In this post on Lone Star Times 12 days ago, Hamous had a simple request for the Ron Paul campaign:
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.
As directed by the local Ron Paul legislative office, Lone Star Times Managing Editor Matt Bramanti has left three messages over a four day period with the Ron Paul 2008 national campaign spokesman, DEMANDING answers to four specific questions regarding this issue.
- We are assuming that the ad appearing on Stormfront was the result of the site’s owners actions, not the campaign’s– correct? Please confirm that’s the case.
- Will the campaign take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL, so no more donations can come from there?
- Will they take any steps to track past donations that come from people who arrived at their donation page from Stormfront, and return any such donations?
- Will they take any legal action, or simply send an official request to the site, telling them that their association is unwelcome and demand that they remove the link?
The Paul campaign has not responded to Bramanti, the questions remain unanswered, and the phenomenon continues to grow. Everyday, more supporters of Ron Paul are advertising on white nationalist, separatists, racist websites.
Here are a couple of screenshots from the ‘White World News” site:
In this screenshot, Stormfront is encouraging it’s readers to flood online polls for Ron Paul.
Can there now be any doubt about the online polls being worthless?
The questions above should be very easy to answer for his campaign. Why are they delaying? Could it be that the funds are flowing in too fast to turn them down?
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
376 Responses to “Ron Paul - Funded By Supporters Of Racist Websites?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Time for you guys to sign up for the witness protection program - no wait - the laptop with everyone’s identities just got stolen
Go Ron Paul!
DJ - I wouldn’t take donations from or funneled thru Stormfront either. This isn’t an unreasonable request.
If Republicans or any other political party has done so in the past, then shame on them. Seriously.
I clearly remember when storm front donations and them showing up at rallies were the reason people should hate the Minutemen. It was found that storm front was attempting to destroy their credibility.
Something stinks and it aint Ron Paul.
Well, let’s just keep limiting freedom of speech to the point that no one can tell who is supporting what. Let them post and receive funds from whomever, and those that oppose should readily see that they should go elsewhere. What’s wrong with freedom of speech and transparency?
So you think that Stormfront is trying on purpose to ruin Paul’s credibility? All the more reason for him to publicly repudiate them and return the donations, no??
In all fairness, I appreciate Matt’s willingness to seek an honest answer to these questions. But at the same time I can completely understand why Paul’s campaign is ignoring them, given the way that the media treats manufactured “controversies” like this one.
Like it or not, in today’s 24 hour news cycle a “disavowal” of anything is equal to an admission of wrongdoing. That’s just the way it is. If you “disavow” somebody, the MSM automatically assumes your guilt and plays it as an apology. And being “guilty” of an association with somebody like Stormfront is just about as bad as it gets.
Ron Paul did nothing wrong here and I’ve yet to see any evidence that he willingly or voluntarily sought or accepted Stormfront’s support. They simply linked to his website and urged their members to support him - on their own volition - just as they have done for dozens of candidates over the years including George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. No matter how it is spun, Ron Paul bears no guilt for that fact because he did nothing of his own that initiated or solicited it.
Regardless, the very second he “disavows” the nazi thugs it will be spun as an apology and admission of guilt. That’s just the way it works in the media where the politics of feigned “outrage” overtake substance on any given day. If Paul issued a statement as requested here the next thing we’d see is some lickspittling progeny of Red Oktober like Chris Wallace slamming him about his “apology” in a loaded question at the next debate with Wendell Goler doing his best foghorn leghorn laugh impersenation in the background. And in the 24 hour news cycle, it WOULD NOT MATTER if Paul had no fault of his own in this case. Perception is everything and the story would be “Ron Paul apologizes for association with neo-nazis.”
So in answer to the 4 questions:
Please. There is not a single sane or honest person here who thinks that Ron Paul’s campaign placed that link there as an ad. Why do you need to confirm this to be the case when you already know the answer?
This question is certainly fair, though it should be offered as advice for ANY campaign - not an attempt to embarass them publicly or get them to admit something on the record that they bear no guilt in. URL blocks are an imperfect solution and they can be circumvented, but as advice goes it’s a legitimate thing to do (and for all we know, it may have already been done). But again, the issue becomes media perception. If the Ron Paul campaign has to issue a public statement saying “we blocked stormfront” the media spin is not “Good for Ron Paul for blocking stormfront - others should do the same.” Instead it becomes “Why did Ron Paul have to block stormfront? Is he a secred neo-nazi?”
If they want to block the stormfront URL - and I’ll be the first to say that they should do that - it’s entirely a matter of internal discretion at the campaign itself. They have no need or obligation to publicize it, and for the reasons I have stated doing so would leave them vulnerable to a media smear job.
I consider this to be an unfair question by comparison. Assuming they even retained URL logs from months ago, there is no guarantee that a donation came from an actual stormfront member unless that member explicitly stated so. Seeing as stormfront has no PAC to my knowledge and seeing as its members use anonymous pseudonyms, identifying and returning a non-declared donation is nearly impossible. That said, I would strongly advise the Paul campaign to return any IF they have conclusive proof it came from a stormfront member. But again, returning to the media perception issue, it isn’t something they should publicize either unless they want Chris Wallace asking them in the next debate “why did you have to return contributions from a Hitler group? Does that mean you support Hitler like you support Al Qaeda?”
Paul is a public political figure, so a cause of legal action would be nearly impossible to prove in this case. If he was a private citizen and they put up a link urging their members to go to his OB-GYN clinic he *might* have a cause against them for financial damage from an unsolicited and unwanted association. But he’s a public figure, and any court would look at a suit of that sort and throw it out in a second. So the question thus becomes “why ask him to commit to a lawsuit that has no chance of going anywhere?” Again, the only thing that could ever come of it is media spin and accompanying embarassment.
So my unsolicited advice to Ron Paul on this whole matter:
1. Ignore the questions about disavowing Stormfront. It’s a manufactured controversy from the political gutter and stepping into it only gets your shoes covered in crap. If you step in the media will spin it against you and, regardless of your innocence of wrongdoing, you will be portrayed as having made an apology and a concession of guilt.
2. While ignoring the questions, it would nevertheless be prudent in future speeches to include oh - say - Hitler in an explicit condemnation of totalitarian racist thugs, much as you regularly do with the Soviets. Even though no honest person here thinks you support Hitler, this would send a clear message of condemnation TO STORMFRONT ITSELF without any association, reference, or appearence of a concession to the stormfront link in which you bear no guilt or fault.
#5 - I don’t get what you’re saying. If Ron Paul doesn’t want to keep Stormfront’s money (or their indirectly solicited donations), that’s not suppression of freedom of speech.
If LST calls for the honorable Dr. Paul to ’splain his position on such contributions, that’s not suppression of freedom of speech, either.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
I do.
Head.Shaker.com rocks!
#3
I take it then that you will be penning a letter shortly to George W. Bush demanding that he disavow the support that Stormfront gave him in the 2004 election.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Astormfront.org+%22vote+for+bush%22&btnG=Google+Search
10/23/2007 12:38 PM,…Klunck, wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, Ting! bigjolly opens up yet another “Can O’Worms” ;=) Let the floggin’s begain.
http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/files/images/can%20of%20worms.jpg
#7 - I disagree. He could put out a press release quiet-like that says something to the effect of:
“It has come to our attention that Stormfront.org, a known racist organization, has been soliciting donations for our campaign. We want nothing to do with such an organization, will be blocking incoming links to our donation site from any IP address associated with Stormfront.org, and will be reviewing our donation records and will return any that we can determine originated at stormfront.org’s website.
It ain’t hard, it is the right thing to do, for ANY candidate, and I would do it myself in a second.
Sometimes you have to repudiate people publicly. The fact that Paul is just quietly receiving money from these guys is an indictment in and of itself in many people’s minds.
I would expect the same of HRC or any candidate.
I think the reason Daniel is for Ron Paul is that he has the same nickname as Ron in that first screenshot.
The money has to be coming from somewhere. College students and full time anti-war protesters are broke.
#10 - That’s over, and we aren’t electing George Bush anymore.
If I found out at the time, I certainly would have. Sort of too late now, no?
Tell you what. You show me a Republican candidate that I could potentially vote for in ‘08 that is receiving donations from Stormfront, and I will not only let them know of my displeasure, I will call, fax, email and send an old-fashioned letter with a stamp…
I have noticed where the liberal media has been hyping Ron Paul. Obviously, they are trying to disrupt the Republican primary, giving him media time. You don’t see the liberal media give any candidate other than HELLary, Obama and Edwards any camera time but Ron Paul gets some for the Republican side. The liberal media wants a Ross Perot effect on the Republicans where Paul draws from them either in the party or as a third party candidate.
BTW, I just noticed that Kay Bailout was one of a handful of Republicans in the Senate to voted to keep the pork flowing. Does she think no one will notice these votes when she runs for Governator?
#9 - If you really believe that, you would be well advised to contact Dr. Paul’s campaign with your concerns…
Good God bigjolly
You need to start a new thread.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/vote-bush-162607.html
Ohhhh my?
#12 - If he put out the press release you suggest Chris Wallace’s next question to Paul would be:
“Rep. Paul, I know you disavowed Stormfront as you should do, but could you explain to me why they were supporting your campaign in the first place? Could it be that there is something about your positions that is out of step with the Republican Party and in step with the Nazi Party, Hitler, and Al Qaeda?”
Repudiation only works when the connection is genuine and the candidate himself bears part of the fault. When one of Mike Huckabee’s evangelical organizers led a public prayer calling on divine will to smite his enemies and impoverish their children, Huckabee should have disavowed the guy. He should have disavowed the guy because the connection to the campaign was real and went two ways. The stormfront “connection” to Paul isn’t real though. It’s a manufactured attack by his political enemies at LGF and other peddlers of cheap, lazy, hyperbolized political schlock.
In this case, acknowledging it only gives it legs - which is exactly what Paul’s opponents want for this story. And when it gets legs, two-bit communist-bred scoundrels like Wallace are bound to jump in and exploit it for a very cheap and very public political smear.
#10 and #19 - you guys are rehashing old stuff. That is a link to a forum where racist bigots are fairly independently saying that they’ll vote for Bush. That’s not a front-page banner link to Bush’s website soliciting contribution in Stormfront’s name. Bit of difference there.
Beyond that, read my #15 again.
Is Bush running again? I missed that.
#14 -
And let me guess - you think the neo-nazi skinhead guy who lives in a “compound” consisting of a 30 year old double-wide on cement blocks and works as a gas station attendant in rural Montana is just overflowing with cash to hand out to his pet political causes.
jimb
Correct me if I am wrong but that is the man that runs storm front??
He was actively campaigning for GW.
#22 - jimb specifically asked about any republicans who got stormfront support IN THE PAST. Last I checked that includes Bush. But if you want current, ask Tom Tancredo. There are dozens of posts on that site of people pledging support to his current presidential bid as well.
bigjolly
Likely people just like me sending in $25 here and $25 there.
Phil_M,
If you think that Stormfront, White World News, and other organizations are run by the stereotypes you laid out, you haven’t been paying much attention to the ‘movement’. These guys are far removed from that and yes, they have serious money.
In addition to Phil_M’s Tancredo note in #25, be sure to ask Fred Thompson, who recently added a Stormfront fave to his campaign, George Allen.
This is a tragedy of epic proportions.
I dont know what to do…I am scared…bigjolly will you hold my hand and tell me its gonna be alright?
Aw, poor kittycat. Did you get in too deep again?
#27 - Far from it. The average stormfront MEMBER (as in the people who are allegedly donating) is not far removed from exactly what I described. The site’s owners have various forms of illicit monies…mostly out of phishing schemes run through their servers and bounced out of eastern europe. But i’ve yet to see their names on Paul’s donor reports. So unless you have evidence showing otherwise, I am left to conclude that the alleged stormfront donations - if indeed they even exist - came from regular members, meaning the Montana gas station guy who sent $25.
Stormfront for Ru Paul?
http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg
Why would a white supremacist organization support a black transvestite!
Man, the world is upside down!
#28 - You’re certainly free to include that in your Thompson hit piece of the week.
I think most Republicans believe that George Allen’s loss last year was a bad thing, and despite his idiocy as a campaigner, he was a reliable conservative vote in the senate. But if you disagree with that and think Jim Webb and the Democrat senate majority he brought are good things, i’m sure you can figure out a way to bludgeon Thompson with it.
It’s scary to see that people are actually defending Ron Paul for failing to do the decent thing. I wonder about the motives of such people, and whether they sympathize with the views of the websites in question.
Despicable and indefensible.
Phil_M,
I only pointed that out because of your Tancredo slam. You and I both know that neither Allen nor Tancredo are advertising on that site. There is a big difference.
I still haven’t figured out why you continue to say that I have a weekly Thompson hit piece. It isn’t true at all.
#34 - No Rick. It’s scary to see otherwise intelligent and sensible conservatives wading around in the trashy low-brow political schlock of manufactured controversies that they should be smart enough to avoid.
It’s also scary to see the same people feigning moral “outrage” at anybody who refuses to indulge in the same brand of gutter politics, and downright offensive to brand them via unfounded innuendo of secretly sympathizing with a Hitler website.
I respect you as a commentator here, but that last remark was over the top. There are few things more evil in politics than a character assassination built upon manufactured charges of Hitler-sympathy. Sensible and intelligent people can disagree on candidates and political positions without resorting to untruthful personal smears. You owe several readers here an apology.
What I’m curious about is where is the “watchdog” media on this story? Why isn’t the Houston Chronicle, or the Dallas paper, or one of the networks, asking Ron Paul about this? Do they figure he’s too insignifant in the race to bother with?
#35
What’s good for the goose…
And you and I both know that Paul isn’t “advertising” there either. To advertise means to pay somebody for a statement of support. Stormfront put up an unsolocited link to Paul that he neither paid for nor asked for.
