Angry White Man (The bigoted "past" of Ron Paul. Calls black people "animals")

New Republic ^ | January 8, 2008 | James Kirchick

[lormand]

"...it isn't Paul who is looking like "the kook"

Thanks for the laugh at your expense. Very funny.

[mnehring]

I actually think they should stay (most of them at least). Many are good for debate outside Paul forums and a few are actually good folks. The debates also hit google, so when you google, say, ron paul and immigration, bam, some free republic threads pop up. This is helping backfire on the Google Ron Paul theme. It is also a good way for us to distinguish from the other sites.

[bcsco]

I’m sure furquhart will respond in kind. But I believe it’s possible that a donor can request to remain anonymous at the time of making a donation.

Unless you have proof other than the donor list, I’d suggest backing off the name calling. It makes you appear foolish.

[x]

I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his Rockwell connection.

Rockwell's an ignorant dogmatist who's wrong about so many things.

But I'd have a hard time choosing between the Rockwellites and the New Republic.

There's a snarkiness there that's as hard to take as the screeds Rockwell publishes are.

[mnehring]

hey were probably banned for posting a constant stream of articles about the USS Liberty.

I know there is one Paul supporter over on Ron Paul forums who brags all the time she was banned for supporting Paul (she wants to be known as a martyr) when she was actually banned for posting nutty conspiracy stuff.

[RobbyS]

Doern’t speak well for Paul that he can’t be cclassified in contemporary terms. He’s a throw-back to the ‘50s, to the likes of the John Birchers. Give Paul his due, he is consistent but he is a reactionary.

[highball]

to be fair, several of the comments Paul recently denied writing and claimed this was by a staffer

I don't think this matters at all.

His name was on the title of the publication, he can't claim ignorance as to what was behind the cover.

[Lovebloggers]

Could someone please direct me to the post which contains the youtube link that “debunks” this story......

The man is clearly unbalanced, which makes me raise an eyebrow at his sheep supporters who claim to be the “real” conservatives.

[mnehring]

The author of these newsletter articles, whoever he or she may be, uses -— like it or not -— the same rhetoric often found on Free Republic.

Yea, but then the mods immediately zot them for being stormfront trolls.

[lormand]

I understand your points, but I would rather a forum composed of like minded people rather than having a few Cindy Sheehan clones infesting the place.

[bcsco]

I actually think they should stay (most of them at least).

I'd agree. I have a problem with dropping someone off the rolls because of policy disagreements. If they get personally obnoxious, then yes, they should go.

But I do like your arguments for their staying.

[incindiary]

Some of the comments and attitudes on this thread are unbelievable and disgusting to me. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that this is a total smear job - perfectly timed to do the most political damage.

I would've thought that people who are more informed about politics than the average person (I'm talking about freepers) would know that this story is old, old, old, rehashed BS. They have nothing on Paul personally, because unlike most politicians, he is a good man, so they have to once again trot out this old piece of garbage written by someone else that has already been refuted.

For anyone who thinks that he wrote it or approve of it, I'm going to copy and paste what someone on another forum said:

He didn't allow it, even tacitly. The newsletter was published independently of him, though it did carry his name. He didn't write it, he didn't approve it, he didn't have anything to do with it.

He did, however, take moral responsibility for the stories due to the fact that they were published on a newsletter bearing his name. He obviously doesn't believe the things in it, and certainly is no racist.

And from the link that the OP posted, a comment about the author of this smear piece:

Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.

The cheering in this thread for a dishonest, leftist politicial character assasin makes my stomach turn. I didn't read the whole thread, but I know not everyone stooped to that level, so thank you to those of you who can think for yourselves and not be a part of smearing someone for political reasons.

[mnehring]

RP wants to stop gay marriage recognition

Actually, Paul wants to stop all marriage recognition, he doesn't think the government should be in the marriage business.

[Captain Kirk]

To be fair? Huh? Paul did not "recently" deny this. He's been apologizing for more than a decade. See here:

http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/ Well....you will probably have your way. A good man may well be destroyed. Sleep soundly tonight.

[mnehring]

Could someone please direct me to the post which contains the youtube link that “debunks” this story..

No YouTube link, the campaign basically just issued a release saying they only wrote the stuff in the newsletters that isn't bad.

[mnehring]

Here is the problem, and something Reason magazine pointed out. Sure, Paul denounced and has denounced the newsletters as being out of control and these specific things being written by someone else, but at the same time, the campaign is also quick to go back to other old newsletters and find comments favorable to Paul to prove his consistency on issues.

They basically denounce what makes him look bad in the newsletters and use what makes him look good.

[highball]

He didn't allow it, even tacitly. The newsletter was published independently of him, though it did carry his name. He didn't write it, he didn't approve it, he didn't have anything to do with it.

So why did he allow it to carry his name? Why not sue the scumbags out of business? Even public officials have some right to protect their names.

By not taking legal action to separate himself from the newsletter bearing his name, he was tacitly allowing it. This is deeply disappointing.

[jmc813]

I actually think they should stay (most of them at least). Many are good for debate outside Paul forums and a few are actually good folks. The debates also hit google, so when you google, say, ron paul and immigration, bam, some free republic threads pop up. This is helping backfire on the Google Ron Paul theme. It is also a good way for us to distinguish from the other sites.

You're one of the few people on these Paul threads that aren't more than half retarded.

[jmc813]

You're one of the few people on these Paul threads that aren't more than half retarded.

Oops, meant "less". That was supposed to be somewhat of a compliment.