Question for Paul fans: is ALL support welcome?
- Thread starter cnorman18
- Start date
unregistered
As a matter of fact, I doubt very much that the bigots will endorse any other Republican. They didn't like either of the Bushes, since they were perceived as CFR and Bilderberger toadies. I think they were less hostile to Reagan, but not by much. Generally they don't endorse any candidate at all, especially one from the major parties, which they despise equally. Sometimes they run their own candidates--George Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964, and they've mounted a few splinter campaigns since, with about the success you'd expect. They've occasionally endorsed a Libertarian, but in recent years they've usually preferred Lyndon LaRouche. Usually they detest all politicians without exception and believe they're all part of the "worldwide Zionist conspiracy". Their most common expression for the US government is the acronym "ZOG", which stands for "Zionist Occupied Government".
Their endorsement of and enthusiasm for Ron Paul really is something new. As I hope I've made clear, I don't think Paul is a bigot, and I think we've hit on a few ideas here that explain the bigots' infatuation with him.
As has been said, it's not Paul's responsibility to account for every screwball that loves him, any more than Jodie Foster was responsible for John Hinckley; but I think it was worth the time and the thought to consider the question of WHY the nuts like him so much. If we can ever stop abusing the deceased equine of "why did you bring this up in the first place," maybe it still is.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of defending myself against these specious, fatuous and nitpicking attacks while a morally and intellectually challenged specimen like Wendy Campbell gets solemn nods of approval.
As a matter of fact, I doubt very much that the bigots will endorse any other Republican. They didn't like either of the Bushes, since they were perceived as CFR and Bilderberger toadies. I think they were less hostile to Reagan, but not by much. Generally they don't endorse any candidate at all, especially one from the major parties, which they despise equally. Sometimes they run their own candidates--George Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964, and they've mounted a few splinter campaigns since, with about the success you'd expect. They've occasionally endorsed a Libertarian, but in recent years they've usually preferred Lyndon LaRouche. Usually they detest all politicians without exception and believe they're all part of the "worldwide Zionist conspiracy". Their most common expression for the US government is the acronym "ZOG", which stands for "Zionist Occupied Government".
Their endorsement of and enthusiasm for Ron Paul really is something new. As I hope I've made clear, I don't think Paul is a bigot, and I think we've hit on a few ideas here that explain the bigots' infatuation with him.
As has been said, it's not Paul's responsibility to account for every screwball that loves him, any more than Jodie Foster was responsible for John Hinckley; but I think it was worth the time and the thought to consider the question of WHY the nuts like him so much. If we can ever stop abusing the deceased equine of "why did you bring this up in the first place," maybe it still is.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of defending myself against these specious, fatuous and nitpicking attacks while a morally and intellectually challenged specimen like Wendy Campbell gets solemn nods of approval.
Nods of approval? Care to back up that accusation with an example of who you are talking about and what that person said?
I'm betting Ron Paul is getting a little tired of the kinds of inferences and outright falsehoods spouted by those attempting to smear him, and I'll give you an example. On page one of this thread, WildsmearmeisterAlaska said:
That was a big story last spring, and Ron Paul's numerous denials and refutations are not hard to find for anyone with internet access, yet that lie showed up yet again.
say what?
If you'll look back at my posts, you'll see that I, myself, refuted the allegation that Ron Paul ever "wrote for" any racist newsletter as soon as it was made.
As for taking Wendy Campbell seriously: Opposition to the Fed has been touted as a reasonable reason to support Ron Paul--as it certainly is--but that reason was brought up in the context of Campbell's article and in reference to nothing else that had been mentioned up to that point. Further, I see no reference to, nor quote from, any other source on this thread as an example of such opposition from a Paul supporter, other than from the posters themselves; therefore that reference was to Wendy Campbell's diatribe, and therefore that piece of trash was taken seriously as an expression of political comment. Q.E.D.
If you'll look back at my posts, you'll see that I, myself, refuted the allegation that Ron Paul ever "wrote for" any racist newsletter as soon as it was made.
As for taking Wendy Campbell seriously: Opposition to the Fed has been touted as a reasonable reason to support Ron Paul--as it certainly is--but that reason was brought up in the context of Campbell's article and in reference to nothing else that had been mentioned up to that point. Further, I see no reference to, nor quote from, any other source on this thread as an example of such opposition from a Paul supporter, other than from the posters themselves; therefore that reference was to Wendy Campbell's diatribe, and therefore that piece of trash was taken seriously as an expression of political comment. Q.E.D.
mountainclmbr
New member
In my dreams I have a front row seat at a debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich!