36.
It is despicable and indefensible for anyone to suggest Ron Paul should not firmly address this issue.
Apologize to who? Those who defend this associaton? No thanks.
His supporters can filibuster all they want, but there simply is no justification.
And his campaign’s silence despite repeated inquiries is what is over the top.
#37 - Or perhaps this manufactured “story” is so deeply entrenched in the gutter that even the Chronicle won’t touch it. It will be a sad day when LST stories start to reflect favorably upon the journalistic “standards” of the Chronicle, but when I read stuff like this I can only conclude that day is fast approaching.
But is Paul accepting donations from white supremecists and blatant racists? Has to done what he can to “unlink” to this group?
We don’t see any evidence of that. And why won’t he address it?
Don’t you think that’s odd?
Phil_M,
I never said that Paul was paying for the ads. I asked if his supporters were.
And another question that I failed to ask, are these paid ads being reported as campaign donations?
#39 -
No Rick. It’s a political smear job to demand that he “address” (which in the politicized 24 hour news cycle means “apologize”) something that he bears absolutely no guilt in.
And yes, when you slam innocents with trashy, ill-concieved, and patently false innuendos of Hitler sympathy, it’s something you need to apologize for. I don’t care what you think about their position on Paul or how “outraged” it makes you feel to see someone defending him. That still doesn’t give you free license to falsely brand people with the names of history’s biggest mass murderers.
41 -
See #7. Paul is a public political figure. His legal recourse in forcing them to “unlink” to his site is virtually nil. As a lawyer you should know that.
Besides, Stormfront runs its servers through phishing networks in Eastern Europe and all over the third world. US court verdicts aren’t enforceable in Bulgaria.
42 - When you call it an “advertisement” you are implying that it is being paid for by definition. That’s what an “advertisement” is. I’ve yet to see any evidence that it is anything other than an unsolicited link, and until you produce something showing conclusively otherwise it is dishonest to use the term “advertisement.”
That’s a fair point, I’ll remember that in the future.
Oh yeah, just WHO is going to determine the “correct” supporters for presidential candidates???
Stormfront members are American Citizens and have every right to support whoever they want. First Amendment anyone?
Who else should be banned? The NAACP, LaRaza, AIPAC, any religion you don’t belong to, Homophobic Boy Scouts, Lefty Hollywood Types, NRA members, Mormons, Jews, Arabs, the list is endless… Give me a break!
Every American Citizen should be encouraged to make their opinion known and contribute in any way to get the person they want elected.
If you don’t like it, donate MORE to YOUR candidate, that’s how the system works (or should).
Because they are all a part of the Government/Media Complex?
AAAAAAAAANdre - Can you show me where ANYONE has called for people to be banned from donating? Come on. Show me where that was said.
But you Paul defenders constantly tell us to shut up criticizing your savior, even as we give you a forum to whine. Do you not see the extreme irony in that?
By the way, I noticed this fine website has links to “JEW NEWS”, Conservative T-Shirts and a bunch of “Racism” Google Ads, support sites for “racist” Border Agents! I’m Outraged!! Who’s responsible???
Uh, THIS was suggested by “jimb”..
“will be blocking incoming links to our donation site from any IP address associated with Stormfront.org,”
If that’s not “Banning” what is it?
AAA-boy
Wear that outrage proudly because no one here really cares.
#50 - That’s the great irony of Ron Paul threads, be they here or anywhere else on the internet. If anything, criticism of Paul tends only to embolden his typical supporters.
As much fun as that can be to watch and participate in on both sides, a small part of it does defy rationality. Why go out of the way to build up such a patently manufactured and silly controversy about a guy who has no chance of winning the nomination?
This is why I don’t mind heated discussions and even criticisms of how Paul did in a debate amidst a discussion of the other candidates, but also why I find threads such as these, which serve only to propagate a very low-brow political smear, so objectionable.
AAAAANDRE - People can donate to whoever they want for whatever reason. I think what is going on here is that we’re asking Paul to disassociate himself from those people in whatever reasonable way possible. His silence is damning to some of us.
Oh, and this is not a hit piece, it is a legitimate question.
Didn’t someone post a letter a couple of weeks ago from RP that addressed this?
#25 - I am not talking about posts on a forum on stormfront.org’s site, I am talking about frontpage ads on stormfront.org’s site. You find one of those for Tancredo there or, say, the KKK, you let me know.
The Paul campaign refusing to take donations from racist pigs is not banning or infringing on anyone’s first amendment rights. its showing you have a moral compass. I don’t like mustard on my hamburger but I’m not banning anyone else from putting it on theirs.
Dr. Paul has every right to accept donations from anyone he wants. And we have every right to point out who those people are.
Has hillary distanced herself from LaRaza, AIPAC?
#52 - Blocking incoming links from Stormfront.org’s contribution banner ad is not “Banning” anybody from making political contributions. Contribute as an individual, outside of the umbrella of stormfront.org.
Any stormfront.org member who wants to contribute to El Salvador Ron Paul can go directly to his website and contribute there.
#60, I certainly hope so. If she were “my candidate” and I knew that their website was putting a “donate to HRC” banner on the front page, I would ask her to distance herself from them toot-sweet.
#60 - Since this is a Ron Paul thread it doesn’t make a difference to me what Clinton is doing, but just for the sake of the argument I checked La Raza’s website:
http://www.nclr.org/
Nope, no Hillary for President banner. Next shuck-and-jive.
In fairness to Phil (and other sane Ron Paul supporters), it seems clear to me that RP ISN’T “advertising” on Stormfront or other racist websites.
In fairness to many LST contributors, I think it is reasonable, practical, politically prudent and morally to be encouraged for the Paul campaign to take a few simple steps to clearly disassociate his campaign from the ugly bigots who are trying to pollute his cause.
Phil– in #20 you wrote:
If he put out the press release you suggest Chris Wallace’s next question to Paul would be:
“Rep. Paul, I know you disavowed Stormfront as you should do, but could you explain to me why they were supporting your campaign in the first place? Could it be that there is something about your positions that is out of step with the Republican Party and in step with the Nazi Party, Hitler, and Al Qaeda?”
Here is what Paul could quite easily say, if he wanted to:
——————
Chris, thank you for that question.
To be honest, I CAN’T explain to you why a racist or a Nazi would be attracted to my campaign, because I can’t imagine what sort of sickness of the soul turns someone into a racist or a Nazi.
I can tell you this– their views repulse me and I reject their so-called ’support’ completely.
Frankly, I suspect they are trying to hijack my cause–which is a beautiful cause, the cause of liberty and freedom and equality for all citizens, of all races and ethnicities and creeds–and hijack it for their own ugly ends.
I won’t let them. They need to crawl back under the rock from which they came, and hopefully die there.
But I thank you for that question, and the opportunity to clarify where I stand.
Oh course, if Ohio had only been admitted into the Union in an appropriate manner back in the early 1800’s…
——————
Just for grins I checked out other racist organizations comparable to stormfront, MEChA:
http://www.nationalmecha.org/
Nope, no Hillary banners there either.
And how about the racists over at the New Black Panthers?
http://www.newblackpanther.com/
Gosh darn it! I can’t find any other candidate’s banners on other racist websites! Help me out here, boys.
Failed to make this point– no one here is Hitler, nor (G-d forbid) a MSM hack for the Houston Chronicle, so let’s pull back from the hate and focus on the debate.
#65 - How about the KKK? Any banners there?
Nope, I’m not about to go there from the POE and check myself…
Here’s a question I’d like to get everyone’s reaction to–namely, WWEHD? (What would Edd Hendee do?)
Imagine for a moment what would happen if Stormfront put an “Eyes on the Border” banner on their frontpage?
What do you think Edd would do in response?
what would you want him to do in response?
Discuss.
67 Sorry, I’m not hitting that one from work either. I’ll check it out when I get home.
How do you know that Stormfront are really white supremacists, and not an FBI agent provocateur sting operation?
It’s public knowledge the the KKK was heavily infiltrated by the FBI. COINTELPRO, much?
Ron Paul would like to do away with the FBI, and I wouldn’t put anything past them. Do some digging on the FBI and COINTELPRO.
Don’t believe anything you hear, and only HALF of what you see. Do your own research.
Supposing that Sormfront really ARE white supremacists/separatists, whatever, could it be that maybe they’d also like some freedom from the nanny state? Politics makes strange bedfellows, so they say.
Ron Paul is a man of honor. I know he stands for equal rights and equal protection under the Constitution for all.
This story is pure propaganda BS smear tactic.
All my effort to turn this thread towards Reason is about to suddenly come to naught.
Alright! Now we’re getting down to the real nitty gritty! Double secret agents and stuff. THAT’S what I’M talking about!
#70 - cue the Twilight Zone music.
And you wonder why we think Ron Paul attracts kooky supporters.
AYWWWTRPAKS™
And how do you know that the LST Frontpagers are not provocateurs in on the sting? And all the Paulestinians defending their man aren’t really supporters at all, but more agent provocateurs sent down by the GMC to tease the real Paulestinians out in the open before we WHAP! declare Martial law and ship them off as test subjects in waterboard training school in Guantanamo. Blowback, baby! Then Suckforward.
Join us at the next Ron Paul rally. Last week’s was so successful when we managed to capture one of these from the enemy.
http://www.thesubtimes.com/Fircrest-tm.jpg
Hey, you’re right Daniel. This is much more fun and interesting than the real world. I’m sold!
/purchased with 100% fiat currency-free coinage, of course.
Ok, David, I’ll bite - Edd would forcefully and uneqivocally disavow and vebally eviscerate Stormfront on air. Then he would set up a new website, called “Adopt a Bomb to Obliterate UnAmerican Thugs” (ABOUT). Listeners would contribute to buy a surplus Soviet 1,000 lb. bomb. Edd would pilot the Eyes on the Border plane to the Stormfront compound, and drop the bomb on the compound. Bramanti would live-blog from the copilot seat. Pat Gray would anchor from the KSEV studio.
#71 David do you really think that the truly rabid supporters of He whom I will not name, are willing to discuss anything about their savior with any reason? Like I have said before, this is Ross Perot, Howard Dean all over again.
#76 - I know that I should have held on to those silver certificate notes I had a few years back…
#68 -
A lot would depend on how the story played out. If they put up am Eyes on the Border link and nobody was paying attention to it save a couple obscure leftist blogs, I think it would be prudent to simply ignore it. Responding at that point in the story brings only unwanted controversy to a project that is only barely making it into the pages of a hostile news media as it stands. And I think Edd is sensible enough to recognize that - he probably wouldn’t want to give new life to something that was already dying by its own hands and could end up hurting the greater good he was doing with the Eyes on the Border Project by giving it an early bad reputation.
This was, in part, the minutemen group’s mistake, particularly when they launched in Texas. Very early on they picked up some pretty nasty characters who, for the most part, weren’t welcome. If they were sensible (and sadly the minutemen tend not to be) they would have cleaned up their own house, then launched. Instead a couple of the early Texas minutemen leaders responded to the racists by bolting from the fledgling group to do their own competitor operations, and that became the very first news exposure they got in Texas rather than anything they were doing in terms of border patrols.
OTOH if the Houston Chronicle called up about Eyes on the Border and tried to make a story out of a stormfront link, I think Edd would probably use the forum of his radio show to make a strong and clear denunciation to control the story’s sprouting legs. He’d hang a lantern on the problem, and he’d use it to turn the heat on stormfront with full and justified outrage.
The question for Paul in this case is this: where does this “story” stand today?
Right now I see it as a cheap political smear with the potential for outrage (and even a few people who, upon seeing it, are genuinely outraged at it). Yet at this stage, as I see it, the “story” only exists as a topic of discussion because somebody with a very big axe to grind against Paul (namely one Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs) is trying to give it legs, and a few other people around the web who generally dislike Paul for various unrelated reasons are all too happy to repeat it.
If it becomes something that news outlets start calling about, then that’s an entirely different thing. And if I were advising Ron Paul’s campaign, that’s when I’d issue a very strong and very careful dissassociation.
Now Edd does have one thing that Ron Paul doesn’t - a radio station where he can shape the response message and ensure that the full version of his response gets aired. If anything, that distinction would allow Edd to formulate an earlier response while limiting the risk of the response overtaking the actual story of Eyes on the Border. Paul doesn’t have that luxury - he has to carry his message through a medium that works at best through sensationalized soundbytes and, in its worst cases such as Fox News right now, is openly hostile to his campaign.
#77 And Dan would take the credit
Did I just write that?
So you’re saying that RP should stick his head in the sand, ignore them and hope they’ll go away? Much like his foreign policy?
If he manages to go anywhere in the primary, that decision would come back to haunt him and he would have to deal with it then. Better to deal with it now, proactively than later, reactively.
But what do I know? I really only care about this for its smear value on Ron Paul, after all…
You know what really worries me about Ron Paul supporters? You guys, almost to a man, think that The Paul can do no wrong whatsoever.
Phil, I would think that an early and strong statement from Dr. Paul, BEFORE the big media outlets pick it up, would be beneficial to his campaign. Once it “has legs” it will appear he is only reacting to the press.
#59 -
That’s entirely fair politics. But I do ask one thing: you need to name the specific names.
Innuendo based on the claims of anonymous pseudonyms from a racist message board is not proof of a donation. It’s not sufficient to say “Hitlerfan1939 said in post 18 he was going to give to Ron Paul, so Ron Paul is taking stormfront dollars!”
Anyone can post claims like that on an anonymous message board. That doesn’t mean the person went through with the donation. It doesn’t mean the person was being honest. It doesn’t even mean the person is a real Ron Paul supporter. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But the burden of proof has not been met yet to substantiate the claim that Paul is taking stormfront cash.
