s comments. What we would like to see is a specific address from Ron Paul, or some one high up on his staff if it is beneath him, that officially rebukes these groups that are raising money for him and distances him from them. The perception in modern politics is that campaign contributions are quid pro quo. We donate to those individuals who we think will do something for us.
duhmoose,
The issue behind these groups is racism which those writings address. In today’s internet world you will always have “endorsements” you do not want, I agree that they should be disavowed at the right time. However, it needs to be a general statement not toward a singular group, because there are many such that may support because of the protection of liberty and freedom Ron Paul supports. I say it should be a generalized statement regarding something like “disavowing endorsements by groups with a racist collectivist vision” because if you took the time to address each one that exists it would be a very long list. There are other candidates that have endorsements they did not seek, some get disavowed and some do not.
Such examples may be those of La Raza who has endorsed candidates before as well.
La Raza hasn’t endorsed Ron Paul. If and when they do we will ask him to disavow them as well.
#4 David - I would think that hiring the staff to follow IP addresses, etc. would eat up much of the campaign money received, wouldn’t it?
6
That is nonsensical doubletalk. He needs to specifically and emphatically repudiate these groups who are (apparently without any objection to date) using his name and raising money for him. He needs to do what Reagan did - immediately (though too late for that) hold a press conference, denounce the specific group, and say he does not want their support.
To not denounce people who advocate hate and genocide is to tacitly approve their endorsement. This issue will not go away. If he doesn’t reject them, people will draw their own conclusions.
It is scandalous that he has not already taken action.
8. dc
That’s a cop-out. Ron Paul and his supporters talk about what great internet gurus they are. Yet this has been on the internet, and been a discussion in the interet, for weeks, at least. Rest assured, Paul’s campaign is well aware of it, and has done nothing to stop it.
You should not make excuses for bad behavior.
RickG,
By naming a group like stormfront you are giving THEM publicity, and that is what they want.
hamous,
I never said La Raza did, but they have endorsed other candidates in the past. I hardly expect they’d endorse Paul, he is against illegal immigration.
RickG,
to further expand on the thought, the klan was VERY well known and not some tiny group. He does need to disavow but as I said it needs to be as a whole not as each group named out, by naming them out in a huge press release you actually give them free advertising for their propaganda.
Oh Geez there will be 400 hits to this web article by 9 p.m. ST and I need to suit up!!
For such a marginal candidate, Dr. Paul receives an inordinate amount of discussionn in this forum.
Why?
Dr. Paul should ignore the racist groups that claim to support him. He has no obligation to repudiate any one or any group.
That fact that you don’t like it is your problem.
He knows what he stands for.
dcgirl, Actually all it takes is looking at a few server logs. I would think that would actually be a requirement of campaign finance law as it helps to identify bogus/illegal contributions.
little mike, The problem is that if he does not disavow them, it will hurt him in the long run. Let’s say he gets the Republican nomination, do you think the Democrats would hesitate to run adds about him taking contributions from racist groups?
12.
I think we know where you’re coming from. The argument doesn’t wash, though. Paul has not renounced anyone, general or specific. Further, he has a history of making racial charges himself.
Now, in far less than five minutes in the Stormfront slimepit, I came across these remarks of the subhumans over there:
Then, we have this laughable statement:
Any candidate who does not immediately disassociate himself with such cretis is a sniveling coward - or worse.
Do you think Paul hasn’t denounced these people because he doesn’t want to give them publicity? Or is there another reason . . . .
#14 little mike
Right… so if (for instance) HAMAS endorses Hillary Clinton and includes a high-profile link to donate to her campaign from their website, your position would be that she should just “ignore” them because she knows where she stands and is under no obligation to repudiate them?
She shouldn’t lift a finger to figure out who came from HAMAS’ website and gave her money?
Come on.
Hamous’ post is very fair… he says specifically that Paul ISN’T responsible for these Nazis raising money for his campaign.
But basic decency requires that he unambiguously repudiate them and take reasonable steps to reject any money coming from their slimy supporters.
Luckily for Dr. Paul, that’s the politically prudent thing to do as well.
So it’s a “win win.”
the reason that Dr Paul gets so much traffic is because he is one of the most searched names on google, technorati, etc
I support him, but I know there are some real fanatics that love to simply chant, curse, and scream at you.
I am not like that, and most of Dr Paul’s supporters are not. There are many supporters that are not active on the forums, chats, blogs, vlogs, etc; and sadly quite a few of them that are can be very obnoxious even to other supporters.
This is a sign that the support is very vocal and opinionated, his support comes from the youngest soon to be eligibles to the people that live off their Social Security check each month.
There are many myths that can be corrected in the proper tone and attitude. More civil discussions will follow after they have learned.
Dr Paul has a very large following of college students and recent graduates, first time voters, and the future of our country. He is a bright example to them in his principle and humility if they will simply follow his example.
Humble is not an adjective I would use to describe Ron Paul.
#19 stephene
Dr. Paul owes it to all of his non-bigoted supporters (I’m not being sarcastic– I don’t doubt that the vast majority of RP-backers have no hate in their hearts) to clearly repudiate the bigots who mistakenly think he has anything in common with them.
I’d think most RP supporters would consider his cause too important to risk being tarnished by the inclusion of a bigoted few.
btw, here’s a suggestion– at the VERY LEAST, is the Paul campaign willing to block StormFront’s IP address? So at a minimum, no MORE campaign donations will come in from the Internet’s premier Nazi website?
Can we all at least agree they should do that?
#22 - I would think that your approach would be a cost-effective and sensible solution to the problem.
hamous,
Dr Paul is a very humble man, have you not seen him in interviews, post debate coverage, etc?
He is certainly not a boastful and haughty presence like some of those that are running for the GOP nomination.
Isn’t this a news blog?
Has anyone with power to post articles actually called his campaign on this and asked for an official written statement?
You might be able to put this to rest with an email or fax from his campaign, instead of carrying on in a chat forum about what he needs to do……Just call his campaign tell them your report on a web blog LST and that this is a hot topic and you would like an official statement.
If he is so involved with the internet, I would think it would be important for him to respond to a news Blog.
my 2 cents
RickG, I responded to your question on this issue repeated many times, last time at 1.30am at: http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/10/grading-the-repubs-part-six/ It was a long answer so I won’t repost here.
David,
I have already said that it should be disavowed, just as he would not accept Bush’s endorsement, because it is against his principles.
He is not a racist, therefore he should not accept their endorsement. As for “blocking the IP” it would actually be blocking the referal URL, not the IP, because the IP’s can change, and the user’s IP is not the same as their server, but the referal URL would remain the same or a slight variance that could be detected with a rewrite engine on the server.
A note on that other topic regarding supporting the GOP candidate. He has no intention to run, but at the same time I do not think he will throw support behind the GOP candidate. This doesn’t mean he may not sulk into a booth and vote for the GOP candidate anywhere, there is a difference there, it is the same for Tancredo. It was an abominable question to ask in a “debate” in the first place.
I find these smear-by-association posts, regardless of which candidate they are directed at, to be repugnant in and of themselves, and well beneath the level of discussion that I expect from LST.
It is one thing to ask for a disavowal from a public official who physically associates himself with Duke, or the Nation of Islam, or the KKK, or any other extremist group like that. Trent Lott once spoke to a mississippi group with an innocuous-sounding name that had connections to the White Citizens Council. It was completely fair to demand a disavowal of that group from him, and completely appropriate for him to offer an apology.
But when you start trolling around the web looking for neo-nazi sites that endorse somebody WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR SUPPORT and through no action of their own, then use those sites to smear the person it becomes outright demagoguery.
I honestly don’t care if David Duke posts something on his own as a private citizen in favor of Ron Paul on his website. As long as Ron Paul himself did not ask for Duke’s support and had no prior knowledge of what Duke was going to write about him, he is under no moral obligation to do a public penance for it. What Duke says and does is entirely beyond Ron Paul’s control!
It makes no more sense to tar Paul with Duke’s comments on the presidential race in this instance than it does to tar any opponent of affirmative action with Duke’s name, since Duke has spoken out about that issue too. Same goes for stormfront, the nation of islam, or anyone else.
Demanding apologies and disavowals from people who did absolutely nothing wrong on their own, and trying to link them to the evil acts of other people for which they bear no fault, is the type of gutter politics we decry all the time when the left engages in it.
One particularly notorious instance of this comes to mind when Bill Clinton tried to blame Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing because McVeigh was reportedly a talk radio listener. This attempt to smear Paul with the Duke/Stormfront tag is no less sleazy than what Clinton did to talk radio, and what the left does on a daily basis in this country. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of all these feigned cases of “outrage” and “offense” and the accompanying demand for “apologies” and the associated public shaming. I expect them from the left, but it surprises me when I see them from places I thought were above that sort of garbage.
Apologies are an admission of guilt by definition, and disavowals are an admission of prior association with the disavowed. To my knowledge, Paul is neither guilty of support for these groups, nor has formally associated himself with them. He therefore has nothing to apologize for and nothing to disavow.
Wow, I didn’t know Ron Popeil was racist…
http://www.biography.com/biography/images/episode_images/popeil_ron_320×240.jpg
Phil_M,
I agree for the most part but disavowing is NOT an admission of prior association, and therefore it would not be a bad thing for a statement disavowing endorsements by groups.
Trying to smear him with this is not right, but it is politics, that is what happens. To say otherwise would be ignorant.
One of the better comebacks I’ve seen.
Phil - No one demanded an apology. I made it abundantly clear that I am not calling Dr. Paul a racist or Nazi. A public statement along the lines of Reagan’s is not an admission of guilt or prior association. No public statement at all is tacit approval.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, and supports another candidate, that implies those who worked for him, and support him, will look to the other candidate. By not supporting anyone republican, Doctor Paul says, screw the Republican party, non of you are good enough to get my support. I would prefer he run as a Libertarian or form his own party. Tancredo said he would not support any other candidate also. The party should pull support from him too. This is too critical an election for a man’s ego to get in the way.
#30 -
It is in the eyes of the media, and it will be spun that way by the political left. When you go out of your way to issue a statement disavowing somebody, it plays before the public as an admission you’ve done something wrong. Paul has done nothing wrong here.
#32 - I’m well aware that you did not call Paul a racist himself. What you did was imply his tacit acceptance of other people who are racists because he has failed to meet your completely contrived and irresponsible demands for a “disavowal” of support he never asked for, solicited, or voluntarily associated with in any documented way.
Phil M
We didn’t smear Paul. The post states very clearly that his campaign DIDN’T advertise on StormFront and ISN’T responsible for a knuckle-headed Nazi deciding to put his campaign donation widget on his racist site.
The the Nazis did, and other people noticed (e.g., LGF and others).
Political campaigns sometimes get hit with bad, unflattering news. It’s happened in campaigns I’ve been a part of. A donor turns out to be a crook; someone you got your picture with ends up being a pervert; a volunteer wrote something offensive while in college, or in a previous job.
