Top
Comments
752 Responses to “LST: Neo-Nazi leader gives Ron Paul $500”
  1. bweldon on October 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Well I guess all of the Paulites need to step forward and appologize… He has gotten money from Stormfront and done NOTHING at this time about it….

  2. american woman on October 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Good job LST for discovering the truth. Ya’all deserve an award.

  3. duhmoose on October 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Wow, it’s been up 10 minutes and not a Paulistinian yet?

  4. JohnRH on October 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Does this mean you’re not running for county hide inspector?

  5. Fasternu 426 on October 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Ya figure they would be more supportive of Bushitler, but what do I know? I’m not a neosocialist.

  6. Meglet on October 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Niiiiice job everybody at LST!! Now we have cold hard facts to work with.

  7. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    You cracked the case.

  8. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Go Ron Paul!

  9. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    The agenda of Lone Star Times becomes more and more clear with continued articles along these lines. I’m sure there are registered sex offenders, rapists, and racists supporting each and every candidate running. But Lone Star Times goes after one candidate with such amazing determination. Previous articles on Ron Paul from this site make it quite clear that discrediting Ron Paul is its goal. It’s a free country, folks. I am of the opinion that white supremacists are backwards idiots… but I honestly have no interest in who they or anyone besides myself support. I am only interested in who I support and what that candidate stands for. So should you be. Lone Star Times is grasping for straws. The author only wishes he had real dirt on a man who has proven to be an upstanding statesman for his entire career.

  10. duhmoose on October 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Wow, it took 37 minutes.

  11. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    sreams

    Dont ya know Ron paul has his hood at the ready?

  12. Tannim on October 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Still stuck on this molehill? I suggest you go read what I posted on this before….

    http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/23/ron-paul-funded-by-supporters-of-racist-websites/#comment-210546

  13. DocThomas on October 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Why should Paul reject the support of someone based on their beliefs? That would be like saying Paul should reject the support of Jew because they don’t believe in Jesus. If accepting support from Don Black is illegal or unconstitutional, I would understand, but in this case sir, you are simply attacking someone for their beliefs.

  14. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Maybe I can borrow Ron Pauls hood? I lost mine…err maybe I left it at the border?

  15. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    #9 - I would ask ANY candidate to return or donate such funds to charity.

  16. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  17. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Excuses, excuses. Keep on making ‘em.

  18. Russkij on October 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    #3 Well, here you go, more than 10 minutes though

    I hope Dr. Paul will not return any contributions and certainly will not give even a cent to any Zionist organization you are suggesting. I begin to think that this campaign of smear started because of Ron Paul position regarding aid to Israel. One of the leading Zionists Michael Medved already said that Dr. Paul is “anti Israel” and “has ties to known neo Nazi organizations”. From your post I began to suspect that you guys have ties to other hate groups, such as ADL. Don’t you?
    As for Dr. Paul I wish he could end all this nonsense by saying that he is glad that his message of freedom resonates among people from all walks of life and that he welcomes every supporter regardless of their political, religious or ideological views. But that is of course up to him.

  19. duhmoose on October 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Tannim, It is a story because these are the kinds of things Republicans are regularly attacked about. In most cases, the Republican comes out, says they are not going to accept the support of a racist group, and then either give the money back or donate it to a charity. LST is just calling for Ron Paul to do likewise.

  20. David Benzion on October 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Sure thing Doc– because there is no significant moral distinction one can make between donors who don’t believe in Jesus and donors who do believe in racism, bigotry, Jew-hatred and White Supremacism.

    Keep digging.

  21. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    #16 - ?? Listen, here’s the deal:

    If you accept campaign contributions (and 500 dollars is nothing to sneeze at for an individual contribution) from the head of a white supremacist group, and it becomes well known, then that creates the perception that you at least tacitly support that group’s agenda.

    Why is that so hard for Paulites to understand??

