*requeue

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 11:45am PDT - requeue requested by submitter Grimm.

Rong Paul recently has been caught accepting money from neo-Nazi Don Black.

yep... $500

Many of us think he should give it back, others of us that don't like Don Black think he should keep the money anyway and put it to good use. Ron Paul, like any other candidate takes in many donations from all walks of life. Ron Paul does not endorse Don Black's views nor any other donator. Ron Paul needs money. Period.. The other candidates have up to ten times the amount of money that Ron Paul has.

I think he should keep the money so as to not bend to the will of cheap slander tactics such as this. It doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is fighting for the founders original intent and protection of the Constitution.

I think he's a hardcore racist.

Ron Paul:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

And I don't believe his pathetic "blame the employee" excuse.

well... for one, I have been robbed by a black teen-aged male when I grew up in Miami.. He was fleet-footed, holding my gold necklace in his hand while others like him gathered to defend him against me by throwing rocks when I tried to chase him. That being said, I've never told anyone about that incident before and I don't dislike black people... it's just what happened one day and being fleet-footed really has nothing to do with race.

I think you really enjoy bringing up racial issues and making them your pinnacle of debate. You tried to make me out to be anti-semetic before while I had absolutely no inclination of the subject. However you did spark my interest to find out what you were talking about on some points and I ended up reading a very revealing document called the Protocols of Zion, thanks.

There are good and bad people in all walks of life.. but some are heavily influenced by their communities.

Secondly.. can you please cite these statements? when and where were they said by him?

and what exactly do you mean by "blame the employee" excuse?

Are you trying to say, by your completely irrelevant anecdote, that you don't acknowledge the racism of Ron Paul's statements? If that's the case then you're truly hopeless.

Constitutional_Patriot wrote:

----

"However you did spark my interest to find out what you were talking about on some points and I ended up reading a very revealing document called the Protocols of Zion, thanks."

----

Do you actually not realize that the Protocols of Zion are hardcore anti-semitism AND completely debunked as a forgery and a hoax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion


Earlier I had declared you to be "susceptible" but I had no idea to just what extent this was true.


Ron Paul's racist comments were published in the "Ron Paul Political Report" renamed "The Ron Paul Survival Report".

More on that here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

I don't read the daily kos, it's full of a lot of extreme far left BS.

The wikipedia article you linked to doesn't show this as a hardcore anti-semitic document, and claims that it's not a hoax, however there is someone on there according to the history of the entry that keeps trying to purvey it as such. It's claimed that it's not anti-semitic, but is a doctrine for ultimately achieving world domination. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if anything it correlates with some of your past comments and I didn't know about it until you sparked my interest in the subject. I think it's definitely a topic of discussion and maybe a documentary or two might help to focus the light on the document and it's validity.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is as anti-semitic as possible by the very definition of the term, and also a forgery. You've been fooled.

You said something about a documentary. I've just posted the trailer to a documentary on the Protocols of Zion -- http://www.videosift.com/video/Protocols-of-Zion-Documentary-Trailer. In the comments section I've posted a link to the full documentary that I've just learned Fedquip has posted.

Like I said -- you've been fooled.

By the way, that very disturbing site you sent me in the above post and your earlier comment in my profile (this one: http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/10/protocols-of-zion-in-modern-english.html) has direct links to several hardcore racists like David Duke, former grand poobah or whatever of the KKK. Nice work, kiddo!



Constitutional_Patriot wrote:

-----

The wikipedia article you linked to doesn't show this as a hardcore anti-semitic document, and claims that it's not a hoax, however there is someone on there according to the history of the entry that keeps trying to purvey it as such. It's claimed that it's not anti-semitic, but is a doctrine for ultimately achieving world domination. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but if anything it correlates with some of your past comments and I didn't know about it until you sparked my interest in the subject. I think it's definitely a topic of discussion and maybe a documentary or two might help to focus the light on the document and it's validity.