Fair-minded people understand that there are a ton of things candidates can’t control.
What they CAN control is their response.
We’re talking here about a press release and a little technical work on their website. They can even cite the Trent Lott incident you mentioned (and Hillary taking money from a HAMAS-supporter, etc.) to make their point.
#34 I didn’t demand a damn thing. Here is exactly what I said:
bigjolly,
Honestly, I don’t think the other candidates want Bush’s endorsement either. Do you? I just can’t see it as being a good thing. They have already shunned him from fundraisers for both the GOP and the candidates. Just to contrast that you say Clinton continuing to raise DNC funds even today, and Reagan for some time as well.
American Woman,
There is no benefit for him to run 3rd party, he will get blamed for “giving” Hillary the election, he is very astute and knows this well.
As for the not supporting the nominee, I personally can not vote for Rudy, if he is the nominee I will not vote for president and instead hope for a miracle in congress. Rudy is more and more looking like the deemed “candidate” from the GOP, I am supporting Ron Paul and fervently praying that anyone other than Rudy is nominated.
I think that Thompson is a sock puppet and would be eating out of the hand of lobby groups - he has 0 record to show otherwise
Romney needs to stop flip flopping, he is worse then John Kerry on this
Mccain - too weak on many issues projects himself as a maverick but it a total DC insider
Hunter - wow people say Paul is an isolationist, this is the true word for isolationist
Huckabee - Hillary in GOP party, “spread the wealth” really caught my ear in the debate, nanny government will never win me over
Hamous is a contriver.
Stephene, I agree and thought it was a good response.
Since we’re on the subject of disavowals though, I have a couple questions pertaining to some “guilty associations” that, unlike Paul’s, are tangible, voluntary, and documented.
1. When will LST demand that Mike Huckabee issu disavow his association with the Rev. Wiley Drake, a vocal evangelical supporter and organizer for his campaign? For those who do not know, Drake led a public prayer a couple weeks ago asking for God to kill his political opponents and make their children starve.
2. When will LST demand that Rudy Giuliani disavow the moral choices of Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao? For those who do not know, Rudy lived with Koeppel and Hsiao in their New York apartment for several months when Wife #2 kicked him out of the mayor’s mansion. Koeppel is Rudy’s friend. Hsiao is Koeppel’s “domestic partner.”
3. When will certain LST contributers disavow their own associations with the Rev. Alan Bean? For those who do not know, Bean is the race-baiting propagandist behind the Jena 6 story and has openly defended his own connections to the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, and dozens of other similarly repugnant groups and persons.
I ask these things simply out of consistency in the standards being maintained around here. In each instance, the requested disavowee has a far more tangible and direct link to the named person than ANY of the groups tacked on to Ron Paul at the outset of this thread. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Phil– you’re a good man and make a reasonable point (something you’ve been known to do).
We are in the process of speaking with the campaign at this very moment about an official statement.
the pattern from the ron paul “camp” is they will do things necessary to inflate and over exaggerate their support and existance.
not only this discredits them but also by not refuting the radical and extreme groups that latch on to their ban wagon only adds fuel to the fire.
wont be surprise there will be offical rejection of such extreme and radical groups that join on to the ron paul “camp” when he finally drops out.
until then, it seems ron paul needs the the fringe groups to continue prop up and inflate ron paul’s status as a vital canidate
1. already done
David -
You’re absolutely right on this. It goes with the territory, and it often makes it into the news. I know it, you know it, anyone who follows politics knows it.
But there’s a big difference between acknowledging that fact and joining in on the spin to bring the piece of dirt to the forefront. There’s also a big difference between pointing out an unsavory but tangible connection with somebody that the candidate himself has made and a “connection” that the candidate has absolutely no way of controlling.
In this particular thread, LST is definitely joining in on the spin part - even if LGF or somebody else pointed it out already. The simple fact that LST has chosen to highlight LGF et al (and echo their position) makes it a participant in the spin.
I’d also argue that the specific “connection” LST is attempting to draw here (and that includes whether they directly call Paul a racist or not; the plainly intended innuendo in the latter case accomplishes the same effect) falls on the weaker and sleazier end of the “guilt by association” spectrum, simply because the things Paul is apparently expected to “disavow” are all completely beyond his own control.
Phil–
First of all, “LST” hasn’t asked Paul to disavow anything– Hamous did. Front-page contributors speak for themselves, not the site as an institution.
So if an LST contributor who is a supporter of Huckabee wants to ask that he disavow Drake; or if a supporter of Giuliani that he disavow his gay friends; or if Jenna 6 concerned, that he disavow Bean; well, they can have at it.
I don’t know much about the stories you reference, but for MY PART:
(1) Based on what you said, sounds like Drake is an idiot and Huckabee should disavow him;
(2) If the Bean guy is a race-baiter, screw him;
(3) I don’t really care if Giuliani crashes with some gay friends after getting thrown by his wife, so you’re on your own with that one.
LTC,
That is a very big accusation.
I am a real person, I am a Texan in fact, not in Texas at the moment but a very proud Texan.
There are some very enthusiastic supporters that do some stupid things, but there are many that are very down to earth, educated and non exaggerated.
There are people that think Ron Paul has already won, that online polls showing 70% are perfectly accurate, they live in fantasy land.
there are people that think the current GOP is going the right direction, but upon a long review over the last year I have changed my mind and if others would study the matters they would have some open eyes as well. The GOP going the current direction, and especially if Rudy is nominated is liable to relegate itself history within the next 12 years.
#43 - Hamous -
Oh, so a campaign spokeslady doesn’t “condone” it? How bold of her.
Since your disavowal request was directed at Paul himself though, I would expect nothing less than a statement from Huckabee’s own mouth disavowing this guy. So far I haven’t seen one.
2. You want Rudy to disavow his friend because he’s gay? I might get your point if the Folsom Street Fair organizers were endorsing Giuliani but I don’t think renting a room from your gay friend is on the same level as accepting campaign donations from white supremacists.
I see Hamous addressed the Drake thing.
Phil– I acknowledge your point about Paul not voluntarily or consciously associating with Stormfront. Their actions have been very unfair to him.
What can I say? Nazi’s do bad things.
Maybe you are getting hooked up on the word “disavow.”
How about “repudiate” or “condemn”?
Point is, Paul should tell the Nazi’s “**** You, you disgust me, I don’t want your stinking money, how dare you sully my campaign and cause by trying to associate with it. Go to Hell.”
Rudy’s roomies are the least of his concerns, Alan Placa will be a much bigger story!
3. I’ll let bigjolly take that one.
Oh, that’s easy.
T’aint gonna happen.
Clear enough?
I’ve heard stories about several recent presidential candidates returning donations recently. Why is it too much to ask for Paul (or even a “campaign spokesperson” to actively denounce the support of such fringe groups as neo-nazis or whate supremacists?
Sometimes “staying above the fray” or declaring such people NWOR isn’t good enough, especially if you keep their money…
Hamous,
I have no desire to debate it just stating a fact, so far he’s not said anything publicly to remove his direct association with him. I just searched it to be sure and can not find any statement or release about it, feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this matter.
In fact in the Politico today it says:
“Giuliani and his firm have also faced protests for employing a Giuliani childhood friend and Catholic priest, Alan Placa, who was barred from priestly duties after being accused of molesting boys more than two decades ago. Placa has insisted the charges are false, and Giuliani has stoutly defended him.”
btw I am just Stephen, unless the registered Stephen posts here……no need to add the e, it was simply a placeholder
#45 - David -
Fair enough, and I don’t mean to imply that all of LST’s contributers are culpable in making what I consider a fairly sleazy and underhanded demand of Paul’s campaign. In fact, I would not expect posts like this one from most contributers here.
When one or two of them do make them though, it lessens the credibility of the site as a whole though. And I don’t mean that as a critique of LST itself - it’s just the perception it creates. In my mind, a good blog is one that maintains high quality across multiple articles over time. In other words - it’s something that I can dependably go to any day of the week and know that the stuff I find will be intellegent, well argued, and consistently reliable. LST, to its credit, does this far better than most blogs out there. I find it troubling though when I come here expecting to find the quality posts that I’m used to and instead see a trashy piece of political schlock like this thing on Ron Paul.
I don’t say that as a sometimes-Ron Paul supporter either. As many here know, I’ve been the first to criticize him on many counts and shortcomings. What I’m saying though is that of all the things to go after Paul for, this is not one of them. This is low-brow gutter politics designed for no other reason that to obtain a cheap smear. Even if we acknowledge that smears happen in politics, and - dare I say - they are even justified in some instances, this particular one strikes me as rather gratuitous, and in being such it lessens the quality and reputation of the blog as a whole.
jimb,
They have in fact returned some donations, I have seen it on some sites.
stephen, I am unfamiliar with Alan Placa so will have to do some research. Is he funding Giuliani’s campaign?
7
ROFLOL
Phil– your fairness and credibility are why, to be perfectly frank, I (and others) are taking your criticisms as seriously as we are.
Once again, where is this “demand” you speak of?
Well like I said someone needs to call his campaign and post his response.
Looks like David is doing just that, lets wait and see what RP has to say.
Also - a point of clarification on the Giuliani and Huckabee things…
In terms of my own personal preference, I don’t really care whether they “disavow” anybody. Whether they do or not has little bearing on my vote for either of them. Personally, I don’t care where Rudy wants to live, be it his gay friend’s apartment or a highway overpass.
Huckabee’s evangelical pal who prays for God to smite people is a little unsettling too, and if I were Huckabee i’d distance myself from that guy precisely because of what he’s doing rather than the controversy it could create. But I’m not gonna lose sleep over his failure to “disavow” the guy.
I posed the questions though strictly for consistency, and as a test of the disturbing trend in U.S. elections toward the politics of feigned “outrage” and “offense” at just about everyone over everything no matter how petty or stupid it may be. The point is that those who dwell in announcing their “outrage” and demanding various disavowals of things they deem “unsavory,” whether real or not, are often very selective about where they choose to apply the “outrage” filter.
Take the Rudy example. While I don’t particularly care if he has gay roommates, a lot of conservatives - particularly from the evangelical wing - probably do, including some at the other blogs that have condemned Paul by shameless innuendo linking him to Duke and stormfront. If they contrive “outrage” at Paul but give others a pass for behavior that they themselves find offensive, a matter of consistency emerges. The politics of “outrage” is inconsistent and selective by its very nature though, which is why I tend to place it on the lower end of political discourse.
And yes - that type of political discourse has its time and place. I’m just disappointed to see it here, where I expected better.
David,
Actually I’d like to thank those here for not attacking me as well, it seems when Paul’s name is mentioned on some blogs/sites it is like a 4 alarm fire douse them with water and some anti oxygen foam for good measure to put out the fire!
