Posted on 11/14/2007 4:06:53 AM PST by George W. Bush
<snip>
There are plenty of reasons to be perturbed when loons and hate-mongers support a candidacy. But this game of guilt-by-association can be played endlessly. I tend to place greater emphasis on loons and hate-mongers that candidates actively seek out. Pat Robertson is a loon and an anti-Semite and a vicious homophobe who blamed Americans for 9/11. Giuliani didn't receive some unsolicited money from him; he actually stood on a platform and embraced him. Why one standard for Paul and another for Giuliani? If Obama embraced Louis Farrakhan as a supporter, you think Goldfarb and Kirchick would be silent? They'd have a cow because it's unthinkable. But naked bigotry is more than thinkable in today's GOP: it's integral to it. What's the difference between Farrakhan and Robertson? I can't see any. Maybe Goldfarb and Kirchick can spell it out.
Giuliani also promoted and endorsed a seriously mobbed up man to be head of the DHS; he fully embraces and employs a priest credibly accused of sex abuse of a minor (and refuses to distance himself from him); and actively endorses torture as a foreign policy weapon. Jamie Kirchick actually supports Giuliani for president - but is hyper-ventilating about a $500 check that Paul hasn't even decided what to do with! There you have the massive double-standards on the neocon right.
Here's an idea: when Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should send back the $500. Deal?
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
I could care less about a couple of Nazi spammers kicked out of RP’s Meetups. As long as they’re not allowed back in.
No, he doesn't have magical powers, but he doesn't need them. From another thread a few weeks ago. And no, Paul hasn't the courage for a statement like this.
He needs to take two minutes, suck it up, insult some of his supporters, and perhaps update Ronald Reagan's direct, unequivocal statements in the same situation. I'll help.
I have been distressed to learn that I have been receiving support from various hate groups and that my columns have appeared in their print publications. The latter will end immediately. I do not want such support and that I repudiate it and everything the Klan stands for have no tolerance for what these groups represent, and would have nothing to do with any groups of that type. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood. Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.I firmly believe that there is no room for partisanship on this question. Democrats and Republicans alike must be resolute in disassociating ourselves from any group or individual whose political philosophy consists only of racial or religious intolerance, whose arguments are supported only by intimidation or threats of violence.
We must, and will, continue our unified rejection of such elements of hate in our political life, for while there are many issues which divide us, it is fundamental principles such as this which will always draw us together.
Adapted from Ronald Reagan in similar circumstances. I could have used Lee Atwater or Bush I or Bush II, but Reagan seems appropriate.
Mr. Nathaniel J. Friedman
August 23, 1980 Dear Mr. Friedman:
Just a line to thank you very much for your letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. It was kind and generous of you to do this, and I am most grateful.
It wasnt until I left the South and was in New York that I learned the Klan had endorsed me. I immediately made it plain in a press conference that I do not want such an endorsement and that I repudiate it and everything the Klan stands for. I guess Mr. Young didnt pay much attention to that.
Again, my heartfelt thanks.
Best regards,
Ron-----------------
April 30, 1984
Dear Morris:
While in China, I have been distressed to learn that some individuals back home have questioned whether my views on the Ku Klux Klan have somehow changed since 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In 1980, I said that I have no tolerance for what the Klan represents, and would have nothing to do with any groups of that type. If anything, my feelings on this subject have only grown stronger. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood. Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.
I firmly believe that there is no room for partisanship on this question. Democrats and Republicans alike must be resolute in disassociating ourselves from any group or individual whose political philosophy consists only of racial or religious intolerance, whose arguments are supported only by intimidation or threats of violence.
We must, and will, continue our unified rejection of such elements of hate in our political life, for while there are many issues which divide us, it is fundamental principles such as this which will always draw us together.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan[The Honorable Morris B. Abram, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20425]
So the dude who either is not supporting somebody is calling shenanigans on me (who is supporting someone)? Look at my posting history. I'm all about Fred. I'm pinging the keepers of the Thompsson ping list to hopefully vouch for me that I've been on the FR Thompson bus since long before he announced and bring their attention to Fred threads whenever I can.
Meanwhile, your complacency and laziness only contributes to the possibility of a Giuliani nomination.
When the ZOTTINGS are mentioned, some stealth Paultards suddenly become Fred Thompson supporters.
Non moderator n00bs who fantasize about Paul fans getting booted don't spook me in the least. I'm not afraid to admit that I like Ron Paul's positions on domestic issues, I've been a fan of his and posting his stuff to FR for years.
Again, more Paultard BS and diversionary tactics.
Can't you Paultards understand that it is his suicidal foreign policy which disqualifies him as desirable here, not his domestic policies.
Yes, I'm not an admin, but I'm more than an ace when it comes to helping zot interlopers, trolls, and other undesirables from this forum.
I can also smell bullshit from hyperspace, i.e., "I'm a Thompson Supporter".
I understand that perfectly. That's the whole reason he's not my choice of candidates in the primary.
Yes, I'm not an admin, but I'm more than an ace when it comes to helping zot interlopers, trolls, and other undesirables from this forum.
Well I'm none of the above. I've been freeping sonce '01, and with an exception of one night being drunk and telling nopardons to f&*# herself, I've never received as much as a time-out.
I can also smell bullshit from hyperspace, i.e., "I'm a Thompson Supporter".
bullshit from hyperspace, I like that. Maybe Paul can use it like they did the Guy Fawkes money bomb. December 7 would be a good day, to commemorate the loss of our rights at the hands of FDR. I'm getting in to this Alex Jones stuff.
Kinda like how your boy Rudy milks 9/11 for all it's worth?
Something is not right here.
....says a "Fred Thompson supporter"
Because I'm a libertarian and Thompson is the closest thing to a libertarian running whose foreign policy is acceptable to me. If Thompson wins the nomination, Paul fans will turn out for him due to his strong support for federalism.
I'm pretty sure GWB and Triple E are fans of Thompson too. The people who are most vocally anti-Paul are the liberal/moderate pro-Rudy douchebags like Michael Medved.
Don't mention foreign policy, and pretend you support someone else, but defend the crap out of the indefensible.
Anyhow, I need to take a break from pwning your face and get some dinner and get home. Will pick this up later.
Using your illogic, one would also conclude that the list would include, me, the anti-Paultard crew here on Freerepublic, and the Founder of this website, who has some really stinging things to say about your libertarian suicide king Ron Paul AND JulieAnnie.
It's obvious that the head bone is connected to the ass bone, because being anti-suicide, aka anti-Ron Paul IS NOT equal to pro-Rudy.
Why don't you defend libertarian domestic policy when it is justified. Defending Ron Paul on Freerepublic is counter productive to "libertarians" who have FR accounts.
Not only that. If in the primaries it looks like Paul can't stop Rudy and Fred can...most current Paul supporters will support any other candidate in the remaining big State primaries who can...Fred...even Romney. First priority for any conservative is to STOP RUDY.
jmc813 bravely spews: "Anyhow, I need to take a break from pwning your face and get some dinner and get home. Will pick this up later."
Sure, you have one arm left, why not, I'll show you more pain.
All Ron Paul supporters are actually Thompson or Hunter supporters. They just feel bad that Paul is being beat up on.
Anyone opposed to Paul is a Giuliani supporter. Some of them, like Medved, are douchebags (this is a classy place). Or ignorant freepers, liberals, antisemites (I've been called that one), neocons, et al.
Remind me to be nice to you in the future...
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.