Thread: Glenn Beck Deems Ron Paul “Domestic Threatâ€

Not that this is relevant to this discussion, but since you seem to be incapable of making any sort of cogent rebuttal I'll humor you.

What "association" is there between Don Black and the current POTUS? I find it hard to believe that a virulent anti-Semite, who wants to disenfranchise nonwhite citizens, would support a candidate who's pro-Israel, in support of affirmative action, and is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, but assuming that such an association exists, what relevance does it have to this discussion?

This is not a Ron Paul v. George W. Bush, who sucks more, thread. The entire premise of this thread, which I defenestrated several pages ago, was that Glen Beck is behind some sort of nefarious plot to silence Ron Paul supporters. Again, the entire discussion between Beck and Horowitz was not only taken out of context, but willfully distorted.

I can only assume that you view any journalist who isn't on board the Ron Paul Peace Train as "biased." I hate to disabuse you of this notion, but the objective of journalism is not to support or attack a particular political candidate, and it's certainly not to pass around the Kool-Aid for Ron Paul, so I suppose you'll be disenchanted by most of the media.

That being said, Ron Paul has received favorable coverage from mainstream, news-oriented outlets. The criticism he's received has come primarily from mainstream, conservative OPINION-makers. In other words, people who are paid to express their opinion. I hate to break this to you, Skippy, but those people, e.g. radio hosts, cable news hosts, editorialists, etc., are not obligated to cling to the banner of the Paulvolution.

Finally, no one is copying Paul's innovative fund-raising technique, because it was not the idea of Paul or his supporters. The concept of holding simultaneous gatherings designed to raise money for a presidential candidate on the same day, or raising millions of dollars via the World Wide Web for a specific presidential candidate, predates the Ron Paul campaign. The only creative aspect of this whole pointless endeavor on their part is linking the fundraising to a goofy Hollywood film.

Here's a question for you-since this thread has departed from its original intent-why did Ron Paul, when asked whether he'd pardon Scooter Libby, reply that he wouldn't, not because Libby was unworthy of a pardon or commutation of his sentence-which would have been a reasonable response to the question-but because he did not like the fact that Libby was intimately involved in crafting Iraq war policy?

Tell me, since when do civil libertarians believe that you should be denied due process rights because you have an unpopular or distasteful political viewpoint?

And to answer your earlier question, not that it's pertinent to this discussion, but because I know you'll accuse me of dodging it if I don't respond,

1. Duncan Hunter
2. Tom Tancredo
3. John Cox, who I'm pretty certain won't even be on the ballot by the time the New York Republican primary rolls around, which just serves to illustrate how little I think of the current crop of GOP presidential candidates.

Again, this is not a popularity contest. I do not "fear" Ron Paul, much less care whether he outpolls the aforementioned candidates, because I'm pretty sure all of them will fail in their quest to win a single primary and/or caucus held next year. Insofar as he adds a different, albeit misguided, IMO, perspective to this debate, then his candidacy is a qualified good. However, I do think I'm obligated, as a concerned citizen, to correct the record, which some-notice the qualifier-Ron Paul enthusiasts have been at pains to misrepresent during this election cycle.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Not that this is pertinent to the discussion at hand-it most certainly isn't-but since I know you'll accuse me of dodging your question if I ignore it,

1. Duncan Hunter

2. Tom Tancredo

3. John Cox-who most likely won't even be on the ballot in my state, due to the convoluted election laws that exist here, which just serves to illustrate how little I think of the current crop of GOP candidates.

And again, this is not a popularity contest.

I could care less if Paul is ahead of or behind those candidates, because the truth is that all of them are more than likely to lose every single presidential primary and/or caucus they enter next year.

This is not about "fearing" Paul's candidacy-insofar as he adds a different, albeit misguided, perspective to this contest his presence is welcome-because he is not in any position to instill fear in his opponents. This is simply a matter of clarifying the record, which some-and I highlight that qualifier "some"-Paul supporters have done their utmost to misrepresent.

No, that is incorrect. You misrepresent with your smear articles to define a candidacy. Who the heck cares that some supremecists support Ron Paul. Who cares that anti-semites support Ron Paul? How is that valid. IF you could show me that this is all who supports him, then I could see you have issue. But it is you who misrepresents by posting obvious smear articles to try and associate groups to someone. This intellectually dishonest.

Ron Paul supporters understand that because I find common ground with a racist does not make me a racist nor does it discredit Ron Paul's campaign. You seem to thing that it does so because you are not thinking outside the box, because you have never seen such fervor derived from a presidential candidate.

If a racist wants an end to the "federal income tax" - Great
If an anti-semite wants to end our aid to Israel - Great
If a anarchist wants limited government - Great

All those have nothing to do with the message. Ending aid to Israel is just a policy that will end aid to ALL countries. Ending the Federal Income Tax will help EVERYONE. An anarchist wants no government, yet that can never happen - but a limited government that our founding fathers intended is sure as hell better than the bloated government we have now.