Unregistered
Moderator
Nods of approval? Might I ask what you are talking about? I never heard of her til this thread, and certainly don't approve of her. I don't see anyone hear approving of that.
Huchahucha
New member
HA! I just wonder which one of the other Republican candidates is going to prove themselves anti-gay enough to win over the approval of Focus On The Family.
Brett Bellmore
New member
See, that's the beauty of guilt by association; You can apply it recursively.
Yah, I was joking in my first reply.
I mean, c'mon, we all know it is really the NSA! Hahaha. Or choose your vegetable soup agency of the month!
Anywho. You can't control who supports you.
Should we judge Bush by some of his supporters?! Jesus, I could tell stories. I think the original question- no offense- is sort of irrelevant/stinky. Yeah, I said stinky.
I mean, c'mon, we all know it is really the NSA! Hahaha. Or choose your vegetable soup agency of the month!
Anywho. You can't control who supports you.
Should we judge Bush by some of his supporters?! Jesus, I could tell stories. I think the original question- no offense- is sort of irrelevant/stinky. Yeah, I said stinky.
cnorman said:
Not exactly...
You need look no further than the link WildAlaska provided to learn two facts: it was ghostwritten material by someone with a writing style different from Ron Pauls, and we're talking about one, count 'em, one newsletter.
cnorman said:
I used her quote to show that she doesn't like the Fed, and that might be a reason she likes Ron Paul. It was an answer to your topic question. It does not mean I take her position on the Fed seriously as a political comment, nor is it in any way a "solemn nod of approval" toward her.
If you're going to try to convince me your thread is not a smear campaign, it would help if you did not say stuff like that.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
The answer is no, jackasses are not welcome - we don't need rascist idiots. Thompson & Guiliani may need them however to win however. We will win or lose on principle, unlike the frontrunners.
Okay, I'm done.
All right. I'm done.
I confess it; you are all totally right, and I was totally wrong. I should never have brought up the subject in the first place.
If my candidate is the overwhelming favorite of every single contemptible, hatemongering slimeball on the Net, and is being enthusiastically endorsed by the National Lynching Society and the Re-Open Auschwitz Association, I shouldn't even notice it. I shouldn't even be curious as to why this is happening, and I should instantly and absolutely pile on and shout down anyone who is.
I believe in freedom of speech, but anyone who even wonders why my camp is surrounded by cheering cretins should either keep his mouth shut or be accused of "smearing" me and my guy. The very question is unacceptable. I should just placidly accept the support of those who believe that the Constitution only guarantees the rights of white gentiles, and that everyone else ought to be deported or exterminated, because their beliefs have nothing to do with anything; they are irrelevant to any issue and not worth a moment's attention.
Anyone who claims to think that maybe such people are hurting my guy's image and chances is obviously lying; he's just trying to paint my guy as one of the rejects who, for no reason I'm interested in learning, seem to admire him. It's only important that they do.
Anyone who supports my guy is smart and wise and perceptive, no matter what else they think, say, believe, or do. Anyone who opposes him is an idiot, and anyone who questions anything at all about my guy is a liar and a smear merchant.
See, I get it now. Sorry I brought it up.
All right. I'm done.
I confess it; you are all totally right, and I was totally wrong. I should never have brought up the subject in the first place.
If my candidate is the overwhelming favorite of every single contemptible, hatemongering slimeball on the Net, and is being enthusiastically endorsed by the National Lynching Society and the Re-Open Auschwitz Association, I shouldn't even notice it. I shouldn't even be curious as to why this is happening, and I should instantly and absolutely pile on and shout down anyone who is.
I believe in freedom of speech, but anyone who even wonders why my camp is surrounded by cheering cretins should either keep his mouth shut or be accused of "smearing" me and my guy. The very question is unacceptable. I should just placidly accept the support of those who believe that the Constitution only guarantees the rights of white gentiles, and that everyone else ought to be deported or exterminated, because their beliefs have nothing to do with anything; they are irrelevant to any issue and not worth a moment's attention.
Anyone who claims to think that maybe such people are hurting my guy's image and chances is obviously lying; he's just trying to paint my guy as one of the rejects who, for no reason I'm interested in learning, seem to admire him. It's only important that they do.
Anyone who supports my guy is smart and wise and perceptive, no matter what else they think, say, believe, or do. Anyone who opposes him is an idiot, and anyone who questions anything at all about my guy is a liar and a smear merchant.
See, I get it now. Sorry I brought it up.
