I can hear the thundering of feet running this way, about to inform us on the error of our ways.

Sure, if I can be the first to say, that this is a pretty shady piece of ‘journalism’. Of course, you’re a blogger. Not a journalist.  So you’re not accountable for your actions.  Whatever.

Having no idea what Don Black looks like, I’ll believe you when you say this is Don Black.  Having said that, do YOU really think Ron Paul knows the name of the person he’s standing next to?

If a member of the KKK manages to get his picture taken with Hillary Clinton, does that make her a supporter of the KKK?

Please use the intregrity that God gave you, that I am sure is lurking close beneath the surface.

You know, I’m not a RP supporter, but I’d like to say this.

I read a story, oh, maybe last month about RP, he was on one of the late shows I think. He was approached by Tom Cruise who told him to keep up the good work or some such, and I believe his response to his aid was something along the lines of "what movie was he in?"

I am just pointing this out to say that, in this matter, I am gonna go ahead and give Ronny the benefit of the doubt.

Ron Paul poses for pictures with lots of people at lot of events.  You think he should require a background check before standing next to someone?

This is not an endorsement. 

He’s just trying to get some media time.

I should have been more clear. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he has no idea who he is taking a picture with.

Other than that, I agree. Donate the money to charity, distance yourself from the nutballs. That includes the white supremacists, holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers, all of whom need to get a clue.

Even if you don’t think that he had an obligation to return the money on principle, the pragmatic effect should be considered. Having had it pointed out where the money came from, he then has an opportunity to address the issue of dealing with people who abuse freedom by voicing vile opinions. Paul’s extreme defense of liberty makes him open to criticism that he sometimes goes too far, not seeing freedom as having any limits whatsoever. To me that is the issue, not any notion that he’s wedded to the ideas of the white supremacist movement but that his ‘anything goes’ value of freedom above all else means that he does enable people like that.

Lynx, I’m still waiting for the obligatory "Open your eyes!" comment.

"1. I think it’s physically impossible to go fuck myself."

I must resist… Must… abstain…

Anyway, rude dude; Michael is completely right – Paul might have shook hands in good faith and innocence but if he hasn’t publicly washed these hands in chlorine by now then, much like Huckabee, he hasn’t given people the reassurance that he takes their concerns seriously, and he is wide open for criticism.

The thing is… I’m not sure what you’re trying to defend… I’m here trying to defend Ron Paul because he does not pander, does not give in to lobbyist, is not racist, and is what i believe to be the most logical, ethical, and moral candidate for president… So if you are against that, then I really don’t understand your logic…

You are really reaching at this point. I got a picture with Ron Paul and he didn’t have a clue who the hell I was. He didn’t ask my name because he didn’t have time considering the line of 300 people behind me. This is, as noted above, shoddy (at best) journalism. Ron Paul has specifically stated that he in no way whatsoever supports or agrees with Don Black or his organization. What more does he have to do to satisfy you? Kick Don in the face, call him names, tell him he wishes he and his son would die? Even if he returned the money you would find some other reason to rail against Ron Paul. I think his answer for not returning the money was sufficient. By the way, don’t hold your breath for a Pulitzer there Hearst. You got some hits today because of this piece. Good for you. Now, why not give Journalism school a shot?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124051.html

also from : http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/letting_the_air_out/

"I’m irritated that Ron Paul was photographed with an asshole like Don Black. But these guys shake hands and pose for photos with thousands of people. It’s called campaigning. They don’t have time to check everyone’s background. This was not a Stormfront event, this was a Values Voters debate. I’m having trouble finding it on Google, but I remember back in ‘96, Ross Perot making a big deal about a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with a drug dealer at a campaign event. I remember people making a big deal out of Rosalyn Carter shaking hands with John Wayne Gacy. I thought it was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now. "

again, why should a racist have the money rather than ron paul (an obvious non-racist)?  and if he donated it to charity, wouldn’t that organization then be confronted with the same "dilemma?"  wouldn’t they then be to close to white supremacists?

how can he distance himself more than:

1.  not knowing who they are, and not caring?
2.  repeatedly explaining his disapproval of their ideology?
3.  running on a consistent platform of protecting individual rights for ALL people — completely contrary to the concept of racism.?

very very shameful smear.  

"Goes to show that you’ve got no idea what integrity really is all about."

Really?

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
1. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility

And what is your definition oh omnipotent one? Please indulge as usual with some ‘LMAO’’s and ‘LOL’’s- they really help advance your viewpoint.

why are people insinuating that Ron Paul supported a white supremacist?  that is an outright lie. 

