MSNBC - The bane of conservatives - is one of the few outlets acknowledging Paul wins

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So once again, how does he start the racist crap? If it's MSNBC that asks the question how is it him starting it? And how is it racist crap at all if you admit he's not racist? The only answer is that that's how MSNBC, and Paul's opponents, try to spin his answer. They say he's racist so that nobody would even consider supporting him, because who wants to support a racist?

I'm a Libertarian and I like Paul.

Still, Paul supporters DO have a problem. Too many racists embrace Paul. The Stormfront JOOOOOO haters just love him. I'm not sure why, but they do. Trust me, I always encourage them to go support Obama, but often they come back to Paul. The Paul camp needs to loudly and publicly disavow these neo-Nazis.

Who ELSE do you think the neo-nazis are going to support besides the one candidate in the entire field with a foreign policy of ending financial aid internationally?

He would end aid to ALL countries, but because that just so happens to include Israel as well, it instantly appeals to stormfront.

If idiots like them want to support the man becuase they think his policies would somehow be a victory for neo-nazism, so what?

It's not like the man is walking around seig heiling everyone on the campaign trail. The racists are misguided, and are just another example of a support group for a political candidate that aren't exactly going to get everything they THOUGHT they were getting when they pulled the lever.

No one should "disavow" supporters. Everyone has their own reason why they want to vote for someone, and usually they're wrong about a lot of the reasons. This is just another case of that. Let them vote. They're still American citizens with the right to free speech and should be free to support whoever they choose, for whatever reason no matter how deluded that reason is.

How many millions of votes did Obama and McCain receive between them in 2008 I wonder? Now out of all those people that voted for them I'm guessing there were racists, wife beaters, thieves, murderers, and criminals of all sorts that voted for one of them. Should they have to disavow all of them?

 

[Paulie]

I'm a Libertarian and I like Paul.

Still, Paul supporters DO have a problem. Too many racists embrace Paul. The Stormfront JOOOOOO haters just love him. I'm not sure why, but they do. Trust me, I always encourage them to go support Obama, but often they come back to Paul. The Paul camp needs to loudly and publicly disavow these neo-Nazis.

Who ELSE do you think the neo-nazis are going to support besides the one candidate in the entire field with a foreign policy of ending financial aid internationally?

He would end aid to ALL countries, but because that just so happens to include Israel as well, it instantly appeals to stormfront.

If idiots like them want to support the man becuase they think his policies would somehow be a victory for neo-nazism, so what?

It's not like the man is walking around seig heiling everyone on the campaign trail. The racists are misguided, and are just another example of a support group for a political candidate that aren't exactly going to get everything they THOUGHT they were getting when they pulled the lever.

No one should "disavow" supporters. Everyone has their own reason why they want to vote for someone, and usually they're wrong about a lot of the reasons. This is just another case of that. Let them vote. They're still American citizens with the right to free speech and should be free to support whoever they choose, for whatever reason no matter how deluded that reason is.

How many millions of votes did Obama and McCain receive between them in 2008 I wonder? Now out of all those people that voted for them I'm guessing there were racists, wife beaters, thieves, murderers, and criminals of all sorts that voted for one of them. Should they have to disavow all of them?

Yes but I don't know about any of them, because the media never told me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who ELSE do you think the neo-nazis are going to support besides the one candidate in the entire field with a foreign policy of ending financial aid internationally?

I don't know. Paul also supports cutting off aid to Egypt, Jordan and the HUGE amounts given to Saudi Arabia in the form of military sales and support.

Most of them think that Paul would cut off aid to Israel and then help Syria invade, but that isn't the case.

If idiots like them want to support the man becuase they think his policies would somehow be a victory for neo-nazism, so what?

It smears his name. The last thing legitimate Libertarians want is Paul being synonymous with David Duke.

It's not like the man is walking around seig heiling everyone on the campaign trail. The racists are misguided, and are just another example of a support group for a political candidate that aren't exactly going to get everything they THOUGHT they were getting when they pulled the lever.

I don't mind if the vote for him, just as long as they don't support him in public.

No one should "disavow" supporters. Everyone has their own reason why they want to vote for someone, and usually they're wrong about a lot of the reasons.

I disagree. No one should want the Nazi vote; it's toxic.

This is just another case of that. Let them vote. They're still American citizens with the right to free speech and should be free to support whoever they choose, for whatever reason no matter how deluded that reason is.

They are free to vote, to be sure. Paul should be very clear that he is opposed to their views, lest MSNBC portray him as a racist.

 

[Paulie]

Who ELSE do you think the neo-nazis are going to support besides the one candidate in the entire field with a foreign policy of ending financial aid internationally?

I don't know. Paul also supports cutting off aid to Egypt, Jordan and the HUGE amounts given to Saudi Arabia in the form of military sales and support.

Most of them think that Paul would cut off aid to Israel and then help Syria invade, but that isn't the case.

If idiots like them want to support the man becuase they think his policies would somehow be a victory for neo-nazism, so what?

It smears his name. The last thing legitimate Libertarians want is Paul being synonymous with David Duke.



I don't mind if the vote for him, just as long as they don't support him in public.

No one should "disavow" supporters. Everyone has their own reason why they want to vote for someone, and usually they're wrong about a lot of the reasons.

I disagree. No one should want the Nazi vote; it's toxic.

This is just another case of that. Let them vote. They're still American citizens with the right to free speech and should be free to support whoever they choose, for whatever reason no matter how deluded that reason is.

