I'm with you in general, but let the record reflect that GOPUSA is a private fringe site in no way connected with the RNC, and all they're doing is reprinting an AP story.
Cheers...
taking money from a racist nutjob does not make Ron Paul a racist nutjob. Please remember that the ACLU supports the KKK's right to assemble.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/
p...rs20010815.html
Does this make the ACLU racists?
Paul did denounce white supremesists last night on his Faux New interview with Cavuto and on the NOW program last week on PBS. Read his writings on racism before jumping to any conclusions (especially the reference to an ghost-written investment newsletter for which he has apologized for his lack of editorial oversight). Smearing someone is so much easier than engaging him on a policy-level debate. By the way, do you think every dollar that every other candidate receives would meet your definition of "clean"?
Does this make the ACLU racists?
And yet the ACLU repeatedly and vocally states that while they do not support the message or positions of the KKK, they understand that constituionally protected freedoms like speech have to be available to everyone, no matter how reprehensible we may find their message.
Yet, Stormfront endorses Ron Paul and I can't find anywhere where he's said he finds their message and positions reprehensible.
I wish he would do that.
Paul did denounce white supremesists last night on his Faux New interview with Cavuto and on the NOW program last week on PBS.
Can you provide a link to a transcript, please?
My hubby did some background checking on Ron Paul . . . long history of disliking blacks and Jews. Not someone I want in the White House. Sounds like he could be worse than what we have now. Now that's a VERY SCARY THOUGHT!
So, by your logic, Hillary was supporting criminals (Hsu) until the press pointed it out and she had to give it back.
You don't take a million dollars without knowing who is giving, unlike a $500 donation on a website which only asks where you live, where you work, and are you legally allowed to donate. There is no checkbox for "I am a racist".
And where does this stop? Should they check the affiliations of tens of thousands of donors? Should they ask if donors have ever said anything derogatory?
Anyway, Ron Paul *has* denounced the racists, on the PBS NOW interview.
Start at 2:50, money quote starts at 3:38.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VafCpMTW2pE
In addition, the newsletter/racism meme has been debunked.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Wo...s.asp?
nid=41822
Next question?
DaveP
DaveP, I will look at the YouTube link but I'm not buying the newsletter debunking. I don't care how big or small your newsletter operation is, these articles appeared in a journal with HIS name on it. He bears responsibility. The idea that he was "really busy" and shouldn't hold responsibility is just BS.
If that IS his excuse for these earlier writings, then he doesn't deserve to be in public office. You know, Presidents are really, really busy. And maybe he shouldn't be consorting with white supremacists who might insert their ideology into things that bear his name. I can't believe you guys aren't bothered by that.
Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.
But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.
Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.
Neocon Neil Tries To Smear Ron Paul - But Cavuto, apostle of war and monetary destruction, doesn't get away with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d...h?
v=dcLSLGXypMY
Looks like the running the plays directly from the "The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul"
http://www.libertymaven.com/2007...cking-ron-paul/
Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.
But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.
Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.
Neocon Neil Tries To Smear Ron Paul - But Cavuto, apostle of war and monetary destruction, doesn't get away with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d...h?
v=dcLSLGXypMY
Looks like you're running the plays directly from the "The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul"
http://www.libertymaven.com/2007...cking-ron-paul/
Wow Southern Beale, you barked up the right tree lol. Nothing agitates the loyal and committed cult fans that Ron Paul has like simply asking for him to reject a donation on principle. You can insult Hillary or Huck without offending too many, but when you make a comment on Ron Paul, they come out of the wood works! Especially the ones who copy and paste SPAM into your blog comment section. *cough* Chris Lawton *cough*
I would have given the money back while saying that douches like Don Black represent an ill in America that we don't need, even if it is their right to speak such trash.
DB, I admire the Ron folks for their faithfulness, but I still can't help but feel like a lot of these folks' enthusiasm comes from Paul's anti-war stance. It's pretty sad state of affairs when the Republicans have got us embroiled in a war so hated by the country that a fringe candidate like this could raise serious money by opposing the war.
Altough, as a historian, I'd like to see what would happen if Paul really did bring all foreign-deployed U.S. troops home. Wonder what would happen?
P.S. I was too liberal for Terry Frank. Will I be welcome here?
I think it's a great strategy. If we can appeal to all the hate groups and then get them to donate more and more resources to various candidates, we can bleed them dry and put them out of business. That $500 has got to hurt!
I don't think that Ron Paul supporters really support him because he is anti-war. There are plenty of non-racist, non-insane Democrats they can support that are also anti-war.
No, they support him because he is an anti-war "Libertarian."
Ronald Reagan, damn his evil eyes, brought the Libertarians into the Republic Party. It's not a natural fit, because the Libertarians are anti-big government, and the current crop of Republics want nothing more than to bring Big Brother into all of our lives. In fact, some are deserting and becoming Democrats, realizing that we don't care what they do in their bedrooms.
But for a Libertarian Republic who is anti-war, Ron Paul is a wet dream. Lucky for the Paulistas, there aren't too many of them...
Casey, all are welcome here ... as long as some people have thick skins! If you're to the left of Terry Frank that probably won't be a problem.
My brother is gay. He and his partner each gave Ron Paul money. Does that mean Ron Paul is gay?
Alexia, as a matter of fact it does. My neighbor gave him money as well, and he's black. Which I can only deduce that Ron Paul is a gay, black racist.
Kidding of course, but no, it doesn't mean he is gay, but I suppose if he took the money from a prominent, well-known gay person it would imply he is pro-gay rights.
But does it? Does anyone actually turn away legally given money based on issues? I am not sure the answer is yes.
My brother is gay. He and his partner each gave Ron Paul money. Does that mean Ron Paul is gay?
Since Ron Paul doesn't believe in equality for gays and lesbians and has actively fought against all hate crime legislation, I'd say it means your brother and his partner are morons.
Commenting by HaloScan
