Rich Lowry On Ron Paul [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Rich Lowry On Ron Paul

Kathianne

12-20-2011, 03:12 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286259/paul-fringe-frontrunner-rich-lowry

December 20, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Paul, the Fringe Frontrunner

An Iowa that would select Ron Paul is an Iowa that deserves to be taken less seriously.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?

In 2008, the surest way to get applause in the Republican primary debates was to excoriate Ron Paul. This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve, and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP cocktail party. It can be invigorating and fun, if you ignore the nasty adulterants.

The fight over Ron Paul isn’t a battle for the soul of the Republican Party so much as for its standards. Throughout his career, Paul hasn’t been able to distinguish between fringy cranks and aboveboard purists. He has taken a principled anti-government position and associated it with loons and bigots. It may be the ultimate commentary on the weakness of this Republican field that it hasn’t even been able to produce a respectable out-there libertarian...

...in the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself. hear, hear

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.” this is the sort of thing where 'kookiness' applies On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Paul’s promiscuousness with his ideological bedfellows — he hails members of the John Birch Society for their fine educations and respect for the Constitution — accounts for the disgrace he brought on himself with his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. As journalist James Kirchick exposed, they were full of race-baiting and rancid Israel-bashing. Paul maintains he didn’t know what was being written in the first person under his name. To this day, he says he doesn’t know who wrote the copy. Has he asked? During some dozen Republican debates, not one journalist thought to query Paul about the newsletters that would be disqualifying for anyone else...

revelarts

12-20-2011, 04:15 PM

lot stuff there most again is over things people have a knee jerk reaction to if they've never looked into before.
Kath we've exhuasted the newsletters twice at lentgh on the board ,I'm not commenting on that again.
Some in Lowry's comments make no sense.

RSR
the Bachmann comment was a too broad and bit of a gaff. Same comment could have been made more focuses toward Iran though, which she really seems to fear. She's no Muslim "appeaser" which to her seems mean not fighting any Muslim country that doesn't like us. She makes noises similar to what gaffer and others have said like "Beware the coming kalif and all Muslims will overwhelm us unless we do something" I'm not sure what something means for her. But anywho.

that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.

If you take away the happy glasses from all of those situations you'll find U>S self interest strategically or Corporately, none were purely or many time even tangentially humanitarian. that's the cold facts of it. I expect you to balk at the point but seriously If that's love of Muslims I'm reaally glad i'm not Muslim.
Somalia, we've back both sides of the equation to our own benefit not for the starving Somolias. Bosnia, ,Clinton was Wrong on a lot of level there, not our Problem. Afghanistan, We supported the Taliban Muslims for YEARS for our on benefit and then attacked them as soon as we had a good excuse. Iraq? We went to Iraq so Saddam wouldn't blow us up with a Nuke. that's what Bush said . Not to Free Muslims. Libya? well Yes we did support the Muslum extremist who fought U.S. Troops in Iraq with AlQueada against a moderate Muslim Dictator that also Fought AlQueda a bit. So maybe that shows Obama Likes Muslums. Even though we bomb and killed many more civilians than Quadaffi was said to killed that SUPPOSEDLY started the whole non-war.

“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”
When you here it out of Context of the idea he was addressing... That the CIA is RUNNING the Bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Elsewhere around the world not the DOD, who are in a support role, I've posted articles to that effect. He also goes on to say they the CIA is Overboard and needs to be abolished , Just as Harry Truman said as he regreeted having created it, and it's said that Kenedy wanted it removed as well, "going to scatter it to the wind" Becuase they operate outside of all laws assassinations, spying on citizens, infiltrating state gov't, manipulating the media, and it's been said even pressuring congress and gov't officials.
look it up. Ron Paul speaks the truth and people have been fed so many lies that it just sounds crazy.

revelarts

12-20-2011, 04:28 PM

Why a Tea Party conservative now supports Ron Paul...including his foreign policy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/why_a_tea_party_conservative_now_supports_ron_paul including_his_foreign_policy.html#ixzz1gu2YVE23

Ask any conservative about Ron Paul and you will usually hear the following statement: "I love him on fiscal policy but his foreign policy is naive and dangerous." You can also throw in the obligatory "He hates Israel." If someone had asked me about Paul from 9/12/01 through October of 2011, I'd have said the exact same things.

