Question for Paul fans: is ALL support welcome?

???

I think I made it clear in my OP that this is NOT an attempt to smear Dr. Paul as a bigot. I suppose it bears repeating:

"I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots; on the contrary, by and large they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans who are drawn to him by his devotion to the Constitution and his emphatically pro-American and libertarian views.

This is NOT an attempt to smear Ron Paul or his supporters.

That said, I do think it ought to concern those supporters that bigots and neo-Nazis seem to be coming out in force to support Dr. Paul."

I find the hostility here puzzling. The phenomenon is undeniable, and like it or not, it's damaging Paul's image. I would think some, at least, of Dr. Paul's supporters would be concerned about that.

I have no reason whatever to think that Dr. Paul himself is a racist or an antisemite; there is even an organization called "Jews for Ron Paul", and I doubt that that would exist if he had a problem there. Okay?

I really thought my initial post was pretty clear. The problem is that ALL the bigots seem to favor Paul, and NO ONE ELSE--and no one in the Paul camp seems to even WONDER about it.

The comparison with bigots voting for Bush is specious. In the general election that was probably true, but meaningless; there were only two candidates to choose from. That's not what we're dealing with here. There is still a whole field of Republican candidates out there, and none of them seem to be attracting the blowflies like Paul is. If anyone can show me that ONE Republican candidate was endorsed in 1999 by EVERY bigot group, when there were still a number of men running, that would count for something; but it didn't happen. I've been monitoring racist and antisemitic websites for years, and that generally denounce EVERYONE on BOTH sides and refuse to endorse anyone at all.

Maybe it will help if we look at this from another perspective: If you noticed that every single anti-gunner and anti-gun organization on the Internet was supporting one candidate--AND NO ONE ELSE--wouldn't you wonder why? Wouldn't you be just a bit suspicious if that candidate professed to respect gunowners and gun rights--even if his writings and speeches seemed to be solid on those issues?

Can't you see the problem here?

Your remarks strike me as more than a bit bizarre. If you don't even wonder why your candidate is the overwhelming choice of the political equivalent of drooling child molesters, I don't think you're doing a whole lot of critical thinking.

I could understand this if Paul's supporters were at least discussing the phenomenon and expressing some concern and puzzlement--and it would seem PR-wise, if nothing else, to openly reject the ideas of these creeps and disavow their support. Even admitting that "Look, we don't like these guys, but we need all the votes we can get" would be understandable, if a little distasteful. But to not even consider it worth thinking about--well, that just beats me.

What you have offered here is precisely what I said: shrugs and silence.

I find that unacceptable. Maybe it's just me, but I was taught to pay attention to the kind of people you associate with, because if nothing else, it makes people wonder what kind of person YOU are.

If you still want to address the problem of my "smearing" Dr. Paul, or even his rank-and-file supporters, don't bother. You're not paying attention.
 
Cnorman,
I would hazard a guess why they support him: Because he will do away with large portions of the federal government that they despise for other reasons. Just a wild guess.

I am a supporter of Dr. Paul's. I support him because I don't see our present course as sustainable and historically, I don't imagine that I can put a finger on any society that so outspent its ability to pay that survived long. If somebody here can recite for me a society that did survive and prospered by spending their grandchildren's tax dollars, I would be pleased to hear it.

I also support Dr. Paul based on little things like:

Article I, Section 8 & 9 of the US Constitution- ignore it at your own peril (Wildalaska- you may want to go read it again if you're pleased with the other candidates and their deep knowlege- you do not have to be a lawyer to read the plain English contained therein)

And the Bill of Rights- yes not just the 2nd amendment, but even the silly and almost unnecessary 3rd, the vital 4th and 5th, the unknown 6th, 7th and 8th, and the primary cause of the Civil War; the ninth and tenth amendments.

I find that all of the constitution is important and should be heeded as law, not as suggestions. I think that if we don't like it, the 7th Article provides us the means to change it.