I don’t think that getting a contribution from someone with unsavory views means that the candidate also endorses those views, but the effect it has on the public’s mind is that you automatically wonder: what is it about this candidate that attracted a person like that? Perhaps JL is right, that Stormfront likes Paul because of his stance on enforcing the borders. But even then, Paul must then explain how his position is not only not based on personal feelings of racism, but also how it doesn’t have racist effects. Rather than being put on the defensive to explain those things, better to distance yourself right upfront from the racist by refusing to accept his contribution. You folks may not like it, but the symbolism of doing that does mean something; sometimes symbolic acts do matter- that’s not pandering, it’s just pragmatically accepting reality of how voters will see the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

Here’s his explanation.   You should listen to it It makes a lot of sense.

What a bunch of hacks. I gave Paul money and I am a satanist. My name is Chris Carterson and I live in Exton PA. Should Paul give my money back.

I HATE bloggers like yourself too and think they should be expelled from the country or die.

Blog that please. I need my money back so I can sacrifice some babies. Of course, I doubt I will get it, but seriously. I am a staunch satanist and I gave Paul about $1000.00 to date give or take $100.00 and I hate, ABSOLUTELY HATE Christians with their goofy santa claus messiah. Please try and get my money back

Michael,

This was a public event attended by hundreds of people in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in a place called Metro Cafe.  I know, I was there and recognize the background.

Anyone was allowed to take pictures with Ron Paul. He had no idea whatsoever who anyone was. I was amazed at the openness of Ron to talk to anyone. Believe it or not, I bet he would even have let his picure be taken with you. Perish the thought.

Yes, I even have a picure with him, as well as my friend and his wife do to. Unbelievable as it might seem, he didn’t ask us who we where or what organizations we belong to either.

Indeed, considering all amount of traffic being driven to this creeps web site you are providing, things are becoming very suspicious… and ugly.

Please stop. You are sinking to the lowest levels possible in political discourse.

Why does giving the money back make him a man of integrity? Honestly, it just means he’s pandering. If a white supremesist came up to you and gave you money, would the only option to maintain integrity be to give it back or donate it to charity? I honestly just think that is ignorance. Rather, investing it in a cause that would eventually do more than just giving the money back would be the intelligent choice. However, if such an action really shot the whole cause in the foot, it would be very counter-productive. The only way it could really do that though is if people can’t get past preconceptions of what one ’should do’.

He has already said that he doesn’t want white supreme money.. he tackled that two weeks ago on PBS NOW. they asked if he wanted any more money from W.S. and He said load and clearly no I don’t want any money from them. If only the MSM had watched this segment the week before this non-story "broke"!

it’s only symbolism because people are too ignorant to think critically.  they see:

don balck gives $ to RP
don black = white supremacist
RP keeps money
RP = white supremacist

and the flames of ignorance are fanned by fools like the author of this blog. 

people, in general, have such a difficult time coming to conclusions on their own without the help of MSM windbags. 

I hate the queen and queens day.  I am a Queen hater. I also hate fags. I hope Julie Annia gets elected and bombs the evil pothead netherlands, kills the queen and brings democracy to you God foresaken weed smoking, sex addicted whore loving country.

I also hope you get sued and thrown in jail for having hate speech on your website.  I mean you must also hate the Queen right? You must also hate fags?

You better distance yourself quick (Paul already did).

Hurry, I am calling the constables you dope.

Michael,

Thank you for this groundbreaking article.  The background of each and every contributor is critical to understanding a candidate.

For example, I sent $500 to Ron Paul.  I also like to get it on with mannequins clothed in Victorian garb.  Ron Paul has not returned my donation, so clearly he shares my affection for naughty plastic women.  I hope to get a picture with Paul, myself, and my lady, so you can share this scandalous news with you readers.

By the way, has it occurred to you that if this Stormfront organization really thought Ron Paul would advance their agenda, they might be a little less public about it, since obviously the support ofa  white supremacist organization does not encourage voting.  

There are only three possible logical conclusions for their behavior. 
 
1)  They support Ron Paul because he supports free speech and small government, and even though their white supremacist beliefs are antithetical to his own, they still want to support him for his other beliefs (which is not so different from a strongly pro-choice citizen swallowing their concern about RP’s abortion stance to support his other beliefs).

2)   They want to  sabotage his candidacy and they know attaching their names to his candidacy will do that.

3)  the most likely choice - somebody leaked this news to disparage Ron Paul (the faulty rhetorical device of guilt by association).  As a result, thanks to the media’s obssession with this issue,  Stormfront’s website has probably had 100x the traffic it has every had before, further encouraging them to play this up.  Ironically, the media is probably doing more to advance the white supremacist movement by publicizing this fringe organaization than Ron Paul ever could or would.

and the flames of ignorance are fanned by fools like the author of this blog.

people, in general, have such a difficult time coming to conclusions on their own without the help of MSM windbags.

Ahh now that will certainly help. Just slam the people you need to vote for you. Sure your not a liberal?