  22. David Benzion on October 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    I want to put everyone reading LST on notice– there are new people registering and leaving comments. It is likely that at least SOME of them are the racist bigots from over at Stormfront.

    Read with a jaundiced eye.

    If you are a new commenter who supports Ron Paul and are NOT a racist bigot… well, unfortunately you are entering the conversation at an inopportune time.

    Think clearly, communicate carefully, and we will be fair-minded in judging your motivations and the strength of your intellectual arguments.

  23. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    18 - Wow. The “Z word”. You are looking at this clearly and with no bias…

    /sarc

  24. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    #23 jimb - I expect you’ll see much worse before long…

  25. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Well this is sorta’ anticlimactic, we already knew that this was true, because if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck! That said I’m glad that it went “main stream”!

  26. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Like I said

    Ya’ll cracked the case. Good work.

    God Bless ya!

    Go Ron Paul!

  27. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Dave

    What is manstream?

    LST?

    Bwahahaha

    Maybe tonight CBS will carry it and make ya’ll proud?

  28. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    “I would ask ANY candidate to return or donate such funds to charity”

    Go ahead and ask then. Maybe you should make a list of all of the belief systems that are unnacceptable to you so that Ron Paul can be sure to fund your preferred organizations well.

  29. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    DJ - What’s your point? Should Paul not be asked about something like this? Is he not a presidential candidate? Is the question unfair?

    Does Ron Paul’s status of “Constitutional Savior” exempt him from such scrutiny?

  30. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    #1 bweldon says; Well I guess all of the Paulites need to step forward and appologize…
    I’m holding my breath!…NOT!

  31. Fasternu 426 on October 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    “What is manstream?”

    When you’ve been on a long trip and drank too much coffee???

  32. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    #28 - It is a pretty short list. I would ask a candidate to shun contributions from known racist organizations like the KKK or individuals well known to be associated with them, like David Duke, people known to be associated to be with organized crime, and sicko organizations such as NAMBLA.

    And there’s nothign wrong with that…

  33. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    #26 DanielJames, You are right, that was incorrect, my bad! It may go “mainstream” since he clams to be a Republican. I was just glad that it went out on the radio.

  34. texpat on October 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    Well, at least we can keep the jackbooted crazies busy here tonight so they don’t clutter up other people’s websites. I hope other folks on the net appreciate the kind things we do for them.

  35. USAF Vet Dan on October 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    To those who are trying to use this to put a white hood on Ron Paul, you may be interested to know that, of the 4,000 babies he has delivered, more than 700 of them could not pay some or all of their doctor bills. Of these, over half were not white. He provided the medical services for them anyway.

    And who is guilty of blind hate here?

  36. ajtdonahue on October 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Lone Star is just a Red Neck Red State wannabe.

    In that same vane, please ban all talk of Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters.

    This website is just a couple of good ol’ boys sippin’ beers and checking out white supremist websites.

    It is no shock that you are the first to crack this MAJOR news story since the website mentioned I’m sure is just a shortcut on your desktop away.

    yuck a yuck ‘here come those damn RP supporters’.
    “wow it took 37 minutes.”

    You are pathetic. You want Dr. Paul supporters here so you keep writing this rediculous dribble.

    The truth is you are afraid of Congressman Paul returning America to a Constitutional Republic and you know he is gaining momentum daily.

    You can go back to your cow tipping now.

  37. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    I’m listening to Dan online right now. I wonder how long it will take the Ron Paul crazies to show up on KSEV…

  38. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    “Does Ron Paul’s status of “Constitutional Savior” exempt him from such scrutiny?”

    Yes, because the Bill of Rights allows Mr. Black to believe anything he wants and support any candidate he wants as long as he isn’t breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others. I’ll say it again… I think Mr. Black is a backwards fool, and I don’t care what he does or thinks as long as it falls within the law.

    Lone Star Times is pretty small-time when it comes to its importance. If this really becomes an issue that people are actually paying attention to, I’m sure Ron Paul will comment about it when asked. Until then, it is still a non-issue, regardless of how important this publication thinks it should be.