If you want to prove that you need to go to a reliable and independently verifiable record such as Paul’s FEC disclosure filing. If you can find an name on there that is conclusively linked to Stormfront or any other similar nazi group then you will have made your case. And if you make that case, I’ll readily join you in making a polite, measured, and firm request to the Ron Paul campaign seeking the return of that specific donation to that specific identified person.
Phil, we’re not talking about anonymous pseudonyms. It’s a big “Ron Paul for President” banner on the front page of Stormfront. I think he should ask them to remove it and, like Reagan in 1980, tell them he doesn’t want their support. I’m baffled as to why that request seems unreasonable.
Once again, and I’ll type slowly this time: Stormfront.org, as an organization, posted a link to Paul’s donation form on their website. This goes beyond some bubba saying in a forum that he supports Ron Paul…
#84 - That only works if you already have a guaranteed media presence as a frontrunner. Right now, Paul is fighting for every drop of ink he can get in the papers. His number one goal is to boost his name ID to voters who know Rudy and McCain but have never heard of him.
If he comes out now on this topic now, all news coverage associated with the name “Ron Paul” instantly shifts to the Stormfront story and that story becomes the very first exposure many voters ever have to the name Ron Paul. I don’t know about you, but if I were running for public office as a little-known dark horse I would not want the words “nazi” and “stormfront” to appear in the first story that many voters ever read about me - especially if I knew the media was hostile to my candidacy and would deny me a full airing of my position/explanation/statement.
If Ron Paul denounced them today the story in tomorrow’s paper would read as follows:
Headline: “Republican candidate Ron Paul tries to distance himself from neo-nazi supporters.” (Note how the story is already loaded)
Opening Paragraph: 3 sensationalized sentences describing the “controversy,” and pointing out that stormfront is a neo-nazi group at least twice.
Paragraph 2: soundbyte-style snippet from Paul’s actual statement denouncing the group, probably trimmed to sound like an “apology” instead of a denunciation and almost certainly leaving out any hard hitting statements to indicate that he has never condoned any groups like Stormfront.
Paragraph 3: the reporter inserts his/her own “prediction” attributed to anonymous “experts” about how this controversy may adversely impact Paul’s presidential campaign.
Paragraph 4: Slightly more detailed description of what Stormfront is, using the words “nazi” at least twice and including an unrelated quote praising Hitler, pulled from one of their pages as an “example” of what they are.
Paragraph 5: Another soundbyte from Paul’s statement.
Paragraph 6: Statement from a designated spokesperson from another campaign to the effect of “Suzie Smith, deputy assistant press director for Rudy Giuliani, responded to the revelation by saying ‘It’s a sign of just how out of touch for Rep. Paul’s presidential campaign is that he is drawing support from these quarters. We’re glad that he finally repudiated them, but we would certainly never take support from racists and nazis.’”
Paragraph 7: “Expert” quote from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center again reiterating that Stormfront is a nazi site.
Paragraph 8: “Expert” quote from a liberal political scientist indicating that campaigns with racist “controversies” in recent history have tended to collapse, followed by a reminder of George Allen’s “macaca” statement as an example.
Paragraph 9: concluding sentence that quotes a Paul campaign spokesman denouncing the group while again reminding everybody that Stormfront is Nazi.
#85 Phil,
But if have read the requests that have been made to RP’s campaign all we are asking of them is to do a little self policing of the sites that have linked to both their site as well as their donation pages…. That is not unreasonable.
Besides here is a link to the FEC and RP’s current statement. Note that there is no detailed listing of buy state or anything else.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914.html
and here is the schedule A showing all 4800 people who had donated as of Oct1
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00432914/307525/sa/ALL
Tell me you can find the nazi’s in these reports… RP’s website administrators if they are worth their salaries have all of the transaction information available to them, and it should not be difficult to have them verify IP Addresses that were routed through the questionable sites…
#86 - I understand what it is - a banner and a link. I also understand that anybody can go on the internet, find a Ron Paul banner (or a Rudy Giuliani banner or any other candidate), right click on it and save it, then post it with a link on whatever website they wanted.
That still doesn’t prove they are making donations, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that the banner link was solicited by the campaign itself.
#89 - Try the Federal Elections Commission directly, or one of the dozens of sites out there that provide free FEC databases. The actual forms list the name, state, zip code, and occupation - plenty of information to find out exactly who a person is.
Find one of those who is conclusively linked to stormfront or a neo-nazi group. Then you will have your proof. Remember that the burden is on the accuser. I’m simply stating that the burden has not been adequately met here.
#88 Phil, that can be avoided by doing 2 things…
1) on his website posting the press release that announces that he will return any donation that is found to come from Stormfront or any other like organization.
2) At the next debate or public event where multiple candidates are available stand up and denounce the organization and challenge all of the other candidates there to do the same… Then look at the press and challenge them to publish the names of those there who fail to agree with that stand…
People People, the name of the game is raising money, and lots of it. The belief is, the person with the most money wins. That’s why Hillary Clinton breaks all kinds of campaign laws to solicit donations from fake people living in fake addresses. That’s why Ron Paul will take $5 from anyone who wants to give it. These people lay down with dogs……. and they have fleas.
#86 -
And it may come to that. But what I’m saying right now is that it is WAY too early in the media aspect of things for that, because it’s giving a very artificial story legs that it probably doesn’t deserve. If the story grows legs anyway, then yes. That’s what Paul should do. But right now the only people who want this story to have legs also have an axe to grind (to wit, Johnson) or simply don’t like Paul so they echo Johnson.
Furthermore, there’s a legal issue involved with stormfront that virtually ensures Paul is powerless to force its removal and could become very messy if he tries. He’s a public political figure and no judge is going to sustain that sort of a ruling. Furthermore, Stormfront is notorious for routing its servers through a bunch of third world crapholes because most self-respecting U.S. based ISPs want nothing to do with them. Even if Paul won the case, he can’t make the government of Albania pull the site down to enforce it.
Funny how Hillary does not have any problem answering questions about her donors. I guess the honorable Dr. Pauls stance is not as wide as hers.
#92 - Again, it may come to that. Or this thing may not get the legs Charles Johnson wants, and it simply dies away. If it gets legs, then yes - Paul would be wise to denounce it.
But denouncing it here and now for the sake of appeasing a schlock stirrer like Charles Johnson who hates you anyway and will continue to hate you even if you give him what he claims he wants…well that’s only inviting negative media attention 1000 times as broad as anything Johnson and a couple of other Paul-hating bloggers could ever generate on their own.
All he needs to do is answer the question. I can see the screaming LST Headline now.
RON PAUL STEPS IN AND EXPLAINS HIS WIDE STANCE ON CAMPAIGN CONTIBUTIONS
#91, Phil you are missing the point. These reports do not say what the source of the funds was, check, cash, credit card via phone, credit card over the Internet…
But any vendor that deals with online transactions should be able to tell you all of the information including where the transaction originated from. I know that this is possible, because I have my church website which tells us both what the IP address of the visitor is as well as how they accessed our page, and this includes coming in from a link in Google, yahoo, or any other search engine….
And how do we know where these nazi’s are living? The problem is RP’s campaign has not and does not have to divulge that information. We as citizens have the right to get that information and if we have to go to FEC to demand that this information now be made public then that is what we should do. The problem is right now that information is not something that you or I can access due to the security on the site with regards to the donations page. And I know they are not going to open up access to that portion of the site in any way shape or form.. So requesting that they examine their records and return any questionable donations is our only option…
#95 - Hillary answered only because a major newspaper called. To date I know of not one single newspaper, network, television station, radio outlet, or magazine who has either (a) conclusively found stormfront money on Paul’s FEC disclosure, or (b) called him to ask about it.
If that day ever comes I have no doubt his campaign will say something in response. But again, that goes back to the burden of proof from an actual FEC report (just like they did with Hillary) and in this case it is simply not being met as of right now.
Who said any one “hates” Ron Paul. My my such strong words.
Not familar with how those widgets work are you Phil.
Well let me enlighten you. With each widget palced there is a record where it was located and the amount of hits/revenue it generates.
#95 Squawk
Watch out, Squawk. You were getting dangerously close to being hilarious there.
99 - nobody’s arguing that Paul is legally obligated to do anything. Sometimes, the right thing to do isn’t required by law, however…
Here’s how the story would play out on LST:
Headline: Dr. Ron Paul responds to Questions about Stormfront.org donation banner
Paragraph 1: background on why we asked the questions.
Paragraph 2: A list of the questions we asked followed by his answers.
Paragraph 3: Depending on his answers, a commentary, our understanding of whether he met our request.
Paragraph 4: We would like to thank Dr. Paul for taking the time to respond to our request.
texpat
I will take a grumpy pill here in a minute. I wuld not want anyone to think i have a sense of humor.
I like the funny squawkbox more than the grumpy but lovable squawkbox.
Jimb’s right. This really has nothing to do with legality. It’s the right thing to do and it’s the measure of a man.
#105, heaven forbid you actually be funny Squawk, I mean what with the Astro Tombstones and the boy crying and pointing to it…
Nope no sense of humor there…
…assuming that they kept such records. Many vendors don’t beyond a couple weeks. Furthermore, you’re about to open a whole can of worms on legal privacy issues. Paul’s campaign can be proactive right now and block future incoming visits from sites. It’s much more complicated looking back, especially if you start running into privacy laws about the sharing of collected ISP data, linking it to names, linking it to credit cards, and making it public.
Suppose a stormfront link actually produced a donation and Paul’s campaign was able to retrieve electronic proof of that. Then suppose they released it publicly and the guy’s name got in the news. With his name out there in the papers, he becomes known as the “stormfront donor guy” and loses a business contract at work, or loses a client who doesn’t want to be associated with him any more. Next suppose that the guy insists that he does not regularly visit stormfront but just happened to be on it that day from a random google search, not knowing fully what he was viewing and pleading ignorance (yeah - i know he’d have to be pretty stupid for that to be true, but people will try anything).
In this litigious society you basically have the formula for an instant lawsuit - the “stormfront donor guy” insists that he was wrongly targetted for a website he only visited once and sues because he lost clients and reputation after being associated with a neo-nazi site.
What you propose has the makings of a legal nightmare and any campaign would be prudent to avoid it, even while taking proactive steps to prevent future ISP hits from sites like stormfront.
squawk this post is frivolous in my opinion. Just sour grapes that the Ron Paul campaign is very tight with their funds and have a very over worked staff that cannot keep up with messages sent to them. The country is going broke. This is the critical issue. An excellent article is posted here: http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2007/1020.html People need to wake up and see that this is why the Ron Paul campaign has very dedicated supporters and very dedicated opposition from the status quo.
101 and 103 - See my last post. Even if Paul’s campaign has old ISP hit records and wanted to disclose the stormfront donations, they’d be walking into a whole new legal can of worms over privacy and potential civil liability.
Who said I had any sour grapes Brian?
I am calling them as I see them…..
Just like you.
AND PHIL
The records exist. This is the wrong thread to spend much time explaining why. Shock!! you will just have to trust me on this one won’t you?
There’s no supposing. Dr. Paul’s campaign knows EXACTLY how many donations came through the stormfront banner (and every other banner on the web). There’s no great mystery here, except why his supporters don’t seem to think this is a big deal.
I tend to agree with Phil that addressing this head-on — no matter how he handles it — would probably result in bad publicity and an unfair perceived connection with Neo-Nazism.
Right now it isn’t clear that this story has legs, and Paul doesn’t want to publicize the fact that he is being supported by racial extremists. No matter how clear his disavowal, it just wouldn’t look good for him. And since he hasn’t done anything to affiliate himself with these wackos, he doesn’t think he deserves the bad exposure.
On the other hand, part of it’s Ron Paul’s own fault; he’s made statements that have been regarded as racially offensive (some rightfully so), and these would undoubtedly come up if he disavowed on the links on StormFront. I think that’s a major concern of his as well.
Holy crap, guys. All we’re suggesting is that Ron Paul go to reasonable lengths to not be associated with a bunch of losers like Stormfront. If they kept good server logs, they could maybe return some donations. Nobody in their right mind is going to sue for a return check being cut to him with an explanation of why.
It isn’t like we’re asking Paul to expose the names of all donors referred via Stormfront’s web site.
And it is simple to block website referrals from Stormfront.org.
#115, BINGO
Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Ron Popeil! Ein Weinerschnitzel…. mmmmmm weinerschnitzel!
http://www.bavarian-beerhouse.co.uk/se_data/_filebank/__schnitzel1.jpg/549.jpg
#110 Nope. I cannot dredge through another central bank, fiat currency, gold standard, federal reserve article from you guys. They all say the exact same thing. I’ll stick with Green Eggs & Ham.
Here is something to think about. Ron Paul believes in and stands for the respect of private property and individual rights. He may agree or disagree with the ideas promoted by Stormfront and alike, but don’t you think that his job as a president would also be to protect the rights of Stormfronters to freely express their views? Now you want him to publicly denounce the right of Stormfront to support his candidacy in any way they see fit? Don’t you think it will go against his belief in freedom? By the way Nazis cannot support Ron Paul if they are true to their ideas, because Nazism is statist and socialist and does not fit in Ron Paul views. Nationalists, Separatist on the other hand might as well support him, because if you cared enough to read Dr.Paul’s “Freedom under siege”, you might have noticed that Ron Paul stated there that free people have right to discriminate. And that fits into Stormfront philosophy, I think. As a side note, Ron Paul also supports the freedom of association.
Only Ron Paul can change the current headline.
Which is:
RON PAUL REFUSES TO DISAVOW RACIST SCUMBAG SUPPORT
I will not eat geen eggs and ham
I will not eat them wit a Nazi
I will not eat them with a patsy
I will not eat them with a security guard in the mall
I will not eat them with Ron Paul
LOL!
Not at all. As so many LSTers have said, we’re not asking for any government action or regulation on this matter. None.
We’re not asking for anyone’s freedom to be restricted. We’re asking Ron Paul to exercise his freedom of association to make it clear that he will not be affiliated with neo-Nazi scumbags.