Unregistered
Moderator
I am sorry you brought it up, too. I don't support RP, and will vote against him, but see no reason to malign his name by trying to insinuate he is a racist because racist groups might support him. I apologize if being called out on that hurt your feelings.
A better question that needs to be asked is why did none of the first tier Republican candidates show up for the BET debate. Are they all racist because they refused to do a debate on BET? I am very concerned some of them may be closet racists. I bet its only a matter of time before the Ku Klux Klan comes out in favor of one of them.
A better question that needs to be asked is why did none of the first tier Republican candidates show up for the BET debate. Are they all racist because they refused to do a debate on BET? I am very concerned some of them may be closet racists. I bet its only a matter of time before the Ku Klux Klan comes out in favor of one of them.
Redneckrepairs
New member
I posted this am and then had to work for a bit .. but i scanned the posts since and pulled a couple of " gems "
Hmm back to my last post LOL
Heck i thought only anits built strawman arguements and then set fire themselves .
and last but certenly not least is :
Now that fella answered the op's q , clearly without evocation . I sincerely hope he has a beer with Ross Perot tonight .
Hmm back to my last post LOL
Heck i thought only anits built strawman arguements and then set fire themselves .
and last but certenly not least is :
Now that fella answered the op's q , clearly without evocation . I sincerely hope he has a beer with Ross Perot tonight .
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Lmao, what a troll thread this is.
I know a dude who is a card carrying member of the KKK and he voted for and loves Bush because he "killin them towelheads"
So I guess that means Bush is the KKK president. :barf:
I know a dude who is a card carrying member of the KKK and he voted for and loves Bush because he "killin them towelheads"
So I guess that means Bush is the KKK president. :barf:
Shane Tuttle
Staff
You know, I gotta say what I usually say: "I'm goin' against the grain here".
I think the OP CLEARLY stated that this thread was not to smear Paul. He was merely asking a question that FEW appears to accept as such and discuss the topic. Whether it's a fringe journalist or a credible source of information, I just think the OP wanted to clear the air.
Clear as Mississippi mud, now. Maybe I need to reread this thread and see if I missed out. Then again, I think there's better discussions on this forum about guns somewhere....
I think the OP CLEARLY stated that this thread was not to smear Paul. He was merely asking a question that FEW appears to accept as such and discuss the topic. Whether it's a fringe journalist or a credible source of information, I just think the OP wanted to clear the air.
Clear as Mississippi mud, now. Maybe I need to reread this thread and see if I missed out. Then again, I think there's better discussions on this forum about guns somewhere....
One more...
First, I would like to apologize to everyone for my last post on this thread. It was an exercise in vindictive, bitter sarcasm, and that is not usually my way. I was frustrated by the direction the discussion took, and I lost my cool. I am sorry.
I just wanted to review, all in one place, all the statements I have made on this thread concerning whether or not Ron Paul and his followers are bigots. This review will be followed by some final comments.
"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."
"To be fair, Ron Paul's writing has been PUBLISHED in some white-supremacist newsletters; to say that he writes "for" them is not quite fair....As I said in my OP, I'm not saying that Paul himself is a bigot..."
"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... (etc.)" (2nd time)
"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?"
"...As I thought, upon examination there are explanations for this OTHER than Paul or his advocates being bigots themselves..."
"For the record, I agree with Paul on all three of the issues mentioned here... I also recognize their appeal to racists and anti-Semites, but that doesn't mean people who hold those positions are bigots..."
"I suspect you're right on the aid-to-Israel issue. That makes four positions of Paul's that bigots would agree with, NONE of which are themselves indications of bigotry...."
"Fallacy of composition: That would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. On the contrary; I said, and quite explicitly, that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots." [3rd time] ...."
"...Fallacy of generalization: Again, that would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that."
" repeat, once again, that I have said from the beginning that "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." [4th time]..."
"As I hope I've made clear, I don't think Paul is a bigot, and I think we've hit on a few ideas here that explain the bigots' infatuation with him...."
"As has been said, it's not Paul's responsibility to account for every screwball that loves him, any more than Jodie Foster was responsible for John Hinckley..."
"If you'll look back at my posts, you'll see that I, myself, refuted the allegation that Ron Paul ever "wrote for" any racist newsletter as soon as it was made..."
Finally, there is this, which I think expresses the entire INTENDED point of my thread:
"...the question from the beginning has been... "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?"
And here is the answer:
"There are logical, specific reasons that racists and anti-Semites are attracted to Ron Paul's campaign, and they do not in any way indicate that either Paul or his followers are bigots."