    BTW… how much time has the Lone Star Times dedicated to finding questionable supporters of any of the other candidates? Let me answer for them… None. The agenda here doesn’t fool anybody.

  39. Fasternu 426 on October 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    35

    And he only ate three of them…

  40. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    And who is guilty of blind hate here?

    Um, nobody? This isn’t about his work as a doctor, and nobody is trying to put a white hood on the man. We’re just asking if it is right for a campaign to ignore the fact that money is coming in from known racist organizations.

  41. Terry on October 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Paul’s campaign is about a return to the constitution, and that includes freedom. Free peeech, freedom to have ideals no matter how wrong they may be. Although I personally do not support racism, I shall defend their right to feel that way. That is what freedom means. Ron Paul should not be under any obligation to return any money that was unsolicitited. He himself has not ever expressed such beliefs.

  42. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    “It is a pretty short list. I would ask a candidate to shun contributions from known racist organizations like the KKK or individuals well known to be associated with them, like David Duke, people known to be associated to be with organized crime, and sicko organizations such as NAMBLA.”

    You’ve made my point. Yours is just one person’s list. Shall we gather lists from every individual in this country as to who is offensive and who not? We could probably label every person in this country as an undesirable with that logic. I guess the plus side is that $100s of millions would to to charity, and we’d never have to see a campaign advertisement ever again.

  43. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Terry, should Mrs. Clinton have returned the money from Hsu?

  44. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    If this really becomes an issue that people are actually paying attention to, I’m sure Ron Paul will comment about it when asked. Until then, it is still a non-issue, regardless of how important this publication thinks it should be.

    By then it will be too late.

    BTW… how much time has the Lone Star Times dedicated to finding questionable supporters of any of the other candidates? Let me answer for them… None.

    You know, while we were perusing the scumbag websites we were looking for all the other candidates. Funny thing is all we could find were “Ron Paul for President” banners.

  45. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Yepper texpat

    I heard they arrested an illegal for lighting fires in San Diego. Is that dang border closed yet? That is the subject matter I would like to discuss but not LST.

    Go Ron Paul!

    Whos the jackboot? Jackboot would imply force and tyranny.

  46. David Benzion on October 25th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    #28 sreams

    Here’s a partial list of people I would not accept campaign contributions from if I were running for public office.

    Nazis (or fascists & bigots of any stripe), HAMAS (or radical Islamic militants of any stripe), Communists (or agents/defends of totalitarian regimes of any stripe), rapists, child-molesters, murderers, and thieves.

    Am I intolerant for not wanting a noble cause (limited government) to be tarred by association with such people?

  47. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    The truth is you are afraid of Congressman Paul returning America to a Constitutional Republic and you know he is gaining momentum daily.

    Wow. You have us nailed. I feel so DIRTY!

    Yes, because the Bill of Rights allows Mr. Black to believe anything he wants and support any candidate he wants as long as he isn’t breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others.

    You didn’t answer my question. My question wasn’t whether or not “Mr.” Black (more respect than he is due, IMO) had the right to donate. He absolutely has the right to donate. My question was whether or not we had the right to look at his FEC records and ask why Paul would accept support from known fringe racist groups.

    We DO have that right, by the way.

    And the suggestion that LST is “too big for its britches” to ask such questions is ludicrous. You’re trying to suppress free speech more than anybody here.

  48. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    sreams,

    Is any person, group or philosophy acceptable to you?

  49. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    “By then it will be too late.”

    Too late for what? To fulfill this publication’s agenda of slandering Ron Paul?

  50. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    theonlypatriot,

    I heard they arrested an illegal for lighting fires in San Diego. Is that dang border closed yet? That is the subject matter I would like to discuss but not LST.

    You discuss it daily, right here on LST. What’s preventing you today?

  51. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Too late for any chance at credibility for your savior.