So there is why I support Dr. Paul. I also am comforted with his 20 year consistent history and his not having to explain why he was for abortion and now against (Romney), or why he was for gun control but now against (Guillianni), or why he was for free speech but now against (McCain of McCain-Fiengold) it. I am comforted having lived in his district and been well-represented and having brought concerns to him and him answering me directly and without hesitation: "Because the Constitution forbids that".

There is a reason people continue to vote for the man even though he frequently votes against their interests (voted against all the farm bills though his district is mostly agricultural).

I will not criticize you for voting for the same old stuff you have always voted for and hoping for different results. Please do not criticize me because I choose to support a man who supports my constitution. Some of us still value the whole thing yet.
 
A flash from the past!

Here is a post most eloquently written by Dennis a long, long time ago.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147220

Just scroll down to Dennis' reply and you would see that Harry Brown (2000 LP candidate) was very similar to Ron Paul with the exception of Abortion which Ron Paul opposes.

So better said than I could have. Thanks Dennis wherever you are!
 
Can't you see the problem here?
Click to expand...

No I can't. And I am not a Ron Paul supporter either. There is only so many ways to say that Ron Paul has no control over what weird fringe groups endorse him.

Don't you suppose that most of the bigoted groups are supporting him because he wants to cut off funding to Israel (and other foreign nations as well), and want the government to leave everyone alone?

You say this is not an attempt to smear Paul, but then try to smear him by tacitly implying he is racist by not repudiating these groups. You are not saying it in so many words, but thats the implication.

I don't support RP, and don't think he is going to get enough vote to matter, and don't understand why the Republican establishment is so terrified by him that these kind of implications would be made.
 
I don't support RP, and don't think he is going to get enough vote to matter, and don't understand why the Republican establishment is so terrified by him that these kind of implications would be made.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of terrification (nice word, huh) but of truth...

If Ron Paul and/or his "movement" is the creature of the far rascist/antisemitic right or an enabler of their hate, I want to know.

I want to know about Hillary and the finge hate/left.
Know your enemy

WildclicheAlaska TM
 
finally!

At last!

"I would hazard a guess why they support him: Because he will do away with large portions of the federal government that they despise for other reasons."

Finally, someone actually thinks about the question instead of fuming about it being asked!

I think that idea is credible. The Feds, particularly the FBI, have given most of these groups a whole lot of trouble, and they'd probably be pleased to see that kind of enforcement--infiltration, wiretapping, and whatnot--cut back. Finally, an answer that makes sense.

Can we get away from all the bristling about my "smears" now and maybe think of some other reasons that skinheads might support Paul?

I don't think I could have made it any clearer that I didn't think it was because Paul was a racist. This sort of thinking is what I've been hoping for; you have to actually see that the question is a QUESTION, and not automatically assume that it's a STATEMENT in disguise, before you can find an answer.

Now that we've gotten past the misunderstanding, denial, paranoia, and other nonsense, can anyone think of some more reasons? I doubt that less intrusive law enforcement is the only issue that attracts these scumbags, though I suppose it might be the most important. How about it?
 
Don't be surprised if Hillary or Obama receive the endorsement of the American Communist Party. They and other expressly socialist organizations endorsed previous Dem candidates before.

Ron Paul participated in the Black Entertainment Television/PBS Debate, while Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson did not. Paul is more for genuine equality and equal justice under the law than all the other candidates in my opinion, and I believe his voting record reflects that. If any nazis are supporting Paul, then they're confused. Hillary is more in line with their beliefs.
 
here's another idea

How about this:

Paul is an absolutist on the First Amendment as well as the Second, no? Therefore, people who want to distribute literature that's "suppressed"--like open advocacy of segregation, or of violence against minorities, or Holocaust denial--would see Paul as their man. They could hand out "KILL ALL THE (fill in the blank) NOW!" pamphlets all they want, and not get arrested for "hate crimes" any more.

Interesting. As I thought, upon examination there are explanations for this OTHER than Paul or his advocates being bigots themselves.

Might there be other reasons? Paul's opposition to "affirmative action" (which really IS racism, IMO), perhaps?

For the record, I agree with Paul on all three of the issues mentioned here--intrusive law enforcement, absolute freedom of speech and
the press, and "affirmative action". I also recognize their appeal to racists and anti-Semites, but that doesn't mean people who hold those positions are bigots.