Some final remarks:
After some reflection, I can understand why some might think that bringing up this subject was an attempt to "smear" Dr. Paul and those who support him. I apologize for contributing to that impression in any way, and particularly for my intemperate remarks about the views expressed by Wendy Campbell and others' opinion of them. I know, and ought to have said, that those execrable ideas meet with no one's approval here. I can only plead frustration and defensiveness, and once again, for that I especially apologize.
I can only say this, in the end: I live in this head, and I know, and swear by all that I hold sacred, that I never for a single moment intended to attribute racist or anti-Semitic views to Dr. Paul or to the overwhelming majority of his supporters. I tried, or thought I tried, to make that clear in the remarks quoted above.
My initial question was sincere and serious, and held--as far as my own intentions were and are concerned--no "hidden messages" or efforts to insinuate anthing other than what I said in as clear a manner as I could. Upon reflection, though, as I said, I can understand why others might think otherwise, and once again, I apologize for doing anything to contribute to that impression.
For the record: I oppose the nomination of Dr. Paul for reasons stated elsewhere, NONE of which impugn his character, his patriotism, or his dedication to the proposition that "all men are created equal." though, as I said, I disagree with his views on many issues, I regard him as without a doubt the most courageous, forthright, and simply HONEST candidate running today. His unwillingness to pander to any audience for any reason, or to temper, modify, or "deemphasize" any of his ideas to curry favor with any audience anywhere, is absolutely unique in modern American politics. I actually find his occasional bouts of apparent confusion and inarticulateness, and his tendency to lecture at length, refreshing; he is clearly speaking his own mind, and is not coached, rehearsed, and carefully polished into delivering glib "sound bites" with Hollywood perfection, as is every other candidate on the podium. I can think of no one, except possibly Reagan, that I think could be more trusted to actually tell the truth as he honestly sees it. I can certainly understand the enthusiasm of those who support him, and the ferocity with which they greet any perceived attack on his character.
I wish I could support him, but there are many issues on which I think him simply wrong on the merits; further, I think he proposes some actions which I think are absolutely unworkable and impossible, in practical terms, to implement. None of those grounds for my opposition imply any negative reflection on Dr. Paul's character, and I hope that is crystal-clear.
I hope this has helped. For my own part, I'd like to say that my own concerns about the subject that I broached here have been put to rest. I admit to a somewhat obsessive concern with bigotry in general and with anti-Semitism in particular, and I do not apologize for it. There are some truly vicious and dangerous people out there, and just as we shooters have learned to keep an eye on the antis and keep our guard up, we Jews have learned to take the same attitude toward Nazis and their ilk. I was rightly, I think, disturbed by the undeniable facts that I brought up in my initial post--though I say once again I did not at any time think that such views were those of Dr. Paul. (If I simply thought that Paul was an anti-Semite, why would I ask why anti-Semites liked him? The answer would be obvious.)
With the help of others on this board, I think the mystery--and to me, it WAS a mystery--of bigots' attraction to Paul was solved.
That I ought to have been able to figure it out on my own is, I suppose, true--though, as I said, I think that could be said about the question of, say, whether an AR is superior to an AK, and if so, in what ways. One can do research on the Net to answer such questions, yet still we come here and ask them. Discussion is what we do.
I apologize, as I said, for doing anything to further the impression that I was attempting a smear; but I do not apologize for asking a rational question that had a rational answer.
I respect everyone here as fellow shooters and fellow Americans. I truly believe that the differences we have, on political matters or any other, are all but insignificant compared to what we have in common. My best to all.
Charles Norman
First, I would like to apologize to everyone for my last post on this thread. It was an exercise in vindictive, bitter sarcasm, and that is not usually my way. I was frustrated by the direction the discussion took, and I lost my cool. I am sorry.
I just wanted to review, all in one place, all the statements I have made on this thread concerning whether or not Ron Paul and his followers are bigots. This review will be followed by some final comments.
"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."
"To be fair, Ron Paul's writing has been PUBLISHED in some white-supremacist newsletters; to say that he writes "for" them is not quite fair....As I said in my OP, I'm not saying that Paul himself is a bigot..."
"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... (etc.)" (2nd time)
"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?"
"...As I thought, upon examination there are explanations for this OTHER than Paul or his advocates being bigots themselves..."
"For the record, I agree with Paul on all three of the issues mentioned here... I also recognize their appeal to racists and anti-Semites, but that doesn't mean people who hold those positions are bigots..."
"I suspect you're right on the aid-to-Israel issue. That makes four positions of Paul's that bigots would agree with, NONE of which are themselves indications of bigotry...."