Btw, here’s a pic of Bill and Hillary posing with Ng Lap Seng, a gold-plated pimp that’s given close to a million bucks to various American Democrats:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/NgLapSeng.jpg

I think the discussion of whether or not the donation should be returned has the potential to be a productive one – because the people who are surprised that he won’t return it really don’t understand the way that a libertarian thinks at the most basic level.

A libertarian considers his moral standing to be entirely self-contained.  The only items relevant to his moral ledger are the actions and beliefs that he himself asserts.  It’s impossible, to a libertarian, for the money to be "tainted" because who and what Don Black is, is ultimately irrelevant.  He could have made that $500 selling child pornography and it wouldn’t make any difference.

You might as well ask Paul to pay slavery reparations.  It’s not going to happen.  Since he came by the money honestly, he simply won’t cooperate if you play the "But that money came from X, which was immoral for reason Y, and therefore you need to atone for that money by paying it back to Z".   Because he won’t accept that kind of moral transitivity.

That’s why he’s taken the seemingly inexplicable tack of digging his heels in and refusing to pay it back: because he considers the request a moral insult.  $500 is not a lot of money and he certainly has it available, but he won’t make what seems to some people like a painless symbolic gesture because as a libertarian he doesn’t consider it a painless symbolic gesture – he would consider it some kind of admission of guilt.

"Ah, another college student. Ivy League or just a third rate University somewhere in the middle of nowhere? As it is, I think you don’t want to talk about intelligence with me."

"Michael van der Galiën is the founder and Editor-in-Chief. He is a 23-year-old former law, now American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, where he was a member of the board of the Criminal Justice Student Organization called Simon van der Aa and he wrote for a studentmagazine about religion, politics and culture called Intensief Magazine."

Quite the impressive resume I must say!! I wouldn’t DARE talk about intelligence with such an experienced young lad as yourself!

"James: How does Paul’s ’cause’ help stop white supremacists? That’s the point- his extreme views on liberty (subordinated to nothing else) would actually help groups like Stormfront advance their cause."

racism is a personal belief.  there is no way to use politics to change the way a person believes.  people have a right to hate who they want to hate for whatever stupid reason they may have, and yes, Ron Paul would defend that right.  What Ron Paul also defends — much more vigorously than any other candidate — are individual liberties for ALL.  that means that you can hate someone for being a certain color, but you absolutely cannot violate another persons right based on that view or any view.  that is the sole purpose for the government: to protect the rights and freedoms of every individual regardless of their physical make-up.

Ron Paul is the only one that seeks to defend these liberties absolutely and dissolve the labels created by collectivism that embody racism.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

-Ron Paul

Freedom to make good choices, freedom to make bad choices.  Paul’s message is simple, yet it truly resonates.  He reminds me of Voltaire, who famously said, "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

When it comes to supporting others’ freedom to make bad choices though, my expectation is that they are permitted free speech but then people of principle will stand up to oppose that speech. That is the message that Paul could send by giving the donation to charity- that he absolutely supports the right for Stormfront to hold odious beliefs, but his own beliefs differ from theirs and thus he will make his own statement by giving to a charity that promotes a viewpoint that opposes their racist ones.

PHOTOGRAPH OF COCAINE SMUGGLER JORGE CABRERA WITH HILLARY CLINTON:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/hillarygallery.html

Jorge Cabrera is a convicted drug dealer and friend of Fidel Castro.

In contrast to Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani KNEW that he was posing in picture (and kiss up press conference) with a man who said that Americans were to blame for 9-11.  That man os Pat Robertson.  Should Rudy now be forced to apologize for KNOWLINGLY doing this.   Robertson isn’t an obscure Nazi living in a basement but the owner of a multimillion dollar network.

For Robertson’s statement that Americans were to blame for 9-11, see here:  http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/TerroristAttack.asp
In the interest of fairness, do you plan to write on this?

I’ve got an idea.  Why don’t we find out what grocery stores Don Black shops at and boycott them to send a message to all those white supremacists!  That’d show ‘em we mean business.  

"The fact that prominent white supremacists believe that Ron Paul’s policies will <i>help them</i>, that his election would better enable them to accomplish their own twisted ideas, is very relevant to the debate. "

If it’s relevant, so is the fact that Zionists (Jewish and Christian supremacists) are backing other and more well-funded candidates. Yet we don’t hear about them.

Supremacy in any form is obnoxious. One of the few things more obnoxious than a supremacist is a hypocrite.

This guy is a neocon hack trolling for a fight, and RP supporters are giving it to him. I can’t believe I wasted my time on this site.

Good. Bye.

"I think you don’t want to talk about intelligence with me. "

You’re obviously not equiped for the conversation anyway.

"Everyone does it, everyone understands that you have to distance yourself from people like that. If not because you feel the moral need to do so, then at least because you understand how perception works. That Paul doesn’t care about that tells me – and all non-Paulites – all I need to know about Paul and his ‘principles.’"