  52. Matt Bramanti on October 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Sreams, this is not a First Amendment issue. No one is calling for any government action in this matter.

    You will recall that the First Amendment begins:

    Congress shall make no law…

    It does not say:

    Decent society should have no standards…

    Yes, neo-Nazi white-supremacist scumbags have the right to contribute money to the candidate of their choice.

    Along the same lines, individuals have the right to ask why a candidate is accepting neo-Nazi white-supremacist scumbags’ money.

    And candidates also have the right to reject neo-Nazi white-supremacist scumbags’ money.

    In this case, the Ron Paul campaign is accepting neo-Nazi white-supremacist scumbags’ money, knowing that it’s neo-Nazi white-supremacist scumbags’ money.

    Lone Star Times is pretty small-time when it comes to its importance.

    And yet, out of all the things in the world you could be doing, you’re here.

  53. Terry on October 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Clinton had to return the money.

  54. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    bigjoke

    Mrs Clinton should be behind bars…so what..shes not and the repukes let everything slide including Bill Clintons treason …Sandy Burglar? Chinese secrets?

  55. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    “Is any person, group or philosophy acceptable to you?”

    I disagree with many philosophies… but respect the right of all of them to exist that are not breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others. Ron Paul would support Black’s freedom to think the way he does, so what’s the point of denying him as a non-solicited supporter?

  56. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    #52 Matt, Well said!

  57. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    BTW; LST may make 500 on this one! ;=) 300 is a given!

  58. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    Go ahead and ask then. Maybe you should make a list of all of the belief systems that are unnacceptable to you so that Ron Paul can be sure to fund your preferred organizations well.

    Can do, cuz it;s a short liast:

    Nazis
    White Supremacists
    Anti-Semites
    Islamic Extremists

    I think that puts me in oh, 90% of the electorate.

    Although it;s not a beleif system, I;d add;

    Convicted felons
    Convicted Child Molestors.

    See?

    It’s easy. al one needs do is take out his Moral Compass, flip open the lid, and look down at it.

  59. Phil_M on October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    #1 - No need to “apologize.” I’ve said all along that if you can conclusively identify a neo-nazi contributer, I’ll readily call for the donation’s return.

    You’ve done that, now give Ron Paul’s people a fair and honest opportunity to properly repudiate the contribution before turning this into a smear.

  60. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    Ron Paul would support Black’s freedom to think the way he does, so what’s the point of denying him as a non-solicited supporter?

    Because you don’t want your campaign to be tainted by association with such bass-ackward morons?

    Nobody’s telling Black or Stormfront to think differently. Paul can support Black’s freedom to be a schmuck all he wants, but he doesn’t deny him that freedom by refusing to take his money.

    It boils down to a question of character. When running for public office, do you want known racist organizations to donate to you and help you get there? Besides, if Paul ever becomes a credible threat, his opponent’s campaigns will dredge up this information and put out commercials about how RP accepts support from racists. It will happen. If Bramanti can find the stuff, organized campaigns who do this for a living will find it too.

  61. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    Sarge

    You left out the Minutemen.

  62. Matt Bramanti on October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    and I don’t care what he does or thinks as long as it falls within the law.

    That’s interesting, coming from a libertarian.

    You see, there are plenty of legal things that are reprehensible and should be opposed by decent people using peaceful, private-sector means. Here’s a short list:

    -Screaming “hey fatty!” at pregnant women
    -Not tipping
    -Advocating white supremacy
    -Failing to flush a public toilet
    -Using racial slurs

    By your standards (or lack of them), you “don’t care” whether people do any of these, simply because they’re legal.

    In doing so, you’re allowing the state to dictate your tastes and manners. After all, if it’s legal, it must be okay!

    That’s an odd form of libertarianism. Seems to me that a true libertarian would attempt to set social standards by private-sector means, rather than legislation.

  63. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    theonlypatriot

    Mrs Clinton should be behind bars…so what..shes not and the repukes let everything slide including Bill Clintons treason …Sandy Burglar? Chinese secrets?

