RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[Adam Weinberg]

"Break America up into nation-states????"

Please cite the source of this quote so we can see the full context of the statement.

Do a bit of research on the Political Cesspool where Paul has been a guest many times. It's the radio program for the White Citizens Council ... you'll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

Did Eric Dondero force your candidate to be a frequent guest on a white nationalist radio show? .. Or maybe that wasn't actually Ron Paul appearing. Perhaps it was an "aide", a "ghostwriter". a ghost.

The ONLY congressperson to get a 100% rating from John Birch Society.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

It's not surprising since Ron Paul's main campaign issue is the Constitution and regardless of their other views and discrepancies, the Constitution is their mainstay as well.

I am aware of the activities of the White Nationalist Movement--as I have told you before, Jews are not excluded from their bigoted aims and I would not support Ron Paul if I felt he advocated their views.

And there are Ron Paul supporters in their ranks. I am also aware that there are 9/11 conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul. The fact is that Ron Paul, and all political candidates, will attract a lot of support from many kinds of people...some of whom do not have good values as far as the traditions of a constitutional liberal democracy is concerned.

But as Ron Paul said the other night on Fox News, to support the candidate or allow him a forum does not mean that HE endorses their views. It means that they endorse HIS views. Whether they see his views favorable for them or not is irrelevant to whether I believe they would be favorable according to my values.

There are many views of other parties and candidates that are favorable to unsavory types of people and organizations. It is simply not as easily indicted as this example you provide here.

Frankly, I don't care what mostly powerless White Nationalist groups think about who ought to be President. I am much more concerned about the interest groups that have a serious capacity to endanger our rights.

There are racist, bigoted, socially ignorant people who still have sense enough to know that rampant corporate welfare and warfare are not good for America and our way of life.

I used the Bush analogy as comparison to the scum of the bottom .. and said Paul would be worse than that.

Let me just put it out there for you...If you think Bush is better than Ron Paul...a close friend and political ally to Dennis Kucinich...you're not a liberal.

I respect your right to have an opinion.

No, you don't. Otherwise you would use persuasion for what you thought was important rather than distraction to try to keep the Ron Paul candidacy in the background despite the important distinctions he is making in the Republican Primary...distinctions that could protect YOUR RIGHTS.

I also do not support HR 1146, but I understand and appreciate the spirit and the philosophical consistency behind Ron Paul's support of it. And I even agree with some of his arguments for why he does not prefer our involvement in the UN and NATO and consider them legitimate concerns.

I can disagree with someone and still understand their reasoning. I disagree with Charlie Rangel on his bill to institute the draft, but I understand that he introduced it for specific reasons that many would consider noble.

With all due respect, I don't believe that. I would think more of Paul supporters if they just came out and said they don't give a damn about Paul's racist beliefs. Just say you aren't black or hispanic so why should you care?

Well, what would the black and hispanic Ron Paul supporters say? Are they race traitors for appreciating the message in a way you can't? Frankly, many of my views are derived from the troubles I feel are inequitably forced on minority groups by our government, so I'm naturally offended by this notion. The smallest minority is the individual.

even Jefferson didn't want to ratify it unless it was modified or including what became the Bill of Rights.

That's right. Because the Constitution without a Bill of Rights was a formula for unlimited amounts of government power. Things like the Patriot Act could be passed and the government could be fully nationalized and unitary, which was entirely in contradiction to the revolution. The revolution would about home rule much more than it was about taxes.

The colonists would gladly pay more taxes to their States than to England as long as they were represented by their State. They certainly weren't going to let the central government retain a Constitution that let them do whatever they wanted and ruin Federalism, despite the efforts of some.

Most people will tell you that the only failing of the Bill of Rights was that it didn't go far enough in PROTECTING rights, not only because it included slavery, but it limited important protections for the emancipated as well.

There were a plethora of issues that the founders were unable to come to consensus on to say "Congress shall make no law..." including medical freedom, privacy and we tangle with that today.

So, what's your beef? Do you want a strong Bill of Rights that is respected or do you not wish to recognize it because it doesn't meet your immediate vision for what government ought to make society do? What sacrifices will you be making to our liberties in ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to modern society.

And I believe in a modern society that respects its Constitution and has enough sense of justice to amend the Constitution when they want to change the contract between the government and the people.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

And that leads us to sometimes glorify a person, to the point that, we block out any negative info, insisting that it "can't be true". I think that it would be very difficult for me to look at information that showed Gore for instance, to be a racist. But I would hope that I could look at it, and face it just the same.