The purpose of this thread was to - either explicitly or implicitly - solicit a disavowal of these groups from Paul, was it not?
Your own title - “Friends In Low Places” - indicates that you have taken a position on what you think of Paul because of these groups. You’re completely entitled to that position if you like, but, directly stated or not, your post has an overabundance of innuendo contained within it. And I’m simply stating that I find that type of innuendo to be the type of cheap gutter politics we have come to expect from the left but that some of us thought (myself included) to be beneath the intellectual level of LST.
Holy cow, phil. The post states several times we do not think Ron Paul is a racist. I don’t know where you’re picking up on “innuendo”.
hamous,
You need to learn to do like fox News, headline:
Friend in low places?
Or FNC style:
Nuke Iran?
Just for grins, I browsed through 4 months of press releases on RP’s website. He’s ALL ABOUT his internet donations, and hasn’t said one iota about being selective where they come from.
You are a heck of a blogger Phil. But I think you are dead wrong in the motives and chracterizations you have assigned to this thread.
I just read the post again and picked up on something–
Hamous, at times you use “I” statements and at other times you slip into “we” statements. (Which is understandable, given that you were referencing a previous thread where you and several other contributors were all trying to make the same point.)
Still, it adds confusion in that the “royal ‘We’” on LST is usually reserved for posts written by Matt or myself, for “official” LST business or endorsements, etc.
I’ve gone back and tweaked the post a bit to make sure it is always clear that you are writing in your own name, not LST as an institution. (Not that you wrote anything illegitimate; if you did, I’d want to pull the post).
Thrust of post doesn’t change; simply makes things clearer.
And thus, our readers get a behind-the-scenes look at our on-the-fly editorial process.
really the more I think about it, it is great that it comes out here “first”(not technically, but in the first round). Hamous who posted this is here replying, you can talk to the person that wrote the article. there are other media avenues that can’t be as easily replied, or as promptly replied.
This site also has a fraction of the viewership of say, the national news. A medium such as that may not air the other side, or give opportunity to the other side.
It is politics, politics are dirty. no doubt more mud slinging will be coming soon!
I just sent an email to mail@ronpaul2008.com to see what I would get back about the subject. It got bounced back with a “quota exceeded” error. Apparently, they’re not reading their emails much over there.
jimb,
maybe they are just getting 10000’s of emails from the media, rabid supporters, and others?
Not everything is as clearcut as they are not reading, you remind me of some RP supports who think that because it says “naked lady” behind Ron Paul on CNN it is subliminal messaging
Hey, where’s the naked lady?
bigjolly,
My thoughts exactly
It was a GOOD message, it was on situation room, it was a headline of the day scrolling by on the backdrop.
#71. It sounds like the email account is unable to handle the volume it gets.
Perhaps if you attached the question to a small donation it would get more attention
Man, you guys really do know how to raise money.
I’m not donating a dime to anybody this year. I haven’t found a candidate worthy of my donation yet.
Besides, I believe it is a reasonable question to ask: Is it really OK for a presidential candidate to stand by and accept donations from racist fringe groups and endorsements from the likes of David Duke?
#69 - No problem David.
#68 - Shannon -
Ask yourself the most immediate question associated with this thread: why choose to post it?
There are a only couple sensible possibilities:
1. Somebody found it “newsworthy” because other places have already commented on it, and decided to share it.
2. Somebody here genuinely cares about Paul’s campaign and for whatever reason, however misguided I think it may be for reasons already stated, believes they should be proactive in disavowing these groups.
3. Somebody knows this is a guaranteed controversy that will probably draw hundreds of posts and people from all over the web.
4. Somebody wants to tack a smear job onto Paul’s campaign.
I don’t thing #1 is the answer, because the “other source” is LGF and LGF, despite its perfectly commendable accomplishments, deals in little more than schlock that’s heavy on the “outrage” factor but low on newsworthiness.
I don’t think #2 is the answer either. While their are some here who may genuinely have this concern and may even genuinely wish to “help” Paul’s reputation, LST isn’t exactly known as a hotbed of Ron Paul advocacy.
I think #3 is a bit cynical, and I certainly give LST more credit than simply trying to drive up the hits…though it is certainly accomplishing that purpose if that was the intent =)
That leaves us with #4, and I’ve been vocal in my criticism of this intent because I believe that the innuendo contained in this particular smear is very weak and low brow.
Of course all of this begs another question: Why does a need exist to “discredit” Ron Paul? And that question is NOT intended for the Ron Paul supporters out there who think there’s a conspiracy to keep him out of the race or something.
Seriously though - anyone who believes that Ron Paul needs to be discredited by cheap smear jobs such as this isn’t thinking very rationally for several reasons. First, Paul isn’t anywhere near the top of the polls so the electoral benefit of singling him out to attack is minimal at best. Second, it’s fairly safe to say that these types of smears aren’t going to convert any existing votes away from Paul. Most Paul supporters are - how shall I say it? - overflowing with energy and exhuberance. If anything, slinging mud at Paul will only antagonize them further and make them more vocal, more obnoxious, and more conspiratorial than they already are while netting ZERO votes in converts to any of the other candidates. Third, keeping Paul in a race that everyone knows he’s not going to win keeps things entertaining. It’s in the other candidates’ best interest to have him there simply as something they can contrast themselves against, and simply because he introduces subject matter that the Rudy McRomney echo chamber isn’t addressing on its own. In short, attacking Paul serves no rational electoral goal.
It is an HONEST question. I would like to know if my candidate condones the activities of questionable groups that support him. Goes to character.
BTW Ron Paul is not my candidate of choice.
I agree with Phil M that there is a disturbing trend in our overall culture to place great importance on appearances and words and to be “outraged” when those words are not exactly as we would have them. We seem to often place more importance on apologies and repudiations than simply doing the right thing. In short, we have become a culture driven by emotion.
Today I heard that the ambassador from Turkey was called home due to outrage about the description of the murder of Armenians as genocide. When I heard it, all I could think of was when did the adults of the world turn into children throwing tantrums.
While Paul would probably be wise to publicly repudiate Stormfront, it is possible that he is taking the stance that undergirds his political philosophy which is that we have far too much interference into the lives of one another as it is.
Of course it does, and I completely believe you when you state that you don’t think he’s racist. But that begs the obvious question then:
Why make this a story? Why point it out? And if you know already Paul isn’t a racist, why are you demanding that he make some sort of silly disavowal statement to “prove” what you already know?
There’s only one answer, and it’s the innuendo of the story. You can state 100 times over that Ron Paul is not a racist, and yet by posting a story replete with very weak “guilty associations” to racist groups, an explicit judgement of Paul for those associations (you called them Ron Paul’s “friends”) in the title, and an implicit dose of “outrage” lurking behind virtually every line you can simultaneously accomplish the purpose of painting him with the racism brush in the minds of others…and all the while you admit that brush is wrong.
Phil,
Some people enjoy debate and stirring the pot.
I don’t even know of LST until today to be honest, but it seemed if I was going to take time and join in somewhere I’d do it someplace that covered my home state news, along with people that may be hostile toward RP but not in a total irrational manner.
To many Ron Paul is a “gadfly” but what he really is to many, is a threat. Not specifically to the people here on LST that I have seen; but a threat to the establishment that is the GOP and the political system as a whole. He himself is not the threat, his ideas and him being there is the threat because it encourages people to seek out what really is happening in the world.
Let’s say you have never heard of Ron Paul, but are curious, so….. in your search, you find this white supremist website. How would that affect your decision on the candidate?
#81 Jan B.
I get the point you are making, but think you unintentionally do Paul a disservice. He deserves more credit than that.
Paul believes GOVERNMENT shouldn’t interfere in people’s lives, but is certainly a smart enough man to know that libertarianism allows (I’d even argue REQUIRES) that individuals in their private capacity as citizens ostracize anti-social behavior.
Rightly or wrongly, Paul’s campaign has a certain “zany” factor right now that makes many people uncomfortable.
This could be a Sister Souljah moment for him. He should take it.
80 -
If that is the case though, then why does Hamous repeatedly answer that question by stating in no uncertain terms that he DOES NOT consider Paul a “racist” who supports Duke and stormfront?
It seems to me that he had already answered your/his question before it was even asked, again begging why it needed to be asked in the first place. Since the answer - Hamous’ concession that Paul is not a racist - was already known and conceded, the post cannot have been, as you say, an honest attempt to simply ascertain whether Paul supports those groups.
That means it was intended to do something else, and I think it’s pretty clear what that something else is.
Consider this comment my vote for Phil to become a front page contributor, guys. If only because he can string together more than three thoughts, clearly is a man of homor and ethics….and has great recall of political history.
Y’all might corrupt him, though.
:>)
82 Phil
Speaking for myself… I am committed to exploiting every opportunity I can find to remind Jew-haters– Nazi, Islamist or otherwise –that Americans overwhelmingly find them repulsive. So wherever they pop up, I come down like a hammer.
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, they sidled up next to him.
Speaking for myself, my goal is to whack them, not his campaign.
We’re still waiting for Hillary’s denunciation for recieving the American Communist Party’s endorsement…we wait….wait, yawn….
Oh well, I guess she won’t. I suppose free speech is only good when it’s used against ‘fringes’ and it’s time to construct a irrational hit piece.
Hi, I’m Hillary, and I’m Red…shhhh.
HILLARY CLINTON’S BIGGEST COVER-UPS
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/15.html
David the Hammer, sounds like a wrestling name lol… but glad you are on top of things!
#89….. I thought she was a member of the American Communist Party…….. oh wait , back to Dr. Paul.
#79 Funny thing is phil, it has nothing to do with #4 and is basically a combination of your 1, 2, and 3 in addition to my fervent belief that giving groups like stormfront ANY shred of credibility, and accepting campaign donations does that, only degrades our political process even further.
Despite what his supporters say, Ron Paul is a blip on the political radar. In two years he will be remembered as being about as important as Ralph Nader was in 2004. But the damage done by this could be permanent.
There is no smear here. The campaign has surely known about these associations for a while. I don’t understand the reluctance to distance themselves from this. I truly hope they do and rest assured I will cover it here.
David Benzion, why don’t you ‘whack a communist mole’ listed on post #89? The readers will certainly be dazzled by your hammer of gods swing.
Phil
Can’t speak for Hamous.
That still does not detract from my wanting to know what Ron Paul’s thoughts are though.
Are the only people allowed to ask questions those that do not write blogs? If you have not noticed, one of the purpose of a blog, especially when they allow comments, is to elicit a response. Seems Hamous accomplished a noble purpose here.
1. He informed
2. He elicited a response.
Not just ANY hammer, mind you.
Also Phil
Since LST is “just a blog”
Are the contributors supposed to wait till the vaunted Main Stream Media brings this to everyones attention before they post a story about the subject at hand?
#93 TJ3
Hillary’s early flirtation with Marxist theories are well known.