    So, this stuff is now the fault of the Republicans? You’ve got to be kidding.

  64. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    “White Supremacists
    Anti-Semites”

    There are many in this country who would call someone who opposes affirmative action a “white supremist” and someone who opposes foreign aid to Israel an “anti-semite”. You are opening a Pandora’s Box.

  65. Meglet on October 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    Okay I don’t even know if this will be seen because so many posts are flying up but may I point out to those of you who are getting your panties in a wad thinking we are beating up Ron Paul–WE ARE NOT BEATING HIM UP. We are asking him to do a simple little thing that is only common sense and fair to people who want to make a decision about who to vote for. CONDEMN THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. That is ALL we are saying. We are not calling Ron Paul a racist himself, only asking that he prove he is not. Why is this making you so upset??

  66. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    What is this? Is Phil_M learning the beauty and simplicity of brevity?

  67. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    #59 - And I continue to maintain that Paul’s campaign has known all along that he’s had their support. All they have to do is give an intern PC and tell him to look up references to RP and see who is talking about him. Rest assured, they HAVE done that, if they’re a campaign staff worth their salt.

    They also know where their donations are coming from, including referring URL. That’s what databases are for.

  68. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Bigjoke

    You brought up the clintons.

  69. Dave D on October 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    How high is the water momma, 65 feet and risin”

  70. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    61 - The minutemen, by and large, go to pains to *not* be a racist organization. Some may disagree. However, NOBODY can dispute in any honesty that Stormfront is racist.

  71. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    …now give Ron Paul’s people a fair and honest opportunity to properly repudiate the contribution before turning this into a smear.

    First, none of these posts have been “smears”. Second, the first request for response from Paul’s offices was delivered 14 days ago. More requests have been unanswered.

  72. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    No, theonlypatriot, I brought up Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Hsu.

  73. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    There are many in this country who would call someone who opposes affirmative action a “white supremist” and someone who opposes foreign aid to Israel an “anti-semite”. You are opening a Pandora’s Box.

    Oh, please. It is called common sense. Nobody over at Stormfront is simply opposing affirmative action or opposing foreign aid to Israel. Go check out the site, if you can stand it for more than 10 seconds. I went over there a few days ago to see what it was about. Had to take a shower afterwards.

  74. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Side question for discussion:

    How disapppointed in their Savior are these guys going to be when Mr. Suckforward makes a public statement and returns the donation?

    Wouldn’t that mean that he agrees with us morons her on LST?

  75. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    DanielJames Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
    Sarge

    You left out the Minutemen.

    Can’t figure out why you’d want them on your list, DJ, but hey, if they are your choice–

  76. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Tom DeLay took money from convicted criminals.

    Where’s the outrage?

  77. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Larry Craig solicited sex in a bathroom.

    Where’s the outrage?

  78. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Uh, Tom Delay’s not running for President?

  79. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    sreams Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
    “White Supremacists
    Anti-Semites”

    There are many in this country who would call someone who opposes affirmative action a “white supremist” and someone who opposes foreign aid to Israel an “anti-semite”. You are opening a Pandora’s Box.

    Sorry;

    Pretty dam easy for me to know a real White Supremacist and a real Anti-Semite.

    and it is for most people—except apparently, Ron Paul supporters.

  80. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    David Vitters had sex with prostitutes.

    Where’s the outrage?

  81. Meglet on October 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    You mean, Tom DeLay who is no longer in office and Larry Craig who everyone screamed about for weeks??

  82. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    No, but where was the outrage when he was Majority Leader?

    Answer: Not here.

  83. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Sarge

    I think he should give the money to the RNC..they could use the money. I hope this sinks Ron Pauls ship and opens the door for Rudy I love abortion and hate the 2nd Amendment Juilianna.

    Seriously he should give the money back and I believe will. Ron Pal is an honest man and not a racist.