Ah yes…. Dr. Paul should do it because everyone esle does it. Your mother apparently didn’t give you the talk about not jumping off a cliff because everyone else was…. damned amazing you’ve made it so far.

This movement is broad in it’s appeal, and the haters would love for us to enforce an orthodoxy test to winnow our numbers. This cause is too important to take an elitist and exclusionist bent. In the same way that a man being attacked by a robber doesn’ care about the moral fiber of a stranger who comes to his aid, I don’t care what fringe positions other supporters hold. I care about Paul’s positions and getting him elected. If white supremecists want to vote for him as well or contribute funds – wonderful.

Of course….. your high-minded ideals would have you asking the man helping rescue you from an attacker about his views on racial issues….. can’t appear to be supporting white supremecists by allowing your skin to be saved by a bigot!

I am a college grad from many years back, and work in the MSM in a managerial role. I can assure you that I don’t feel threatened by your self-proclaimed intelligence and purported moral superiority. You are a small man, clammoring for attention and approval. You keep up your hackneyed writing in the hopes that someone will coma along and recognize your obvious genious.

A little advice. Your genius is not obvious, and is in fact non-existant. You are a second rate writer at best, with no prospects to be any more than what you are. Typing flames about Dr. Paul will get you a little attention, even if it is only scornful.

Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Michael van der Galien:

Thanks, I’ll do my best. And regarding my education: do some research mr. Van Dorn.

Okay. You dropped out of law school? Onto American studies? Great. Now, since you like to write, why not switch your major to Journalism, so you can understand the importance of verifying facts and not speculating for the purpose of supporting a position. Sounds like a good idea to me, but don’t let reason stand in your way. (And I’m sure you’re rolling in the dough with this blog.)

"You don’t know what Zionism is, do you."

Start  thread on Zionism. I’ll discuss Jabotinsky, Sharon, Herzl and Hess all day long with you.

Zionism as is bad if not worse than what Don Black espouses.

"Those dirty Jews huh?"

Is that all you have left to play the Jew card?

Zionism as about as Jewish as Nazism is Christian.

JL … I would largely agree with your quote from Paul about the perils of focusing on group, rather than individual, identity. However, one must also point out that Ron Paul <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html">opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964</a>.

I’ve got problems with quotas and affirmative action. But I’ve got no problem with a law, enacted by Congress in accordance with both its commerce clause power and its power to implement the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which prohibits motel owners and restaurant operators from refusing to serve a man just because of the color of his skin. Racism was a pernicious evil in this country for centuries. It led us into a civil war. It was enshrined and protected by law for far too long. It is entirely appropriate to use the law to help bring an end to that evil, an evil which caused actual harm to millions of people, both black and white, throughout the history of our country.

What are laws for if not to help protect the weak from the powerful? Paul’s comments about the Civil Rights Act remind me of the moron who once headed the ABA, who tried to say that racial relations in 1993 were worse than they had been in his entire life (he, a man in his 60s). He was a liberal idiot, not a libertarian idiot, but the flaw is the same. Racial relations are far better today than they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Plenty of problems remain, to be sure, and most of those remaining problems do need to be resolved personally in ways that government mandates will not cause, but many very real problems were indeed improved by the Civil Rights Act.

As I read more about what Ron Paul says in this area, I respect him less and less. He does not live in the real world. He is an idealogue who believes that the world must conform to his ideology, regardless of what experience shows us.

because he would never sell them out to the whore media and their PC collectivist ’stonings’.

You missed it – a Paul Representative on this thread is part of the whore media.  So would that technically not count where that particular whore supports your candidate?  Are they a whore no more?

"If you would’ve known anything about Dutch universities you would’ve known that journalism isn’t taught there."

OK, but now I’m confused even more.  Why wouldn’t you be practicing law with that law degree you earned?

"Until that time, hide in your basement and continue to read "Atlas Shrugged."

There’s that integrity again.

Michael van der Galien:

Of course, someone of your distinguished background probably thinks that journalism is an intellectual occupation and thus worthy of being taught full time at a University (it’s not and shouldn’t be).

Well, then that would explain the utter crap that you’ve put out. Good luck with the blog there, arbiter of all that is academically necessary. I’m sure you will win plenty of awards for your writing in the future.

"He’s the second coming of Christ!"

Funny…I was starting to get the impression you thought the same of yourself.

Ron Paul opposed the civil rights act of 1964 because –  although it was well intentioned and did have good aspects — it went too far and began legalizing rights violations.  

most segregation was initiated by the government, and that absolutely is wrong, and needed to be eliminated completely.  but denying a private business owner the right to conduct business in accordance with his or her judgment, is a blatant violation of their liberty.  

an individual should be free to deny a transaction with whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.   if they make a broad exclusion, such as one based on race, they do this at peril of their business.

Ron Paul is very consistent in his defense of liberty.  even when it appears to be morally apprehensible on the surface.