Also, I lean “libertarian” (really “classical liberal”) in my beliefs, and tend (in the current modern American political spectrum) to vote Republican… so I have a much greater interest in keeping causes and institutions I care deeply about free from bigotry.
#85 Dave; that’s a valid point. I would just note that while making a distinction between government and private citizens, they are inextricably intertwined. Quite simply, government interferes in people’s lives because people/interest groups want government to interfere. At the end of the day, we have become a nation of busybodies and I think some of the dynamics that impact us in adverse ways stem from our propensity to meddle.
As I said, it would probably be wise for Paul to repudiate Stormfront, particularly if he has not made his views about the repugnance of racism widely known. Then again, knowing he is a decent man, most of us assume that as a given (unless proven otherwise by his actions).
#98, never assume, we assumed a lot of things about Gov. Perry.
But you can see the point I’m making. Free speech is for the individual and every individual. Your applying collectivist thought by using such broad strokes to libel an individual. (i.e. Ron Paul)
Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.
But as the words are leaving his lips,
A noise comes from behind.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead.–Lennon & McCartney
TJ3
Where is the libel?
The essence of the story can be boiled down to this.
Hey Ron!
What?
Didja see that the Nazis, skinheads luv U on their web site?
Really?
Yeah they even have a donation banner prominently displayed for you.
Really?
Yeah really. Whatcha think about that huh?
/Waiting for answer……….>>>>
#101 Heh, that’s what I was thinking too.
Phil_M apparently considers telling the truth to being a “smear.” Fuzzy thinking, that.
100
You obviously don’t know anything about libel.
O.K. I’ve figured it out! Yes! I’m a little slow, but when you hit me over the head with a hammer, I do come around! Start a Blog, any kind of a Blog and Mention “Ron Paul” Bang, Bingo! Instant Ten Gazillion hits! (Thanks Google) The Dill-Wads come out of the woodwork to defend their Idiot! You can mow sell Ad space, God Bless America! Ain’t Capitalism Great!!
BTW; Capitalism is Great! But Doncha’ just love it!
*Side Bar, getting the Duck-Tape to tape up the ribcage, laughing doncha’ know!
My #106
Dang-Dammit!! You can “now” sell, not “mow” sell! I need spell check or start typing slower! ;=)
Dave D,
You are no better than some of the Ron Paul supporters. Step it up a bit on the maturity level and then we can discuss things in the proper manner.
106 Dave D
Heh, heh. You devil, you.
#108 stephene, WHAT? I don’t understand?!?! I only made a logical assessment to what was happening here, open comments thread #63 @ 6:30, this stupid thread #109! Am I missing something? Please elaborate.
“The Dill-Wads come out of the woodwork to defend their Idiot!” -Dave D
We need to move beyond name calling.
All I know is that I’m calling that Dude in Alabama that set up my Lil’ Sister’s Website, (business), and see if I can get a Ron Paul web-site and make big bucks! It should last at least until the primaries! ;=)
stephen, I assume you are fairly new to LST. We have had lots of “Paulestinians” here as you appropriately described in #19. Many here have tried carrying on a reasonable conversation and have discovered it is fruitless. They don’t get reason. They are not civil. You end up resorting to satire and sarcasm (I am probably the worst offender here) because anything else will drive you crazy. I disagree with you that they are in the minority. Based on what we see here Paul supporters like you are in the minority. They are a freaky lot.
It’s a bit disingenuous to claim that the sentiments expressed by LSTers on this thread are not a hit job when there’s so much evidence to indicate that their motivation is a dislike of a candidate that “doesn’t stand a chance.” If he doesn’t stand a chance, why waste so much time trying to discredit him? Why demean those who support him?
As for any candidate being obligated to “denounce” contributions that come from individuals who are part of distasteful organizations, I think you’re treading on dangerous ground there.
I don’t like NAZIs. I think their stupid, mainly evil and most of them stink. I also dislike Phred Felps and his inbred clan of gay haters that try to protest at soldiers funerals.
But it would be inappropriate for me or a government to restrain the right of individuals who may be a part of any organization, including nefarious ones, from contributing to the candidate of their choice.
No candidate has an obligation to denounce an organization or return individual contributions based on the contributers affiliations.
Dave,
I’d recommend more substance than pandering or name calling. But there are people setting up such sites, good luck if you go that route I truly hope you lose the whole $10 investment
#111 stephene,…O.K,…Dave hangs his head in SHAME! even as we speak I’m flagellating myself with a “WET NOODLE!” I have no idea what came over me! About the “Dill-Wads” I apologize, didn’t mean to speak the truth!
hamous,
There are some very good Ron Paul supporters that I know personally. Friends, family, they don’t get on these blogs, they don’t participate in the online scene, but they will be voting in the primaries.
I will be hanging around here a bit making some points, and freely invite any of you that are in the Miami area this month to give me a shout out, I will buy you a nice dinner of steak or crab and we can discuss substance and not online gibberish.
BTW; I like stephene! She has Spunk!
That is true. And no candidate has a right to not be criticized for such affiliations, would you agree?
Dave D,
It is Stephen there was already someone with such a name.
I am not “dill wad”, if you find me to be a moronic idiot, I’d hate to know what it looks like in the mirror.
Stephen, there are a few good supporters that frequent here too. Unfortunately they sometimes get lost in a sea of gooniness from the other kind.
88 - David
That’s a perfectly fair position, and one that I often find myself engaged in as well.
And that’s the part about it I find unfair. Paul did absolutely nothing to court or solicit these people’s support, and as far as I can tell he’s done nothing that even acknowledges them - a fair position in my mind as well, because acknowledging these types (in addition to giving the left something to smear you with) gives them undeserved credibility. Why should Paul have to suffer because a few of these sleazebags, acting under their own volition, decided to vote for him? Why does it become his fault that they picked him?
The honest answer is that Paul has done absolutely nothing wrong here. And if he’s done nothing wrong, it’s unfair to hold him accountable. Sure - bash Duke and his thugs as they deserve to be bashed, but as far as I can see the ONLY purpose this post serves is to draw an association between the nazi trash and Paul - an association that Paul did not ask for, does not support, and does not voluntarily participate in or encourage.
A couple days ago a point was made on one of the Jena posts about what defines association with a racist group. The subject was Alan Bean, the aforemention Jena activist, who has openly praised Al Sharpton on his website and has appeared as a speaker at rallies with the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers.
When these groups showed up in Jena Bean had two options. 1. He could steer clear of their events, rallies, and protests and do his own thing without dilluting his message any, or 2. He could actively unite with them. Bean chose 2.
Because of that clear and voluntary choice, Bean clearly bears responsibility for his association with these violent hate groups and with race-baiting thugs like Sharpton. Had he picked the first option, he could have just as easily stuck to his position on the Jena controversy without sullying his name and credibility. He didn’t necessarily have to denounce the NoI and Black Panthers. He didn’t have to tell them to go home, which probably would have been a bad idea because it would draw negative attention to his cause. All he had to do to retain credibility was dissassociate from them. But the choice was his and his alone to make, and because of the choice he made it is fair to attack Bean for his association with racists.
Paul had a similar decision, but everything i’ve seen indicates he chose option 1. Unless he picks 2, it’s unfair to attack him for an association with racists because in reality that association does not exist.
O.K I know that I’m the Red-Headed Stepchild here, (literally) and I don’t get the talking points every day, but I have a question,… was this Matt’s idea? Benzene? Or did the Ham-Bone come up with this on his own?
P.S. If it was Ham-Bone, you neeed a raise!;=)
I’m sorry Hamous, but would you mind showing me the FEC report where Stormfront created a political action committee? And would you also direct me to the page on Paul’s report that shows where he accepted a campaign donation from the Stormfront PAC?
#119. And no candidate has a right to not be criticized for such affiliations, would you agree?”
I agree completely. LST and everyone else has a very fundamental right to launch honest hit pieces on any candidate they choose.
Sorry for the bad end tag on the italics…
He’s accepting campaign donations from them. That is a clear association. He allows them to advertise for him on their cesspool websites. That is a clear association. I think he has some accountability here.
#94
I don’t doubt that he elicited a response. Quite to the contrary, I already pointed that out. What I do question though is the nobility of the tactic he used.
Both the act of thwarting a would-be shoplifter in a store, and running through its aisled randomly knocking stuff off the shelf are pretty much guaranteed to elicit a response. Not all responses are good or equal though.
Hamous, Is Ron Paul accepting donations from the organization, or individuals that belong to it.
Big difference.
Again - exactly where is the Stormfront PAC listed on Paul’s campaign disclosure report? And is there even such a thing as a Stormfront PAC? If there is not, then how is he getting donations from them and how do you know which donations those are?
#120 stephen, I’m sorry but on my computer your name is stephene? Am I missing something?
BTW; I don’t know if you are a moronic idiot or not, but I like your passion! It is possible that you are just mis-guided, it happens ehn you’re young! Not a thing wrong with that!
#114 Bob42
I have to (respectfully) disagree vigorously.
No one is talking about restricting the rights of Nazis or anyone else to SEND people money.
They can send it. But that don’t mean a politician has to TAKE it. (Or, if they didn’t notice at first, to KEEP it once it has been pointed out to them.)
EVERY candidate for public office (which inherently involves public trust) has a moral OBLIGATION to refuse and return contributions from individuals who belong to repugnant organizations.
What constitutes a “repugnant” organization?
Well, I say we let individual candidates decide.
Dr. Paul– is the Stormfront “community” one from which you are willing to accept political support or not?
If that *ssh*le Phelps were to give money to a politician, I’d ask that candidate the same thing.
Just like Hillary was criticized for taken HAMAS-tainted money, until she returned it.
Or GOP primary candidates are criticized for taking trial-lawyer money, or Democratic primary candidates for taking Wal-Mart money, etc. etc.
If Dr. Paul wants to win, he needs to both attract lots of people TO his campaign and REPEL others from it.
He appears to do a bang-up job attracting.
I suspect it would help him to do a little repelling.
When it comes down to it, Ron Paul is all about freedom. This site has the freedom (currently anyway, maybe not with certain people elected!) to run a hit piece on any candidate so long as it has substance. This is a loose connection, and someone using the widget, but none the less it is a connection. It is NOT an association however.
LST is free to do it, just as we are free to reply to some extent. I know this is private and 1st amendment is not guaranteed, so they just as well could have shut it down for commenting.
Of course all the comments drive traffic, making hits, allowing more advertising……
What do you propose he do about that, Hamous? Send an army of volunteers to hack into their server and remove any references to himself? That would be illegal.
Sue them to ban them from saying his name on the site? That would go nowhere because he’s a public figure and the courts would throw it out in a heartbeat.
Phil, I have never said that everything going on here is not completely legal. Do you dispute that the Ron Paul donation frame is prominently placed on stormfront’s website? Do you dispute that scum-sucking lowlife nazis are donating to his campaign?