  84. american woman on October 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Let’s see what the people from the Paul Campaign have to say. This matter will probably be delt with. IF it’s not…….. it’s a huge red flag against Ron Paul. ( as if he needs one more)

  85. texpat on October 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    #59 Phil_M

    Campaigns employ people or contract to consultants to prevent just this sort of situation from arising. Mr. Paul is a physician, congressman and a candidate in the Presidential race. I would assume the man is quite busy and does not have the time to scroll through donor lists.

    However, it is incomprehensible to me how his staff and contractors would have failed to flag this donation. It did not happen yesterday and there has been plenty of time to analyze past donations. The attitude that prevails in a campaign condoning these types of donations is what concerns and angers me. The manure does run downhill.

  86. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Tom DeLay resigned.

    You’ve not been around here long enough to know this, but Larry Craig should resign, in my opinion.

  87. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Bihasqua enters from stage right, bringing up the double standards of LST.

    My, my, my.

    Exactly what does Tom Delay or Larry Craig have to do with Ron Paul taking money from Nazi sympathizers and promoters?

    Nothing. Therefore, it is off topic. And should go into the Open Comments thread, where people are free to discuss any maniac idea they choose.

    Just helping a newbie out.

  88. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    And I do believe that LST had several negative posts on all of them. Got any more subjects for your righteous indignation?

  89. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Tom Delay was forced to resign from Congress–

    and if you missed the outrage about Larry Craig, especially here on LST, you must have been surfing some other websites at the time——–

  90. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    “It boils down to a question of character. When running for public office, do you want known racist organizations to donate to you and help you get there?”

    This is the only semi-valid point to be made. I personally believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Ron Paul accepting donations from any American who’s freedom of speech he supports. What the masses find acceptable may very well be different.

    This brings me back to my previous point. This is small-time news coming from a small-time publication at this point in time. If it becomes a more widespread topic, then, in the interest of public relations, a politician in this position may very well wish to reject any donation from Black.

    But… then again… Ron Paul has unpopular stances on a few other issues as well, and he has always been one to stick to his guns. That is a large part of his appeal. He will not bend his principles in order to garner extra votes. If asked, I would not be at all suprised if he stated clearly that he disagreed with Black’s beliefs, but that out of his respect for people to think any way they wish within the law, he cannot deny Black’s support.

    Just to give this a bit of perspective, I can gaurantee you that many of paul’s supporters are pro-choice. Should Ron Paul return their donations because he disagrees with them? After all, one pro-life perspective is that those who are pro-choice advocate murder. Along that line of thinking, it seems to me that someone who advocates hatred (but not murder) is much more desireable.

    It’s a slippery slope from any perspective.

  91. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Two mentions of Tom Delay on LST in the same day–

    worthy of note.

  92. Phil_M on October 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    David -

    Here’s a partial list of people I would not accept campaign contributions from if I were running for public office.

    Nazis (or fascists & bigots of any stripe), HAMAS (or radical Islamic militants of any stripe), Communists (or agents/defends of totalitarian regimes of any stripe), rapists, child-molesters, murderers, and thieves.

    That is an entirely fair position, and as I have stated I fully believe Paul should dissassociate himself from Black’s donation to his campaign. In light of the above list though, I would like to ask you and other commentators here about a moral issue surrounding another prominent Republican’s presidential campaign that came to light in the last few days.

    You specifically identified “child molesters” on the list of associations a person running for public office should never make. Earlier this week it was revealed that the campaign of Rudy Giuliani currently has an accused pedophile priest on its payroll, and that this pedophile priest regularly appears with Giuliani at public events.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1

    The evidence against this pedophile is strong and well documented. Three different male victims have identified him as a child molester by name. A Grand Jury investigating the face found their testimony and other evidence against this priest to be credible. The Catholic Church has also officially suspended this priest from his duties and barred him from publicly serving in a religious capacity. In fact, the only reason he is not sitting behind bars tonight is that the statute of limitations has expired.