My freedom of speech does not mean you have to listen. And your freedom to offer political contributions does not mean I have to accept.
Ron Popeil supports hair in a can. Not that Chinese Hair in a can, but American hair in a can.
Whup whup whup whup…………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnA3vGYWJ0
I’d vote for Hillary before I voted for Ron Paul, and I mean it. Of course I’d smash my left testicle between two bricks before I vote for Hillary.
Ron Popeil introduced earmarks for studying the Wild American Jackalope.
I’m still kinda new round these parts, so there’s still couple of things I don’t understand:
I thought Saturday was the designated Beat the Dead Horse Day… I haven’t seen any new opinions, or any less stubbornness today than a couple of weeks ago (from either side…) What’s the point?
If anyone is really worried enough about racist groups to “demand” that Ron Paul answer to them directly about it, they should probably make a short drive to Vidor Texas and do some real protesting against racism. (And when you’re done there, keep heading east! You’re only a few hours away from Jena, LA.)
Lastly, if your going to dis Ron Paul for not making a prompt individual response to the Managing Editor of Lone Star Times, perhaps you should also “demand” that some of the anointed front runners give this web log individual attention as well, and see how far you get.
“Nothing to see here people…”
Asking Ron Paul whether he has disavowed white supremacists would be like asking all of you if you had stopped beating your wife yet.
I see my previous attempt to ridicule the ridiculous was taken maybe a smidge too seriously.
Ein Weinerschnitzel? Ya!
212 - Whether it exists or not, there are laws governing the public use and release of those records. There are also liability matters associated with their public use and release. Both are legal cans of worms that no campaign wants to get itself involved in if it can avoid doing so.
215 - It’s not about the guy suing over a returned check. It’s about the guy suing over his name in the newspaper who got his check returned because of a stormfront connection that, when publicly revealed, cost him a client at work.
No one here has suggested Dr. Paul reveal the information of any stormfront connections. Just simply return the donations and say thanks, but no thanks.
Guys,
I really don’t think you’re getting it. Ron Paul (and his supporters) DON’T WANT to repudiate Stormwatch and their ilk. It’s obvious by now, that He, at the very least, likes the contributions that are rolling in from such sites and vermin. And, it’s entirely possible that he agrees with at least part of their agenda. That’s the only possible explanation for his stonewalling and his supporters continued excuses.
The question is, is it really that big a deal? None of the rational contributors to LST are going to change their minds about RP as a result of this, and heaven know he’s said enough loopy things in the past to convince most other cognitive individuals that he should be the president.
Phil
Ron Pauls campaign is well aware of where what money comes form where on the web, That information is used for targeting purposes. So do not tell me Ron Paul or his handlers do not know that funds are coming in from that web site.
You are taken to a donation page. Each hit to that page is recorded either the name of or the IP address of that referred to that donation page. You answer is bogus.
This whole debate is about Ron Paul answering a simple question not outing any one person.
Sorry,
SHOULDN’T be president.
You tell me. Earlier today one of your colleagues accused me of sympathizing with Hitler for simply suggesting that the guaranteed negative publicity associated with this story makes a statement from Paul’s campaign imprudent at this time.
When people pull the Hitler card out and use it to bludgeon opponents engaged in a reasonable discussion it usually means they have a deep and irrational emotional investment in a topic. In certain cases, that investment is called “hate.”
Matt, I would agree with you 100% if Ron Paul accepted contribution from Stormfront as political organization (that will be really bad) but as far as I understand they just asked their members (supporters) to donate to Paul campaign as private citizens. When I filled out donation form for RP campaign I was not required to state my political association (and no, I am not affiliated with Stormfront or any other group of that kind). Anyway, if Ron Paul should start rejecting donations based on political affiliation, where would he draw the line. Should he take money from anarchists, democrats, communists, liberals … or only from libertarians and true conservatives? Or should he welcome everyone who supports him?
I believe if you read further down that statement was qualified and an appropriate retraction made.
“Should he take money from anarchists, democrats, communists, liberals …”
His core supporters?
130 -
And you know this for a fact? You know that they sit there and individually look up the originating link on every single donation he receives? Or could it be the more likely case that their credit card handler has *some* of the more recent donations in a merchant account database somewhere that most people on the campaign have never even seen or heard of.
And again you know this for a fact? You know exactly how Ron Paul does his targetting? Or are you simply assuming you know - assuming that since the credit card stuff is somewhere, somebody must be using it for something? I ask because, unlike you, I actually do know a couple of people who contract with Ron Paul’s campaign on his targetting lists, supplies distributions etc. (as I also know vendors involved in several of the other campaigns). They have lists to be sure, but they certainly aren’t culled from a contracted merchant vendor’s credit card site records of the referring URL. Most of them have been collected over several years. Others have been donated, purchased, and assembled from other sources and vendors. Others are collected from places that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the internet, such as checks received in the mail.
In the sense of somebody sitting there and actively looking up where every single donation comes in as it is made, then no. They do not know where they are coming from.
Could they potentially find out if some of their donations came from a stormfront link? For some of the online ones, yes. It is feasible. But that’s a very different question than sitting there and actively screening incoming donations. Confusing these two very different things serves only to bury the weakness of your case in dishonesty, squack. At the end of the day you still don’t have so much as a single donor’s name with a conclusive link to stormfront. Only speculation. Only innuendo.
Who would RP have as a running mate? Dennis Kucinich?
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/28/the-dream-team-paulkucinich-08/
Yeah Phil I know it is a fact.
135
Heh
Fat albert - it’s also entirely possible that YOU routinely kick your dog, beat your wife, starve your children, grow pot in your closet, run a gay pimp service out of the shed in your backyard, and keep a family of illegal immigrants living in your garage. You certainly haven’t done anything recently to prove to me that any of these insinuations are false so I simply HAVE to conclude that they are within the realm of possibility. Right?
In reality, since I have no affirmative proof of any of these things it would be irresponsible of me to make these allegations. And you don’t have any affirmative proof of a single stormfront donor’s name to Ron Paul, much less proof that he actually enjoys or desires their support. Thus your innuendo is similarly irresponsible.
Phil, all of that information is automatically logged in a database. When someone clicks on the banner over at stormfront, the ip address of the user’s computer and the url of the referring website are automatically recorded. Since it is in a database it would take all of 10 seconds to identify every donation made from that banner.
Oh wait Phil
Let me qualify my statement this way:
Yeah Phil I know it is a fact.
Now I feel better.
138 - Then I’m certain you can provide the names of the people and firms who manage his targetting lists and the specific details of how they run their databases, what software they use, what sort filters they apply, and where they obtained their current lists. Needless to say, i’m not holding my breath.
Nice try phil. Nice try.
I’m curious Phil. What is your investment in this argument?
Wow an RP thread without a disproportionate number of Ron-bots? What is wrong with their systems.
RP running mate? Art Bell?
The entire internet works that way, phil. Why would you demand proof of that? But besides all that, even if no one on earth clicked on that stormfront banner and made a donation (an impossible supposition), the banner still exists and Dr. Paul has every right to demand they remove it.
That’s not the question though. The question is what’s being done with that database. Is it a database that the Paul campaign actively uses on a day-to-day basis to come up with a carefully tailored and hand-generated targetting list? Or is it simply a file tagged to credit card records buried deep in the harddrive of a merchant account provider that is simply contracted out to take online donations?
Is somebody actually sitting there going through that database to look for and pull out stormfront links? Or is it simply an unidentified numeric record among hundreds of thousands that nobody’s bothered to look at for simple want of time and resources?
Having a database with information that *might* have link records going back to stormfront is a very different thing than actually knowing specific donations came from stormfront. Though you have repeatedly asserted the latter, the most you can substantiate is the speculative existence of the former. Which again brings us back to the keyword of this entire post: innuendo.
Hamous,
You are right information of referring web site is logged into Web Server Log file (not exactly database but close). Now imagine that someone did Google search on Ron Paul and clicked on the link to Stormfront , did not read anything there, just saw the link to Ron Paul web site and went there. Yes he was referred from Stormfront, but how does it prove that he is “neo Nazi scumbag” and not just an innocent bystander?
146 - No investment…just calling it as I see it. Surely squack you know me better than to suggest something like that. When I find something objectionable on LST I often comment on it. When I find something I agree with here, I also comment on it. When I find somebody using cheap innuendo to make a sloppy argument that weakens the overall quality and reputation of this blog, then I not only comment on it but also engage the poster in an extended discussion.
To some I’m a simple commentator. To some I’m a gadfly. To some I’m both. But I seldom if ever post here out of a personal investment with anything.
139 - methinks the man doth protest too much……
Look Phil, I’m sure that you are a fine upstanding person. I’m sure that you don’t kick dogs, pick on small children or cheat on your taxes. OK? The fact is, none of us have incontrovertible FACTS about any of this, except two.
1. We KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, that evil despicable people are actively soliciting funds for Ron Paul. They have posted his banners on their web site, and are directing their readers back to his site to contribute money and participate in his campaign.
2. We KNOW, that Congressman Paul has done nothing to tell these vermin that neither they, nor their money is welcome in his campaign and to tell the rest of the world that he doesn’t want them and doesn’t agree in any way with their beliefs.
I cannot comprehend why he does not do this. Granting for a moment your argument that the media will twist the whole thing back on him, why not get it over with now. Project forward a few months - suppose that, unlikely as it seems, RP does win the nomination - what do you think the media will do with it then? Better to deal with it now while it’s small, don’t you think?
And,BTW, if I said it just now (back in 129) you can bet the media is just waiting to say it later.
Apparently phil you do not read the full comments before jumping off the cliff. I have already given you short how it works above.
Golly Phil I have only built 5 or 6 websites and maintained them. You are right I would not have any idea at all that when you read the logs that referring webpages are revealed in one of two forms either IP address or “real name”. Nor would I know of about 5 different programs that easily commpiles this information. And geez it is so hard to do a whois search in these database compilers or setting up a chronjob to do that work for me. Nope I would not know any of this.
Cause you Phil, yes you Phil are “The Man”. I came into this thread just because you were here to make you look like a fool. But alas I have failed. I hang my head in shame. You are just too powerful. You know it all. I don’t know why I even try.
So you’re saying the entire internet culls through its visitor traffic ISP by ISP and referring site by referring site to screen for objectionable visitors? Sorry, but there aren’t enough campaign staffers in all of Washington to do that with every single presidential candidate website visit. Sure - it may go into a database somewhere if they keep it long enough. But again, that’s a very different question from whether or not they are actively mining that database for information.
You did assert he’s taking stormfront money, did you not? That’s a pretty serious allegation by any standard, and it’s one you should be able to back up with a name on a credible report such as the FEC disclosur at minimum.
I’ve already addressed the legal issue here and the short answer is no. There’s not a court in this nation that would sustain such a challenge because Paul is a public figure. But since you bring it up, you should know that Stormfront’s URL is registered through at least three layers of proxy servers bouncing all over this country and likely abroad to mask exactly who even runs the place. U.S. courts can’t order foreign countries to take down a site.
And let me guess, Squack - your websites sustain over 100,000 hits a day, and you check the logs on every single one of them on a daily basis. Right?
Once again you’re avoiding the real question. It’s not whether they have the logs - it’s whether they are using them for the purpose you ASSUME to be the case without any such evidence. I’m simply pointing out that it’s unlikely they are using campaign staff to constantly screen website hits - be it individually or through a sorting program - simply because there are so many other, more important things to do in a campaign.
The question is not whether they potentially have the data, but whether they are using it for the purposes you assume and suggest to be the case. So far you’ve produced no evidence that they are. Only speculation and only innuendo.
Phil -
The question isn’t whether a court, in any jurisdiction, would actually require Stormfront to remove the banner. You’re right, they probably wouldn’t. Nevertheless Dr. Paul has every right to demand that they remove it. Like this: I demand that all Ron Paul supporters start acting like rational adults.
See? That doesn’t mean it will happen, but at least now you know where I stand. Dr. Paul has never been one to shy away from letting us know where he stands on any issue. I don’t get why he should fall so strangly quiet on this one.
You crack me up Phil. Keep on keeping on. Must be tough on ya bub.
I assume nothing Phil.
Much to your chagrin there are others in this world that know what they are talking about.
I could give you my bonafides but ummm why should I? You would, as you have already implied, accuse me of lying or fabricating information.
This ain’t my first rodeo.
“This ain’t my first rodeo.”
I don’t like rodeos… too many clowns.
Well you’ve just now hit upon one reason why he’s not with the media thing. As for not getting it over with the reasons are very simple.
1. Aside from a few angry blog posts, this story has shown no signs of growing legs. Charles Johnson at LGF has been trying to plant this story for several months and hasn’t had a single media source bite. Why give it legs when it’s dying a natural death?
2. Paul has to fight for every drop of ink he gets right now. If he leads off with a statement on stormfront the ENTIRITY of his media coverage for the next week will be about stormfront and nothing else. That’s campaign suicide in media relations. If the story does eventually grow legs and he has to say something about it eventually, it’d be much better to wait until he’s raised his profile so “stormfront” isn’t the first story that people see about him.
3. Paul’s riding a decent bit of momentum from his surprising fundraiser figures. The last thing he wants is a negative story to disrupt that wave before it’s run its course. If it has to come out, it’d be better to wait until a lull in the campaign.
4. On top of the media stuff there’s a simple matter of fairness. Ron Paul never solicited these thugs and never gave them his approval or support. He probably feels that this whole thing is nothing more than a cheap political smear by people who have an agenda against him and people who are pushing it for no other reason than to cause him embarassment. Since they are the only people who seem to care about this “story” right now, why should he give them the satisfaction of making their smear a success?
And exactly what will that accomplish? Since no court will touch it or enforce it, the effect on the banner is nil. Instead, the only thing to come of it will be a news story that, as noted, reflects negatively on Paul.