Wow, Ron Paul’s saved as many, if not more lame blogs desparate for attention a story than Viagra has saved men who can’t get boners.

Hey Michael, I was kind of abusive in my first post, but I think I raised a substantive point in my second post and I’d like to hear your thoughts about it.

Other than pretty meaningless throwaway lines like "If you lay down with dogs you’ll get fleas" [How, exactly?  By what precise process?] you haven’t really offered an argument for how refusing to give the money back makes Paul a white supremacist.  And if you say, "But I’m not saying it makes him a white supremacist!" then I would be interested in hearing an exact description of what "association" you are talking about, then.

If they don’t share the same political philosophy, then they are associated in…what? 

If you think I’m wrong when I deny that the money itself is somehow tainted by Don Black’s cooties, I’d also like to hear how and why.

It seems like you want some kind of symbolic act here to disavow this guy, but I don’t see why the Benton statement doesn’t itself disavow this guy.

Maybe I should help you out a bit:

"Michael van der Galiën is the founder and Editor-in-Chief. He is a 23-year-old law school drop out, who decided that American Studies would be an easier way to earn a degree.  His only other known achievements include membership on the board of a student group that gives out detention to unruly students and  attempts to write for a student magazine about many topics he knows little about."

Impressive I must say!!

"the ‘real evil’ which is according to him the military industrial complex"

It is the real evil. The MIC has killed hundreds of millions of people in the past 100 years.

Where’s the thread on Zionism? You seem content to bash jerks like Black easily but some jerks seem to be immune from your criticism.

correction/typo:

i used the word "afro-europeanism" when i really meant: pan-africanism.  

God I just love this.
I am gonna go ahead and throw this out there. Lets all agree on something

Don Black and Stormfront support racism. I think we can all agree that racism is morally wrong and that Don Black is morally bankrupt. I also think we can all agree that no one with morals and integrity should associate themselves with someone like this. In accepting money from Black, Paul is, in a roundabout way, associating himself with Black and Stormfront. Whether or not you consider this at odds with Paul’s so called integrity, Paul needs to realize that others will. Ron Paul wants to win the Republican nomination. He is not going to do so if he can’t separate his own opinion of who it is ok to accept money from, from that of the people of this country. Call that pandering if you want, if RP really wants to become elected president so he can make the changes he and many of you feel are so necessary for the U.S., he is going to have to accept the fact that some things are not going to fly with the general public, and not do those things, if not because they are immoral (which it is), but in order to do the greater good. And the fact is, no one is expecting him to renounce his principles. Taking the money given by Stormfront and donating it to charity is in no way the wrong thing to do. He needs to disassociate himself from these people.

The fact is, there are not nearly enough RP supporters for him the win the nomination. And there is no way he will get enough people to vote for him when people see actions like this. Paul needs to do what is right in the eyes of the people, not make excuses for his actions. To those who would be "disappointed" if he gave the money back, you will be much more disappointed when he gets killed in the primaries because he didn’t have the sense to not keep money he knows was donated from groups like Stormfront, and individuals like Black.

The only way Paul can change this country is to get elected. At this rate, thats not going to happen. I don’t in any way expect Paul to give up his integrity. I do expect him to show some common sense.

Open your eyes (see that? I used a Paulite saying against them. Aren’t I clever?)

oh boy,…case solved…well done – glad we got to the bottom of this – FINALLY!

"The fact is, there are not nearly enough RP supporters for him the win the nomination."

What is the magic number nowadays anyway- since we’re talking facts and all?  Just trying to figure out when Paul’s supporters will know they have a chance at winning.

I’m surprised by the amount of racists who wish for don black to be $500 richer.  I’m glad Ron Paul is taking the high road and not demanding the same. 

I personally think this entire issue is a matter of opinions, completely and utterly. No-one’s really right, and no-one’s really wrong.

Paul probably isn’t a racist. Paul probably doesn’t give a damn who Don Black is, and doesn’t know who he really is. All he knows is it’s someone who donated him money. Sure, he’s apparently a neo-nazi. But when I look at Paul’s position on the matter, it seems simply: they don’t care. They don’t care who Don Black is, and they don’t care who cares who Don Black is. Quite unpolitical of them, but I find the entire thing shows another side to the matter.

Simply, Black gave him money. Paul’s probably appreciative. He doesn’t care about Black’s views, neither to Black’s benefit nor to his detriment, but he cares enough not to presume insult his supporters by throwing their money back at them, whether they think brown people should die or not. Paul’s position is anti-segregation, anti-racism, but like a lot of supporters, Black is throwing his money at Paul because he likes most or a big chunk of his platform. In a way, he’s like any other supporter, except that he’s a known racist and everybody knows. Those two facts are the only reason why anybody cares about this donation. But those two facts are also two things that Paul really doesn’t give a damn about – what things his supporters do beyond supporting his campaign, and whether or not everyone knows about it.

