Times Retracts Lies and Smears

Okay, so your arguments are:

1. We know that there is already a perception of racism in RP's campaign because of those 'newsletters'. We know that the press is trying to add obstacles to RP's campaign. Therefore we ought to just ignore the problems, and throw more obstacles into the path that exacerbate the perceptions of racism because... well just because.

and

2. That because the voters are stupid he should ignore the stupidity and trudge on regardless of the fact that he is now no longer on the path that he plotted to begin with. We'll just change the destination and pretend that's where we meant to go rather than redirect and get the foray back on course.

This is why the libertarian party can't ever gain traction, they believe themselves to be sooo smart that it is "pandering" to actually attempt to communicate with the people who might vote for them.
 
RStringfield said:
Who has changed there story? I maintain the same position I have always had on it. Giving back the money implies he accepts/endorses all other donors, when clearly does not. The fact that you have gotten different answers from different people does not indicate tap dance, it indicates that you asked different people.
Click to expand...

#1) That statement doesn't even make sense. Unless he's fully aware of other white supremacists that support him. If he is, please feel free to enlighten us. No one expects candidates to do background checks on whomever is giving them money however, when they are made aware that donations are coming from criminals, white nationalists, etc, you should give the money back. Plain and simple.
#2) You're exactly who I'm talking about along with numerous other Ronbots. In the beginning you, along with Dano and Ron's camp claimed that he should keep the money granted you're apologetic assertions may vary slightly but in the end its still the same: you've rationalized a very bad decision that is morally corrupt and politically careless. Then you go starting this thread claiming it was all a lie! Maybe the funds didn't come directly out of the chest of this nazi groups treasury but it came from one of its leaders. For me, that doesn't make it any better. What's fascinating is that you ronbots seem to think given this fact (if it is true) he's being unjustly maligned.
 
LadyT said:
#1) That statement doesn't even make sense. Unless he's fully aware of other white supremacists that support him. If he is, please feel free to enlighten us. No one expects candidates to do background checks on whomever is giving them money however, when they are made aware that donations are coming from criminals, white nationalists, etc, you should give the money back. Plain and simple.
#2) You're exactly who I'm talking about along with numerous other Ronbots. In the beginning you, along with Dano and Ron's camp claimed that he should keep the money granted you're apologetic assertions may vary slightly but in the end its still the same: you've rationalized a very bad decision that is morally corrupt and politically careless. Then you go starting this thread claiming it was all a lie! Maybe the funds didn't come directly out of the chest of this nazi groups treasury but it came from one of its leaders. For me, that doesn't make it any better. What's fascinating is that you ronbots seem to think given this fact (if it is true) he's being unjustly maligned.
Click to expand...


Jesus, even I can admit when edwards makes a mistake. Like his 400 dollar haircut. He looked like an idiot. I laughed at him.

The ronbots have been in full spin mode over everything: the Ron Paul newsletter, the nazi money, the Council of Concerned White Citizens (or whatever the hell the name of that group is).

It really comes down to this, for me: To this day he says he opposes the 1964 civil rights act. That statement alone, with the laundry list of other facts that have come to light, tells me this guy has no business in the oval office.
 
Cypress said:
Jesus, even I can admit when edwards makes a mistake. Like his 400 dollar haircut. He looked like an idiot. I laughed at him.

The ronbots have been in full spin mode over everything: the Ron Paul newsletter, the nazi money, the Council of Concerned White Citizens (or whatever the hell the name of that group is).

It really comes down to this, for me: To this day he says he opposes the 1964 civil rights act. That statement alone, with the laundry list of other facts that have come to light, tells me this guy has no business in the oval office.
Click to expand...

It tells me he has no business in the oval office and that he's a racist. But that's just me making assumptions based on LIES LIES LIES LIES.
 
LadyT said:
It tells me he has no business in the oval office and that he's a racist. But that's just me making assumptions based on LIES LIES LIES LIES.
Click to expand...


I totally understand why you think he's a racist.

His pattern of behaviour, and his associations, and his policies (opposing the Civil Rights Act? WTF?), are all enabling of institutional racism, even if he never personally utters the N word.
 
Cypress said:
I totally understand why you think he's a racist.

His pattern of behaviour, and his associations, and his policies (opposing the Civil Rights Act? WTF?), are all enabling of institutional racism, even if he never personally utters the N word.
Click to expand...

If any white nationalist organization got serious about getting someone elected into the oval office, what would that someone look like? What would their voting record look like? What kinds of supporters would they have? The david duke types wouldn't get votes outside their district. HOw would he or she have to be packaged?
 