I'm glad you understand the underpinnings of the Ron Paul phenomenon. As they indicated in the New York Times article (which also discredited the newsletter story), his candidacy points to a great desire on the part of many Americans to make significant change.

But I am not unaware that there are negative drawbacks to Ron Paul. He is not my ideal candidate and in fact if I had my way there is a great deal of things I would have him do differently.

He is simply in my opinion the best messenger for the times.

 

[Cancel7]

But as Ron Paul said the other night on Fox News, to support the candidate or allow him a forum does not mean that HE endorses their views. It means that they endorse HIS views. Whether they see his views favorable for them or not is irrelevant to whether I believe they would be favorable according to my values.

You know, I see that as such a cop-out, that all it does is confirm to me that the guy is a racist.

I do not believe that anyone who was not a racist, and who felt strongly about the matter, would speak in that forum. I would not, and I won't vote for anyone who would, and to tell you the truth Adam, I wouldn't want to even have dinner with anyone who would.

It's your right to airbrush it, but that cannot be airbrushed in my book.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Look at the Stormfront web postings as to whether Ron Paul's the one(which, by the way, I visit this site on occasion to see what the enemy is up to, and you'll see why in this response):

"Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution.

Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Brandon"

Just because they're able to take his views on immigration and national sovereignty and convert them to their worldview does not make him one of them.

And it's intellectual sloth to say otherwise.

 

[Cancel7]

Look at the Stormfront web postings as to whether Ron Paul's the one(which, by the way, I visit this site on occasion to see what the enemy is up to, and you'll see why in this response):

"Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution.

Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Brandon"

Just because they're able to take his views on immigration and national sovereignty and convert them to their worldview does not make him one of them.

And it's intellectual sloth to say otherwise.

Listen, he uses these forums to speak, and appears on these radio shows, and uses the exuse that it "doesn't mean he agrees with them" and i am telling you, I would not be caught dead having dinner with someone who appeared in those forums, no less vote for them for President. To me, that is a racist. And that's not going to change Adam.

 

[DigitalDave]

Do you have any idea what he said at those forums Darla?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Ron Paul also went on Alex Jones' radio show. Alex Jones is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ron Paul is not. Should he not give him his perspective?

These guys are not much worse than Michael Savage (who admittedly is pretty bad) and you don't have to agree with Michael Savage to go on his show and talk about what you think.

The media-oriented nature of these sources magnifies this as well. You could just as easily have conversations with White Nationalists at a meeting of the Democratic or Republican Party (or even the Libertarian Party as I've found) and the only way you could tell is if you had a transcript of a conversation that indicted you as supporting their views.

I'd like a recording or writing that proves, without a doubt, not vicariously or by policy similarities, that Ron Paul IS himself a man with bigoted, racist views who intends on acting on them in office.

Find it for me and I'll give up the campaign.

But don't try to ignore the campaign he's really running and tell me that has any resemblance to what you're illustrating here.

 

[Damocles]

NAw, you took that too seriously and absolutely NONE of that was directed to you or your perspective personally.

I was having fun.

Of course that reliance solely on "that wonderful document", needs some work.

There's this neat thing called an Amendment. If it needs work, even that was provided for.

 

[Damocles]

I would say "Hear, hear" but Damo would be all over me again.

Great post BAC, and I did already go to your links on the racism, and I do not see how anyone can say that it's made up. That's just denial. You don't want to believe something, so you don't believe it.

LOL. No, just more evidence that BAC has his ditto-heads.

 

[Cancel7]

Do you have any idea what he said at those forums Darla?

He probably didn't say "I hate blacks" and so I guess I can relax, because unless he's on tape making that statement, then of course, he's not a racist and all other evidence is just people trying to make him look bad.

And George Bush didn't lie about Iraq, he was "mistaken" because we don't have a tape of Bush and Cheney sniggering in the oval office "Let's tell em he's got wmd's and there will be a mushroom cloud, boy they'll for that those idiots, LMAO".

But then, I never bought that either.

 

[Cancel7]

Ron Paul also went on Alex Jones' radio show. Alex Jones is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ron Paul is not. Should he not give him his perspective?

These guys are not much worse than Michael Savage (who admittedly is pretty bad) and you don't have to agree with Michael Savage to go on his show and talk about what you think.

The media-oriented nature of these sources magnifies this as well. You could just as easily have conversations with White Nationalists at a meeting of the Democratic or Republican Party (or even the Libertarian Party as I've found) and the only way you could tell is if you had a transcript of a conversation that indicted you as supporting their views.