The result: the banner is still up and nobody can do anything about it, but now Paul has a very public and very negative news story attached to his name with nothing good to show for it.
Here’s Squawk at his first rodeo, forty years ago.
http://www.photoconversion.com/images/223d1455art1web.jpg
I honestly don’t care what your bona fides are, Squack, or what you think you know about Ron Paul’s web hit database. I do know one thing though: you’ve produced no evidence that Paul’s campaign actively seeks out and tracks stormfront hits among their hundreds of thousands of site visitor logs, and not so much as a single name of a proven stormfront donor - all despite your repeated insinuations otherwise.
And yes, that does qualify as dishonesty in my book.
Look, it is simple. I don’t appreciate that Ron Paul tolerates the support of Stormfront.org, and there is no doubt that they offically support them.
I ask that he refuse their support using reasonable means at his disposal. If he doesn’t, after it is pointed out and he is fully aware of it, no excuses, then I question his character.
And yes, Phil, any campaign worth their salt will log information about an online or even mailed-in contribution in a honest-to-goodness database (not just a server log) as to amount, name, address, referring URL and other information. How else do you think that HRC was able to identify and return that 1.3 mil or so in questionable donations?
You guys kill me with your excuses for your savior. You make excuses for his lame foreign policy, his lack of leadership in his domestic policy, and you defer and attack when asked legitimate questions about how he will respond to the fact that at the very least it has been proven that Stormfront.org, an unsavory organization, is supporting him via officially requesting that its readers and/or members donate to his campaign.
Cult, I swear.
Have fun with that. I’m out.
Russkij, for the fiftieth time, no one here is suggesting anybody “out” the stormfronters or anyone else that may have stumbled upon their Ron Paul banner. Hell, I clicked on it myself investigating the original story! All we’ve asked is that Ron Paul demand they take down the banner, publicly state he does not want their support, and make a reasonable effort to return contributions that came from the neonazi websites.
But I can see that even normally rational folks are incapable of seeing this as a reasonable request. If my candidate was allowing this to stand I would be ashamed to support him. Guess I’m just weird like that. Not much sense discussing it further.
Beach rodeos are nice.
http://www.sobnews.com/blog/uploaded_images/IMG_0601-776821.JPG
OK, Phil, you win. But here’s a prediction. The reason this story doesn’t have legs right now is because the media doesn’t see Dr. Paul as anything other that a goofy crackpot. But things are going to change, and it’s just possible that he may emerge as a major player in this election cycle. You’ve seen what the liberal media, Daily Kos, and the Clinton hit machine can do to a candidate. If Dr. Paul doesn’t put this to rest now it’s going to bite him in the rear, and seriously injure him campaign. And, honestly, that would be a shame.
It doesn’t even need a press release. He could just post another policy point.
You don’t get it, do you?
This is a non-story. It’s only a “story” because you are trying to make it into one. These white supremacist jugheads can endorse whomever they want. Dr. Paul, or any other candidate has no control over it, nor should they. Dr. Paul did not seek their endorsement or their donations, but he got them anyway. If he went looking for their endorsement then the request to take down the banner or to return their donations or to refuse their endorsement would be reasonable. But that’s not the case here.
So what it comes down to is this: does Dr. Paul turn a non-story into a story by acting on thies as requested, or does he make a non-story stay a non-story by simply ignoring you, and making it minimal? The answer has obviously and correctly been the latter.
Yeah yeah Phil. Keep coming back. You are good for business. We have plenty of internet paper for you to continue your filibuster on.
Shannon, those are very nice but they’re not nearly as funny as Mexican Midget Rodeos.
All true…except for the referring URL part. That piece of information seldom gets transmitted on an individual-by-individual basis beyond the web software guys or the merchant account administrator. Doubt me? Go volunteer for just about any congressional candidate next year and ask to do donor database work. You get the name, address, ammount, date, occupation - the legally required stuff - and if its known, sometimes they’ll stick in a note such as “Joe Smith’s big issues are abortion and gun rights.”
If the campaign is good at what they do they’ll also cross reference that database with a voter reg and voter history list, giving them primary participation, age, and stuff like that. If they’re better than most campaigns they’ll also bring in microtargetting data from past issue sampling, or perhaps an older, earlier donor database that they bought from somebody.
But ISP numbers and referring URLs? The only people who are gonna look at those in most campaigns are the web administrators, and then only as summary stats to figure out where their hits are coming from and tweak the site.
167 - that’s a fair prediction. And if it turns out to be true and the pick up on it later, he can address it then. No need to expedite the story though just for the story’s sake, especially when the only people pushing it are doing so because they want to embarass you.
Then of course there’s Pork Chop the Dancing Rodeo Midget.
Phil -
If they’re not collecting referring URL’s when it is easy to do, then they are leaving out crucial bits of data about a) who is giving them unsolicited free advertising, perhaps even something that they need to report as “soft money” and b) what organizations are perhaps promoting his candidacy that they can either capitalize upon or shun, whichever is more desirable.
More Midget Rodeo fun. If you look close I think they even have a little Nazi midget in a tire!
If I were Ron Paul’s campaign press officer, I would create a file of Phil’s spirited defense here and refer to it when/if this becomes a more publicized issue. Even though I don’t agree with him, I admire his consistent focus on keeping the debate off the central point. This is the way it’s done by a spinmeister. Too bad he can’t bill them for all this hard work.
It has also occurred to me the reason Phil is so attracted to the RP candidacy is it fits right in with his temperament. The Paulites are obsessive-compulsive typers and commenters who will argue the angels on a pinhead question until after the sun comes up.
I only came back here today because LST had the top listing on Google news search for Ron Paul. It’s pretty awful here - like a bunch of dogs fighting over bones of a dying GOP. That Ron Paul should attract new members to the party makes the old dogs wild! Last time I was here Hamous was ranting all day (up till 1.30AM) that I or other Ron Paul supporters wouldn’t answer similar questions he posed here. We are not members of Stormfront or officials of the Ron Paul campaign so your questions are misdirected! And this whole issue is trying to throw dirt at a candidate who is attracting a lot of new people to the GOP. The GOP is losing to Hillary in all the polls. And the dollar is going down the toilet. This nonsense about whining that nobody at the Ron Paul Campaign has time answer Hamous and his questions is such silliness. I won’t be back here guys — but you really need to find something useful to do with yourselves. I suggest you read this for something serious to consider about why the US dollar is plunging: http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2007/1020.html
Well, that validates at least part of my theory: Paulites go where search engines or RSS feeds point them…
Question:
Does LST “vett” their donors to make sure they are all honorable, upstanding citizens?
Does The Taste of Texas “vett” all their customers to make sure they are all honorable, upstanding citizens?
I demand that LST and The Taste of Texas renounce all Neo-Nazis, KKK members, Homosexuals, Perverts, and Deviants who have ever associated themselves with either place.
I demand that LST investigate each donor to prove they are all honorable, upstanding citizens, and if proven otherwise, to return the funds received.
I demand The Taste of Texas post a sign on its door stating Neo-Nazis, KKK members, Homosexuals, Perverts and Deviants are not allowed in, and to investigate all former customers to ensure they are all honorable, upstanding citizens. And if proven otherwise, to return the money received or donate it to charity.
Any problems?
Ismell Yassirarafat
LST caters to the lowest common denominator. That’s why I’m here.
BrianRH - I have said time and again that RP’s not got the answers to our problems, just a bunch of rhetoric that he cannot even manage to bring to fruition.
He is ineffective as a legislator. With his isolationist outlook (and he’s not non-interventionist, he’s isolationist) he would be a disaster as President.
We do it everyday. In fact, if one of aforementioned creeps tries to open LST on their computer, their hard drive explodes.
Yep. I have one. Nobody at racist websites is putting an LST banner on their front page and soliciting donations for LST, that I know of.
And I know that Benzene would request that they stop and trash them publicly if they didn’t.
There you go jimbo mudslinging again. grow up. Mudslinging accomplishes nothing
WHOA………yall should be much nicer to Phil!
Cantcha see he’s practicing to be Shrillary’s press secretary?
WHOA even BETTER! If he become Hellary’s press secretary maybe we can get a few dozen NEW versions of what happened to Vince Foster!
jimb
Don’t waste the pixels. You can’t reason with the True Believers, Guardians of Light and Goodness.
Texpat - for those who know me around here I’m actually not all that attracted to Paul’s candidacy. I consider him better than the rest of the pack, much as I consider Thompson to be the least offensive of the top tier.
Before LST became host to a daily Ron Paul bash-a-thon, I was quite critical of several aspects of his campaign as a general commentator. I still differ from him on many things. Indeed, just yesterday I diverged substantially from his foreign policy views on the debate thread. What I take issue with are weak arguments and cheap spite-ridden political smears, of which this article is an example. And on that I don’t care if the target is Paul, Thompson, or some completely unrelated topic like Tom Craddick, Greg Abbott, METRO, or the Jena 6. If the rampant Paul-bashing around here has pushed me closer to his corner relative to others here then so be it, though my views of him are essentially unchanged from before.
I guess the thing that troubles me most about this thread though is the generally low quality of the smear as opposed to earlier criticisms of Paul. This thread is literally no different from the innuendo-laden race-baiting schlock that passes for discussion on places like the Daily Kos, and as evidence of that I point not only to the gutter politics of the original charge but the way those who defend it have maintained themselves.
Back in #7 I posted a reasonable, straight forward, and perfectly calm take on this thread that addressed the issues point by point. Within moments I was accused by way of an unprovoked and dishonest innuendo of basically sympathizing with Adolph Hitler. That is not a rational response to a serious attempt at a discussion of this issue or any other. And though I continue to respect many contributers here, it is a sure sign that something is amiss with the quality of this blog.
As to the Paul campaign’s use of my material, consider it a donation in kind should they see any need for it
Is Alex Jones a white supremacist or just a nut job?
Mudslinging? Because I think Paul is ineffective?
Here is mudslinging:
Ron Paul tears the head off easter chicks and eats them. Ron Paul steals candy from children. Ron Paul trips old ladies and keys cars. Ron Paul kicked my dog.
Here is an opinion:
Ron Paul is an ineffective legislator an an isolationist. My believ is that these 2 aspects in combination would make for a disastrous presidency.
As far as I know, Jones is just a nut job. Haven’t heard anything that indicates he’s a white supremacist, but I’m willing to keep an open mind…
Does he eat the heads or the headless chicks? It makes a difference, you know.
For the record Phil we haven’t had a Ron Paul thread in quite a while. In fact, earlier today I fought like hell to keep the RP talk down on another thread (that wasn’t about RP) and was labeled a hypocrite for it. Frankly I wish all the Idol Worshipers would go away. We don’t need ‘em here.
He gives the headless chicks to his dog. After he kicks it.
Why is Ron Paul’s campaign obligated to answer to LoneStarTimes.com?
What the heck has this website ever accomplished to make such demands and expect immediate attention?
Some people apparently place a higher importance on their role in politics than is justified.
BigJolly’s “rate the debate” threads are usually hijacked by the Paulites. It is funny, because I see in “other places” that LST is just putting Ron Paul threads up to increase readership.
#192
Yeah right. If you really don’t need “them” here, then stop antagonizing “them”.
Unless of course you need “them” here.
Why don’t you get your little friends to stop posting Ron Paul-bashing threads?
That would seem to eliminate your problem, no?
#187 Phil
Frankly, I don’t care who donates to Ron Paul. I don’t care what their political, racial or moral beliefs may be. I don’t care if he can identify the donors from the Stormfront widget and he can keep the money if he can’t. However, I do believe he should decisively disassociate himself from those forums of organized bigotry and hatred. Even if he does it in a below the radar sort of way, it would be the correct and ethical choice to make.
Your accurate and lucid accounts of how the press could twist this are acknowledged, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing and let the devil take the hindmost. That is, after all, the cowboy way and the Ron Paul Way.
They’re not. And LST is free to say that he didn’t and theorize all they want on why that is.
12 days of no response whatsoever isn’t “immediate attention”. All they did was ask a series of questions. If you don’t like the questions or think they’re loaded and unfair questions, sorry.
Whoa there, hoss. If Ron Paul was “my guy” and I had serious moral concerns about anything he was doing or failing to do, I would damn well expect that my concerns would be VERY important indeed.
Do go back and read some of the founding documents, something about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed??
I was looking at some other political website threads last night and they were asking questions like, “Where in the world do these people come from ?” in reference to RP comment threads they had going. Same conversation on several different sites. It’s not just LST. It’s like “The Invasion of the Brain Snatchers”.
I must have missed something. Ron Paul is “my guy” for which one(s) of the contributors and/or owners of this establishment?
“Ron Paul is “my guy” for which one(s) of the contributors and/or owners of this establishment?”
Not me,
I’m holding out for Ted Nugent!
#187 Phil
The reason the hostility has mounted over Ron Paul’s campaign really has nothing to do with Mr. Paul. I, and I’m sure my colleagues here, would enjoy sitting down with him and debating the issues of the day.
The problem continues to be the Ron Paul supporters who come to LST with the most disrespectful, rude and ill-mannered behavior we have ever seen. They exhibit all the worst characteristics of internet trolls and it is tiring and ridiculous. If Ron Paul realized the actions of his supporters probably alienate far more potential members than they recruit, he would be horrified. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
#200 - Fair enough. He’s a Republican candidate, which means that, in theory, he could be “my guy”, certainly more so than any Democrat. Either way, when I am vetting candidates to see which one I vote for and I ask questions you don’t like (or even if LST asks questions you don’t like), don’t label us as arrogant or overstepping ourselves.
For that matter, how dare you do so.
I’m entitled to ask any tough question and expect a response of a candidacy that I could potentially vote for, if I consider that question legitimate.
Whether you like the question or consider it appropriate or not is really not relevant.
#192?
#198?
