In 1996, Paul Wasn't Issuing Denials

“The statue has surely run. The point is not a conviction but just another demonstration of Ron Paul’s duplicity.”

No, it’s just another unfounded charge to throw out against the guy.

Do you really thin he’s a racist?

I still haven’t seen you admit you were mistaken on this one

How about it? Be magnanimous.

Mr: “Settle down, sparky. So why did I ping you to another thread where I was accused of cheerleading FOR Thompson?”

You: “I doubt that.”

You RESPONDED to the post, lol, but with a red herring response.

Here’ is where I pinged you to my response to being accused of cheerleading for fred.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952454/posts?page=9#9

I still haven’t seen you admit you were mistaken on this one

How about it? Be magnanimous.

Mr: “Settle down, sparky. So why did I ping you to another thread where I was accused of cheerleading FOR Thompson?”

You: “I doubt that.”

You RESPONDED to the post, lol, but with a red herring response.

Here’ is where I pinged you to my response to being accused of cheerleading for fred.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952454/posts?page=9#9

I’m not mistaken.

I read the ping, and the relevant posts IE #8 and your post in #2.

That is not what would be considered as being “support”.

Nice try slick.

Ron Paul a racist? I would guess that depends upon the definition of a racist? IMHO, no, he’s not a racist per se. BTW, I have accused him of bad judgement, not racism.

If anything, RonPaul has allowed his hatred of the state to blind himself to the other dangers of the world. This blindness allows him to solict, either by omission or commision, from a variety of sources that any good conservative would avoid which raises serious questions about both his suitability and viability as a candidate.

I believe RP is a most duplicious man.

He uses the Constitution as a rhetorical device deploying arguments that no rational Constitutional scholar would entertain for even a moment to cloak his opposition to the war even when it is not the war he opposes but the fear that the state might use the war to expand it’s power.

He claims that it would be somehow unfair to his other donors to return the campaign cash from persons known to his campaign to be neo-nazi white suprimicists.

He claims not to support or belive the claims of the truther movement, yet he returns time and time again to appear on Alex Jones radio station.

He claims that he doesn’t solicit neo-nazi support. Yet he allows Stormfront to continue to hoist a Ron Paul for President banner. He has not asked them to take down the Ron Paul Campaign Donation link either. And, when it was pointed out that he could block donations from that site, his campaign manager said they would look into that.

There is something just not quite right about that man.

Of course, you lack certainty and knowledge. If you had either, you would not be caught dead supporting the paleotwerp.

If you are Jewish, we shall see what your reaction will be if and when, paleoPaulie's pal Ahmanutjob carries out his stated intention of nuking Israel. I am not a Jew and I find such an action by Iran quite intolerable and an action that should be PREVENTED and not merely the object of a response after the fact. Perhaps, like paleoPaulie, your reflexive response will be: "Why not trade (almighty! Hear those cash registers RING!!!!) with Iran and make them our friends? Kumbaya, y'all!!! Maybe they will wanna buy some nice nukes from us?"

Since I do not share your claimed bordermania, AND since "open borders" is a position shared by most of Dr. Demento's libertoonian supporters, and since Dr. Demento votes against funding a border security fence, in any event, you are barking up the wrong tree. What else is new??? Bordermaniac "bluster", anyone????

The very use of the term "neoconservative" has anti-Semitic connotations since the only actual "neoconservatives" are a group of octogenarian and nonogenarian scholars, mostly Jewish by practice or ancestry, and mostly having spent most of their lives in NYC as Democrats until the communists seized the Democratic Party under Comrade McGovern. Such scholars as Norman Podhoretz, Sidney Hook, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Alexander Bickel and others as well as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a few other gentiles were the neoconservatives. Old line social embarrassments in the GOP were just OUTRAGED! when the actual neoconservatives joined the GOP in defense of Western Civilization. The old liners' white shoe country clubs, dining clubs and yacht clubs would not admit the "neoconservatives" for reasons, ahem, well understood in their circles if no longer articulable in public. Why should the ancestral political party not practice similar exclusivity???