"Fallacy of composition: That would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. On the contrary; I said, and quite explicitly, that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots." [3rd time] ...."
"...Fallacy of generalization: Again, that would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that."
" repeat, once again, that I have said from the beginning that "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." [4th time]..."
"As I hope I've made clear, I don't think Paul is a bigot, and I think we've hit on a few ideas here that explain the bigots' infatuation with him...."
"As has been said, it's not Paul's responsibility to account for every screwball that loves him, any more than Jodie Foster was responsible for John Hinckley..."
"If you'll look back at my posts, you'll see that I, myself, refuted the allegation that Ron Paul ever "wrote for" any racist newsletter as soon as it was made..."
Finally, there is this, which I think expresses the entire INTENDED point of my thread:
"...the question from the beginning has been... "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?"
And here is the answer:
"There are logical, specific reasons that racists and anti-Semites are attracted to Ron Paul's campaign, and they do not in any way indicate that either Paul or his followers are bigots."
Some final remarks:
After some reflection, I can understand why some might think that bringing up this subject was an attempt to "smear" Dr. Paul and those who support him. I apologize for contributing to that impression in any way, and particularly for my intemperate remarks about the views expressed by Wendy Campbell and others' opinion of them. I know, and ought to have said, that those execrable ideas meet with no one's approval here. I can only plead frustration and defensiveness, and once again, for that I especially apologize.
I can only say this, in the end: I live in this head, and I know, and swear by all that I hold sacred, that I never for a single moment intended to attribute racist or anti-Semitic views to Dr. Paul or to the overwhelming majority of his supporters. I tried, or thought I tried, to make that clear in the remarks quoted above.
My initial question was sincere and serious, and held--as far as my own intentions were and are concerned--no "hidden messages" or efforts to insinuate anthing other than what I said in as clear a manner as I could. Upon reflection, though, as I said, I can understand why others might think otherwise, and once again, I apologize for doing anything to contribute to that impression.
For the record: I oppose the nomination of Dr. Paul for reasons stated elsewhere, NONE of which impugn his character, his patriotism, or his dedication to the proposition that "all men are created equal." though, as I said, I disagree with his views on many issues, I regard him as without a doubt the most courageous, forthright, and simply HONEST candidate running today. His unwillingness to pander to any audience for any reason, or to temper, modify, or "deemphasize" any of his ideas to curry favor with any audience anywhere, is absolutely unique in modern American politics. I actually find his occasional bouts of apparent confusion and inarticulateness, and his tendency to lecture at length, refreshing; he is clearly speaking his own mind, and is not coached, rehearsed, and carefully polished into delivering glib "sound bites" with Hollywood perfection, as is every other candidate on the podium. I can think of no one, except possibly Reagan, that I think could be more trusted to actually tell the truth as he honestly sees it. I can certainly understand the enthusiasm of those who support him, and the ferocity with which they greet any perceived attack on his character.
I wish I could support him, but there are many issues on which I think him simply wrong on the merits; further, I think he proposes some actions which I think are absolutely unworkable and impossible, in practical terms, to implement. None of those grounds for my opposition imply any negative reflection on Dr. Paul's character, and I hope that is crystal-clear.
I hope this has helped. For my own part, I'd like to say that my own concerns about the subject that I broached here have been put to rest. I admit to a somewhat obsessive concern with bigotry in general and with anti-Semitism in particular, and I do not apologize for it. There are some truly vicious and dangerous people out there, and just as we shooters have learned to keep an eye on the antis and keep our guard up, we Jews have learned to take the same attitude toward Nazis and their ilk. I was rightly, I think, disturbed by the undeniable facts that I brought up in my initial post--though I say once again I did not at any time think that such views were those of Dr. Paul. (If I simply thought that Paul was an anti-Semite, why would I ask why anti-Semites liked him? The answer would be obvious.)
With the help of others on this board, I think the mystery--and to me, it WAS a mystery--of bigots' attraction to Paul was solved.
That I ought to have been able to figure it out on my own is, I suppose, true--though, as I said, I think that could be said about the question of, say, whether an AR is superior to an AK, and if so, in what ways. One can do research on the Net to answer such questions, yet still we come here and ask them. Discussion is what we do.
I apologize, as I said, for doing anything to further the impression that I was attempting a smear; but I do not apologize for asking a rational question that had a rational answer.
I respect everyone here as fellow shooters and fellow Americans. I truly believe that the differences we have, on political matters or any other, are all but insignificant compared to what we have in common. My best to all.
Charles Norman