I'd like a recording or writing that proves, without a doubt, not vicariously or by policy similarities, that Ron Paul IS himself a man with bigoted, racist views who intends on acting on them in office.

Find it for me and I'll give up the campaign.

But don't try to ignore the campaign he's really running and tell me that has any resemblance to what you're illustrating here.

Exactly. And we'll impeach bush when we find that tape of him laughing over how stupid Americans are for believing his wmd story, and stating he doesn't give a rat's ass how many lives his Iraqcapade costs, it's all oil and daddy.

I said, I know that mindset. Never shared it. There's somethign called sense. Good sense tells you no one is ever going to get caught dead stating those things on tape.

Look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion. I've come to mine.

 

[DigitalDave]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

 

[Cypress]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

He probably didn't say "I hate blacks" and so I guess I can relax, because unless he's on tape making that statement, then of course, he's not a racist and all other evidence is just people trying to make him look bad.

I think you're exaggerating my point. Ron Paul's policies are not in any way bigoted policies. The fact that they are attractive to certain unpleasant groups is because they have a similar political disposition about roles of government, not because they agree fundmentally. It would be as much of a stretch as comparing liberals to Communism.

He has no known history of making racist, bigoted, sexist or anti-Jewish statements or actions in his personal life or for political office. He has written many books and speaks extensively in the Congress. He has an active Congressional constituent service program and has a weekly address which is accessible by telephone in which he outlines issues important to him. Has served with members of Congress for now ten terms from a variety of backgrounds.

I know you don't like some of the choices of places he's called in for radio interviews--frankly, I would rather he had never done some of them--but we know what he said in those appearances and they were not racist statements.

So if the man was really a racist, and these documents were totally legitimate, would the whole media establishment have been "fooled" so easily?

Why would the issue not die?

 

[Damocles]

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.

Better translation...

I have a dream that one day we can judge people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and our nation by the amount of personal liberty all have, rather than the amount of aid we give. With full understanding that the measure of compassion is not the amount we give away, but the fewer that are in need.

 

[Cancel7]

I think you're exaggerating my point. Ron Paul's policies are not in any way bigoted policies. The fact that they are attractive to certain unpleasant groups is because they have a similar political disposition about roles of government, not because they agree fundmentally. It would be as much of a stretch as comparing liberals to Communism.

He has no known history of making racist, bigoted, sexist or anti-Jewish statements or actions in his personal life or for political office. He has written many books and speaks extensively in the Congress. He has an active Congressional constituent service program and has a weekly address which is accessible by telephone in which he outlines issues important to him. Has served with members of Congress for now ten terms from a variety of backgrounds.

I know you don't like some of the choices of places he's called in for radio interviews--frankly, I would rather he had never done some of them--but we know what he said in those appearances and they were not racist statements.

So if the man was really a racist, and these documents were totally legitimate, would the whole media establishment have been "fooled" so easily?

Why would the issue not die?

I hope you are not tryign to use the media not covering this much, as a reason to believe it's not true.

George W bush did go awol, and did not fulfill his commitments in the National Guard. What did you see the media do about that in the 00 campaign? There were no wmds, and there was plenty of evidence for that, what did you see the media do about it? I could go on forever, but I couldn't possibly ever use what the media is interested in, or chooses to write about as a basis for how much truth there is in anything.

And I read bac's previous postings on the newsletter, and found them compelling, on top of all of this.

 

[Cancel7]

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

And I read bac's previous postings on the newsletter, and found them compelling, on top of all of this.

Well, you're more than welcome to find them compelling, but legitimate media sources have confirmed that they are not Ron Paul's words and they are untrue accounts of his views.

...I'm just trying to understand here, why would you ignore the insurmountable evidence provided from his campaign that Ron Paul is egalitarian and not bigoted and jump on a few scraps that have no legitimacy like the newsletter story?

Would people like Dennis Kucinich associate with Ron Paul if he was a racist? Wouldn't they know about that kind of stuff for certain being that they are much closer to him than we are?

Why would somebody like Ron Paul say in New Hampshire that Dennis Kucinich (the guy for reparations) would make a great Democratic Nominee if racism was part of his worldview?

I think there's too much evidence of Ron Paul's decency to cast him in with other bigoted movements.

 

[Cypress]

Better translation...

I have a dream that one day we can judge people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and our nation by the amount of personal liberty all have, rather than the amount of aid we give. With full understanding that the measure of compassion is not the amount we give away, but the fewer that are in need.

Nice words. But dreaming has to be followed up with action. If your quoting MLK, he understood this. MLK and others fought for civil rights laws, which the libertarian crowd fought against.

 

[Cypress]

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.