Something about my certitude always felt a bit uncomfortable, though, because I admired the "good parts" of Ron Paul (and later, his son Rand). Having participated in the Tea Party movement since its inception, and then witnessing the phony propaganda concocted to invalidate it, my BS meter began to pin whenever I heard (or spoke) harsh rhetoric denouncing Ron Paul. Since the contradiction bugged me, I decided to take the advice of my twenty-year-old son and read Ron Paul's book, Revolution. This required me to consider ideas which were once unthinkable. I undertook the mission with the promise to think outside my conservative box.
After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses.....

Today, the Middle East is falling to Islamic rule like a series of dominos. The supposed "friendly Arab nations" want our troops out of their land and threaten to side with our enemies. Our soldiers are hamstrung by politically correct rules of engagement that make them sitting ducks. Our economy is collapsing under the weight of our debt (a good portion of which goes to fund our worldwide military adventures), and our effort to spread a love of liberty among Middle-Eastern nations is thwarted by the unfortunate reality that the clans and cultures do not desire our brand of freedom. We were led to believe that we could leave Iraq after they became able to defend themselves. With all that we've invested, there is still uncertainty about whether they are up to the job. We have never received the oil benefits that were supposed to follow from our liberation of Iraq, as we pay upwards of $4.00 a gallon at the pump!

Our effort to be an honest broker of Israeli/Palestinian peace has produced a decades-long record of abject failure. The game is such that we give mountains of money to both sides and then compel Israel to fall in line with our demands. We simultaneously force Palestinians to make promises that they have no intention of keeping. We have tried to play both ends against the middle, and both parties look at us with suspicion and/or contempt. Perhaps it's time we heed Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's request (from the pulpit of the U.S. Congress) that we allow Israel to negotiate and defend herself as she sees fit?

This just so happens to be the view of Ron Paul as well.

Why are we are so willing to dismiss the one candidate in this race who dares to highlight the undeniable truths about our foreign policy failures? How could it be that we are terrified to consider the concept of pulling back, regrouping, and retooling that which is demonstrably failing? It's not that our soldiers have not gone above and beyond everything we've asked them to do, and done it with heroism and honor. It's that we've seen fit to keep them deployed indefinitely in an ill-defined mission, where the concept of victory is far from clear. It is less patriotic to keep the status quo than to acknowledge our foreign policy failures and correct them. Don't we owe that much to the troops? Perhaps this is why Ron Paul is far and away the choice of active duty military in terms of campaign contributions?.....
Our military is spread dangerously thin, and its bloated bureaucracy is just as detrimental to our physical security as our fiscal mess is to our economic security. The times demand that we elect a leader who will do more than just nibble around the edges. Ron Paul's approach is the most comprehensive of all the candidates' for returning the United States of America to its constitutional roots and founding principles. We must elect a leader who we can trust has the values, integrity, and record to follow through and get it done. Ron Paul has been doggedly consistent in his fidelity to the constitution in all his years in public office. He is a man of integrity.