Damocles said:
Okay, so your arguments are:

1. We know that there is already a perception of racism in RP's campaign because of those 'newsletters'. We know that the press is trying to add obstacles to RP's campaign. Therefore we ought to just ignore the problems, and throw more obstacles into the path that exacerbate the perceptions of racism because... well just because.

and

2. That because the voters are stupid he should ignore the stupidity and trudge on regardless of the fact that he is now no longer on the path that he plotted to begin with. We'll just change the destination and pretend that's where we meant to go rather than redirect and get the foray back on course.

This is why the libertarian party can't ever gain traction, they believe themselves to be sooo smart that it is "pandering" to actually attempt to communicate with the people who might vote for them.
Click to expand...

I am saying he should point out how illogical the idea is that a donation implies an endorsement by the recipient of the donor. He should point out that this is a non issue and an attempt to distract from more important matters.

I am saying he should not play this game, because as soon as he does someone is going to point out some other nut that donated (e.g., Jones) and go through the process again and the dishonest fucks that pretend this means something will continue to use this smear. They will continue to point out that Black donated to his campaign can claim his denunciation was not strong enough, just like they pretend he expressed no remorse on the article. It's a losing battle because these people are not interested in anything but smearing him with non issues.
 
RStringfield said:
I am saying he should point out how illogical the idea is that a donation implies an endorsement by the recipient of the donor. He should point out that this is a non issue and an attempt to distract from more important matters.

I am saying he should not play this game, because as soon as he does someone is going to point out some other nut that donated (e.g., Jones) and go through the process again and the dishonest fucks that pretend this means something will continue to use this smear. They will continue to point out that Black donated to his campaign can claim his denunciation was not strong enough, just like they pretend he expressed no remorse on the article. It's a losing battle because these people are not interested in anything but smearing him with non issues.
Click to expand...
He should do that if he was planning on centering his message around campaign donations and how they don't endorse the giver...

However, that was never his message to begin with. Do you not get how this would put his entire campaign irreversably off course?

No matter how many times you say it is a "non-issue" the reality is it adds to a negative perception that will create an even larger segment that will simply never listen to his ideas because of that perception. It is, at the very least, a stupid political decision.
 
LadyT said:
#1) That statement doesn't even make sense. Unless he's fully aware of other white supremacists that support him. If he is, please feel free to enlighten us. No one expects candidates to do background checks on whomever is giving them money however, when they are made aware that donations are coming from criminals, white nationalists, etc, you should give the money back. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Why? If it were a criminal, we could not be certain the money was gained legally, but for the others, there is no good reason to return the donation.

And as soon as he returned this check he would be made aware of some other nut. Maybe it would switch to Jones. And it is not as if you guys are actually let the Black donation go anyway.

LadyT said:
#2) You're exactly who I'm talking about along with numerous other Ronbots. In the beginning you, along with Dano and Ron's camp claimed that he should keep the money granted you're apologetic assertions may vary slightly but in the end its still the same: you've rationalized a very bad decision that is morally corrupt and politically careless. Then you go starting this thread claiming it was all a lie! Maybe the funds didn't come directly out of the chest of this nazi groups treasury but it came from one of its leaders. For me, that doesn't make it any better. What's fascinating is that you ronbots seem to think given this fact (if it is true) he's being unjustly maligned.
Click to expand...

The lies are about his meeting with White and other white nationalists. Of course, you guys have not stopped repeating that or even acknowledged that the claims lack credibility.
 
When you can't argue Monetary Policy and Inflation and the value of the dollar, when you can't argue the importance of privacy in regards to liberty, when you can't debate that we need to reduce spending, when you can't debate on non intervention, when you can't debate him on property rights, when you can't debate him on anything that affects us to the most importance..........


...

You get weak smears like this.
 
Damocles said:
He should do that if he was planning on centering his message around campaign donations and how they don't endorse the giver...

However, that was never his message to begin with. Do you not get how this would put his entire campaign irreversably off course?

No matter how many times you say it is a "non-issue" the reality is it adds to a negative perception that will create an even larger segment that will simply never listen to his ideas because of that perception. It is, at the very least, a stupid political decision.
Click to expand...


You validate the practice by giving in. These people are going to use this to smear whether he gives it back or not. They should be ignored.
 
RStringfield said:
You validate the practice by giving in. These people are going to use this to smear whether he gives it back or not. They should be ignored.
Click to expand...

Right. They should be ignored. The same way you've been ignoring every critique of Ron Paul since his candidacy began.
 
RStringfield said:
You validate the practice by giving in. These people are going to use this to smear whether he gives it back or not. They should be ignored.
Click to expand...
No, you validate the message by not throwing obstacles in its path. If you create an unconquerable obstacle by "ignoring" the very people you are attempting to communicate with then you are a moron that never should have run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top