    With that knowledge known, and in light of your expressed desire to keep racists, neo-nazis, murderers, child molesters, and other similar creeps out of the Republican presidential primary, will you immediately and unequivocally call upon Rudy Giuliani to fire this child molester and repudiate all connections to him?

  93. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    Really? Show me the hit pieces LST ran on DeLay.

  94. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    “We are not calling Ron Paul a racist himself, only asking that he prove he is not.”

    Here is your answer:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

    So are we done here?

  95. Meglet on October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Phil #92 when LST opens an article on Giuliani I will join you there in doing just that.

  96. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Phil_M

    Earlier this week it was revealed that the campaign of Rudy Giuliani currently has an accused pedophile priest on its payroll, and that this pedophile priest regularly appears with Giuliani at public events.

    Therein lies the difference. Accusations versus proof.

    Brevity, Phil_M, brevity.

  97. Meglet on October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    #94, actions speak louder than words.

  98. TxRedneck on October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    I was actually thinking to write a response here…then I got to the part about Ron Paul donating these funds to charity. Then the author names off 3 charities for Paul to donate the funds to. All 3 are Jewish funds. No AfroAmericans, no Mexicans, no Chinese or Asians. No Middle Easterners. Only Jewish.

    How racist is that?

  99. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    sreams,

    You really don’t want to bring up Dr. Paul’s writings on race. Trust me.

  100. texpat on October 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    #76, 77, 80, 82 Bihasqua

    Listen Sahib, you colors are showing through. It must be hard to keep up appearances. How long can you do this ?

  101. Bihasqua on October 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    You think Romney isn’t racist? Or Giuliani?

    Give me a break.

  102. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    What is wrong with Larry Craig? Hes a homosexual, a cheater who DELETED. Thats it. Leave the man out of this! He is a solid republican.

  103. hamous on October 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Phil - on the Rudy thing, I thought we addressed that? Rudy made a public statement about the relationship. I don’t accept his explanation and will not vote for him. I wouldn’t have anyway but that’s beside the point. Ron Paul has not addressed this issue!

  104. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    TxRedneck Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
    I was actually thinking to write a response here…then I got to the part about Ron Paul donating these funds to charity. Then the author names off 3 charities for Paul to donate the funds to. All 3 are Jewish funds. No AfroAmericans, no Mexicans, no Chinese or Asians. No Middle Easterners. Only Jewish.

    How racist is that?

  105. texpat on October 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    #98 TxRedneck

    We just like Jews here. Nothin’ racist about that.

  106. Matt Bramanti on October 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

    Ron Paul wrote that.

  107. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    This is the only semi-valid point to be made.

    Actually, it is a very germane point. If you are willing to give the man a pass, that’s OK. I am not. There has to be a minimum level of character displayed by a candidate that I would be willing to vote for. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. It is a character issue.

    Just to give this a bit of perspective, I can gaurantee you that many of paul’s supporters are pro-choice. Should Ron Paul return their donations because he disagrees with them?

    To put this in the proper perspective, if NARAL’s website was putting a Ron Paul 2008 banner on their front page that redirected to Ron Paul’s donation link, and the head of NARAL donated money to Ron Paul, then maybe it would be appropriate to ask him why he would accept that money, if he was indeed opposed to abortion.

    If Suzy Q. donated money, we would never know if she supported abortion. You’re comparing apples to lobsters.

  108. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    TxRedneck Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
    I was actually thinking to write a response here…then I got to the part about Ron Paul donating these funds to charity. Then the author names off 3 charities for Paul to donate the funds to. All 3 are Jewish funds. No AfroAmericans, no Mexicans, no Chinese or Asians. No Middle Easterners. Only Jewish.

    How racist is that?

    No more racist than anyone who would quickly das off a list of charities they are familiar with because they are active in thier religion.

    I’m not active religioulsy—I’d have gone with Military Charities.

    Nice try though—

  109. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    “You really don’t want to bring up Dr. Paul’s writings on race. Trust me.”