He can legally collect all the blood-soaked money he wants. And I can legally ask him, for the good of our country, to stop. And you can legally come here and be his apologist.
#122 Phil
It isn’t Paul’s fault. But it is his problem (even if this post had never appeared on LST.)
If he and his advisers think it better to ignore the whole thing, they can take that bet.
I’d counsel hitting the issue head on and turning it to his advantage.
I disagree David.
Are you saying that every candidate has a moral obligation to research every contribution from every individual to determine if that individual also might support a “repugnant” organization?
Phil, I think I outlined it pretty well in the post. He could publicly state he wants no donations from anyone associated with such groups. Benzion had an excellent suggestion with blocking incoming links from the stormfront website. They could easily go through their own server logs and identify all donations that originated from the stormfront website and return them.
By the way, Hamous - Stormfront urged its members to vote for Bush in 2004.
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&client=safari&rls=en&q=site%3Astormfront.org+%22In+this+election+I+plan+on+voting+for+Bush%22&btnG=Search
So when are you gonna call the White House and demand that he repudiate them?
David,
I too disagree on the statement:
This would require armies of “donation police” for every candidate, masses of cross linked databases, a new government entity essentially just to keep track of this matter. That is not reasonable. The you have the potential of getting someone with the same name and totally unrelated as well, since you don’t get enough information to do a complete background check. This would make for an entire mess.
#136 - David -
That’s the sort of fair and measured response I’ve come to expect around here. Thank you.
Unfortunately, a couple others around here are very strongly implying that it IS Ron Paul’s fault. Look no further than the title of this post: “Friends in low places,” the key word being “friends.”
Ron Paul is not “friends” with these people and has done nothing to suggest otherwise.
Alan Bean, by contrast, did provide many reasons to conclude that he’s on friendly terms with Sharpton and the NoI.
Oh Phil
Last I checked, now I have been known to make a mistake in the past, but unmm Bush is not running. Is he?
This is, as “they” say, current events.
Hey, he ain’t gettin’ my vote anyway for a multitude of other reasons. If he continues to ignore this it would just reaffirm my belief that I made the right choice. But there may be others out there that buy into his ideals and honestly they probably greatly outnumber the neo-nazis. Those are the folks him and his supporters should be trying to attract.
#139 - Phil, this NIGYYSOB isn’t your normal modus operandi. What gives?
DAYAMN, is this fun or what?
Note to Hamous
In the future might I suggest a question mark in your title to placate the Phils of blogdom.
Oh, and your link didn’t show Stormfront endorsing Bush. It was a forum where a couple of members said they were voting for the “lesser of two evils” (there’s that irony again) and more said they were voting for the Constitution Party candidate.
#146 - duly noted and implemented
#142 - He was in 2004, and that’s when Stormfront urged people to vote for him. Now did I miss the the place in the 04 campaign where Bush denounced them, or is he guilty of taking political support from Stormfront?
Wow Phil you are really digging and missed this very important part of my point. So let me shorten it.
So what. Jan 2009 Bush will be gone.
Also I was not blogging then and I would have asked the same questions of Bush that I ask of RP
#138
Benzion had an excellent suggestion with blocking incoming links from the stormfront website. They could easily go through their own server logs and identify all donations that originated from the stormfront website and return them.
I see nothing excellent about the idea. Why would any candidate want to waste money like that? And why would any candidate pay attention to such a request when it comes only from people who oppose him to the degree that ya’ll do?
NORML also links to several candidates’ sites. Should people who link from there also be renounced? After all, “Drugs are bad, mmmkay?”
Where do you draw the line on vague moral obligation and classifying organizations as “repugnant?”
I still think suggestions like the one above are a smokescreen for an obvious hit piece (that you have every right to post…)
But at least folks have stopped calling Ron Paul a truther
Ron Paul is a “troofer”. Let’s get it right.
Truthers maintain a belief even after it’s been totally and thoroughly debunked.
If the shoe fits, Squakbox…
#150 -
Hey, I’m just pointing out that Bush is “guilty” of taking political support from the exact same people you’re associating with Paul. If Paul is culpable, then by the same standard so was Bush in 2004.
After all, this post is asked WHO supports certain candidates, not WHEN they supported them.
#151
Sure you would have.
Just like I’m sure you’re going to author a new post in the near future demanding that current presidential candidate Tom Tancredo denounce and repudiate all the support he is currently getting from Stormfront:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Astormfront.org+%22tom+tancredo+for+president%22&btnG=Search
Make sure it has lots of screencaps and a catchy title too.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe because its the right thing to do?
Ya know bob, that’s a good question and I may actually ponder it and get back to you. There’s one thing I’m dead certain about: FREAKING WHITE SUPREMACIST NAZIS are way, way, way past that line!
See stephen, there’s a perfect example of a Paulestinian that makes it impossible to carry on a reasoned debate.
Phil, the stormfront links you keep providing all have one thing in common. It’s not a “George Bush for President” donation frame. It’s not a “Tom Tancredo for President” donation frame. It’s a big ol’ “Ron Paul for President” donation frame.
Who’s runnin’ for President?
Bush?
John Cox
152
You think vehemently opposing Nazis is a “vague moral obligation”? Do you question whether Nazis are “repugnant”?
If so, it says a lot about Paul supporters.
#159 -
A sample of quotes from the Tancredo page on Stormfront indicates that several of them are very clearly contributing their time and money to his candidacy:
“If he [Tancredo] ran, I’d volunteer to support his campaign.”
“If he runs for president, I will also volunteer to help his campaign.”
“Tancredo/Sensenbrenner in ‘08!!!”
“Count me in, his stance on immigration alone lets me know he at least cares some about the future of this country.”
“I’d vote for him. Hell, I’d even help with his campaign.”
“I’m all for Tancredo. I have been for quite awhile now.”
“I think Tancredo’s a good man and an honest politician. He’s also probably the only chance in hell that we have of getting someone seriously anti-illegal in office.”
So I’ll repeat my question - when are you going to add the post demanding that Tancredo repudiate Stormfront, ask his Stormfront volunteers to leave, and give back all his Stormfront cash?
Personally, I’m starting to like Rudy. I like a man that can show his feminine side.
Hugs and kisses to all!
#157.
Hamous, of course they are way past that line. The point I and others have tried to make is that if you empower the goverment, directly or by the proxy of requiring all candidates to return contributions from individuals who may be NAZIs, you also empower it to do the same for any organization it arbitrarily deems “repugnant.”
So the question of where you draw the line is an important one.
Yes the NAZIs are unquestionably so far from the line that they couldn’t see it with the Hubble telescope. But guess what! They’re also insignificant!
So why would anyone suggest regulating free speech and invading the privacy of all individual donors, just to keep a bunch a trailer park nitwits from giving this weeks beer money to a politician?
Makes no sense to me dude.
I think I’ll head over to Stormfront and see if I can find that Tancredo donation page. Sucker keeps escaping me.
Gotta admit, most of the guys today were rational (one notable exception). Stephen needs to come around more often, he’s holding his own.
And bob42 is persistent.
164. Phil_M
Now you’re just being ridiculous.
The issue is not whether particular nutjobs happen to, for one reason or another, like this candidate or that. The issue is that this Nazi website - representing an organization - has big Ron Paul banners and are raising money for him.
If there was a big Tancredo banner, Hamous would say the same thing.
You are skirting the issue.
#163 “If so, it says a lot about Paul supporters.”
Rick, don’t take it personally, but that was LAME. If you want to suggest that Ron Paul supporters are NAZIs, just go ahead and say it.
I’m talking about constitutional protections of free speech, and your hung up on NAZIs.
bob42 - How in the hell is me ASKING a candidate to repudiate the financial support of a white supremacist nazi organization empowering the government to police donations? I’m not pushing for any new law where the government would determine who gets to donate. In fact I would vigorously fight such a move. But if I as a citizen cannot ask a candidate to do so I think it is people like you I should be worrying about empowering. God forbid anyone dare say an unkind word about St. Paul!
I’ll be danged. I Googled tancredo stormfront and I got a hit alright.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=257479
Interesting. Scroll down and yeah, you’ll see the Ron Paul donation page. We already knew that.
But look who is front and center with a picture. That would be George Allen, the macaca man himself. Who is it he’s supporting? Let me think. Oh, yeah, here it is:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/09/george_allen_is_back_and_touti.html
Why, he’s supportin’ ol’ Fred.
Thanks, Phil_M, I couldn’t have done it without you.
#169 - All I see is a graphic with a link. “Raising money” implies that they are mailing him checks out of their PAC. I’ve yet to see any evidence of a Stormfront PAC giving anything to Paul.
The only thing you’ve come up with so far is a single unsolicited banner link that Paul’s campaign did not place there or authorize.
Furthermore, when previously pressed on the issue of Stormfront having a PAC Hamous basically conceded that the Stormfront donations were really from “individual members,” and suggested that Paul should be responsible for policing those.
Well, it turns out that “individual members” of Stormfront are also donating to Tancredo and volunteering on their campaign as I showed in the previous post. What’s good for the goose…
#171
Ask any candidate any question you like. And donate to any candidate you like.
For better or worse, NAZIs, KKKers, Phred Felps, and people who support the ACLU have the same freedom.
For the last time, there is no donation banner for Tancredo. There is only one for Ron Paul. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it.
You think its perfectly fine for him to accept donations from stormfronters. I think its disgusting. bob42 thinks its morally vague. Glad you guys aren’t rooting for my candidate.
I’m still LMAO at that George Allen link on Stormfront. I wonder what else I can find in there.
Or was that vaguely moral?
All this gum flapping means nothing. I have secret information that is privileged only to those of us associated with the “Bone Heads”.
First off Bush hushed the 911 report so that we may never know the troof of what really happened. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
The US Gov has transferred all power to the new world order and the UN. Their is a Nahambianian army hidden in bunkers scattered all over the US that will soon enforce martial law after a Gulf of Tonkin style attack somewhere in the middle east. All this orchestrated by the Bush cabal and the UN. Why do you think Cheney spends so much time in the bunker?
Blackwater will then be called in to round us all up and placed in the subdivisions that you see along the hiway with high concrete walls. Ever notice that the entrances are just wide enough for gates? Haliburton already has the gates made and ready to install them.
You sheeple just don’t get it. BahBah Ron has been trying to warn us. He is our last great hope.
So, hamous… If someone associated with the KKK makes a statement of support or contributes to your guy (whoever that is…) does that act alone affect your opinion of him? If you then say that your candidate should return contributions or make public statements, would he lose your vote if he failed to do so?
I hope not.
Because then your letting the KKK influence you.
I’e read this entire exchange. Until I got to this one, you weredoing pretty good.
I think it’s a bit disingenuos of you to claim that a clickable donation banner prominently displayed on a website is not a way that the organzation represented by that website of “raising money” for a candidate.