Making Ron Paul the GOP candidate for president will send the strongest possible message to a Republican establishment that is hell-bent on co-opting the Tea Party and maintaining the status quo. A primary victory will make it unmistakably clear that we meant it when we marched in D.C. on 9/12/08.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/why_a_tea_party_conservative_now_supports_ron_paul including_his_foreign_policy.html#ixzz1h74A5Pp3

....

jimnyc

12-20-2011, 04:36 PM

Here's some old things from Kathianne, or from other sites, good reading about the kook!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron_paul_racist/

Some great kookiness to be seen here - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

revelarts

12-20-2011, 06:06 PM

revelarts

12-20-2011, 06:45 PM

jimnyc

12-20-2011, 07:17 PM

Rev, you can keep posting black people saying he's not racist. It's funny. It's like a white person saying "Look, I'm not racist, I have black friends". And deny he was the writer of the racist newsletters. Are we to believe he's not capable of writing a simple newsletter? If not, how can we expect he can run the country? Are we supposed to believe he allowed his official letterhead to go on stuff he knew absolutely nothing of? Bullshit. He probably does say a lot of things today to separate himself from his own words, I would too, if I were him and expected to be a politician. But many of us have seen and heard from this man over man, many years and know he is out in left field. Showing that he can "change" to appease whatever crowd he is in front of is very transparent as well. Put him in a room full of truthers and watch how he talks... oh, wait, that's already happened.

Vote for whoever you want, but don't get angry when we don't believe his horseshit and see him for who he really is.

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 11:50 AM

Kath we've exhuasted the newsletters twice at lentgh on the board ,I'm not commenting on that again.

I searched and searched and was only able to find 2 threads on the subject and less than a handful of posts. But no matter... the newsletters had his name on them, he OWNS them. I don't care if he wants to lie after the fact and claim a "ghostwriter". If Obama or Bush had sent something out on official paper, they would own it too. Am I to believe that a man wanting to run the entire country can't handle "running" an 8 page newsletter? And he handpicked someone to write it that would "accidentally" send out racist works? Point me to a link, in that date range, where he fired this "ghostwriter" right afterwards and immediately addressed everyone to disown the words... Posting videos of black people who support him, or videos of him standing up for blacks - doesn't do a damn thing to erase what he did before that. Like I said, if I were him, I too would go out of my way to separate myself from what I did in the past.

This stuff WILL make front and center IF he moves up in the polls, as will his wanting heroin and cocaine legalized. People will see him for the nutter he is, and see how he plays people like he did with the truthers.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 01:09 PM

I searched and searched and was only able to find 2 threads on the subject and less than a handful of posts. But no matter... the newsletters had his name on them, he OWNS them. I don't care if he wants to lie after the fact and claim a "ghostwriter". If Obama or Bush had sent something out on official paper, they would own it too. Am I to believe that a man wanting to run the entire country can't handle "running" an 8 page newsletter? And he handpicked someone to write it that would "accidentally" send out racist works? Point me to a link, in that date range, where he fired this "ghostwriter" right afterwards and immediately addressed everyone to disown the words... Posting videos of black people who support him, or videos of him standing up for blacks - doesn't do a damn thing to erase what he did before that. Like I said, if I were him, I too would go out of my way to separate myself from what I did in the past.

This stuff WILL make front and center IF he moves up in the polls, as will his wanting heroin and cocaine legalized. People will see him for the nutter he is, and see how he plays people like he did with the truthers.
here's the main conversation kath and i had it end pretty much here. But Kath implied that i was a racist as well a good cop to Hog Trash's bad cop. So I can't put much stock in all of Kath's assessments of who's a racist if i make the cut.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?26624-Problems-With-Ron-Paul-Are-NOT-New

Ron Paul

“The quotations ... are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Ed. Here's the link that I could find: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...5-4532a7da84ca (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

Now having said that lets says for a minute that Ron Paul did write all of that And he has said he's taken moral responsibility for the comments since they where under his name. and has apologized for them. Prior to and other than those newsletters he has no record of saying or voting for anything that shows it's a pattern of life or a any part of his political agenda. the only thing we have are these newsletters to compare to his 14 years of public office and speech. You may want to hold on to them as the gold standard of his character, ignore the rest of his life and dismiss Paul but others like myself will go on the voting record and the far greater number of public statements that have no hint of a racial tinge. Which in my mind lead me to lean toward his explanation as an honest one.