For me, at least, that in itself endears me more to him. I could care less about Don Black, and I don’t really think Paul is ‘enabling’ white supremacists any more than courts enable criminals by presuming them to be innocent until proven guilty, even if everyone knows they’re guilty. They do this out of respect for citizenship and their rights, no matter who they are and what they’ve done.

Kritter,

We ignore negative information that is contrived, irrelevant or based on fallacious reasonings.

In politics there is guilt by association - If I stipulate to you a base understanding of what ‘guilt by association’ is – that being a logical fallacy for the college educated out there – then you are suggesting that he feed into an argument that is demonstrably not logical. Guilt by association is one of the lower shelf obfuscation tactics you learn about in freshman logic in college, and you’re suggesting that he pander in light of truth and logic. That may be okay for a candidate you support, but I prefer one who has an intellectual and idealogical center that he understands and is willing to defend in spite of useful idiots who rail against him.

As for ‘fact’ #2 – So…. pointing out an inherrently illogical argument makes me functionally a fanatic. Okay…. feel free to redefine words as you see fit. It’ll only confuse you further.

You can think he is dangerous if you wish. Thomas Jefferson,  George Washington and Nathan Hale were all very dangerous men – if you stood against the natural inclination of men to be free. What is truly dangerous is the undercurrent of divine right to dominate the lives of free men by the advocates of the all-powerful state.

Fact #1: The owner of this blog is a college drop-out.  His posts should be considered with that in mind.

Fact #2:  You can make anything you want on here up, call it a "fact," and follow up with your analysis of said "fact."  Some of us ‘un-edu-ma-cated folk’ like to refer to that as a "straw man argument."

Here is a link that will put to rest any stupid smear attempt by haters of America….http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/122107_propaganda_exposed.htm
Ron Paul is SMASHING the competition and just for you ‘Ron Paul is a rascist conspiracy kooks’ ANYBODY can walk up to someone else, stand next to them and get a picture taken….This article means NOTHING!! Ron Paul will win and take America back for its people…The MSM is frothing at the mouth to find any dirt on Ron Paul and this stupid attempt is lame and a 3rd grader can see through the spin of it all…..RON PAUL 2008!!!!!!!1  

WOW! I’m gone for a couple of hours, and the place goes nuts! Or rather is filled with nuts.

I am especially amused at the assumption that anyone who happens to disagree with RP on any issue, no matter how trifling, is instantly branded a hater, or a tool/dope of the MSM. There’s  a certain Inquisition quality to the whole thing, a kind of outrage at mere questioning that I’m more accustomed to seeing in religious fundamentalists who find their views criticized or questioned.

I’m going to let you Paulites in on a little secret. This site has a rather elevated comments policy, and ordinarily comments that are purely insulting and lacking in any content are erased. The only reason at least 30% of these comments have not been erased is almost certainly because Michael wishes to showcase the "quality" of many RP supporters, which does a lot more to hurt his reputation in my view than the original $500. Oh and I’d bet $50 of those $500 that this post was put up with the main objective of drawing you all out, and like bees to honey you came.

I am especially amused at the assumption that anyone who happens to disagree with RP on any issue, no matter how trifling, is instantly branded a hater, or a tool/dope of the MSM.

The shoe fits if you believe this tripe about him supporting some sort of racist cause on account of a photograph and $500 out of millions in campaign funds.

Michael wishes to showcase the "quality" of many RP supporters, which does a lot more to hurt his reputation in my view

Another guilt by association tactic.  It’s simply absurd to discount Ron Paul because of the quality of bloggers that support him. 

Of course this post was designed to attract traffic, it obviously wasn’t meant to convey hard news.  He doesn’t even explain where this picture was taken or offer a context for understanding it.  Just, "Ron Paul standing next to a bad guy!"

What’s the assumption supposed to be?  That Ron Paul invited this guy?  That Ron Paul sought out his assistance?  That Ron Paul even knew who he was? 

this post was put up with the main objective of drawing you all out

Like I said, it obviously has a lot more to do with traffic than it does with journalism (or anything resembling that)  

Peddlers of American Nazi Party leader Bill White’s ridiculous claim that Ron Paul is a white supremacist have unwittingly exposed themselves as Israeli propagandists, after a keen-eyed Mike Rivero over at WhatReallyHappened.com spotted the icon for "Megaphone," an Israeli government supported PR front, on one of their screenshots.The image appeared on a screen capture which was posted on several messageboards by one of White’s bloggers who was attempting to prove the validity of White’s claim by showing it had originated directly from his neo-nazi Stormfront website.In his zeal to push White’s lies, the blogger unwittingly exposed himself as a member of an Israeli-government backed propaganda network.

Everyone, listen, this is America, so if you don’t agree exactly with the author of this blog on to handle a $500.00 donation from a white supremacist, you must be sympathetic to their cause.