#202 - Are you on something? Ron Paul’s supporters come here to defend him from the continual unprovoked and misguided attacks on his, and their, character. You must have a filter on the comments attacking Ron Paul and his supporters, that’s the most likely explanation for your ignorance.
LST asked a legititmate question as to what Ron Paul’s opinion is toward the web site in question offering obvious support.
Where is the smear in asking that question?
Romney is constantly badgered about his Mormon beliefs
I have read Story after Story about Huckabee having been a priest
Hillary taking money from Chinatown
Rudy dressing in drag
and the list goes.
But oh don’t dare ask Ron Paul to comment about web sites that are questionable that ARE soliciting donations in the form of blog ads, widgets etc for his campaign.
And all these are legit questions in the media. So here comes little ol’ LST asking one simple question and we are on a smear campaign.
Sheesh.
Actually IF there is any smear campaign that needs to be addressed it is the RPacolytes flocking to any site that dares saying anything against Ron Paul. Or how they try to skew on line polls. Or how they activiley solicitated other candidates tickets to vote in straw polls. Hmmm I wonder what the honorable Dr. Paul would say about all that?
#204 I Smell
You, sir, are proof positive of my case.
#203
Are you an owner and/or contributor here?
If not, then what allows you to speak for them?
As an individual, you have every right to vett candidates, and you should. But what is your connection to LoneStarTimes.com that justifies the postings of these attack threads?
It’s pretty awful here, only for those RP proponents who surf the net to find links about their leader. If you don’t like posting here, don’t come. I’m sick of reading this drivel.
Yasser, are the jack-booted thugs of LST going out and virtually rounding up all of RP’s supporters and forcing you to come over here and join in the debate? I will continue to post whatever I feel like here as long as the proprietor allows me to. It’s really none of your concern. If you don’t like what you read and are not satisfied with commenting here, start your own blog, scream it from the mountaintops, or just go away. Either way I don’t really care. With a few exceptions you add nothing to the debate anyway and just distract the sane commenters with your dreamy idol worshiping.
#205
You asked. No answer yet.
So get over it (and yourselves) already. Lots of questions go unanswered in the media when it comes to politics. Sheesh is right.
#209
You’re the one who is whining about the Ron Paul supporters coming here to defend their candidate. Go back and read your comments.
If you can’t handle it, then don’t post these types of threads. It’s that simple.
Or block all Ron Paul supporters from commenting.
Why keep posting about Ron Paul if you don’t want his supporters to comment on those posts? Answer that one.
Mr. Rat
So why are you here? If it is not all that important why waste your time here?
Did the call go out over the bat phone or something? Bells ringing in the belfry or something?
#207 I Smell
jimb speaks for himself, as do I and everyone else here. And, in that spirit, who are you to come here and question the right of contributors or commenters to publish their political opinions ? Perhaps you are under the influence or, like so many of your fellow travelers, you suffer delusions of grandeur and a highly inflated sense of importance.
Oh I see it. “Don’t post these threads”.
Hammie I think he be tryin to suppress yo message.
Theyuh suppressin mah massage.
No, I’m not saying don’t post the threads. You can post anything you want to post, it’s your site.
I’m simply saying if you don’t like the comments or commenters you get when you post those threads, stop posting them.
Does that not make sense to you?
#213
Anyone who contacts Ron Paul’s campaign and DEMANDS an answer and cries and whines when they don’t get it in their timeframe is the one placing more importance on himself. Keep trying though.
In other words, we paulettes will haunt you until you are so sick of us, you never mention our masters name again.
#218
Wouldn’t it be nice to have everyone so passionate about their candidate?
You make the support of Ron Paul out to be a bad thing. And you wonder why this country is in the condition it’s in.
RIIIINNNNGGGGG
Hello
This an all points alert to all supporters of the honorable Dr. Ron Paul. Turn on your decoder ring and stand by for an important message.
I await your orders sir.
We have a report that Lonestartimes.com is posting stories that question our heroic Dr. Ron Paul’s credibility and policies.
MY GAWD!!! How could they!!! He is America’s last hope!!!
It is your mission to go that site and filibuster, obfuscate…..
Excuse me.
Yes
What does obfuscate and filibuster mean?
Awww crap. Just go there and copy paste the talking points we gave you.
/Now that is a smear.
Ron Paul’s copywritten campaign logo is on that site.
Ron Paul controls his own copywrite–or at least he ought to know how to if he claims competency as President.
If he can’t cntrol the use of the intellectual property of his campaing by these people, how can I expect him to protect mine?
Obviously, they have sent out the third string tonight from the Paulistian Encampment. This is the first one who doesn’t really grasp the importance of subtlety. He caught himself when he realized he had made a bald threat in #211. SmellsLikeARat needs to go back and take some remedial trolling courses.
The copywritten intellectual property belongs to the Ron Paul Campaign, not Ron Paul personally.
And even a Public figure has control over his copywrite.
A cease and desist letter is all that needs be done.
#220
You post Ron Paul threads, you get Ron Paul supporters coming here to comment, and you whine about them.
Forgive me, but isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
Can you have an intelligent discussion without resorting to attacks with your “decoder rings” comments?
Just answer: Why does LST post these types of threads and then whine about the comments it gets?
#222
Apparently the standards to become a contributor here are set fairly low.
Still waiting for a logical answer to my question.
Which brings up an interesting point:
We know that Hillary’s supporters wouldn’t be doing that, because Hillary’s supporters also generally support LaRaza.
Might we, therefore, assume the same concept is operational here vis a vis Ron Paul’s supporters?
#224 SmellsLikeARat
We debate and sometimes have brawls over political candidates and issues at LST. The amazing thing is we don’t have to resort to threats or blackmail to get our point across. Facts, figures, insults, ad hominem attacks and mild slander are appropriate weapons of choice here, although, I realize it is beneath the dignity of a genuine Paulbearer to resort to those true, blue American political tactics.
#227
Yeah OK. You and your ilk have made so many personal attacks against Ron Paul supporters I can’t even keep count.
What a joke.
And you know what, it’s OK. Just stop your whining. It’s unbecoming of self-professed “intellectuals”.
I’m not whining. You guys crack me up. I have to get up at regular intervals to clean the coffee spew off my monitor. Dang glass cleaner is expensive.
You think too much of yourself and influence.
OhOh he used the ilk word.
We are ilks?
So things like “decoder rings”, “troofers”, “nutjobs” etc. are not personal attacks and insults? And that’s the short list of comments from Contributors and Moderators.
I’d hate to be married to you.
What a joke.
#229
Is this not the same guy who posted the Nazi connection thread in the first place?
Sounds like whining to me.
Hello? Tap..tap..tap…AHEM™
Ismellarat: PLEASE, please, please tell me one, just ONE piece of legislation that Ron Paul has passed. Please tell me what this man had done, since being elected by Galveston voters. Is that too much to ask?
More whining:
Again, if you don’t like the reaction, why post these threads in the first place?
Still no answer. Not surprised.
#230 Squawk
Ilks are midget transvestite elks.
I suppose accusations of being a “self-professed intellectual” is a step up from NHT calling me an “intellectual geezer”. Life is good. Very good, in fact.
another Red herring.
Nobody is advocating either public use or release of those records.
We are suggesting that the custodian of those records use them himself to check where his donations come from, and if they come from groups he would rather not have associated with his campaing, he returns the donation.
Everything is done in-house, no public use of the records, and no public reales of the names.
225
As witnessed they are indeed!
Well, there are historic parallels…
And Yasser, did you not read this part of my comment?
Like I said, I could give a rat’s rear if you stay or go.
Mr. Rat apparently missed my sarcasm. So much for adding this
/Now that is a smear.
We were discussing smears weren’t we? I believe I was illustrating a real smear pursuant to our discussion.
Mr. Rat. Are you sent here to be our conscience or something?
It is obvious to me with your chosen name what your AGENDA is. Unless that is your real name. If that is your real name I sincerely apolgize for making fun of it.
No really I do. Names are important. Like Ron Paul. 2 first names. Wow that is so cool. How many people can say they have two first names for a name. It would not be as cool if his name was something like Ron Ilk. Now that would suck because then when ever someone says “You and your ilk, he would be so maligned.
But I digress
Hey ismellarat:
Instead of whining about the contributors whining, why don’t you answer MY question? Can you answer a simple question? What has Ron Paul done for us, since being elected? I mean, other than voting for ear marks, before he voted against them. /crickets chirping
Yikes! Bold tags gone wild! Did I do that?
Yeah, I feel the same way about my question to you.
#239
You post controversial threads and then whine about the comments and commenters.
Post whatever you want, stop whining.
Is that not a reasonable request?
Whew! Fixed it. My eyes were burning.
This thread is ironic.
The neo-conservative movement is facing the biggest collapse since Customs officials seized Limbaugh’s Viagra, and the republican leaning LST blog capitalizes on sloppy LGF seconds resulting from the Ron Paul internet phenomena–Twice in less than two week.
Is the republican primary so disinteresting that folks somehow find it advantageous to re-run attention seeking slams against the only candidate that is generating real excitement?
Gee, if ya’ll don’t like being visited by sincere supporters of Ron Paul, you might try ignoring him. On the other hand, if you do like the bump in traffic, you might consider coming up with some new material. This dead horse is starting to smell.
#241
Typical and expected; answer a question with a question.
Mr. Rat
#241 asks a legit question. I have another that I have asked frequently and have only been asked a question to answer the question I asked.
(phew did I get that right?)
What is Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy regarding Iran?
and if that one stumps you, howsabout North Korea?
So there ya go. It is your time to shine.
Whether I whine or not is also none of your concern. I’m tired of you whining about me whining about you whining! There!
Yep
Yep
Roan Paul might want to get on this.
It’s metastasizing to the left, who would probably love to see him as a spoiler in the republican primary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html
I did not get into this debate until this post. I believe that I asked you a question. You never asked me a question, until this post. You have not answered my question. Can you name anything that Ron Paul has done since being elected? Do you even KNOW when RP was elected? C’mon. These are easy questions. I’m curious to see what you think he’s done about passing any type legislation.
231
and quit talking to my wife!
Look people strangly enough after 6 or so million deaths are still alittle sensitive about presidential candidates taking money from skinheads, nazis, freedom front runners bubba wanta be’s and it stains a person when his supporters come out with the cascade of half truths and excuses
Hillary’s getting slammed for taking donations from Bus Boys with no income - did you thing RP was going to get away with this?
#248
Ron Paul has stated his non-interventionism foreign policy many times. What part of it don’t you understand?
254
Stated or voted?
A statement is just another blast of hot air from a politician in Washington
A Vote is something else
Now I ain’t calling out Bob42, but I do like him. He does legitimately try to change “our” minds on Ron Paul.
I even caught him thinking for himself. That’s a good sign.
(That is a compliment btw)
(Oh and yes I still have all my faculties)
All I have seen from Mr. Rat is criticism directed at us.
That’s putting it mildy. A thesaurus yields these more appropriate adjectives:
What some of you guys are attempting to do, unsuccessfully I might add, is stop us from criticizing your master. You really are like leukocytes, white blood cells, attacking a foreign body that has invaded and is doing damage your host.
Corybantian. I like that word.
Mr. Rat
You’d hate to be married to me? Aww c’mon now. but don’t worry about it. Cause if I was of your opposite sex and we met….. well you would not be gettin any.
Oh so you are telling me that if North Korea lobbed a nuke at Hawaii and it hit there Ron Paul would not do anything?
BTW I already know the talking points of non-intervention AKA isolationiism.
Question:
Why do you keep posting Ron Paul attack threads and then whine when people come here to defend him?
Squawk: Heh, ismellarat criticizes people he doesn’t even know. Too bad he wasn’t around for the last Texas governor’s race. Rumor has it that some contributors endorsed Kinky Freidman. GASP!
The poor lass can’t even answer a simple question about his beloved candidate. I guess just having the pocket constitution is good enough. Oh, and legalized marijuana.
#256 Squawk
Like I said earlier, they sent out the third string earlier tonight with SmellsLikeARat. The Paulbearer bench is apparently not deep enough to handle the schedule this week. But now we have star pitcher, bob42, to repair the damage and close out the game.
ST, the question is left biased–Made under the dubious assumption that a legislature’s effectiveness should be judged by the number of new laws it creates.
I tend to think that a government that governs least governs best.
Why do you keep repeating the same inane question?
Huh uh Rat
#260
I gave you the opportunity to shine, to turn the tide of the discussion to something constructive. To be a hero. Erase misconceptions. Make us all get along.
#263 bob42 - That’s not exactly accurate. Dr. Paul could have passed legislation that sunsetted existing government programs. I don’t think he’s done that even once.
Yep, and poor little ole’ LST can’t answer a simple question as to why they keep posting Ron Paul attack threads and then whine about them.
Hey I was serious. I like bob42. He even hangs around in ohter threads and discusses stuff. That’s cool.
Rat
I did not write the story. So ummm you can answer my question. Can’t you?
#263 Bob: He WANTS to legalize marijuana, but hasn’t been able to. K? I appreciate your effort.
#264: ya talkin to me?
#266, hamous - Passing legislation and proposing legislation are two very different things. If you care to do the math you’ll find that Dr. Paul has proposed many bills that would shrink the size and scope of government.
PS. I heart U2 SB!
#267 Yasser - Because your silly question elicits silly answers because it’s premise is flawed:
1. We haven’t posted any “Ron Paul attack threads”.
2. None of us are whining. Your rantings are like a mindless diversion to entertain us while we plot our next post.
bob42 is the only Ron Pauler who has demonstrated he is not some one-dimensional whackjob. I kinda like him myself.
#269
Are you not a bigshot around here?
You seem to have an opinion on everything Ron Paul, answer the question.
ST - No, I was talking to Yasser, sweety.
Jaysus Henry Milton KeeeeeeRIST - did yall poke a hole in the troll dyke over at aol kiddie chat or what??
