Posted on 04/19/2010 12:33:44 PM PDT by RaceBannon
Let's be clear, "Stormfront" doesn't make donations and no candidate will screen every donor. Ron Paul's sin is that when it was pointed out to him that he received a donation from Don Black, a known white supremacist, he refused to return it.
>>> Not many people spend as much time as you seem to checking out Stormfront, in order to even notice or care.
If it matters, it was I who found and posted the Rand Paul/Stormfront link. Knowing Ron Paul’s history with the nazis I found this item when on an impulse I googled Rand Paul and Stormfront, and there it was. I fully expected to see a linkage, and was unsurprised to see it confirmed.
As Paul Harvey used to say, And now you know the rest of the story.
She also endorsed him. Don’t be silly.
So what's the point of you trying to associate Rand Paul with Stormfronters? You support Sarah and Sarah endorses Rand Paul -- obviously she doesn't believe that the Stormfront crap means anything. If she did, she wouldn't endorse him.
Sometimes I think that many of the Sarah supporters hate Ron Paul worse than they hate Obama -- and that hate even extends to his son. It's pathological and completely non-productive. Ron and Rand Paul aren't enemies of the Constitution, they aren't the ones cleaning out your wallet or stealing your liberty. Focus on who is destroying this country and quit eating your young.
You give them too much credit.
More like Mom's basement..
Along with making Lattes and Cappuccinos...
And correct change...
I understand your point completely and do not dispute your basic point
I am going to send you somehting in a freepmail that I need you to keep private, but it explains how it all started for me
I’ve already explained this to a much younger poster, but since you’re still wetting your pants today: It’s Randall Paul’s call to reject Stormfront’s endorsement and donations “IF” he so chooses. His father, Ronald, elected to keep the donation from Stromfront.
I do not share your views on Ronald Paul. Leave it at that.
If Randall Paul wins the general election he will give fits to the senate Marxists like Schumer, Leahy, and other democrat fossils who aren’t up for reelection this year. I would have enjoyed watching him take-on Dodd.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/chandler
Blogtalk radio show from tonight on the topic, should be ready to listen to replay or download in 30 minutes
2330 now
Race. Keep up your good work. I am ready to hit the sack. Must get up early for work. But I salute your efforts to bring forth the fraud in this guy’s running for public office. What changed him only Heaven knows. But he certainly appears to be a future Hanoi John.
Who’s the hot babe?
If the guy served in Iraq, and people are running around posting phony evidence and saying that he never served, that's not free speech, that's an outright lie.
We're not saying Kokesh didn't serve, no one is.
The issue began when we learned Kokesh was running as a Republican candidate, and espousing all sorts of consevative ideology; when those of us who have seen him standing with ANSWER, Code Pink, and actively working to undermine troop morale know he is NOT a conservative.
Swiftboat...remember???
Apparently someone did and yes, apparently was "pulled by the poster" which could have happened because they were afraid of getting sued.
Please understand something. I am NOT a Kokesh supporter! I think that Kokesh was the worst mistake that the Campaign for Liberty ever made, because I think that Kokesh is a marginal candidate at best -- and more trouble than he is worth. But Kokesh served so that he (and all of us) have right to free speech, including his right to be anti-war, whether I agree with all (or any) of his views or not.
His right, however, ends at putting our troops in danger or compromising our country's security.
So if what you are saying about Kokesh is true, and you have evidence and grounds for those allegations, then you have nothing to worry about. I am sure that the Campaign for Liberty doesn't want to waste their dollars suing anybody for some allegation that is based in fact, because it would also drag down the other candidates that they have running with considerable success.
On the other hand, if there are those who have been playing dirty -- making unfounded, libelous allegations against Kokesh for which they have no evidence just to make him lose because they don't like his views, that's another story. There is no cover to run for, and public opinion won't help unless you are raising funds for a legal defense.
This isn't "Swiftboat". The Campaign for Liberty doesn't have a fraction of the resources that Teresa Heinz Kerry and the DNC had to bury the Swiftboat story even if they marshaled them all to defend Kokesh -- which I doubt that they would do if the allegations were true and based on solid evidence.
Forgive me, but after seeing the willful slime job that some Freepers have done to Ron Paul over the years -- even on this thread-- my instincts say "prove it" before I jump in to defend you against the Campaign for Liberty's "Cease and Desist" letter.
I always try to be fair, even when it is something that I don't want to hear, because the truth trumps whatever my feelings on an issue might be. But so far I have seen or heard nothing but rhetoric. There's been no, "they accused us this and here's the facts & evidence of why that isn't true" -- just a "Kokesh is a traitor" theme and some suggestion of a mentioned video for which there is no web link. There is nothing on which to take one side or another, other than people's personal feelings about Kokesh --- and that one link that says a lie was spread around about Kokesh, posted by someone who doesn't even like him. So what would you think if you weren't involved? Personally, I've got nothing on which to form an opinion one way or another, other than seeing a history reckless mud-throwing against anyone associated with Ron Paul.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, my issues are with the fringe elements his campaign has attracted, and refused to disavow,
although I do take exception to some of Dr Paul's views of how America should act.
If it were a march against the War in Iraq, it wouldn't surprise me if Kokesh was there. It's not like we've had any anti-war (or even defense-only) coalition on the Right, for decades. Kokesh is politically naive enough to do something like that without thinking of the political ramifications.
We can document his involvement with the IVAW Winter Soldier 2 in March of 2007.
No surprises with that -- Kokesh is the poster boy for the IVAW and has made no secret of his support for it.
When I went to the "American Patriots Against Kokesh" website there was a rather long quasi-legal defense of their actions that didn't exactly inspire confidence in me. It was more like, "screw you, we'll do what we want":
(CFL Letter) RE: Slander, Libelous Statements, Use of threats, coercion to prevent income, tampering with election funding, use of misleading video clips and doctored footage.
(APAK Response)Slander: defense of truth, various First Amendment protections, marketplace of ideas, etc. Look them up. Libelous Statements: see above.
Use of Threats: where? You should know that threats can be difficult, and are not generally a cause of action for a person, rather this would probably fall under criminal.
Coercion to prevent income: Now you are just making sh*t up.
Tampering with election funding: Not a cause of action,making sh*t up again.
(Especially this:) Use of misleading video clips and doctored footage: Misleading video clips not illegal. Doctored footage where? Um, wouldn’t that pretty much screw all media outlets? Also, not a cause of action....
What is that last part? Is it a "Yes, we deliberately doctored video clips so as to make them misleading, but that's not a crime or a legal consideration"? Because that's what I got out of it. If so, that's for a court to decide, not me.
It just strikes me as odd that not just "the CFL on behalf of Kokesh", but rather all the CFL candidates are up in arms over this. What's this about? How were they affected? Because they really have nothing to gain by publicly defending Kokesh without good reason -- except that the blog goes after more than Kokesh and attempts to establish "guilt by association" with all the CFL "associates", including Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. It also drags out that Storefront crap again.
I've got a whole lot more questions than answers about all of this. I suspect that the truth of all of it will come out eventually, but probably not today.
I believe in the right to free speech and the right to oppose or support any candidates you choose. But there is a legal line and a moral line. I have no idea whether you crossed either or not.
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.