We're getting closer to understanding this now--or at least I am.

Does anybody here get what I've been saying from the beginning yet?

Turning in for the night. More tomorrow, I hope.
 
I think it's mostly the whole "cutting off Israel" thing (which I agree with). Go to Stormfront and see what some of the people there say about Ron Paul. Here's a direct quote: "He would collapse the Jewish infrastructure in this country".

However, I'm going to have to pull an Applesanity here and point out that associating Ron Paul and/or all of his supporters with the beliefs a few of his supporters hold is at least one logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
 
cnorman said:
Maybe it will help if we look at this from another perspective: If you noticed that every single anti-gunner and anti-gun organization on the Internet was supporting one candidate--AND NO ONE ELSE--wouldn't you wonder why? Wouldn't you be just a bit suspicious if that candidate professed to respect gunowners and gun rights--even if his writings and speeches seemed to be solid on those issues?
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing here to plant suspicion in people's minds that Ron Paul is actually, as WildAlaska suggested in your thread without your refutation, "the creature of the far rascist/antisemitic right or an enabler of their hate..."

At last!

"I would hazard a guess why they support him: Because he will do away with large portions of the federal government that they despise for other reasons."

Finally, someone actually thinks about the question instead of fuming about it being asked!
Click to expand...

Did you miss GoSlash's earlier post saying the same thing? Or did you miss your own original post, in which you quoted one of these nuts as saying that they like Paul because they hate the Fed and Jewish bankers?

For the record, I agree with Paul on all three of the issues mentioned here--intrusive law enforcement, absolute freedom of speech and
the press, and "affirmative action". I also recognize their appeal to racists and anti-Semites, but that doesn't mean people who hold those positions are bigots.

We're getting closer to understanding this now--or at least I am.

Does anybody here get what I've been saying from the beginning yet?
Click to expand...

So it did not occur to you that these people might just like more freedom and see Ron Paul as the most pro-freedom candidate, but it did occur to you to be suspicious of Ron Paul because these people support him?

Can you see how some of us might be suspicious of that from the beginning, and we're just now starting to like your thread?
 
If your question was genuine, I really don't understand why you asked it in the first place, unless you have no idea what Ron Paul has been saying all this time. He is for less federal government. The groups you have cited as supporting him, vile as they may be, also support limited federal government. Also, the lack of funding for Israel (and other foreign countries) may be another factor. Both of these have already been pointed out by other people earlier in the thread.
 
WildbaselesssmearAlaska said:
If Ron Paul and/or his "movement" is the creature of the far rascist/antisemitic right or an enabler of their hate, I want to know.
Click to expand...

cnorman,

You say you started a thread with no intention of smearing Ron Paul, and it's a startling revelation to you that these groups like him because they want less government. So let me ask you a question. Why did you not say anything to distance yourself from WildAlaska's remark, quoted above? Maybe there are good reasons, and I don't want to smear you by association or anything, but it sure does make me suspicious that this is, in fact, a Ron Paul character assassination thread.
 
Don't be surprised if Hillary or Obama receive the endorsement of the American Communist Party. They and other expressly socialist organizations endorsed previous Dem candidates before.
Click to expand...

While one might disagree with communist or socialist,I don't think I would try to make a point by comparing their support to that of the supremacist groups.
 
So reading this thread .. it seems to me that the OP had the " gall " to ask why the paul campaign has not distanced its self from some radical and somewhat unsavory folks who are publicly proclaiming support of paul . Instead of answering the question paul supporters question the motive of the op's question and try to make the thread out as a smear campaign against paul . I guess sometimes when you cannot defend the indefensible a good offense is indeed the best defense .
 
However, I'm going to have to pull an Applesanity here and point out that associating Ron Paul and/or all of his supporters with the beliefs a few of his supporters hold is at least one logical fallacy:
Click to expand...

I'm flattered... you beat me to it. Here's a twist - Ron Paul says nothing. He ignores them. Sometimes no press is the best. He doesn't (and shouldn't) have to take loony fringe money; he doesn't have to acknowledge them.