Whther or not the practice is currenlty coverd by Campaing finance Regulations is not the point.
Ron Paul either has a message that is attractive enough to these people to make them go that “extra mile” in his support, or they have gravely miscalculated his positions.
I think that Mr. Paul ought to make clear to us which one it is.
Shuug, you haven’t been here very long. We’ve had serious debates about various candidates. This is not just about Ron Paul.
There is a calendar on the right hand side of this website. You can click on any month, date or year, and read about it. I would recommend reading some posts that were close to re-electing Rick Perry. Start at about Oct. 20th./going back up to read, but need tylenol 1st…
BTW;
I won’t add to the hit count of that website.
Can anybody tell me if Stormfront has made a statement as to which of mr. Pauls positions and policies made them go that “extra mile” in his support?
I make donations to candidates.
I post here on LST.
That does not mean LST supports my candidatres.
If LST puts a donation banner on thier front page, THAT will mean that LST supports that particular candidate.
Stormfront has a donation banner for Ron Pual on thier website.
Therefore, Stormfront supports Ron Pual.
I want to know several things:
1. Why has Stormfront go to the trouble to make thier support of Ron Paul so prominent on thier website–which positions and policies of his have made him so attractive to them?
2. Does Ron Paul know this?
3. Does Ron Paul care?
If the answer to #3 is “No.” I have found out all I need to know about Ron Paul.
Look bob42 this is very simple and it applies to every candidate running, not just The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul. Here’s how it goes:
I go to a website that is the preeminent website for the scumbag skinhead Nazi organization known as Stormfront and I see a “‘Whatshisname’ for President” banner. I click on that banner (name unimportant) and it takes me to the candidate’s website where I can donate money.
I go to another website run by possibly the most famous KKK Grand Dragon in America (after Robert Byrd) and see the same banner. I click on it again and again it takes me to the candidate’s website where I can donate money.
I read an article where the presidential candidate of the American Nazi Party is complaining that “Whatshisname” is stealing all his support base.
I don’t think I’m out of line in asking “Whatshisname” to repudiate the support of these pukes. If you think I am…well that’s truly sad and I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Come to think of it, I have noticed that those entrances are all the same width. Interesting.™
Sarge
In defense of RP they took some of his statements and policies proposals out of context and spun them into racial/antisemite crappola. Quite nasty actually.
Which makes Mr. Paul’s seeming disintereast in this all the more puzzling.
The points made above about how the Paul campaign prides themselves on thier internet savvy are well taken in this regard as well.
And the “Paul Bearer” habit is also in evidence. Rather than tell us that they are sure Mr. Paul will soon be issuing a statement and returning the money donated to him by these scumbags, they defend the right of the scumbags to raise scumbag money for him, and say that Mr. Paul has no real reason to denounce these scumbags and return their scumbag money.
Then, they try the “Timmy does it too.” routine.
Is it too dam much to ask that a candidate for the most powerful office on the planet make some kind of moral stand against scumbags and thier scumbag money?
Sorry for the intermittent comments; this stupid “family” keeps wandering in the room, demanding my time and attention.
Whoever said it– I work in politics for a living, and I can tell you–yeah, campaigns DO have “donation police.”
That is frequently my job–to try to spot people who want to give my clients money that would embarrass us. Schemers, perverts, radicals, crooks and loonies. (Oh My!)
If you don’t spot these people, you are opening yourself up to scandal. If you do spot them, you save yourself some grief.
And if you miss them (or there was no reasonable way you could know they were “toxic”) but it comes to light later (because someone–maybe the media–points it out), you move quickly to return the contribution and disassociate yourself with them.
Happens in politics all the time.
Thanks southertragedy, I’ll look into more history on this site as time permits. I’ve read much so far, and I already know that it’s not all about Ron Paul.
However, from what I’ve seen so far, this site’s overall approach to the Ron Paul campaign frequently falls far short of my idea of “serious debate.”
That’t not to say there haven’t been some rational discussions (today was much better than yesterday) but they’ve been intermixed with everything from a twoofer like devotion to the idea that RP is a truther, to an (I think) absurd point of view that MY support of any candidate should be influenced by the affiliations of others that may also choose to support him.
Or, more simply stated, I strongly believe in civil liberties and freedom of speech. And I do so to the point of knowing that the likes of kooks and kluxers will always exist, and be able to voice their vile opinions. I tolerate such evil because I know that to deprive them would be to deprive everyone.
Seems I remember something about a shoe. Or was it Hsu?
Criminy Dutch folks—
I won;t vote for a candidate that takes money from the scubags at Daily Kos and MoveOn.
Neither will I vote for a candidate who takes money from scumbag Nazis.
NAZIS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! NAZIS!
It can’t be too frikkin hard to say, “Not thanks–here’s you money you filthy Nazi scumbag. I want everybody on the planet that this candidate gives no support for, nor will he take support from, NAZIS
I can’t freaking beleive that we’re here near 200 posts and not one of these people has assured us that the Paul campaing is going to give bck the money and issue a statement trumpeting it.
I’D BE FREAKING PROUD TO DO IT—AND YOU WOULDN’T HAVE TO ASK ME TWICE.
Sarge, I find it incredible that the RP campaign wasn’t aware of this before but regardless, we know they are now. We are hoping to get an official statement. Stay tuned.
Back after a bit of a break - I will only say this: If they want my vote, they most certainly have such an obligation.
So Sarge, can you guarantee that a NAZI, KKKer, ACLUer (or whatever you might find distasteful) has NOT ALREADY contributed to your candidate.
Don’t wait for some blog to allege it. Write them TODAY! And demand that they investigate every individual to ensure that none of them have any affiliation with organizations that you dislike
And certainly, don’t hang your chad for them until you are sure that not a single dollar was accepted from anyone you don’t agree with.
bob, you didn’t read a damn thing I wrote in #184, did you?
Here’s the thing that gets me Hammie.
Today, a couple of Ron Paul’s supporters found out that NAZIS have a donation banner for thier candidate on thier website.
Who do the get angry at?
You—for telling us.
Not the NAZIS—you.
And then, thier response to it is not moral outrage—it’s turned into an intelectual discussion as to the merits of “donation policing” and other issues that COMPLETELY IGNORES THE MORALITY INVOLVED.
That’s why I made my question #3 thyis:
“Does Ron Paul care?”
Now, you all know me and know that I’m about as far away from a touchy feel Kumbaya singing bleeding heart.
But criminy, I want my elected officials to CARE about somethings, rather than have themdevolve into an intellectual discussion. Some issues are just so viscerally moral that there NEEDS to be an emotional response.
NAZIS SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OUGHT TO BE ONE OF THEM.
I most certainly do.
Obviously, it’s not one of YOUR priorities—at least not as high a priority getting Ron Paul elected.
If I find out ANY candidate I support is reciving money from NAZIS I will scream bloody mrder until they give the money back and make it clear that they will accept no more.
Not just anonymous nazis hiding behind a computer screen. An organization of Nazis. There’s nothing ambiguous about this.
hamous
I am sorry to say this…..
bob can’t read…
Don’t feel sorry for him though. It is not pity that he needs. Just the troof.
200?
#166 -
Who says we want this to be a government requirement? Anybody? This should be a VOLUNTARY MOVE by Paul…
I’m not bothered a bit that NAZIs or KKKers gave money to Ron Paul, mainly because the evil totalitarian tactics they support would be impossible to enact under the kind of constitutionally restricted government Ron Paul and I would like to see again.
If I supported RudyMcRomneyThompson, I would be far more concerned, as they (along with the democrats) promote a level of government control that allows centralized authoritarian power to flourish.
Gee, I think I’m starting to see some of the basis behind the overly emotional rhetoric here.
Bob, dauughling….the old folks in Florida, who were too weak to punch through a piece of paper with a sharp point caused MOST of the U.S. to go to computerized voting. Which, BTW, the Democrats were already screaming voter fraud/scam/un-reliable BEFORE the last election. When the Dems won, they seemed to forget about it. Your candidate still has a chance, if he loses!
Just wondering, how long have you been voting, and who mostly had you been voting for? I’m really not trying to be snarly. Just want a better view of where you are coming from. I am a Conservative Independent. I voted for Kinky in the last Texas election. Screw the resta them.
#202 posts on this thread and my big toe still can’t reach the trigger…
Let me make this very clear - if a prominent Nazi organization puts a donation banner for “my” candidate that links directly to his website for donations, I would absolutely expect him to block donations or even links incoming from that site (it is a simple operation, not the extensive “policing” operation that some seem to think it is) or he would lose much respect in my eyes.
Is it possible to know if a donation from John Doe is from a neo-nazi? No, not necessarily. But an incoming link from stormfront.org or its IP address? Sure.
#204 Elizabeth, sugar, ain’t it the truth! I stand by my Post #106 ;=)
Bob, did you know your nickname’s a palindrome?
Hmm bob you seem to hearken back to the hangin’ chad stuff quite a bit. Are we inferring the old Bush disenfranchisement argument too?
Elizabeth & Dave, and I didn’t even post it until almost 2pm.
Note to Hamous
Next time post this stuff earlier.
We were standing
Standing by peaceful waters
Standing by peaceful waters
Whoa wah oh wha oh
Careful there southertragedy, you’re starting to sound like a libertarian!
I liked Reagan in ‘76, but wasn’t old enough to vote for him until 1980. Since then, I’ve “hung my chad” for the candidates that made sense, but never for the lesser of two evils, because I think the two party duopoly is ultimately evil, and not only do I refuse to support it, I hope to help end it.
Local politics is a different story, but I’ve never given a dime to any national candidate, nor have I volunteered my time in supporting one…
…Until recently, that is.
Ham-Bone, Ya’ did good!! If you’re not getting paid,…and I know that you aren’t, you need to renegotiate your contract! ;=)
BTW; I’ve not had this much fun since that Squirrel got loose in the Antioch church in Mississippi!
207 - So’s detartrated - what of it?
#201 jimb
Most excellent point !
And the hits just keep coming
Ron Paul draws more praise from liberals
An Endorsement Ron Paul Should Repudiate Immediately
Reihan: Is Ron Paul A Bad Libertarian?
#208
Not at all dude! I just like the phrase. I think all the noise about the 2000 election was silly.
My #213 Here Ya go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_067ahbXfg
bob
That is good to know. I would hate to think…. well you know.
But I should add that my presidential chad remained un-hung in 2004. It was a lesser of two evils race, and I refused to compromise my integrity by participating in the farce.
I finally got to read all 217 posts in this “War Room” and am going to a safe place. People can get torn apart here. But that’s Politics.
I can;t freaking BELIVE this crap.
His candidate gets money from NAZIS and he turns it into a FREAKING CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL.
Bob;
You Paulies like to brag about you knowledge of history.
Apparently it escaped youn that the people who voted for Adolph Hitler and his party thought that his kind of “evil totalitarian tactics they support would be impossible to enact under the” Wiemar Republic’s Constitution, either.