BTW this comes to mind here, Even people like George Wallace who stood in front of a Alabama schools to block African Americans managed to have a change of heart that seemed to be reflected in his actions later in life and he was forgiven by many of those he wronged most. Others I'm sure never forgave or looked at anything done subsequently as redeeming either. But that's the way some folks are.

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 01:12 PM

Once a racist and always a racist - unless you want to run for some sort of office and want to distance yourself from the truth of your own comments. I will say the same about other politicians as well, not just the kook. And then on top of that, I think he was less than honest in addressing the newsletters over the years. So a dishonest racist. Sorry, you can keep him!

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 01:17 PM

Rev, good job of trying to put words into my mouth. :rolleyes:

Paul did not apologize, indeed he was avoiding such. The name most bandied about as 'ghostwriter' would be Lew Rockwell, who was quite active in the last Paul run. Indeed, helped to set up the raising of money and often cited on Stormfront. When asked to distance himself from such sites, Paul would not respond.

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 01:32 PM

Still available on 'The Daily Paul' is an old article written by a 'ghostwriter' trying to justify what she admits, no longer has links available for folks to read:

http://www.dailypaul.com/194188/the-ron-paul-newsletters-a-ghost-writers-perspective-and-open-letter-to-james-kirchick

Sample:

...Changing definitions of racism
The Ron Paul newsletters were limited-circulation niche publications that never had a general readership. The LA Riots article has the kind of non-PC tone one would take among like-minded friends around the dinner table, out of earshot of the PC police. Nowadays, these politically incorrect conversations take place under cover of anonymity on the Internet. In the 1980s and 1990s, they took place in ephemera like the Ron Paul newsletters.

And the "smoking gun" sentences simply aren't racist, though they certainly sound bad, removed from the context of historical events, and removed from the context of the article itself.

In fact, these sentiments were ultimately proven to have a lot of validity a decade later, when thousands of residents of New Orleans—many of them multi-generational welfare recipients—died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a result of decades of learned helplessness and government dependency. They didn't die because they were black; they died because they had lost all sense of personal responsibility and self-preservation, believing the government to be completely responsible for their welfare. This is the kind of tragedy Dr. Paul has warned about for 35 years.

To judge this article as "racist," you have to use today's definition of racism—which, according to collectivists on the Left, can only be perpetrated by whites—and can consist solely of disagreeing with the opinion of a black person, or saying something negative about a black person, no matter how factual the statement is. (So, Mr. Kirchick, by your standards, the previous paragraph was most certainly "racist.")...

See? Paul didn't write the 'racist stuff' though it wasn't really 'racist' in historical perspective, ahem, less than a decade before the article she's writing. :rolleyes:

He apologized? Distanced himself? Nope.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 01:33 PM

Rev, good job of trying to put words into my mouth. :rolleyes:...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?26624-Problems-With-Ron-Paul-Are-NOT-New
post#8

What garbage. Seriously dude, you are a mild-talking good cop to HT's bad cop.

what words did I put in your mouth?

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 01:34 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?26624-Problems-With-Ron-Paul-Are-NOT-New
post#8

what words did I put in your mouth?

In no way was there an implication of your being racist, indeed the juxtaposition was clear.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 01:40 PM

Delete Post

revelarts

12-21-2011, 02:42 PM

In no way was there an implication of your being racist, indeed the juxtaposition was clear.
It seemed clear to me that you were implying i was mild mannered racist. What else could it mean in the context of talking about race and comparing me to Hog trash who was famous for racist talk?

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 02:54 PM

It seemed clear to me that you were implying i was mild mannered racist. What else could it mean in the context of talking about race and comparing me to Hog trash who was famous for racist talk?