I will not tell you what Mr. Blacks involvemnet with Mr. Bush was, as I would hope you will now do some research. Seeking sources of alternate information expands a caged mind.

Also, I would wholehearedly disagree with the fear aspect. Look at all the smear attacks coming out and he is supposedly a pee-on, a nonsuch... you aren't being honest here. Ron Paul will turn over the apple-cart, you know it as well as I.

I will even make a wager, if you like. Lets say, just lets say - if Ron Paul wins New Hampshire, I predict that a hate storm will manifest from the Media like never before. They did this to Buchanan too.

The criticism he's received has come primarily from mainstream, conservative OPINION-makers. In other words, people who are paid to express their opinion. I hate to break this to you, Skippy, but those people, e.g. radio hosts, cable news hosts, editorialists, etc., are not obligated to cling to the banner of the Paulvolution.

And einstein, oh I mean skippy, I am fully aware of opinion pieces - but if you are aware of such distortions IN AN opinion piece, one would be a little more careful in using them as reference. Wouldn't that be 'biased'. Thanks for clearing that up for us. You post "biased opinionated" pieces in support of smears you make. Nice. I am glad you let us all know that opinion pieces are made by "paid" persons.

Finally, no one is copying Paul's innovative fund-raising technique, because it was not the idea of Paul or his supporters. The concept of holding simultaneous gatherings designed to raise money for a presidential candidate on the same day, or raising millions of dollars via the World Wide Web for a specific presidential candidate, predates the Ron Paul campaign

hahaha... uhmm, yeah. I see your one for research.

Here was grassroots for Ron Paul: thisnovember5th.com, and now this one: teaparty07.com
(this concept came first by Ron Paul supporters)

Here is one from kucinich: http://december152007.com
Here is one from Huckaster: http://www.nov20forthechildren.com

Also, Tancredo supporters are trying this and Obama supporters (both of which made reference to Nov.5th - if not an inspiration then why?).

Yes, the concept of fundraising has come before, that is a no brainer. But what is a first is grassroots creating websites and forming the "money bombs" around specific pertinent dates. So, in essence to my point - you are wrong.

So please - uhmm. Just do a tad of research. Just a smidgen.

You seem to be missing the point altogether.

My beef with Ron Paul isn't that white supremacists or anti-Semites support him-and I don't see how you discerned a love of foreign aid from my comments, but let's put that aside for a moment-but that he refuses to categorically reject the support rendered to his campaign by moral and intellectual reprobates.

I would not spend a minute criticizing Ron Paul-whose campaign doesn't really merit attention in the final analysis-if he had simply come out and disassociated himself from the Troof Squad, Stormfronters, and conspiracists various and sundry, then returned the check given to his campaign by Don Black when this was pointed out to him.

When Lyndon LaRouche cultists won the Dem. nomination for several important races in the state of Illinois back in the mid-80s the incumbent Democratic governor, Adlai Stevenson III, actually switched parties so that he would not be tainted by association! This was a decision that cost him re-election, yet he was willing to make that painful choice because intellectual integrity and conscience, concepts that are wholly alien to Ron Paul, demanded that he do so.

I know that the collective memory of the Paulistas doesn't outstrip the declaration of his presidential candidacy, but try and stay with me for a minute while I drop some relatively recent history on you.

Paul did not invent the concept of a "money bomb," i.e. raising a predetermined amount by a certain date through online petitioning. He might have been more successful at collecting funds through that method than other candidates who preceded him, but he did not generate the idea itself, and the fact that you think he did demonstrates conclusively that you don't know anything about this subject.

The Candidate - Howard Dean: "Dick Cheney was holding a $2,000-a-plate fundraising lunch, so we asked Americans all over the country to join me the same day for a lunch in front of their computers. It sparked a huge response, and, amazingly, the online contributions from that day matched what Cheney made from his fundraiser.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/2003.html

Dean's director of grassroots fundraising, Larry Biddle, came up with the idea of the popular fundraising "bat", an image of a cartoon baseball player and bat which appeared on the site every time the campaign launched a fundraising challenge. The bat encouraged Web site visitors to contribute money immediately through their credit cards. This would lead to the bat filling up like a thermometer with the red color indicating the total funds.

The site often took suggestions from the netroots on their blog. One of these suggestions led to one of the campaigns biggest accomplishments — an image of Dean eating a turkey sandwich encouraged supporters to donate $250,000 in three days to match a big-donor dinner by Vice President Dick Cheney. The online contributions from that day matched what Cheney made from his fundraiser.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#_note-10

I suppose now you're going to accuse Howard Dean of preemptively stealing the ingenius notion devised by the Ron Paul Coalition of the Deluded.

Oh wait, that was a fund-raising "bat," not a fund-raising "bomb," so I suppose they're two entirely distinct ideas.