Darren D: If that really were what MvdG was saying, I’d agree that it isn’t good logic. However, not only is it not a true characterization of what he siad, I see more of that kind of logical fallacy from Ron Paul supporters every time any story is published here which isn’t complimentary to RP. Legions of his supporters come here to say that this blog is smearing Ron Paul, or that it’s part of the MSM attempt to smear him, or part of a neocon conspiracy, etc.

Why can’t any Ron Paul supporter simply come here and express a viewpoint disagreeing with the author, instead of accusing him of ‘hating America’ or some such nonsense? Obviously many of you feel that Ron Paul made the right decision, but other people disagree with you.

Interesting….must be similar to our amusement that anyone who happens to agree with RP on any issue, no matter how trifling, is instantly branded a "nut" or a "kook."

Yes, Drew, it would be similar to that, except that your perception on that is inaccurate. Can you show me an instance where someone has been branded a "nut" or "kook" simply because he "happens to agree with RP on any issue", or could it be that we call it like we see it based on how some Ron Paul supporters are actually behaving?

Michael, you’re pathetic. That’s all I have to say.

Now on to some real news…

I was wondering, do all the present zombies Ron Paul worshipers supporters ever stop to think that they’re behavior online may be hurting their favorite candidate? There’s a RP supporter who comes by sometimes, by the name of Robert E. I don’t agree with him on everything by any length of the imagination, but at least he can carry on a civil conversation and maybe make me curious about the positions and reasonings of Ron Paul. People like Drew, on the other hand, make me think that the further I am from a candidate that draws his support, the happier I’ll be.

Yes, the positions of a candidate is what counts, but you’re being politically stupid if you think that the attitude of the supporters has no influence on the opinion of people who may not have they’re opinion formed yet. Lots of you are a living advertisements against your candidate, think of that, the next time you are inclined to flame-bomb a site that is critical of Ron Paul.

The only thing you did for me was to demonstrate that you’re not worth a click. *ignore*

The lack of logic and reason in this thread amazes me. To the people demanding that Ron Paul give the $500 back and distance himself from these ‘bad people’: had you done 5 minutes of research before posting your illogical rants, you would have seen that in countless interviews since this smear campaign began, Ron Paul has publicly stated that 1) he is not a white supremacist, he believes in individual rights; 2) he has no idea who this guy is who gave him the $; 3) he will not give the $ back, because it would only enable this guy to further his idiotic cause; 4) giving the $ back would set a precident that candidates should do a thorough background check on every one of the hundreds of thousands of donations they receive to ensure that each one isn’t a weirdo. Come on people, it is unreasonable to demand this of Dr. Paul, let alone some of the other media darlings. Drop it, this is a total non-issue; how about we discuss topics that are actually relevant: ending the war, the failing economy, the encroachment on our civil liberties, etc.

"Awesome argument Ben."

Very similar to these ‘arguments’ from the College Dropout himself:

"Are you kidding me?"

"Ah, another college student. Ivy League or just a third rate University somewhere in the middle of nowhere? As it is, I think you don’t want to talk about intelligence with me."

"But you wouldn’t know that, basically because you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about"

"Really? You were there with your buddy? "

"You sound like an expert."

"What a bunch of ff’ing nonsense."

"LOL – illiterate are we? So how’s law school going for you Drew?"

"Funny… I was starting to get the impression that you’re a proud ignoramus."

"So clever! Your mother is proud of you I’m sure!"

"how’s it going at law school? professors called you an idiot already?"

"but don’t let your ignorance put you down! I’m sure you’ll make a dandy garbage man!)."

Brilliant arguments so far, I must say- especially for someone who speaks so many languages such as yourself (oh my, I’m swooning!).

Michael, I am gonna have to request you leave this whole thread up. I need to have somewhere to point when I am telling my friends why I don’t support RP (and usually convincing them not to as well, because I hate America).

"lmfao – so you get a nutjob that claims to know more about someone than that someone does themself."

Hmm…I guess the sarcasm was lost there- I was trying to point out that just simply making lists of "Facts"- as so clearly demonstrated by "kritter" in Post #127- does not necessarily make whatever you say after each listing Factually correct.  Basing your following argument off said "fact" afterwards is simply a strawman argument annd typically makes no point whatsoever.

Similar to calling someone a "nutjob," "nut," "kook," "idiot," "ignoramus", "garbage man" or telling them to "get out of mom’s basement"
-but with just a tad more class.

