Aller au contenu

Republican Presidential Candidates

Nico

Par Nico
dans Europe et international

Messages recommandés

Apollon

Apollon

Posté
Posté
qu'est ce qu'un prix décent ?

pour les raisons que j'ai évoqué auparavant et pour te montrer que J'AI RAISON!!!

ok je prends les deux paris avec compensation en cas d'égalité.

Fixez-vous un prix, qu'on en finisse ! Par exemple, pas plus de 25 Euros, ou 35 Dollars.

voilà.

Apollon

Apollon

Posté
Posté
ok

30 euros max pour chaque bouquin.

Si égalité j'augmente le plafond sur un des bouquins de 15 euros :doigt:

ah non 25 € le plafond par bouquin :icon_up: Et si égalité, c'est compensation cad néant.

Roniberal

Roniberal

Posté
Posté

Apparemment, ce soutien de du comité ne fait pas plaisir à tous les conservateurs:

http://conservablogs.com/haemet/2007/11/14…ct-vs-the-good/

Why Fred? The Perfect vs. The Good

As I posted Monday night, the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of Fred Thompson was disappointing to me. However, it was not unexpected and it certainly was not a betrayal of pro-life values (unlike Pat Robertson endorsing Guiliani). At the end of that post (”NRLC to Endorse Fred Thompson“), I recommended that individuals who are similarly disappointed read Dr. Wanda Franz’s article, “When Common Sense is Lacking“.

Unless you have been for Fred since the beginning, I think the question in every pro-lifer’s mind right now is: “Why Fred?” Why not Duncan Hunter? Why not Mike Huckabee? Why not Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ron Paul? Excluding Romney, it is arguable that each of those candidates has a solid pro-life record that easily outshines Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson has made some questionable statements in the past regarding abortion and more recently regarding Terri Schiavo. Why would the nation’s leading, most respected pro-life lobbying organization throw their hat in the ring for Fred, of all people?

I think it is most useful to look at Dr. Wanda Franz’s statement to the press:

National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization, representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters is proud to endorse former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States. Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to protecting unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win.

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973, abortion-on-demand, Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed the use of tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures, such as parental notice and consent.

Thompson has also stated his opposition to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing human embryos, while supporting the kind of stem cell research that harms no one and is the only kind producing treatments and cures.

Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls. As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency.

In other words, the National Right to Life Committee has done their homework. If you are upset about this endorsement, it means you think it matters. It means you do respect NRLC and all the work they do to save innocent lives. In other words, you trust them. Let me ask you this, what motivation would NRLC have to endorse someone who is not solidly pro-life? For what reason would they suddenly, after all these years fighting in the pro-life movement, throw it all away on a candidate they were unsure of? I can promise you that the leaders of National Right to Life have met with Fred and his staff. They have questioned him about some of the odd statements he has made. They have made absolute sure that he will make a president they can stand behind and trust. Why would they not?

I know a lot of you — and I guess I’m speaking to Hunter fans, Huckabee fans, all the pro-lifers and social conservatives who wished for another nominee — may not like Fred very much. I’ve already told you that I am not madly in love with him. Instead of getting upset with National Right to Life, I would ask you to reconsider why you chose to support who you are supporting. Do you just like their good looks and stunning charisma? Or is it something deeper, like shared values and priorities? In my case, it’s the latter. I do believe that Duncan Hunter has great charisma, but the reason I supported him was because he is socially and fiscally conservative. He has a voting record to back it up and all signs point to him maintaining his conservatism in the future. In other words, it isn’t about the person — it’s about the values.

This is where Dr. Franz’s article comes into play. For those of us wishing to see socially and fiscally conservative values protected by and promoted in the White House, we cannot lose sight of the big picture. Dr. Franz has five lessons for pro-lifers to remember when it comes to politics:

1. Elections have consequences.

Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how he unleashed the abortion drug RU-486 on this country, how he pushed the pro-abortion agenda at the UN, and how he wanted to make abortion a routine procedure within a federally mandated healthcare system. Just recall how the Democratic pro-abortion leadership in the Senate is absolutely opposed to appointing constitution-oriented judges to the federal bench.

2. There are no ideal candidates for political office — or, at best, very few of them.

3. The point is not to make a statement, but a difference.

When a “statement” (e.g., actively opposing a pro-life candidate facing a pro-abortionist) has the effect of defeating the pro-life candidate and letting a pro-abortionist win, the pro-life cause has been betrayed—no matter what highfalutin “principled” stance has been invoked to justify such moral posturing. Simply staying above the fray and not voting in such a case may not have the ringing sound of a “statement,” but it still has the same effect. Such non-voters allow the pro-abortionist to win. Again the pro-life cause loses—a negative difference, in effect. What true adherence to the pro-life cause compels us to do is to make a positive difference: actively working for the pro-life candidate, ensuring the loss of the pro-abortionist.