If THIS is their best we need to think about LOWERING the minimum wage
Dang, I’m a lucky dog! Hamous just called me sweety and Katfish wants me to be able to have a Sword of Rightousness. Life is good!
#271 - bob42 I think that was kind of ST’s point. As a legislator he hasn’t been effective in changing the status quo in Washington. What makes anyone think he could do anything as president when he would be fighting both sides of the aisle? Which should be an indication to all that his ideas aren’t that popular. That in turn rolls back around to his supposed groundswell of grassroots support is probably all an illusion created by the whackos.
Oh btw, like squawk, I don’t put you (or Phil) in that category, even though you did call me a hypocrite today for asking you not to praise Paul on a non-Paul thread
That didn’t come out right…
#270 Any person rational enough to look at our failed war on drugs objectively favors legalizing marijuana. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians that are brave and honest enough to do so publicly.
And now, here’s a evening treat from Austin’s Asylum Street Spankers in a live performance of “Winning the War on Drugs.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wVkk6fH2u0Y
Dang dial-up…my 278 didn’t come out right, but 279 did!
BTW bob: I heart U2! Heck, I’ll even buy ya a beer or soda sometime! Don’t worry, I’ll file down my fangs, 1st!
#278 & 280 - I kinda thought it cum out real well………..HEH
#281 Bob: you might want to check out L.E.A.P. as well. Now I disagree with the Prez about sneaking 550mil to Mexico to help fight the war on drugs, into the military bill, but if OUR country wouldn’t be such druggies, there wouldn’t be a need for them, now, would there? Heck, rittlin IS legalized speed.
I gang! Just dropped in,…wuz posting on the OTHER LST threads. Thery’re there you know and are very lonely,:=(! Man, does these “Ron Paul worshipers” remind ya’ll of Jim Jones!
I said it before and I’ll say it again, if I had time, I’d start me a Blog about Ron Paul and after about a Gagillion hits I’d get advertising money out the a$$. It would last, at least until the primaries are over. No wait it might just jeep going! Black helicopters donc’h know!
I like this, SmellsLikeARat is impersonating Larry King: “Answer the question, Squawkbox, answer the question !”
Everybody’s a bigshot around here !
#285 Dave: Ya mean you could quit the Rocket Ranch and retire to Alabama? GO RON PAUL!
BTW; Are we having fun yet? Well, looks like hamous, squawk and ST are. ;=)
Ruh Roh;
Even BIGGER blogs are picking up on this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/23/ron-paul-supporters-advertising-on-stormfront-now/
Is the timing right for mr. Paul to say he doesnt like Nazis now—or should he wait a bit more?
Texpat
Yep it is like playing whack-a-troll. Things sometimes get real shakey dealing with folks from around the world.
#284 ST, I’d offer to buy you a brew (fangs or not) but that money has already gone to LEAP.
Realistically, I understand that that fine organization stands little chance of accomplishing their goals, but I support them anyway.
Sound familiar?
#287 Yes Sugar, I think that I could!
I am Tarred of working so much, but we cut back to dang near nuttin’ now.
As a side-Bar, we did get the shuttle up safetly today in spite of the media.
#291: YUP! I just wanted to get Kinky in the governor’s mansion!
My #292 One of these days, I’ll either learn how to type or spell correctly.
You Smell:
Just to make sure I went back and looked at the beginng of the thread. There was a simple question posed, which BTW neither you, or any other RP supporter has come close to answering. The question still stands, and it ain’t gonna go away. The fact is, that at this point in time, your fellow supporters of Ron Paul are evil, low life, racist vermin. And, as long as Dr. Paul refuses to repudiate their support, he places himself and all of his supporters (including you!) in the same broad basket.
You may not like it, but that’s the way it is, and no amount of trying to shift the focus, or change the direction of the thread is going to fix what is ultimately YOUR problem.
#294 Dave: No problem! We deal with Sarge, Squawk and NHT! Gotta admit, that I was looking for Flat Stanley to be on the shuttle and be waving out the window.
Hey Bob, I’ll buy ya a beer. Don’t sweat the small stuff!
ST, For what it’s worth, for the first time we had two female space commanders, Melroy aboard Discovery, and Peggy Whitson aboard the ISS.
BTW; I saw your comment on webshots a few days ago, even though you posted it on Oct 1? I’m sorta’ behind on things.
#295 Mr. Albert: I asked him a simple question about RP contributions to his constituents. He’ll be on google for quite a while, but you can’t lump Bob into that category. Majority yes. Bob, no.
Too bad that most of the RP supporters either can’t vote or won’t vote.
Not true! They vote multiple times in the online straw polls.
300
Maybe your question isn’t answered b/c they’ve all run over to HuffPo, Hot air and this blog:
http://flapsblog.com/?p=5758
Might could be that this is not going to stay on LGF and LST.
Me?
I’m thinking an MSM outlet will be next.
Then some smart reporter is going to catalog all of the defenses made by Mr Suckforward and quote some of the more “colorful” or “imaginative” posts.
Maybe then Mr. Suckforward will say something and take some action.
Which will mean he’s nothing more than what he says he’s not: a mere politician.
Because if he were a mad with anything resembling a non-political moral compas, he’d have already done something.
sorry, a Freudian thing happened.
Should read
Because if he were a maN
I’m kind of surprised I didn’t do the Freudian thing again and say “mad man”
Southern -
See, that’s the problem. I’m sure that Bob, and Phil, and even Ismell, are wonderful people who love their country and honestly support Dr. Paul because they think he will lead our country in the correct direction.
But they are joined in their support of Dr. Paul by racist vermin. And, eventually they are bound to get tarred with the same brush. There’s a simple solution to the problem. Apparently Dr. Paul doesn’t consider his integrity, or the integrity of decent supporters, sufficient motivation to repudiate the racist spew of supporters such as are found on sites like stormfront.
This dead horse thread smells because it deserves about as much attention as Paris Hilton does.
If anyone is so bothered that a racist whacko might have sent this weeks beer money to a politician, they are free to base their vote on that and that alone. If they are consistent in the application of their beliefs, they will research all attractive candidates and eliminate the ones getting free press and http referrals from blogs they find objectionable. (btw, I saw a Comrade Clinton ad here earlier!)
As long as you do your own math, you are free to use whatever criteria you like–Just do it on your own dime.
When you propose that all candidates should be required to vet every web REFERRAL, your invading the candidates’ and their supporters rights of free speech and privacy.
So my advice to those who would like Ron Paul (or anyone else) to thoroughly sift through millions of referring ip addrs and hostnames and visit each site, to put their money where their mouth is. PAY the candidate to do it, or do it yourself.
Heck, you could even request that your generous donation to Ron Paul 2008 be dedicated to just such a purpose!
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
#303 Mr. Albert: Gosh, I’m speechless, and THAT doesn’t happen too often.
Fair enough. I’ll be glad to do it.
I call on the Right Honorable Dr. Paul, M.D. (R-TX) to send me that data, and I’ll look over it.
Hell, I’ll even foot the postage and provide a blank CD on which to put the data, because I’m a nice guy like that.
never had such a hard time being understood……..
The problem isn’t that racist whackos are supporting Ron Paul, the problem is that Dr. Paul appears to be embracing them. I don’t want him to track the donations, or identify the individuals, or vet every referral. I don’t expect him to be omniscient. I do however expect that he would publicly dis-associate himself from groups like stormfront.
Let’s put the shoe on a different foot for a second - what do you think Hillary Clinton would do if Stormfront started schilling donations for her on their website? She’d trip over herself calling a press conference to let everyone know that she had nothing to do with them. See? It’s not really that hard, is it?
bob42
Dangit man what is the difference from requesting or holding a candidates feet to the fire when something like this is discovered? I’m being serious here.
I made reference above to many of the same type things that other candidates have faced before that they “should have ignored”. Why should Ron Paul be any different?
I find it interesting that Ron Paul and his supporters claim all this internet savvy but are afraid of direct questions froma little ‘ol blog from Texas.
I would not blame you if you did not believe me, but had I seen Fred Thompsons name there I would want to ask him the same question.
Geez These guys think that Bigjolly’s “grading the Repub debates” are actually Ron Paul hit pieces!
Insane.
Benzene, is it time to bust out the sword??
Matt, Have you no regard for individual privacy rights? If I were to ask LST for that kind information would you feel obligated to comply with my demand?
I hope not, as I’m careful to only interact with web sites that at least claim to protect my privacy.
Bob: If you POST in public, it’s public. Just like picking your nose in the car in traffic. Do ya know how many times that I have had to refrain from scratchin’ my boobs in public? Do ya really want to know how many times I’ve been caught?
Did I miss a point?
Holy crap, bob42! LST isn’t a presidential campaign! There’s a big difference. I am not sure what presidential campaigns are required to supply, but I bet Matt’s request isn’t totally out of line…
bob42, it appears you have listened to nothing any of us have said. You are way off base in your characterization of our request.
Well at least ST understands, I’ll never forget going down Westhiemer, when I first moved here, there were quite a few expensive cars all around my old Pick-Um-Up and I was admiring the “seat covers”. Then I saw a guy in a BMW dressed up like Philadelphia Lawyer picking his nose. Yes Red-Necks are everywhere.
Just remember - You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can’t wipe your friends on the back of the couch.
NYTOL, Damn, just stopped by the main thread and its deader’n an armadillo on a Texas Hi-way. I’ll be glad when we can post here without being Hi-Jacked by Nut-Cases
Hammie
#315
Never been on a bender with me have you?
Gee, just when you guys were starting to heart me, I had to go all libertarian on you…
The fact that a NAZI website links to ronpaul2008.com is meaningless. They could just as easily link to LST. It is not a valid basis of any realistic association.
The alleged issue is donations.
If you think any candidate should be compelled to release names and IP addresses to you, I reckon you don’t have a problem with “sneak and peek” searches or the government looking over your online history at the public library.
I do.
Never heard that before, but rest-assured, I’m gonna use it! IAPIMP!
Nytol! Lacking sleep all week. 5am comes early.
BTW: Where’s ismellarat? Shirley, google is his friend.
#318 Bob I guess that you don’t want anyone to know what kind of Porn you look at? It don’t matter to me, what you do at home but if I’m paying for the computer, (Joe Taxpayer), I think it’s OK to snoop!
bob42
NO ONE IS ASKING FOR NAMES. NO ONE IS COMPELLING ANYONE FOR NAMES.
Ok I am done shouting.
All of us have said time and again that we want to know Ron Paul’s “thoughts” on being supported by the site.
In light of the other candidates that have faced “embarassing” questions it is a valid request for a statement.
#319 ST, QUIT Caling him Shirley! ;=)
#318: Nope. Heck, you should look up my monster-in-law. She has one heck of a story. So does the 3 -eer, no, two…eeer, only child pervert left in my neighborhood.
Dang Dave…shazaam! I’ve got dial-up, don’t cha know!
#320 Dave — I disagree on two points.
First, I doubt that you have contributed enough to ronpaul2008.com to purchase any hardware (please correct me if I’m wrong…)
Second, if your snooping involves requiring third parties to give you information about me, I’d politely remind you to take your own advice and mind your own business.
#321, If you want to know why storm front likes Ron Paul, why not ask them?
Again, you dudes are making mountains out of molehills with this.
At least when Malkin does it, she’s still cute (with the sound down…)
Bob: 1st of all, I haven’t eaten supper, so I don’t mean to sound snarly, BUT…..
If the Hsu fits….wear it.
Dave makes a good point. This man wants to be President of the United States! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the questions asked at the top of this post. Nothing. They are legitimate and reasonable questions one would ask of a man that aspires to be POTUS. I keep harping back to Reagan in 1980. He didn’t seem to need any prodding to immediately disavow such support. Like I said earlier, that’s the measure of a man.
bob42
I have asked the stormers why they support Ron Paul. You would not like how they have spun the man’s words around. Remember I was a Ron Paul supporter myself and I do know his positions. even now I will defend Ron Paul if they accuse him of racism. A racist he is not.
GWB is not running, but I can list story after story of non-stories that he was raked over the coals with.
I am in no way suggesting that anyone should rake Ron Paul over the coals about the stormers support. But I do feel that a statement from him as a matter of position is warranted.
As for Malkin being prettier than me… hey I got a beard that oughta count for something. I look better in it than she would.
As I understand it, Hsu contributed over a million dollars to democratic candidates.
That’s a lot of redneck beer money, now ain’t it? Or might it better be termed as making a mountain out of a molehill, or beating a dead horse.
Do I still get a beer?
#325 Bob I don’t understand?! I was responding to your #318 I’ve never given a dime to the village Idiot. But you said something about computers in a PUBLIC LIBRARY, and YES I do pay for the damn things! I’ll Guarantee you that I’m more of a true Constitutionalist than you but I’m old enough to know that you can’t disregard any law that doesn’t suit your fancy.
Your last point is correct, I don’t snoop and it is no one’s business what you do. I’m sorry if you read that wrong.
#326 bob
Hey, we’re cute here, everybody but Squawk, that is.
THE BEARD GUYS ….remember I got’s THE beard.
I’ll be glad when summer gets here…
Here’s how it works. Ron Paul endorses them, he has a problem.
They endorse him, it’s called “Freedom of Speech”.
It’s really not that difficult a concept.
Condemning the endorsed person because random groups choose to endorse him is a guilt by association fallacy (http://www.fallacies.info/guiltbyassociation.html) which only has any power when people fall for the fallacy.
Will more people accept the fallacy if Ron Paul suggests it’s actually legitimate and demands a denouncement, or if he gives it all the attention it’s due? (like none, maybe)
#331 Dave - Maybe I misunderstood that you (or Matt) were laying claim to the information stored on the computers owned by ronpaul2008.com. If so, my bad.