HT owned being racist. You're 'quiet' about the racists that agree with your man. That doesn't make you a 'racist', just tolerant of it. Now, if you had earned money off those newletters, kept the money raised by those that agreed with the screeds, then yes, I'd label you such. You do not and did not.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 04:07 PM

HT owned being racist. You're 'quiet' about the racists that agree with your man. That doesn't make you a 'racist', just tolerant of it. Now, if you had earned money off those newletters, kept the money raised by those that agreed with the screeds, then yes, I'd label you such. You do not and did not.

Kath I'm hurt. "You're 'quiet' about the racists that agree with your man. That doesn't make you a 'racist', just tolerant of it." Quiet about racism? I think if you've read my post over the years you'd notice I've been one of the most anti-racist people here, frankly I hate racism. I've never tried to denied anything any politician has done in that regard just as generally I'm ready to admit the flaws in any public figure. including Ron Paul. the portions of the newsletters are horrifically racist. But while your ready to trumpet Loudly those every time you post about Paul your "quiet" about all of the years and interviews and colleges, and explanations and voting record and apologies and that would lead others to admit the horror of the newsletters but accept the man at his word. Your also "quiet" about any other positive attributes of Paul. If "quiet" is defined by only mentioning it a few times.
Again i have to question your judgement of racist, if you consider me tolerent of racism.

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 05:15 PM

Kath I'm hurt. "You're 'quiet' about the racists that agree with your man. That doesn't make you a 'racist', just tolerant of it." Quiet about racism? I think if you've read my post over the years you'd notice I've been one of the most anti-racist people here, frankly I hate racism. I've never tried to denied anything any politician has done in that regard just as generally I'm ready to admit the flaws in any public figure. including Ron Paul. the portions of the newsletters are horrifically racist. But while your ready to trumpet Loudly those every time you post about Paul your "quiet" about all of the years and interviews and colleges, and explanations and voting record and apologies and that would lead others to admit the horror of the newsletters but accept the man at his word. Your also "quiet" about any other positive attributes of Paul. If "quiet" is defined by only mentioning it a few times.
Again i have to question your judgement of racist, if you consider me tolerent of racism.

If you believe you've been anything but tolerant of such, regarding Paul, you are deluding yourself.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 05:34 PM

If you believe you've been anything but tolerant of such, regarding Paul, you are deluding yourself.
And if you Don't believe Paul and you can't see beyond the newsletters or want to use it as an inexcusable excuse that's your problem.

Funny how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can outright lie the whole country into war, have thousands of troops and 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed but the Bush and crew never admit any moral responsibility for the amazing horror of the crime and yet still be respected. But a man can have a few newsletters written in his name with some extremely hateful language and apologizes yet that is utterly unforgivable.
Delusion on another level it seems.

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 05:43 PM

And if you Don't believe Paul and you can't see beyond the newsletters or want to use it as an inexcusable excuse that's your problem.

Funny how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can outright lie the whole country into war, have thousands of troops and 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed but the Bush and crew never admit any moral responsibility for the amazing horror of the crime and yet still be respected. But a man can have a few newsletters written in his name with some extremely hateful language and apologizes yet that is utterly unforgivable.
Delusion on another level it seems.

Even if you were correct, which is not being conceded; no one was overlooking the issues on Bush before he was elected. You are asking people to ignore what's in front of their faces. He's had 20 years to come out and say those letters were horrible, that he in fact disavows the people that he claims 10 years later wrote them, and donates the money made off of them, contributed to his campaign from Stormfront and related outlets to some worthy charities.

In fact, he never apologized, just said he should have read them more closely; never disavowed the groups that backed him largely based on the gist of those letters; etc.

I never expect a politician to be a saint, none are. Hell, I can overlook most faults if they're acknowledged. That hasn't happened with him or his most erstwhile supporters.

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 05:48 PM

And if you Don't believe Paul and you can't see beyond the newsletters or want to use it as an inexcusable excuse that's your problem.