4. Don’t fall in love with your candidate.

We all know candidates, 100% pro-lifers, who would make great presidents, representatives, or senators—except that they just have no chance of getting elected. People have all kinds of motives for giving candidates their votes. Unfortunately, electing a 100% pro-life candidate into office motivates only a minority. The perfect pro-life candidate, if one is available, may not have the same perfect appeal to the generally wishy-washy-on-life-issues public. A realistic assessment may tell us that the election of that perfect pro-life candidate is unattainable. Sometimes, there is the temptation—especially in a primary fight—to fight so tenaciously for the hopeless candidate that the eventual winner becomes tarred as “not sufficiently pro-life”—weakening her for the confrontation against the pro-abortionist in the general election. So your guy can’t win the primary: (1) don’t demonize the other pro-life candidates during the primary race, and (2) close ranks behind the pro-life winner and support him in the general election. (ed: emphasis mine)

5. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

In many ways this principle restates what was observed above: in insisting on the unattainable we may lose the attainable.

And when we lose as pro-lifers, babies die. Think about that.

So, what’ll it be? You’ve fallen in love with your candidate. I’ve fallen in love with mine. You know your candidate is better than Fred Thompson.

Is fighting for the unattainable perfect against the attainable good worth letting more babies die?

kobsh_gigaone

kobsh_gigaone

Posté
Posté
Au passage, qui penses-tu va gagner la primaire démocrate ? Et l'élection ?

trop tôt pour se prononcer pour les démocrates. En sachant qu'Edwards et Obama sont très proche d'hilary dans l'iowa et que les attaques à l'encontre de cette dernière sont de plus en plus violentes…

Beaucoup trop tôt l'élection présidentielle :icon_up:

p.a

p.a

Posté
Posté

politiques libertariens: panier de crabes

ça me fait penser à AL

THE LIBERATOR ONLINE

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Vol. 12, No. 21

Circulation: 69,941 subscribers in over 100 countries.

The world's largest-circulation libertarian publication!

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS

by James W. Harris

The Latest Ron Paul Fraud

Newspapers and TV shows have been buzzing with reports that libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul raised over 4 million dollars in just 24 hours, on November 5.

If true, that would be the largest amount of money any Republican presidential candidate this year has raised in a single day. In fact, that's

remarkably close to the most successful presidential fundraising day ever in American history: John Kerry's $5.7 million -- and that happened only after

Kerry accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, not in the days before the primaries.

But of course this cannot be true. It has to be some kind of trick. After all, every savvy political observer knows that Ron Paul has just a handful of fanatical supporters.

When he started winning virtually all of the online polls, it was clear this was the work of just a few pro-Paul nuts, with computers and far too

much time on their hands, endlessly spamming the polls.

When Technorati, which ranks popularity in the blogosphere, announced that "Ron Paul" was the number one Internet search term, that was obviously just

more spam trickery by the miniscule but diabolically active Paul cult. When Ron Paul's YouTube channel reached over 30,000 subscribers last month --

far more than any other presidential candidate, and making him his channel the 39th most popular YouTube channel of all time -- it was just more of the same.

When he won almost every phone-in poll after each nationally-televised debate, once again it was clear to all right-thinking observers that it had to

be the same few Ron Paul fanatics, dialing over and over again, somehow getting past blockers the networks put in place to make that impossible.

When he started winning or scoring high in numerous local GOP straw polls, it was obviously just the same tiny crew, now frantically traveling state

to state and using false IDs to make it appear Paul had lots of supporters. No doubt this same handful are the ones who greet Ron Paul, cheering and waving

signs, wherever he goes.

The more than 1,000 Ron Paul meet-up groups, in over 800 cities, who have put on over 12,000 events so far… just more trickery and manipulation by

this small but determined band.

Ditto for the countless thousands of handmade Ron Paul signs that have seemingly popped up spontaneously across the country. The tiny Paul

cabal probably does it while they're racing across the country to keep up with Paul's campaign appearances.

I frankly haven't figured out yet how this small group of isolated loners and fringe crazies, as they're often described, has managed to fool

everyone into believing they raised over four million dollars in one day. But it obviously must be just another trick.

Because, if it's not a trick, it would mean that Ron Paul -- and his libertarian message of peace, civil liberties, economic freedom and

limited government -- has far greater support than much of the media has ever imagined.

And that couldn't be true.

Could it?

Apollon

Apollon

Posté
Posté
trop tôt pour se prononcer pour les démocrates. En sachant qu'Edwards et Obama sont très proche d'hilary dans l'iowa et que les attaques à l'encontre de cette dernière sont de plus en plus violentes…

Beaucoup trop tôt l'élection présidentielle :icon_up:

Edwards est un second couteau, Obama reste un outsider donc je ne pense pas prendre trop de risque en misant sur Hilary même si pour la présidentielle il est clairement tôt pour se prononcer.

Taranne

Taranne

Posté
Posté
November 14, 2007

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

By Andrew Walden

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.

Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.

Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response. In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org. After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:

"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."

Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"

Benton's response:

"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."

On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."

As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign.

The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:

"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."

Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,

"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?"

The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul.

Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site. Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him. Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.

On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings. Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry." Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn". BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."

Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter. "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show." Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point. Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.

There are others. In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.

Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchannan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope." Buchannan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link). Ron Unz, editor of Buchannan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources.

Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other:

A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review." The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.

A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.

There is more to the Paul campaign than racists. The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support. The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21.

"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."

Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job." But the "truthers" aren't fooled. Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300. Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution. Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600.

Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months. Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign. LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3. In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run." Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.

Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.

An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America." MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy."

MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:

"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah."

A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?" A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.

The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories.

The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.

Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't. Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11". Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic." He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:

"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."

Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence. But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males." During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article. Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul. He claims:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

Adds Texas Monthly:

"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?" Wrote Paul,

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard. Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:

"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."

If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate." But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."

The double standard raises questions. Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:

"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul. Lang claims,

"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams…."

Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:

"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"

Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates? Paul's interpretation of American history is false. This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":

"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"‘…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"

Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments. As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.

In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:

"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"

"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."

"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."

"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."

"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."

Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:

"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? … I'm voting for Ron Paul."

Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support. Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?

Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives. Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush. In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel." Rockwell continues:

"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves… (etc)"

and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association."

Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association." No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's. Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell? Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.

Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved. But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response.

Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate. They should be careful what they ask for. If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.

melodius

melodius

Posté
Posté

Et voilà, la campagne de diffamation a commencé ! C'est la preuve par a+b qu'il commence à faire peur. Excellente nouvelle Taranne, merci !

Ash

Ash

Posté
Posté

C'est tout ce qu'ils ont dans le ventre ?

On début on vous ignore, ensuite on rigole de vous (Giuliani) et enfin on vous calomnie.

Ron Paul est sur la bonne voie.

h16

h16

Posté
Posté
Et voilà, la campagne de diffamation a commencé ! C'est la preuve par a+b qu'il commence à faire peur. Excellente nouvelle Taranne, merci !

Je me suis fait la même réflexion en me rappelant d'un certain Sarko diabolisé par une certaine Ségo…

Ash

Ash

Posté
Posté

Réponse magnifique de Paul lors de cette ITW :

"some say your campaign is kind of a throwback…"

RP: "I think its exactly opposite of a throwback. our current government is a throwback back to tyranny. Tyranny has been around for thousands of years, our constitution and liberty is a relatively new idea in history…"

Ronnie Hayek

Ronnie Hayek

Posté
Posté
Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives.

En revanche, traiter un libertarien de nazi, ce n'est pas du tout gauchiste…

Asthenik

Asthenik

Posté
Posté

Il faut bien admettre que parmis les supporters (supposés) de Ron Paul, on trouve non seulement des personnes parfaitement respectables, mais aussi de drôles de zigotos peu reluisants que certains savent manifestement faire fructifier et relayer avec succès. Il importe peu que ces derniers soient de véritables sympathisants ou des personnes cherchant simplement à jeter le discrédit sur Ron Paul, cela pourrait sans aucun doute causer des dommages à la réputation d'intégrité sur laquelle Ron Paul capitalise beaucoup et réfréner le grand public de s'associer à la campagne. J'ai déjà entendu Ron Paul se démarquer des truthers (suite aux attaques de Malkin dont je conseille le blog à Taranne dans sa grande quête du vide ordure parfait), j'espère qu'il saura balayer du revers de la main ces sottises et que ce sera l'occasion de faire valoir l'ironie de ces sous-entendus malfaisants que seuls imbéciles ou ignares peuvent prendre au sérieux.

Phil

Phil

Posté
Posté
(oui c'est un fil sur les républicains je sais merci) Kucinich :

Regardez jusqu'à la fin, il y a une question priceless.

Quand il parlait des travailleurs, c'était un peu tendance. Manquais le "Mais c'est un scandale monsieur Barre".

pankkake

pankkake

Posté
Posté
Tout un débat sur les produits Chinois… finalement ils valent bien nos socialos.

Pour avoir vu des dégâts causés par certains produits chinois, je pense qu'il ne faut quand même pas prendre la question à la légère.

melodius

melodius

Posté
Posté
Pour avoir vu des dégâts causés par certains produits chinois, je pense qu'il ne faut quand même pas prendre la question à la légère.

Demain dans vos caddies, la poupée chinoise qui vous explose à la gueule, nouvelle menace contre la Fraônce.

Chitah

Chitah

Posté
Posté
Tout un débat sur les produits Chinois… finalement ils valent bien nos socialos.

Il ne s'agit pas de discuter d'un sujet pour essayer de le résoudre, mais simplement de prêter allégeance aux syndicats US de grandes industries manufacturières. Ce qu'il se dit à ce débat, tout le monde s'en fout.

John Loque

John Loque

Posté
Posté
Demain dans vos caddies, la poupée chinoise qui vous explose à la gueule, nouvelle menace contre la Fraônce.

Quand est-ce qu'ils se lancent dans le canapé ?

Archivé

Ce sujet est désormais archivé et ne peut plus recevoir de nouvelles réponses.

Aller sur la liste des sujets
×
×
  • Créer...