-----


Wrong, wrong and wrong again. That's plain crazy what you just wrote.

Re DailyKos: I've heard of the Daily Kos but it's hardly "extreme far left," ie. Stalinist/Maoist. It's merely a run-of-the-mill USian liberal website. 'Left-wing' and 'liberal' are not interchangeable terms.

The article you will find at that site you refuse to read references the original content on Ron Paul's racism -- which you asked for.

I've also noticed that's the second time you've insinuated that I've altered a wikipedia article for the sake of my argument. For the record, I've never edited or written an entry at wikipedia. The very suggestion is, quite frankly, beyond the pale.

Ron Paul needs to end with a better zinger than this. He ended this absolutely terribly - I don't think it made sense.

Ron Paul needs to drive a dune-buggy into the desert where he can work on his beard.

Qualm, instead of judging the man on something he may or may not have said in print 15 years ago (He says they are not his words, you choose not believe him). Why don't you tell us what he has said in what we know as being in his own words or what actions he has done as a politician that would corroborate that he is a racist?

Grimm, I don't merely choose not to believe him on a whim. His denial is not believable. Think about it for a minute. The best case scenario is that Ron Paul is telling the truth that he didn't write those words. But THEN it's not even remotely plausible that an employee would write such blatantly racist views as quoted above, which were published in the Ron Paul Survival Report, unless it was clearly understood that such views spoke to the people who were Ron Paul's audience at the time. (Rather damning, I'm afraid.)

And then if this was not the case then such an action by this phantom employee would clearly be the work of a mercenary sort of enemy or rogue infiltrator who was setting out to damage Ron Paul. But Ron Paul doesn't make this claim. Ron Paul says very little. Occam's Razor, man.

The last rather bizarre possibility is that this was just an incident that's equivalent to some lout grabbing the microphone at the radio station. How silly is that? This would collapse the truth that Ron Paul's staunchest support has in fact always come from the extreme right-wing militia, skinhead and neo-Nazi crowd...to the realm of mere coincidence.

No, now that he's a "serious" candidate the time is for backpedalling and denials. Or silence, better yet.

There won't be any Kramer meltdowns, unfortunately.

Trying to make Ron Paul out to be a nazi, then when that failed trying to make him out to be a racist.

Absolutely pathetic.

I correctly stated that Ron Paul accepted money from the notorious neo-Nazi Don Black. That is a serious charge in itself. But nowhere did I claim, as you accuse, that Ron Paul is himself a neo-Nazi. I strongly suspect though -- with evidence -- that Ron Paul is a racist.

Thanks for joining us. Stay in school, kid.

Tell us then... who do you think should be the best candidates running for president from what we have to choose from and why?

Also you seem to think that I'm insinuating that you were the person that attempted to alter the protocols of zion wiki article. Please, I wasn't referring to you.. "somebody" does not mean you so don't take it that way please.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "best." If by best you mean who do I think from all the available candidates best represents my views, my concerns, my values - then either Dennis Kucinich or Brian Moore from the Socialist Party USA: http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ are the ideal candidates to whom, hypothetically, I could lend my support.*

But if by "best" you're asking me a pragmatic question about long-term and short-term political aims best advanced by current candidates then that's a wholly different question. You have to understand that my politics are a hybrid of social-democrat (Scandinavian socialist-type mixed economy), socialist/Marxist analysis and anarchist traditions, with also a casual interest in Michael Albert/Robin Hahnel's Parecon and a couple other radical models.

You also have to understand that the US Democrats are quite a bit to the right-wing of almost all European right-wing parties, so if you set aside Kucinich, I'd not be within a country mile of that party. I'd like to see USian progressives continuing to build on the advances made at the recent Atlanta WSF. Eventually you will need a truly progressive third party to the left of the Democrats.

*Note that I've only given their platform little more than a cursory glance and I know very little about the party. Saying that, there's nothing I've seen yet in the platform which I would object to.

Nazism: If it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for me.