Heh, thanks, Dave D, from there I went to The Streak.
Oh, my. Bob42 was unhung. That had to hurt.
Bob:
If you are/or could be a Texas voter in next year’s election, would you consider a vote for this man?
http://www.larrykilgore.com
“Don’t worry about the nooses, the burning cross, and the graffitti on the Synogoge, Mr. Weinstein, Ron Paul says the evil totalitarian tactics they support would be impossible to enact under the Constitution he supports.”
Great ST, now you’re gonna draw out the lone Kilgorian. Is that five or 40 lashes you get now?
Jehosaphat the mongrel cat
Jumped off the roof today
Some would say he fell but I could tell
He did himself away
His eyes weren’t bright like they were the night
We played checkers on the train
God Bless his soul he was a tootsie roll
But he’s a dead cat just the same
We are living in the future
I’ll tell you how I know
I read it in the paper
Fifteen years ago
We’re all driving rocket ships
And talking with our minds
And wearing turquoise jewelry
And standing in soup lines
We’re standing in soup lines
Crap! Here’s the linkie:
http://www.larrykilgore.com/Issues.html
Haven’t seen that lady around lately. Hope she wasn’t naughty.
She was on the Cornyn thread today. Keep up, highly paid one!
‘course, her linkies are a bit off.
Hey Hambone: Ya gotta give credit to Bob. He’s like a Timex. Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’. He’s alright in my book.
BTW: I think it’s 5 but I’ll take 40! You ALL can take a whack! TYSMIHA?
BJ gets 5! /happy now?
#231 Why do I have an image of Barney giving Southerntragedy 40 lashes with a wet noodle?
Yeah, that’s some kind of Barney in 228.
AND, for the record, I originally said it was from your thread. I had gotten booted offa my darn, free dial-up. I was stressed out after reading everything and neglecting my twins tonight./BAD mother.
I THINK they said that they had to be at school at 6am…….maybe by 7…either way, they WON’T be late!
Yeah ST, he’s a trooper. I think phil_m must have had an aneurism
#225
No, Southertragedy I would not consider voting for Larry Kilgore (and I am a registered voter in Texas.)
Although I agree with him that abortion, like stealing, is wrong, I can’t see my self “hanging a chad” for a candidate that thinks the federal government should have any say over what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy afforded to them by their own property.
It’s simply none of my business, nor theirs, nor yours.
Dang Bob
I KNOW THE FEELING
C’mon round when I get on my rant on that very subject. That is exactly how I feel about this election cycle.
Man I know you and I have swapped barbs and I have enjoyed every moment of it btw, but till I began to read and hear from RP’s own mouth some things I just can’t excuse, I would have voted for the guy.
Seriously I have followed the man for YEARS, mega years, championed his cause myself, but 911 changed things for me and Dr. Paul and I disagree on foreign policy when it comes to protecting this country.
What is really sad for me is that I agree on so much that he does stand for gubment wise.
Your wish is my command. A photoshop will be coming forthwith.
#238 Bob: Fair nuff, but have you ever left a chad dangling?
Nytol!
Squawk hearts Bob42.
Barney S&M on LST - who’d da thunk it ?
Squawk hates everyone equally.
I just lapsed for a moment there. Let me reboot and i will return to my normally grouchy self.
There now I feel worser
#240: Eh, go ahead. I have no shame!!! BUT, I still have directions to your house that I will have no shame in posting on LST! Hope you like TP!
And cereal…and flaming bags of poo!
ST
C’mon now. Where’s your sense of humor?
Do you want the maid costume or the cheerleader?
As I said in the end of yesterday’s thread I think this whole discussion pales in comparison to the more serious issues facing the nation. There is no way stormfront.org can “influence” anybody in politics by encouraging their members to donate. Lets tackle some real issues guys like what to do about the Federal Reserve sending the dollar ever lower by pumping more and more dollars into the market and the economy. The most viewed YouTube today is a new one on Ron Paul. The last clip is in my home town in Iowa. 58,000 views in 24 hours. Any other GOP candidate getting that kind of attention?
The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
Maid costume with big boobs, please. Heck, I’ll take Barney too. Just NOT the cheerleader unless in cammo. K?
I gotta git to bed.
I’ve been a bad mother tonight. Gotta fix them an extra special breakfast in the morn.
Your tub hits prove nothing. RPAcolytes already have a history of padding hits and polls.
I heart you too squawkbox!
At the risk of destroying any amount of credibility I might have earned in the latter portions of this thread, may I offer this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNHElaARjDs
Not a question of whther they can influence anybody.
It’s a question whther or not Ron Paul—and his supporters—wants the Presidency bad enough to say something—anything—about the NAZIS who are very public about thier suport of him, and whether or not he cares abour them making thier website a source of donations for him.
Real simple:
all he has to do is return the money and say something about NAZIS.
I really can’t figure out WHY this is such a problem for you guys.
I’d be PO’d at the frikkin NAZIS and I;d be making some very vociferous statements about it.
You guys want to intellectualize and justify it.
Sorry, I can’t intellectualize NAZIS.
The actions of supporters says a LOT about a candidate. You don;t seem to have a problem with NAZIS supporting your candidate.
You just have a problem a with people talking about your candidate being supported by NAZIS
Do you think you could at least be a little angry at the NAZIS and a little less angry at us?
Watch the video - it’s only 8 minutes. Maybe you will see why it’s popular. Heck a newspaper in Australia is reporting on this video. It’s the top rated You Tube today: http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=tr&t=t&c=0&l
Sarge I guess you know the Presidents grandfather had to be censured by Congress from financing Hitler during the war. (And still he continued). And all the GOP candidates but Ron Paul support the President’s current war. So who is the Nazi?
Oh golly–
I guess that means it’s OK for Ron Paul to take money from NAZIS and let them run a donation banner on thier website.
My bad.
Night all
I think I’ve seen all the Ron Paul youtubes I want to see for a while.
What do you guys do at your “meetups”? I used to think it was probably held in your parents’ basements and you played Dungeons and Dragons while strategizing your next poll spamming event. Or maybe like an episode of Beavis & Butthead: Huh huh huh huh. He said “blowback”. Ron Paul Rocks! I am Paulholio! Are you threatening me???. Now I’m not so sure.
Hamous, If you really want to know what happens at a Ron Paul Meet-up, all you have to do is join one.
Do you have a secret handshake? I always wanted to join a group with a secret handshake. I thought about the Masons but I heard they don’t like Catholics
Dang, who forgot to give Hammy the secret LST handshake? We even like Catholics.
I figured Matt and I were just your token mackerel snappers. What was that old James Watt line?
I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent!
#256
Yes Sarge, it is. Because it would not only be wrong, it would be impossible for any candidate to control, or as you say, “LET” any given organization post a website banner supporting them.
Of course, most candidates don’t have the “problem” of millions people supporting them in a grassroots fashion that employs the ultimate freedom of expression allowed by today’s internet.
Ron Paul is frequently asked how his campaign managed to leverage the power of the internet in his favor, to a far greater degree than Howard Dean did in 2004, and to an exponentially greater degree than any other candidate in the current race.
Your guess is as good as mine, but I tend to think that free speakers on the internet are naturally attracted to his message.
Attempting to control such grass roots support would be about as easy as herding cats.
Here. Listen to a nice John Prine song and go to bed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyc5pgyEjSI
bob42
I understand where you are coming from. Sorry but the popularity contest side of elections was lost on me years ago.
I really am an old fart. LOL.
I left Ron Paul’s camp long before his popularity blossomed. My view on world events and circumstances are so far removed from RP’s view there is no going back for me. I just flat disagree with him on the foreign relations side of the deal.
He and I have fundamentally differing views of what our founders intended in foreign relations and the reality of the age we live in today.
Mine differs, but I do respect your opinion Squawkbox. I believe that you are sincere.
The age we live in today offers a variety of realities that are largely dependent on individual perceptions. And never before has there been as much information available to shape those individual realities. This is mostly a good thing, but inevitably it is sometimes bad.
It’s getting late and I have to ensure that my high schooler is fully awake and aware before the crack of dawn tomorrow (not an easy task!) so I hope that I can participate in similar discussions on another day, and will post a final link to a short vid that I guarantee has no direct relation to supporting Ron Paul.
http://wm.atlrec.com/Trans-Siberian_Orchestra/new_03/xmas_sarajevo_timeless-300.wmv
I don’t even know why this vid is appropriate, I just have a feeling that it is… Go figure.
It never fails to see a article on Ron Paul that generates this number of posts. No if there was some way to translate every post (except mine, I am cheap) into donations LST the I would encourage more coverage of Ron Paul. That way Mr. Benzion Would not have to beg for money every so often.
I remember when this blog was in its first incarnation whne it was launched by Sen. Patrick. Boy things have changed. A lot of kooks sure do turn out. But unlike other sites everyone here has remained civil, enven the so-called kooks. Note, I have not read all 264 posts on this thread, I just do not have the patience so forgive me if I am repeating what has already been said.
Personally, I do not think Ron Paul endorses, whether explicity or tacitly, the views of the Klan. A candidate could spend his entire campaign denounce those who he disagree with, rejects or those who offended some group in some form. Where does that get us? It certainly does not further dialogue on the issuses of the day. I think Ron Paul has a long enough established history to see his stance on racism and racist organizations. Nor should he have to vet every donor for their motives. Perhaps he should catagorize them and let it be known that they can donate all they want but their repugnant ideals will have no place in his campaign/admistration.
Please understand, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I am voting for Pedro! or Perhaps Nacho Libre.
MY take on Ron Paul is that he is an unusual phenomenia. He has a very loyal following. His fund raising numbers are as a result of this following who probably for the most part have not particpated financially in the past. I also believe that many of them are Libertarians and other fringe groups. Perhaps there are some cross-over from the Democrats/George Soros who are up to no good and who do not really support Ron Paul.
That is my take on things. I wrote this not to critize Ron Paul but to point out that agitating the Ron Paul supporters over small issues is not needed. Although it certainly bring a large number of posts…Mr Benzion…you need to see how translte this into dollars. IF you can perhaps more articles about Ron Paul is what the “Dr.” ordered.
Sarge is kicking arse! Speaking truth to nutjobs. What do you people not understand about NAZIs? Do millions of Jews ring a bell? Or is that a myth?
Anyone who takes money from NAZIs should feel dirty.
Does Ron Paul feel dirty?
266
Ron Paul’s stance on racism?
Like the time he said the LA riots ended when the blacks had to collect their welfare checks?
Paul is obviously not a racist. It’s funny how people who think he has no chance are always trying to attack him. Why be so scared of him if he has no chance? Hmm
269
Scared of ron paul? LOL
Care to address his statement?
Note–there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul’s campaign itself is responsible for this appearing on the site; instead, it looks like the Nazi owner put it there himself.
