Posted on 01/05/2008 12:35:42 PM PST by Baladas
If he denounced them, he'd be contradicting himself & everything he stood for.
Unfortunately, these moonbats have a right to hold these disgusting rallies.
Paul has already stated that he does not share their beliefs.
You want it both ways, it seems.
No, I don't. But you want Paul to go above and beyond a requisite he has already met. If he did just that, you'd say he was pandering and backpedaling, and then you guys would heap more derision on him.
These despicable excuses for Americans protest the war outside Walter Reed, and you excuse it with, "Until you see official Paul for President campaign staffers hosting those rallies or attending them, get back to me."
I don't excuse them, I condemn them.
But if Paul does not endorse their views or is in coordination with these people, then it's a non-story.
Yet when those same staffers accept money from admitted and well known white supremacists
Before the campaign realized the money came from a white supremacist in which it was already spent.
you excuse it saying that the campaign didn't actively solicit the money, even though the evidence is exactly to the contrary.
They didn't solicit it, and giving Black the money back from someone's else donation is ludicrous. And again, if he did just that, the media would howl and you guys would heap more scorn on him anyway. Paul's not going to be your tool, and it pisses you guys off. ROFL
Your inconsistency is pretty apparent, but then you are a Run Paul supporter.
You're staggering inability to think constructively is most, most apparent.
Your unquestioning fealty to this disgusting man is pretty creepy and not a little frightening.
I'm not a diehard Paulbot. I'll support Thompson if he's the nominee. I just feel that Paul is injecting new life into the GOP and making it stronger over the long run.
You can't simultaneously claim that the Iraq in war is fueling terror and that the troops in Iraq are defending our freedoms.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Paul believes our troops in the Middle East make us less safe. Saying otherwise is utter bullsh*t.
You realize that President Bush has received campaign contributions from dozens of contributors who own minority stakes in slave labor factories in third world countries? Oh, and Guiliani has gone to their dinner receptions over the years too. These people are specifically named by antisweatshop coalitions, and have been cross referenced through OpenSecrets.org.
I am the primary target of white supremacists and muslim militants, yet still see it being irrelevant regarding if these militants contribute to a campaign if the politician doesn’t hold their views.
Shouldn’t you be more concerned with corporate contributions regarding corporations that actively use and sub contract slave labor camps? Or corporations that actively lobby politicians who want to eliminate 1st Amendment Rights through DMCA, or political contributors who import substandard and dangerous products to the American market, and control our port screening policy through their lobbyests?
White Supremacists in the US are a group of irrelevant dead enders. To use them in any argument is to give them credence, and to pull out is to use a red herring of the Leftist mainstream media.
Yes, it is. Vietnam is communist in name only.
I lived in a very small village in Viet Nam and had many native friends that I came to love like family. When the "noncommunists" came thru this village near HWY1 in 1975, they killed all of my friends because they were Catholic. Scores of men, women and children destroyed because of a non-communist religion. Ron Paul wouldn't defend his own Mother and no real Veteran would ever vote for him.
Right. And I'm the one that can't think constructively. You, otoh, are so extraordinarily brilliant, yet you are totally unable to make any coherent case FOR your hero without resorting to linguistic contortions.
The fact is that any candidate with a shred of dignity and a shred of decency would stridently and vehemently state that he views these people with contempt and that he (not his campaign, that you so like to rely on) disagrees with them unequivocally.
The problem is that he can't do this, not because it would, supposedly and nonsensically, "..be contradicting himself & everything he stood for..." but because those aren't his principles. He has no record of supporting the troops, and he has no record of standing against donors like David Duke.
It's very convenient to hide behind tripe like "..but you want Paul to go above and beyond a requisite he has already met. If he did just that, you'd say he was pandering and backpedaling, and then you guys would heap more derision on him."
As a Republican Presidential candidate, it should turn his stomach to see his name connected to the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Don Black. But it, apparently doesn't, and we are left with his minions making excuses.
This only confirms what so many of us have known for ages about Paul - an unscrupulous isolationist that will take money from anyone willing to give it to him no matter how dirty the money, your platitudes notwithstanding.
Sir, I’m talking about now and I appreciate your service. Vietnam may be communist but they’re not totalitarian communist like NK. Hundreds of Americans a year travel there with no problems.
Let me break it down for you:
- He doesn't share their views
- The money was donated and spent already before Paul realized who Don Black was
- He gave a rational explanation on why he didn't return the money back to him.
Now I'm sorry that Paul isn't playing the politically-correct game for you.
- Baloney. I don't believe you. Nice try. There are too many, from Cindy Sheehan, to Black, to numerous orders of the KKK, to David Duke. And the reaction from Paul has been non-existent, and muted, at best, from his campaign.
- "...donated and already spent." Horse hockey. Insult someone else's intelligence. Just as Hillary Clinton returned money that she received from Norman Hsu, so too Run Paul can return donations to those with whom he so fervently disagrees. The problem is that Paul is all talk. And his gullible sycophants continue to make excuses for him.
- He gave no explanation. His campaign gave a tepid non-answer.
And as for politically correct, I suppose that comment has some relevance in a universe far, far away.
That's a pretty diverse group you polled, my FRiend.
I polled an equally diverse group - all veterans who I personally know and who have made a choice of presidential candidates.
The results? I (USMC vet) support Ron Paul.
My best friend (Army 82nd Abn. "combat" vet of Grenada) - supports Ron Paul.
The big one, after a lot of effort on my part - my dad (combat vet WWII USMC 6th MARDIV Okinawa Campaign, combat vet, USMCR pilot Korean War, USMCR fighter pilot, non-combat vet of Vietnam war, retired USMCR officer with 28 years of USMC/USMCR service) - finally told me a couple of weeks ago that he will definitely vote for Ron Paul in the GA primaries.
As far as veteran donations to the Ron Paul campaign goes, I have personally donated $750 to his presidential campaign so far, and my donations don't show up as coming from a vet, they're listed under my current occupation. So there's really no way of telling just how much of his, or any other candidates support, is from the veteran community.
Thanks for making another point that negates any claim by Ron Paul that he is favored by the military over the other candidates.
That typifies the suicidal stance of Paultards.
Fear your fellow American or Government more than an enemy you fail to recognize.
I’m a real vet an I am going to do just that in Florida today.
You and Murtha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.