Funny how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can outright lie the whole country into war, have thousands of troops and 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed but the Bush and crew never admit any moral responsibility for the amazing horror of the crime and yet still be respected. But a man can have a few newsletters written in his name with some extremely hateful language and apologizes yet that is utterly unforgivable.
Delusion on another level it seems.

First off, one has nothing to do with the other. Is that your defense of Paul, that he's not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld?

Secondly, not all of us are on the conspiracy team and believe the horseshit about being lied to to go to war. Save your videos and long winded conspiracy rants. I think many mistakes were made and bad intelligence, and of course some rhetoric. But there weren't men in a smoky room who hatched a plan to get us into Iraq, as you would have many believe.

Lastly, I've seen plenty of criticism on this board towards all 3 of the men you mentioned. But they aren't running for office now, are they? Stop pulling a lib technique by bringing up Bush and let the kook Ron Paul stand by himself.

It's not just the newsletters and you don't get that. Do you think people just wake up one day and stop being racist? It's not that easy. And he makes matters worse by giving lame excuses. So then I see him as a man who can't live up to his own words. Then the truther crap. Then wanting to give drug addicts what they desire most...

revelarts

12-21-2011, 05:51 PM

Even if you were correct, which is not being conceded; no one was overlooking the issues on Bush before he was elected. You are asking people to ignore what's in front of their faces. He's had 20 years to come out and say those letters were horrible, that he in fact disavows the people that he claims 10 years later wrote them, and donates the money made off of them, contributed to his campaign from Stormfront and related outlets to some worthy charities.

In fact, he never apologized, just said he should have read them more closely; never disavowed the groups that backed him largely based on the gist of those letters; etc.

I never expect a politician to be a saint, none are. Hell, I can overlook most faults if they're acknowledged. That hasn't happened with him or his most erstwhile supporters.

If you watched the videos I posted you would have seen one of the times he apologizes. I can post others of him disavowing the ideas of storefront types but people aren't watching them apparently so not much point. posting them.
ANd I wouldn't be surprised if a few storm-front members didn't donate to this site. Yet your still volunteering here no less. should i suspect you have a racist steak that can never be cleansed. Kathianne works on a forum that some time in the last 10 years had hard cord racist members posting regularly ... inexcusable anyone who would read the post and stayed were obvious racist. once a racist always a racist. doesn't matter if they've never said them themselves her name was listed as a moderator. And JIM OWNS THE SITE and allowed that talk to go on and on. I'm deluding myself if i think that he's not a racist.

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 06:01 PM

If you watched the videos I posted you would have seen one of the times he apologizes. I can post others of him disavowing the ideas of storefront types but people aren't watching them apparently so not much point. posting them.
ANd I wouldn't be surprised if a few storm-front members didn't donate to this site. Yet your still volunteering here no less. should i suspect you have a racist steak that can never be cleansed. Kathianne works on a forum that some time in the last 10 years had hard cord racist members posting regularly ... inexcusable anyone who would read the post and stayed were obvious racist. once a racist always a racist. doesn't matter if they've never said them themselves her name was listed as a moderator.

Just making shit up AGAIN won't fly. Do you have ANY evidence that any stormfront members are donating here? Or anything even remotely like that? Did you just outright make that up to make a point or something, again?

And being on a site that has zilch to do with racism, where a racist may or may not have donated, is TOTALLY different.

You're just continually ignoring what Paul was involved in and how. Your analogy sucks monkey ass. These newsletters were on Ron Paul letterhead! Who do you think he'll let use his letterhead if he were in the WH? LOL

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 06:44 PM

If you watched the videos I posted you would have seen one of the times he apologizes. I can post others of him disavowing the ideas of storefront types but people aren't watching them apparently so not much point. posting them.
ANd I wouldn't be surprised if a few storm-front members didn't donate to this site. Yet your still volunteering here no less. should i suspect you have a racist steak that can never be cleansed. Kathianne works on a forum that some time in the last 10 years had hard cord racist members posting regularly ... inexcusable anyone who would read the post and stayed were obvious racist. once a racist always a racist. doesn't matter if they've never said them themselves her name was listed as a moderator. And JIM OWNS THE SITE and allowed that talk to go on and on. I'm deluding myself if i think that he's not a racist.