Does it not say this at the top of the page?
After this - wondering - Do toasters float and will the plug reach the elctrical outlet?
#272 Use an extension cord.
Ivory soap floats.
If my candidate was informed that NAZIS had put one of his officialcampaign fund raising devices on thier website and he did noting to make them take it down he would no longer be my candidate.
It would be because I would see his version of “Liberty” to be unconnected to Morality and just plain good frikkin sense. Like I said, you can learn a lot about a candidate by the kind of people who support him.
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
— Alexis de Tocqueville
Liberty need not be “established” by any authority or structure. It is the natural state of man.
– Bob42
“When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.”
Montesquieu (written by Thomas Jefferson in his Common Place Book).
Ron Paul has apparently abandonded Virtue in that he will not condemn the NAZIS who are using thier website to send him money. Rether, he and his supporters seem to support it—desiring instead the Money and not the Morality involved. Ambition has invaded his mind, and the lust for a poltical victory posesses the entire community of his supporters.
NAZISM is the most immoral political concept dreamed up by Modern Man—so much so that we allowed Communists to help us defeat it. Even Islamic Fundamentalism has some moral component—misguided as it is.
“The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
James Madison
Taking money from NAZIS and allowing yourslef to be connected to them by allowing the use of a copywritten campaign fund raising banner to be placed prominently on the front page of one of thier recruiting and gathering websites is not the act of someone who can “discern the common good.”
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Edmund Burke
Well Sarge, if your opinion is that freedom requires a controlling power, I submit that a theocracy fits your bill perfectly.
And once you submit to that controlling power, the faith behind the theocracy becomes irrelevant, because you have surrendered the power of self determination that you were endowed with.
272 and 273
LOL
271
You still haven’t addressed Ron Paul’s statements on blacks and welfare checks. Wonder why?
I think I’ve got this figured out. Ron Paul for President, Dennis Kucinich for V.P. (or vise-versa). Both are totally unacceptable to their own parties and yet seem to have an unexplained total loyaltiy from the kook fringes on both sides. A perfect time for that “third party”….whatever they might choose to call it.They should be able to pull together all those that don’t have a clue….and evidently there is a bunch of them out there. I can’t believe either one of these guys even carries his own district over and over,but maybe they bring the “pork” home.I can’t see where they have done anything that means anything to the USA the entire time they have been in congress. Two of a kind? Looks like it to me.Put them together and let them run.
I am a member on Stormfront and I think this article is pathetic. You’re really trying to silence the freedoms someone has to display their political views simply because you disagree/dislike them. Now if we did that you would call it wrong,imoral, or write a thousand books on how it was some civil rights violation. Turns out the article isn’t as pathetic as the belief system of the person who wrote it.
So I go to Stormfront. Big deal. So I am racist. Big deal. I don’t support Ron Paul for his views
on Race. I support him for his views on Economy, Foreign relations, UN, IRS, etc. etc.
No, the problem isn’t that we are racist and supporting a candidate at all. The problem is that you people are fascists and want to silence people that you disagree with because we usually stomp your pathetic DELETED out in debate.
Bottom line, this article is an attempt at destroying freedom of speech and association and by Ron Paul speaking out you’re asking him to go against the very thing people love him for. Freedom. Absolute DELETED freedom. Is that such an alien concept to you idiot DELETED liberals that you don’t know what it really means anymore?
Btw, I am not a “Nazi” or a “Skinhead”. Neither are thousands of people that visit Stormfront. We are just like you. We go to work, we go to college, we pay bills, we watch the world spin just like you.
So DELETED off. Kind of makes you look retarded with your “racists use stereotypes” mindset when you stereotype us racists doesn’t it?
Idiots.
Normally, I would just leave this post in the spam bucket and no one would know it existed. But I really think people should get at least some idea of the type of person that visits Stormfront. We welcome your debate. But we do not allow curse words. It’s really easy, just think about what your momma would want you to type. Hmm. Maybe not. Anyways, just don’t curse and the whole world can know your views. I’m not going to clean up any further posts, they’ll just be deleted. LST Moderator
Yeah, I look retarded, Mr. Racist. You are free to spew your hate at stormfront whenever you please. Mr. Paul is free to associate with whomever he pleases, including you little nazi chuckleheads. You are free to support him. I am free to ask him if he really wants that kind of support. I’m also free to point this support out to the rest of the blogosphere. And small-minded fascists like you are even free to call me a fascist! Ain’t freedom great? God Bless America, land that I love!
Another satisfied customer.
I don’t “spew hate” on Stormfront. I don’t hate anyone and as I already told you I am not a “Nazi”. Perhaps you don’t understand that there are different factions of people on Stormfront.
You’re not trying to point out this support. You clearly stated this:
“But I do, however, think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to speak out officially and demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist.”
Your motives are to try and get them removed because you don’t believe Don should display them because you disagree with his political and social views regarding race.
It’s clear that you don’t understand that America, the land that you love, isn’t supposed to be about infringing on the rights of others. Isn’t that why the slaves were freed and the Jews and Blacks whined about civil rights?
Nice job, hypocrite.
Maybe its that the WN want a candidate they can trust to run the country effectively rather than allowing it to fall into another economic crisis, plus theres the whole war thing. Nobody of any standing supports the war on Stormfront
By the way, Hamous even though you just tried to lie about the intentions of your article, I still respect that you actually replied. It’s rare you see that.
You can spin it any way you like but my only motive is to ask Dr. Paul if he thinks it is in his best interest to accept the support of white supremacists. I’m not trying to pass any laws banning such support and would fight vigorously to defeat any attempt to do that. Full disclosure is all I seek. Everything out in the open and let everyone make up their own minds. Why be secretive? Dr. Paul has been asked for a response. I hope he answers.
“I’m not trying to pass any laws banning such support and would fight vigorously to defeat any attempt to do that.”
You’re so full of it it’s seeping out of your ears.
You’re not in support of laws, no of course not, but you are in support of contacting a candidate running for the presidency and “demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist”.
That’s not a comment of someone looking for a response. That is the comment of someone talking about getting someone running for the highest executive office to denounce a group of people simply because you do not agree with their views on race.
You’re not fooling anyone, stop trying.
I don’t feel he is being secretive, he just hasn’t really been asked. You’re not talking about asking him about it you’re talking about, and I quote again, “demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist”.
Give up, theres only more humiliation in your future if you try to spin this any more than you have already tried.
How about we just raise the red flag and let you call the shots for everybody. We can give you a cool name like the Bolsheviks gave. It will be awesome…
Then you can insist to presidential candidates that they denounce people you dislike. That people you dislike shouldn’t be able to agree upon, promote, or financially support any candidate ever in the safety of their own forums. Heck, you wouldn’t even have to pass laws then.
The problem isn’t that Stormfront is promoting or helping financially support Ron Paul, the problem is you.
Unless you’re going to start telling tales about how dangerous it is to let undesirables start voting and supporting candidates and how Nazis tried to murder 6 million people at the polls.
Why don’t you just admit you’re wrong and be done with it already.
Look Mr. Racist
manboy, I didn’t “demand” anything. I asked. Big difference. If you’re going to quote me you better quote accurately. Or maybe you failed English and are unable to understand the structure of the sentence:Since you seem to be a bit slow let me explain. The “demand” is what I’m asking Dr. Paul to do. Get it now?
Well, I would call y’all scumbags but that would be doing a disservice to bags filled with scum.
Trying to spend it yet again.
There is nothing wrong with asking him what his views about it are. You aren’t talking about that, though. You’re talking about trying to ask him to denounce then and DEMANDING that he not allow a people you disagree with to display their support for his campaign.
Spin it any way you want but it’s going to come to the same thing every time. Just because you highlight the word ‘ask’ doesn’t make the rest of your statement any less than what it is.
Keep trying though, boy, maybe you’ll figure a way to make what you said sound good.
I think the fact that you’re trying to highlight the word ‘ask’ and make it appear as if you’re just trying to exercise freedom of speech and get an answer to a question is a clear indication that you fully understand what I mean and that you are just trying to skirt around the fact that you are wrong in trying to demand a presidential candidate denounce anyone based on their political, religious, or social views.
Spin it* sry. Just woke up.
“Well, I would call y’all scumbags but that would be doing a disservice to bags filled with scum.”
Well, I would call you many things but apparently freedom of speech only works on your side of the censorship button.
You keep saying I’m suppressin’ your message…yet here you are still blathering on.
Last word from me - I want you to keep speaking your message of hate. I don’t like closeted racists hiding beneath sheets. I like ‘em out in the open where the whole world can see ‘em.
“You keep saying I’m suppressin’ your message…yet here you are still blathering on.”
That’s not what I was driving at all. You gave me some stupid speech about “cursing” earlier then you turn around and call me a scumbag.
Maybe it’s because your understanding of the reason words are deemed “curse” words and your poor understanding of the English language.
For example is me saying S**t worse than you calling people scumbags? Why don’t you go look up both of those words. Saying s**t is the same as saying poop. Calling someone a scumbag is far worse.
However the FCC doesn’t regulate those words which is what has, apparently, shaped your delicate childlike sensibilities and your desire to control the words of others and willingness to have yoru words controlled.
I don’t mind the insults, I just mind the double standards you use. However giving it some consideration you really didn’t understand the double standard was there in the first place so I shouldn’t expect your tiny mind to understand what I am saying anyways. So who is really the stupid one here? Me for trying to explain all this or the idiot who will most likely not get it.
Btw, don’t even try to say “curse words exhibit ignorance”. It’s clear you probably don’t even know what that means and you just called me a scumbag so that defense isn’t going to work well for you.
“Last word from me - I want you to keep speaking your message of hate. I don’t like closeted racists hiding beneath sheets. I like ‘em out in the open where the whole world can see ‘em.”
How about this. Go ahead and scroll up and and find my “message of hate” and quote it for everyone.
Go to Stormfront and find my “message of hate” and quote it for everyone.
Let me make this simple. I didn’t spout any “message of hate” anywhere on this pathetic blog and you don’t even know that I have a “message of hate”.
You heard the “Message of hate” on Fox news or CNN and thought you could get away with saying “message of hate” to me without any proof.
Well, not with me kid. Find my “Message of hate” and post it and prove that I even have a “message of hate” otherwise shut up.
“I don’t like closeted racists hiding beneath sheets”
Btw, I am not in the KKK and last I checked there was a law against them wearing masks so the “hiding beneath sheets” may of worked in the early 1900’s or after the civil war but get with the times.
It’s clear you don’t have the first clue about racists or racism and that you’re ill equipped to be writing about it or demanding anything of anyone.
Stormfront is just a site for people with racial thoughts to blow off steam. The govt may even be maintaining it to keep anyone from getting mad and taking real action. Everybody knows that voting for a mainstream political candidate is not going to help white people. STOP RACIST ACTION! POST ON STORMFRONT INSTEAD!
.