Ron Paul at a campaign stop: "I could do without all these endorsements and donations from loony fringe groups."

Some guy in the crowd: "Wait... what? Loony people support Ron Paul? Am I loony?" (yes I know - same bad logic - it's the emotional response that matters)

Looking at the original post, it looks like the whole thing was either independent research, or the research of some blogger or member of some other forum. Who cares if it's true? I haven't heard or read about this gibberish on the evening news or the morning paper - which means the average american hasn't either. I'd think a campaign advisor would have the common sense to bring as little attention to it as possible.

At some point some news reporter - who gets his ideas from blogs - will pose the question to RP. If adequately prepared, RP will say, "Well Mr. Reporter sir, if you really did your research, you'll see that I never took any money from these racists and bigots. And honestly, to talk about them on any national media level is to give them exactly what they want. They want to be known, talked about, and (in)famous - and you just gave them an outlet. Shame on you, Mr. Reporter."
 
I think Paul supporters are simply oblivious to such things, a condition that seems to be shared by their leader. The last time I thought a presidential candidate seemed like an "airhead" during a debate was when BushII was busy winning the election. Last night Paul seemed like an "airhead" to me, but then he seemed like an "airhead" on the Colbert report a few months back also. It's one thing to look like an airhead on comedy central when you are trying to get some attention, quite a different matter when it is a nationally televised debate emphasising economic matters. Considering the moderators and audience that was one debate where substance actually mattered more than style, and Paul should have done well in such a forum. He did not. Neither did Fred. Both are history, it is now a three horse race between McCain, Guliani and Romney. I could live with any one of those three but prefer Hillary to all three. From that standpoint the debate was reassuring, I don't fear that we will get another incompetent president, and any four of the front runners will be better than Gore or Kerry or BushII.
 
While one might disagree with communist or socialist,I don't think I would try to make a point by comparing their support to that of the supremacist groups.
Click to expand...

Communists and Socialists have killed tens of millions of people over the past 100 years, far more than any fringe white-power neo-Nazi group could ever dream of. Any thinking Democrat should be deeply ashamed of such an endorsement, considering that the policies of the Democrat party are directly inspired by such philosophies.
 
Instead of answering the question paul supporters question the motive of the op's question
Click to expand...

Several people did answer the question, as partially acknowledged by the OP, and the answer is unsurprising: groups that are targeted by the government want less government. It does stretch things a bit to assert that this simple, obvious answer never occurred to the OP.

I don't even know much at all about those groups he mentioned, but I can figure out that they like Paul because they don't like government, and they don't like government because, well, government (and the rest of us) don't like them.

cnorman said:
I've been monitoring racist and antisemitic websites for years,
Click to expand...

How do you monitor their websites for years without figuring out that they might just be attracted to small government candidates?
 
I don't think Ron Paul has a duty to distance himself from some people who support his candidacy. I imagine that by the 1984 Elections and certainly the 1980 (both actually occuring the year prior), Ronald Reagan received much support from white supremacists, religious fanatics etc...

I also think it is cheap to reduce his policy of foreign aid to "he'll cut off the jews in Israel" (paraphrased)- as he'll cut off the Mexicans in Mexico, the Germans in Germany, and the Norwegians in Norway.

A simple look at libertarian philosophy will show that we don't believe foreign aid helps a country, but actually perpetuates conflict and problems by providing a relief valve for poor rulers. In the case of Israel, I don't mind giving them foreign aid because it comes back to the US in the form of arms purchases (by law, they must spend it with US companies), and because they have given us so much intelligence in the region where we could not gather it ourselves after the CIA was cut to the bone.

However, with about 100 nukes on missiles that actually work- I don't reckon that they need our foreign aid for defense.

I guess what I think is needed and in short supply in this country is freedom. You can't have freedom with asteriks (*). The federal government now does almost everything they are forbidden by the constitution to do, and neglects seriously those things that they are mandated by the constitution to do.

I would prefer to die leaving my kids freer than they were when I was when I was born. That's a tall order being that we've been on a steady slide to the opposite direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top