Later (in the 1980s/see David Frum's article on the "paleo"whatevers in the April 2004 National Review), some social and policy eccentrics, all too often associated with "blood and soil" ideas reminiscent of Central European tyrannies of the mid-20th century (if you get my drift), finally figured out that they would NEVER be credentialed by the Reagan administration and that they were collectively regarded as "funny uncles" like Uncle Teddy in Arsenic and Old Lace, and threw a collective temper tantrum ideologically and emotionally. They started calling themselves "paleoconservatives" as though they were somehow legitimately connected to actual conservatism and as though they were a legitimate early form of conservatism and as they were the torchbearers of conservatism rather than what they really were, the ignorant wannabes of various bigotries who were the turd in the punchbowl at the garden party. They despised Reagan retrospectively until they started making believe that he was somehow one of their political ancestors.

As to Herr Goldwater, his first wife Peggy became a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Barrenhood USA in about 1940 and continued until her death in 1975 or thereabouts. Barry Goldwater is nowhere recorded as disagreeing with their policy of mass murder of the unborn. Dorothy Walker Bush served there with her. Dorothy was Dubya' grandmother and George Bush the Elder's mother. She was reportedly on speaking terms with neither of her presidential descendants after they became pro-life. Think of Dorothy as a sort of "paleo" too, defending the death of the innocent infants lest her taxes be raised and lest anything (given the racial statistics of abortion) threaten her preferred ethnicity mix in America. The Bush family has come a long way in a positive direction since Dorothy. So has the GOP. What we call conservatism is deeply entwined in social issue conservatism and that is not going to change. I don't care if paleoPaulie has delivered 4,000 babies or 4,000,000 babies. If he refuses to commit the federal government to the absolute end of abortion ASAP, but calls himself a pro-lifer, if he associates himself primarily with the antimoral libertoonian movement, he is NOT meaningfully pro-life in our politics. When he claims to be pro-life, nonetheless, he compounds his evil by taking the good name of the pro-life movement in vain. No one cares what his personal opinions are. WHAT WILL the paleosurrenderman DO ABOUT ABORTION? Answer: Nothing but try to gull the suckers into believing he will do something or even TRY to do something when he will not. All profile/no courage! And no pro-life principles either.

Wjhat I am talking about, you effectively concede: Neither you nor Dr. Demento are anything vaguely describable as Republicans or mainstream Republicans. You are libertarians who have swallowed the paleokook-aid by the barrel and who think their is something terribly wrong with slaughtering the enemies of the USA in time of war. Whatever either of you may be, you are NOT conservatives. Your policy prescriptions on war, military, foreign policy, abortion and the destruction of marriage are indistinguishable (other than rhetorical small points) from those of the radical left, whatever it may please you to imagine). If you and the Galveston nut case will do NOTHING against the destruction of marriage (via the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial pervert "marriage" decision as threatened to be applied to 49 other states via the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution) or against abortion (illicitly crammed down the nation's throat by SCOTUS in the Roe vs. Wade decision decades ago), then neither of you are "pro-life" or "pro-family" in any meaningful way. Your personal opinions mean nothing. What will the fedgov do to protect marriage and the babies under the paleosurrenderman??? Absolutely nothing but you know that.

No candidate will be nominated by the GOP who will not work to end abortion and protect marriage. Don't be suckered by rhetoric. We have CJ Roberts and AJs Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kennedy blows with the wind. Replace Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and Paul (One foot in the grave and the opther on a banana peel with normal GOP conservatives like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito and we can get a personhood decision rooted in the 14th Amendment protecting the unborn. If we were sufficiently birdbrained to nominate Dr. Demento and the nation sufficiently birdbrained to elect the little weasel, he will give us Lysander Spooner types for SCOTUS who will prefer examining their philosophical navels rather than get anything actually done. Paleopipsqueaks twisting their paleohankies in their paleofussiness and pseudoconstitutional fantasies. 50+ million slaughtered kids is quite enough, thank you very much.

GITP: Despising the fraudlent snake oil salesman and treasonius weasel that is PaleoPaulie is not the definition of genius but it is the beginning of wisdom.