You would be missing the big point, not actually missing rather ignoring, that the staff has always stood against blatant bigotry. Where there may be some point of question, I'll bring up and that's bigotry against Muslims. Even on that front, for the most part those that attack Muslims rights here have been held to account. Imperfectly perhaps, but the effort is made.

Indeed over the years there have been many 'animated discussions' on just how to handle some of the most racist of posters in closed discussions. While the winning side was always to let them post, it was made clear that those who did not want this considered a 'hate site' would counter them. See Hog Trash threads for instance.

revelarts

12-21-2011, 07:02 PM

Just making shit up AGAIN won't fly. Do you have ANY evidence that any stormfront members are donating here? Or anything even remotely like that? Did you just outright make that up to make a point or something, again?

And being on a site that has zilch to do with racism, where a racist may or may not have donated, is TOTALLY different.

You're just continually ignoring what Paul was involved in and how. Your analogy sucks monkey ass. These newsletters were on Ron Paul letterhead! Who do you think he'll let use his letterhead if he were in the WH? LOL
Here's a couple of threads i found in about 15 seconds...
WHAT KIND OF SITE IS THIS!?!?!?!?!!!!!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?1434-Stormfront-A-Threat-Lefties-Say&highlight=stormfront
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28099-DP-starting-to-look-like-stormfront&highlight=stormfront

not sure if some of those regular posters are contributors but they seem like supports of stormwatch to me , hhhmm once a racist always a racist. And you potentially make MONEY from the vistors who come to this site. INEXCUSABLE. do you track where all of your site vistors come from, how many are from strom front NOW and in the past. If Any have come here ,.. well what am I to conclude but that you and this site is ... well racist. Kathianne has sensitized me to the truth that any association without constant repeated and Loud complete and utter repudiation = racist or tolerating racism.

You would be missing the big point, not actually missing rather ignoring, that the staff has always stood against blatant bigotry. Where there may be some point of question, I'll bring up and that's bigotry against Muslims. Even on that front, for the most part those that attack Muslims rights here have been held to account. Imperfectly perhaps, but the effort is made.

Indeed over the years there have been many 'animated discussions' on just how to handle some of the most racist of posters in closed discussions. While the winning side was always to let them post, it was made clear that those who did not want this considered a 'hate site' would counter them. See Hog Trash threads for instance. I'm not ignoring the big Point the Big Point is RACISM, that's the only point anyone needs to know. NOthing is a mitigating factor ,ever. Apologies, Other life, BHAH! HogWASH!!
NOt acceptable, not enough , no sorry, this site is racist racist racsit, how could anything of that nature be allowed for years here, I would quote some of it but it's to horrible. and JIM IS MAKING MONEY EVEN. no. I may have been tainted by staying here so long myself. I'm going to wash up now.

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 07:08 PM

Here's a couple of threads i found in about 15 seconds...
WHAT KIND OF SITE IS THIS!?!?!?!?!!!!!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?1434-Stormfront-A-Threat-Lefties-Say&highlight=stormfront
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28099-DP-starting-to-look-like-stormfront&highlight=stormfront

not sure if some of those regular posters are contributors but they seem like supports of stormwatch to me , hhhmm once a racist always a racist. And you potentially make MONEY from the vistors who come to this site. INEXCUSABLE. do you track where all of your site vistors come from, how many are from strom front NOW and in the past. If Any have come here ,.. well what am I to conclude but that you and this site is ... well racist. Kathianne has sensitized me to the truth that any association without constant repeated and Loud complete and utter repudiation = racist or tolerating racism.