Step 1:  Post picture of candidate with racist
Step2:  Imply candidate even knows who the racist is (sans proof)
Step3:  Leave out context, like the fact this was a public event with lots of candidates and voters all trying to get photo-ops in a mad rush
Step4:  Write controversial title indicating romantic/intimate involvement
Step5:  Cite outrage of candidate’s fans as proof of their insanity
Step6:  Look down on the little people, smugly convinced of own intellectual superiority

Am I missing anything?  Like, was there an intellectual argument buried here that I’m supposed to intellectually respond to?  I love debate, but I don’t see anything substantive on either side here…

this blog along with this article is weak and LAME!!! EVERYONE knows what Ron Paul stands for and most Americans are voting for him whether the MSM likes it or not….Ron Paul is the True American Patriot who will defend our Constitution from Enemies Foreign and ‘Domestic’…….Go Ron Paul!!!

"I can hear the thundering of feet running this way, about to inform us on the error of our ways."

You’re kidding, right?  You publish a website called the Political Gazette and you don’t want some (constructive) criticism?

I haven’t seen anyone questioning the other candidates for their most "objectionable" private contributors.

I’m a bit hurt that a Netherlands-based publication would oppose Ron Paul.  I’ve admired this country for a while as being a model progressive society.  Libertarianism is the closest thing we have to this in America.  Shouldn’t a progressive society tolerate diverse opinions?

Ron Paul is not the best candidate. He might be in the top 8 across the board, but he can’t save America.

One thing you all are forgetting here.
At least R.Paul did not march together with MLK.

Out of the  rest of the   GOP candidates : flat-earther , a serial liar,  cross-dresser with an authoritarian streak and mob ties, the Iran bomber etc… R.Paul looks much better even if he would take donations from Saddam himself
 

Xel,I don’t think the point of Ron Paul’s candidacy is that he is a viable candidate or even the best.  The point, and the best reason to vote for him, is because you believe in a small government that abides by the Constitution.  If he get’s enough support, then maybe other Republicans will take notice and adopt some of his positions. Do any of you remember how Perot’s issues were adopted by mainstream Republicans after 1992?

"If he get’s enough support, then maybe other Republicans will take notice and adopt some of his positions. Do any of you remember how Perot’s issues were adopted by mainstream Republicans after 1992?"

I am totally in agreement with the above. But if the above is the rationale then it would be nice if his supporters got wise to the fact before they actually mangae to lower the intellectual level and atmosphere of the internet on average.

Paulies want a cracker?

Be careful with your freedoms: Tully   Interested   Xel   Michael van der Galien Fun at the expense of those with understanding of a larger scope of data, although not articulate, may have more influence than you may imagine. I do pity you. Your sympathy for triviality is reprehensible. I Wish you a better education. One of recognition and awareness. With Knowledge Comes Sorrow. Absolutes Are Hard To Come by. Black and White, only define the terminus of the spectrum.

Oh my, the paulbots found you Michael, my condolences friend. Fluffy’s butt has to be sore from sitting in a chair all day posting comments about a candidate who has zero chance to win. I think the little furry now must have a bare patch on its posterior by now.

Do these arguments sound familiar, like those made by others in defense of another group we recently talked about Michael?

If he get’s enough support, then maybe other Republicans will take notice and adopt some of his positions. Do any of you remember how Perot’s issues were adopted by mainstream Republicans after 1992

I agree with this too, but I also have to wonder if Ron Paul is going to end up being an intraparty ’spoiler’ (I know you generally object to that term, Michael, but hear me out to see what I mean by it.)

I’m not saying anyone should whine or blame a loss on his presence in the race. But I do think that perhaps his presence prevents the more hard core libertarians within the Republican party from coalescing around any of the other candidates who are reasonably ’small government’. None of the others come even close to Ron Paul’s stance on the size of government, but if he weren’t there advocating the pure ’small government’ position, then the people within the party would aim their support at whichever candidate came closest to that view (I’m guessing Thompson, but I’m not certain who’d fit that description best.)

So in essence what I’m saying is that Ron Paul’s candidacy in the GOP primary may be splitting the fiscal conservative faction of the party- it’s only one factor, but it could be that it’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back to prevent a strong coalition behind any of the other fiscal conservative candidates, which may then throw the nomination to the social conservative favorite, Huckabee.

Again, I’m not using the ’spoiler’ term derisively or in the sense of saying that fiscal conservatives have a reason to scapegoat him if they fail to get a strong fiscal conservative nominated. But in effect, when there’s someone in a race who represents some call for ideological purity, it does divide the people who hold that ideology because some of them will be attracted to that pure stance whereas others want a more moderate version of the ideology which they see as more mainstream (and thus more safe, more electable.)

And as was mentioned about Perot- the policies being advocated by such a candidate tend to be coapted by the party in the following election cycles- because the party does learn its lesson, that there’s a demand for that ‘brand’. But it generally doesn’t work to get the ‘pure’ candidate elected the first time around- whether that candidate represents someone ‘pure’ within the party or a third party option who takes support away from the party.

I was at a Hillary Clinton rally and I saw a child molester and a wife beater donate money.

Hillary is clearly has the child molester vote. I believe voters should avoid her at all costs!