As for the information stored on computers in public libraries, the fact that the government buys them with money they take from you should not entitle you or them to any personal information they might collect in the course of serving the public, imho.
#333 - SB, I have a beard too. I’m more interested in beer at this point!
Trust me I am damn glad you are more interested in beer.
hamous
#334
Why you gonna grow a beard too. Trust me on this. Start now while it is cool.
Texpat -
You’ll get no debate there from me for the most part. But even with their behavior as a given, it still doesn’t justify smear campaigns, gutter politics, and randomly accusing people of supporting Hitler. If the Paul supporters misbehave let them make fools of themselves and ignore them. If they are truly doing things that are as bad as you say, don’t stoop down to that level and join in on it. And if you don’t like them here, the very last thing you should do is put up smear job threads like this one that are certain to attract more of them and, far from converting them away from Paul, simply enrage them and give them a reason to hate you.
Apparently the concept of “we’re not condemning Ron Paul, only asking him the four questions at the top” is a very difficult one to grasp for most of you. I am now convinced that none of you have read a damn word any of us have said today. Toodle-loo. Keep checking those RSS feeds for our next “Ron Paul Attack Thread”!
#339 No, I just hate cold weather.
#340 Phil, I looked for where someone accused you of supporting Hitler and never found it.
Hell Phil M you all but called me a liar. Thanks pal.
I don’t believe I accused you of misinformation, lying or attempting to deceive. howsa bout your smear on me simply because you choose not believe what I have to say.
Pot calls kettle black ehhh?
hamous it is near hunting season….. hot weather bad…. cold weather good.
#314 HamBone, Well said! I couldn’t have said it better!
BTW; When I was a little guy, we’d be on the intercoastal, near West Bay Fl, catching Golden Crokers about this time of year. Not real big but damn they’re good and you could catch a butt-load of them.
279 -
I’ll bite on that one. The answer is John Tyler. John Tyler was the last president we had who was fighting both parties, and despite the near universal condemnation he receives from the socialist historians, he was genuinely a good president when measured by his conservatism precisely because he vetoed a lot of bad bills and didn’t get any agenda through that would screw anything up.
Tyler vetoed a horrible banking bill being pushed by the big government whigs - twice. He a horrible tax increase that attempted to raise the tariff. He vetoed virtually everything on the Whig legislative agenda, and it set back the growth of the U.S. government by at least 20 years. In the mind of the typical marxist “presidential historian” that makes him a horrible president because only presidents who grow the government like FDR get ranked as “great.” But to a conservative, Tyler’s effective use of the veto was outright heroic.
John Tyler had only one single legislative success in his presidency by the way, and it too cannot be stressed enough: the annexation of Texas.
BTW Phil you turned into a smear thread when you decided that we have not right to ask Ron Paul thoughts about being supported by a white supremicist site.
Which is the question we asked.
Oh but it is on a blog so we must be smearing. Now I get it. Never mind.
Late October early November, Quilt Show/Deer Season, makes everyone happy. ;=)
#341 - Hamous, the concept of which you speak is fallacious. Of course you are free to ask any candidate any number of questions, and base your support of them on their response or lack thereof.
The condemnation I’ve noticed on this thread and its previous twin has been based on illegitimate association and an unreasonable demand on a national campaign to make an individual response to a local web log.
Why don’t we just ask Mitt Romney if he still beats his wives?
Have any documentation for me? I’ll ask. I would want to know.
Damn It’s 11:35, I have to get up @ 5! It’s been real it’s been fun and Ya’ know it’s been real fun. Benzene has to be happy about the Ron Paul Fans? Fanatics? Guys with Tin Foil Hats?
Hamous - I’m referring to Post 34. Rick directly insinuated that anybody who diverged from the thread’s position on Paul secretly sympathized with nazi websites. Seeing as I was essentially the main critic of the thread’s position up until that point, it’s pretty clear who it was intended for. Furthermore, when I called him out on it shortly after the attack was made he twice refused to retract and stood by the extremely vile and derogatory insinuation of his first post.
Squack - Before you enter the land of pots and kettles, you may recall some posts back where you directly insinuated that I had some personal interest in taking the position I did, thus attacking my motive. Furthermore, I accused you of a dishonest claim, not lying. The two are similar but not the same. Calling you a liar would be an attack on you as a person. Stating that something you said was dishonest is an attack on the truth of that statement, and it is one that I stand by because you were falsely accusing Paul of something that your evidence did not support.
Holy crap. I am reading some of the messages for the first time over at Stormfront.
Dude, I don’t care what ANY Ron Paul supporters say. I would never want the support of such an organization or its members or people who hold such views.
Freedom of speech? Fine. Speak away. But I will disavow and return your “support” in any way possible. I’d rather lose the Presidency than have screw-ups like that put me over the top.
Seriously, you Ron Paul supporters, answer me this:
If some website whose members and/or visitors said stuff like this (moderators, these are only examples from a sick, racist website):
Dude, I feel ill just reading one page of comments on this place. How can a candidate not hurl such wackos as far away from himself is beyond me.
But keep making excuses. You’re not helping your candidate at all.
Dave D
#348
Mrs. Squawk and number one daughter make the pilgimmage to the quilt show every year. The quilts are beautiful, but I could never understand cutting large pieces of fabric into small pieces of fabric only to sew that all into a large piece of fabric..
Gee, somehow I feel like I was being insulted, but since I’m a redneck, it’s cool. And yeah, I’ll still buy you a beer. Just don’t fight over the crap in my kinfolks yard until AFTER the funeral. Heck, I’ll even buy you a whiskey, on the rocks….Name your poison. I rarely have ill feelings around here. Gadboy drinks some kind on Knob crap, but he’s still my friend.
BTW: have you clicked on my moniker? Yanno, that blue thing that shows up on my name? I don’t take lightly to beating or eating dead horses. Muah!
Squawk, It used to be called necessity, you made do with what you had. Wasted nothing. Now it’s called art and it is art.
No squack. I didn’t have to turn it into anything. It was already a smear thread the second it was posted, as was the one from a week ago on the same topic. You should also take notice of my original post in #7, where I critiqued the thread point-by-point in a polite, measured, and analytical fashion.
For that I was directly accused by one of your own of secretly sympathizing with Hitler websites, and not surprisingly the thread has devolved from there.
Due to federally mandated compulsory public education laws, I am obligated to deliver my minor child to the citizen indoctrination center at a time dictated by CCISD authority, or as I like to call it, “Oh-dark-thirty”
As I drift off to slumberland, I’ll dream of a place where parents can more easily choose the public education facility that best meets their needs.
And, courtesy of this thread, I’ll still wonder if Romney still beats his wives.
That’s it, I’m outta here. BTW; ST,…I’m Baack! ;=)
#355 - ST, yes I have clicked, and I mean no insult. My neck is quite familiar with the color red–To my benefit.
G’night everybody.
Phil
For what? Asking what your investment is in this debate? You gotta be kidding me. I asked you a simple question and you got all that out of it. I insinuated nothing, I asked a question.
A dishonest claim? What dishonest claim did i make? Based on what? The claim itself? You do not even know me or my history.
Please tell me what I accused Ron Paul of? I have accused him of nothing but not answering a simple question.
Oh I see. I am dishonest but not a liar. Well that makes me feel better.
You sir have stooped lower than those you would preach to Texpat about. You sir have stooped to selfish, hubris that is exceeded only by your self induced delusion of importance.
end of discussion sir.
328 -
The problem with the logic behind that explanation is that 99% of the people who are simply “asking” him these questions would never vote for him in the Republican primary under any circumstances, and may not even vote for him against a Democrat.
Those same people will likely never be satisfied with any answer he could possibly give to their questions, and will never change their minds about supporting him based on his answers.
Furthermore, some of the very same people asking those questions would use the event of a response by Paul not to thank him or commend him for his disavowal, but rather to simply remind people of the stormfront “association” he would be disavowing and take advantage of the opportunity to continue the smear.
Why should he be responsive to questions from people who are not asking those questions out of a genuine concern for the truth but rather in the hope that they cause him political embarrassment?
If any of the people who are pushing this “story” had so much as the slightest intention of honestly considering Paul for a vote, then maybe - just maybe - there would be merit to calling this a fair and honestly offered question. But the simple truth is they don’t intend anything of the sort. Not a single one of them.
Don’t jump head first into a thinly guised political smear only to feign honest intentions and protest your innocence when somebody calls it the smear that it is.
#358: O.K. Bob…EXPLAIN this tomorrow in open comments. I beg of you.
Dave: I expect a “what’s fer supper grandpa” post in OC!
If not to impugn my motive, then why did you feel the need to ask about it? There are a lot of people around LST these days asking plainly loaded questions and then ducking for the cover of pretended innocence the second they’re called out. That doesn’t change the loaded intent of the original question, although at least you’re in growing company.
Go back and re-read the discussion, Squack. You know exactly what I’m referring to. You said that Paul’s campaign had direct knowledge they were taking stormfront money and you had no proof to back that up. Furthermore, you continued that line for several posts after I pointed out the difference between having a database of hundreds of thousands of ISP and referrer logs and actually searching through it for stormfront. You got called out because that is a dishonest claim. That doesn’t necessarily make you a liar as a person, but it the perpetuation of the original falsehood does make your claim dishonest.
Bob, you suggested that I pore over the data — to put my money where my mouth is, in your words.
I’m happy to.
I’m not “demanding” the data, and I’m certainly not saying the government should force him to provide it.
But you wanted someone to look at the data, and I’m volunteering. I’ll do it, at my expense.
And Phil my name
Squawk
Like I said Phil you have no idea what my skills, expiriences or knowledge levels are, yet you are quick to call me dishonest and dismiss anything that I may wish to add to the discussion. I take umbrage to those accusations Sir. And as I said above, I could post my bonafides but why? To be insulted by the likes of you?
Honestly, I don’t care what your experience is. Everyone here has experience of some sort or another, and rather than endlessly blustering about your own you would do well to recognize that you have no exclusive knowledge about how campaigns you aren’t even involved in run their donor databases. In fact, far from it.
I do care what you offer to the discussion though, and when you plainly and directly insinuate that Paul has direct and conclusive knowledge he is taking stormfront money without substantiating evidence beyond what you claim to have divined from your own “personal knowledge” of how his donor database allegedly works, you leave that offering open to scrutiny. When scruting comes and you persist in making an insinuation that you do not have evidence to support and that you know you cannot substantiate with hard evidence, it becomes a matter of willful dishonesty and you can expect to be called out on that to, and whether obeing called out in a case of dishonesty “offends” you is not a concern of mine. If you don’t like it then all the more reason to exercise greater care in the insinuations you make.
Phil
For your information and edification, I have worked on electoral campaigns in the past, I have been involved in data mining in those campaigns, I also know that we used EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION available to us to gain an advantage and strengthen our donor base. This included using even the website logs. We took those logs and matched them to locations and we did channel ads to affilated websites. We knew if sites such as this LST if they had our banner ad generated donations and that gave us an idea whether to channel efforts into more sites like LST.
We also knew which sites were generating donations and which were not. We could match donor to website via referal logs.
So contrary to your presuppositions I do know what I am talking about and if Ron Pauls campaign is not doing this they are damn stupid and I can use the xtra money to help them out if they would hire me.
369 - I don’t know if I can put it more clearly than this, but I simply don’t care to hear your “experience” and claimed expertise on campaign databases. All the expertise in the world cannot change the fact that you have no credible evidence to support your insinuation that Paul knowingly takes stormfront cash.
It doesn’t even matter if whatever campaign you worked on integrated its website referrals into its databases - many and I dare say most campaigns do not, and your own claimed experience on one of the few that did does not “prove” Paul’s campaign is doing the same.
Unlike you, I’m typically not one to bluster endlessly about my resume as a substitute for the deficiencies of an argument, but as I noted previously your claim to donor database expertise is far from exclusive and your claim to campaign experience is far from comprehensive as an indicator of how they generally work. I don’t mean that in any way to denigrate your background, but only to note that it alone is not a substantive alternative to a clumsily argued and ultimately unsupportable accusation against Paul.
I think LST needs to call on Rudy Giuliani to repudiate child molesters. Their support for and even employment on his current campaign has been well documented.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1
As of right now, Rudy is not only refusing to condemn child molesters but he’s actually defending one that is a close friend of his.
There are some things that are simply unacceptable no matter how you look at them and one of them is molesting innocent children. Rudy needs to do the right thing and drop out.
370
If Ron Paul and his people can’t look at this situation and easily determine they are accepting money from members of white supremacists groups, then they are so ignorant it is reason for him not to hold public office.
I am astonished that someone of your intelligence would suggest that Paul does not know he is taking neo-Nazi money.
Phil M
That is what I like about you. Your arrogant pompous attitude. You made the accusations about me I responded. But that is OK.
You are wrong on why Ron Paul should respond to our questions
You are wrong on the donations issues
You are wrong on the giving Islamofascist the name Islamofascist. The name fits the individuals to a tee.
You are wrong on our motivations for posting this and other threads.
/out
Geez, how did Ron Paul get to be so important all of a sudden? Several blogs have already decided to prohibit all Ron Paul discussion, just to emphasize his insignificance. I guess this +/- 400 post thread is simply further evidence of how unworthy of notice Ron Paul really is. Carry on ignoring him.
(P.S.) After reading the story here I surfed a few supremacist sites to see what they thought of Ron Paul. Though it is a very mixed and often confusing and self-contradictory bag I get the general impression that these people are somewhat suspicious of RP, don’t see him as “one of them,” but seem to gravitate to the maverick/dark horse vibe that he represents.
Anyway, were RP to actually give back that $500 just to make everybody happy, would you lend your support to him or just put him back on ignore mode?
All anti-racists agree that it’s OK for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All anti-racists also agree that a person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor, stupid or clinically insane. Therefore, what is an anti-racist if not anti-white?
http://persev.wordpress.com/