    Why? Because you’ll pull out writings that have been well documented as having come from a ghost writer? Sorry… you can’t surprise me.

  110. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    bigjoke

    Did you know that Bernard Kerik, Rudy Joklianis buddy, chief of police…was convicted of serious crimes and is being indicted of more as we type?

    Talk about good republicans.

  111. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    See there sreams, what can of worms you opened? I told you not to do that.

    /sighs and walks away, once again not listened to

  112. Phil_M on October 25th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    103 -

    Phil - on the Rudy thing, I thought we addressed that?

    Perhaps you can direct me to where it was, but i’ve yet to see so much as a single thread about it posted here. The only discussion I know if is when I brought it up midway through the open comments thread yesterday and suggested it may be a topic for additional scrutiny. You may also recall that at least one LST writer came to Rudy’s defense over that relationship.

    Rudy made a public statement about the relationship

    Yeah - Rudy actually defended the child-molesting creep and pledged to stick with him despite all the evidence! In my book, that’s far worse than unwittingly recieving a campaign contribution from a scurrilous source.

  113. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    Yes, theonlypatriot, I do know about that. Is Mr. Kerik also on Mr. Giuliani’s campaign staff?

  114. sreams on October 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    “Ron Paul wrote that.”

    Ghost writer. Try again.

  115. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Honestly, if I only had 2 choices in the universe and they were between Paul and Giuliani, and I wasn’t allowed to skip the box, I would vote for Paul. I wouldn’t like it, though…

    Next!

  116. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Let’s rewrite history! Everything ever bad written by someone was not written by them, it was written by a ghost writer, even though the author signed his name to it and DID NOT DISAVOW IT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY!

    But, hey, let’s rewrite it anyway.

  117. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    How do you know it was a ghost writer?

  118. bigjolly on October 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Because the good doctor’s staff claims that.

  119. TxRedneck on October 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Sargevining,

    “Nice try though—”

    I’d say the same of this article…

  120. jimb on October 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Even if it was, did Paul sign his name to it? If he did, without changing the text, would that not mean he agreed with the sentiments?

  121. J.P. on October 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Folks,

    This is starting to resemble a smear campaign. The concern over this contribution is legitimate. However, the amount of questionable donations in this campaign probably approaches infinity, and the Lone Star Times chose to focus on probably the only one Dr. Paul has ever had.

    We all know Ron Paul is not a white supremicist–he is quite the opposite–a libertarian. He has said that we do not get rights from being gay, white, black, or a member of any other group, we get our rights from being individuals. He opposes aid to Israel and Palestine (or other Arab states for that matter) because he believes their 2000+ year old quest to kill each other is none of our business. So lets leave the most honest man in Congress alone.

  122. sargevining on October 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    sreams Says:
    October 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
    “Ron Paul wrote that.”

    Ghost writer. Try again.
    >/blockquote>

    Oh;

    so Ron Paul doesn’t disavow racist statements things written in his name, just as he won’t disavow his Donation Banners on Racist Websites, and won;t return Donations from Racists?

    I’m seeing a trend here:

    Plausible Deniability

  123. DanielJames on October 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Bigjoke

    Birds of a feather flock together. They are friends! Buds! It speaks volumes. Corrupt to the core and a liberal.

  124. bob42 on October 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Wow, what a great piece of investigative journalism on the part of the Lone Star Times and KSEV!

    So, when will you complete the investigation of storm front and similar sites, and pose these questions to other candidates (or parties) that they might support?

    Leave no stone unturned, LST. You’ve done great deeds to end racism in Jena, LA… Why not take it nationwide?

    Or is this really all just about RON PAUL?

    Honestly…

  125. Matt Bramanti on October 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Because you’ll pull out writings that have been well documented as having come from a ghost writer?

    Boy, that’s some defense you’ve got there:

    “Ron Paul isn’t a racist! He just employs racists, lets them write whatever they want, stamps his name across the top and mails it to con