NOt acceptable, not enough , no sorry, this site is racist racist racsit, how could anything of that nature be allowed for years here, I would quote some of it but it's to horrible. and JIM IS MAKING MONEY EVEN. no. I may have been tainted by staying here so long myself. I'm going to wash up now.

Ok Rev, you've made your point. When Jim or I decide to run for office, you can make your argument. Right now it just appears you are having a tantrum. I hope you feel better.

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 07:09 PM

Here's a couple of threads i found in about 15 seconds...
WHAT KIND OF SITE IS THIS!?!?!?!?!!!!!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?1434-Stormfront-A-Threat-Lefties-Say&highlight=stormfront
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28099-DP-starting-to-look-like-stormfront&highlight=stormfront

not sure if some of those regular posters are contributors but they seem like supports of stormwatch to me , hhhmm once a racist always a racist. And you potentially make MONEY from the vistors who come to this site. INEXCUSABLE. do you track where all of your site vistors come from, how many are from strom front NOW and in the past. If Any have come here ,.. well what am I to conclude but that you and this site is ... well racist. Kathianne has senitized me to the truth that association without constant repeated and Loud complete and utter repudiation = racist or tolerating racism.

NOt acceptable, not enough , no sorry, this site is racist racist racsit, how could any of thing of that nature be allowed for years, I would quote some of it but it's to horrible. and JIM IS MAKING MONEY EVEN. no. I may have been tainted by staying here so long myself. I'm going to wash up now.

Doesn't matter, no posters here, or any staff members here, are running for office! Furthermore, the board makes it very clear who the "donaters" are. Look at the thread and then look at the donaters. Then come back and tell me how many match. But again, I'm not sure where these lame rants are coming from, as Ron Paul is the only one running for office, and the only one claiming newsletters written on his letterhead aren't from him. First Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, now it's posters here on this board. Anyone else you would like to bring up to ignore the actual candidate, the one we have actual writings from that are racist? Or will you continue to obfuscate?

Creek

12-21-2011, 07:39 PM

I've been following Ron Paul for awhile..and the more popular this guy becomes,all the more attacks on his charactor start coming forth.

Yes..I know that's to be expected for any who run for office.

But after what?...25 + years all this is coming to light?..The real Ron Paul exposed?

It's almost at the point where some are comparing him to David Duke..or something along that line.

I don't believe the brunt of it,because just as a Congressman this would have been used against him long ago...long..long..long ago....:)

He's been around to long,and is credible among so many in the state of Texas..to be re-elected over..and over..and over again,but that also of the political circle where all of a sudden this guy is not only a nut case as so many compare him to,but a racist as well?

Are you telling me this guy has been a racist,under the radar asshole up until the 2012 election,where all of a sudden the true nature of this guy is exposed?

Not only that..but gonna destroy the country by legalizing drugs?

The media...and maybe alot of us might accuse him,or suspect him.

I just feel those that know him in Washington don't believe that to be the case.

Those that know him know..none of this is true.

Those running against him seem to even shut the hell up,because they know dam well he'd win any arguement put forth if given the chance.

He speaks for alot of people..Alot of Americans relate to what he says.

This is the political orientated media trying to smear him,because it's certainly nobody this man has worked with in the last what...25 + years or so?

I'm sure all kinds of ugly things..and much more will be said about the guy.

If he drops out...

I'll write in Chaz Bono...because he/she at least knows how to dance.

:)

Kathianne

12-21-2011, 07:45 PM

jimnyc

12-21-2011, 07:50 PM

Not only that..but gonna destroy the country by legalizing drugs?

Wow, you went all over the place in your last post! LOL I'm just going to address this portion...

Legalizing marijuana is a discussion I could get into. But to legalize heroin and cocaine in the USA would all but guarantee addiction and death. There is no other path with heroin either, its simply addiction, devastation and death. To think of legalizing it where it's already killing thousands and thousands every year is stupid, and more than irresponsible of a "president" to recommend.