They are free to vote, to be sure. Paul should be very clear that he is opposed to their views, lest MSNBC portray him as a racist.

This is America, and last time I checked it was still ok to support candidates in public. That you would compromise that kind of freedom for the sake of helping a candidacy says more about you than you realize. I want Paul to be president more than I can possibly emphasize in words, but not at the cost of limiting free speech.

And keep in mind, the "nazi vote" is going to go SOMEWHERE. Naturally it's going to go to Paul because he's the only candidate whose policy wouldn't be 100% favorable for Israel. That's the only reason why.

 

[Sallow]

No, it's not, but how does Ron Paul start the racist crap when it's MSNBC that constantly brings up the Civil Rights Act?

It's something he was actually against. And he talks about it in various forms in one way or another. He also talks about secession. Do I think he's racist? Absolutely not. But he brings these things up as a method to get his viewpoint across. This is fine if one wants to do a "checklist" of challenges to existing or new legislation. Which is why I like having someone like him in congress. As well as people like Kucinich and others. Because they provide viewpoints that harden laws against challenge..whether they be Constitutional or others. But in the role of leader..or President..I, personally think that such a viewpoint is not positive. Since a President must be decisive.

So once again, how does he start the racist crap? If it's MSNBC that asks the question how is it him starting it? And how is it racist crap at all if you admit he's not racist? The only answer is that that's how MSNBC, and Paul's opponents, try to spin his answer. They say he's racist so that nobody would even consider supporting him, because who wants to support a racist?

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

 

[elvis]

It's something he was actually against. And he talks about it in various forms in one way or another. He also talks about secession. Do I think he's racist? Absolutely not. But he brings these things up as a method to get his viewpoint across. This is fine if one wants to do a "checklist" of challenges to existing or new legislation. Which is why I like having someone like him in congress. As well as people like Kucinich and others. Because they provide viewpoints that harden laws against challenge..whether they be Constitutional or others. But in the role of leader..or President..I, personally think that such a viewpoint is not positive. Since a President must be decisive.

So once again, how does he start the racist crap? If it's MSNBC that asks the question how is it him starting it? And how is it racist crap at all if you admit he's not racist? The only answer is that that's how MSNBC, and Paul's opponents, try to spin his answer. They say he's racist so that nobody would even consider supporting him, because who wants to support a racist?

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

He's not going to say he supports it because he doesn't. He's an idealogue, just like KK is. You see, the Civil Rights Act makes the market less free and Ron Paul can't have that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's something he was actually against. And he talks about it in various forms in one way or another. He also talks about secession. Do I think he's racist? Absolutely not. But he brings these things up as a method to get his viewpoint across. This is fine if one wants to do a "checklist" of challenges to existing or new legislation. Which is why I like having someone like him in congress. As well as people like Kucinich and others. Because they provide viewpoints that harden laws against challenge..whether they be Constitutional or others. But in the role of leader..or President..I, personally think that such a viewpoint is not positive. Since a President must be decisive.

So once again, how does he start the racist crap? If it's MSNBC that asks the question how is it him starting it? And how is it racist crap at all if you admit he's not racist? The only answer is that that's how MSNBC, and Paul's opponents, try to spin his answer. They say he's racist so that nobody would even consider supporting him, because who wants to support a racist?

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

So he should flip flop instead of talking "nonsense" about property rights? No thanks. Maybe people simply shouldn't spin what he's saying into a bunch of crap about racism?

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is America, and last time I checked it was still ok to support candidates in public.

That's true.

And the smart candidate is going to publicly state "I have nothing to do with them, their views are revolting and do not represent mine nor the views of this campaign."

That you would compromise that kind of freedom for the sake of helping a candidacy says more about you than you realize.

What freedom did I compromise? The Nazis retain their rights. Do you think that the affinity of Nazis for Paul strips him of his rights to disavow them?

I want Paul to be president more than I can possibly emphasize in words, but not at the cost of limiting free speech.

How was speech limited?

And keep in mind, the "nazi vote" is going to go SOMEWHERE.

It belongs with Obama and the left.

Naturally it's going to go to Paul because he's the only candidate whose policy wouldn't be 100% favorable for Israel. That's the only reason why.

Actually, I think Obama is more favorable to Islamic aims than Paul is.

 

[Sallow]

So once again, how does he start the racist crap? If it's MSNBC that asks the question how is it him starting it? And how is it racist crap at all if you admit he's not racist? The only answer is that that's how MSNBC, and Paul's opponents, try to spin his answer. They say he's racist so that nobody would even consider supporting him, because who wants to support a racist?

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

So he should flip flop instead of talking "nonsense" about property rights? No thanks. Maybe people simply shouldn't spin what he's saying into a bunch of crap about racism?

And here you have the reason he will never be President of the United States. Because if you think this issue will not come up in the General Election, then obviously you haven't been following American politics to closely.

There is more to a President than ideology. He's got to deal with the entire world.

Ron Paul is incapable of that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And once again..it's because Paul starts this anti-regulation diatribe so it gets into how far are you are looking to go with this. Ron Paul could easily kibosh this whole thing by stating that he now believes the civil rights legislation was a good thing..and he now supports it. Instead he starts nonsense about property rights and the like. And this is part of the problem with a Ron Paul presidency. Yes..part of it is a dog and pony show.

So he should flip flop instead of talking "nonsense" about property rights? No thanks. Maybe people simply shouldn't spin what he's saying into a bunch of crap about racism?

And here you have the reason he will never be President of the United States. Because if you think this issue will not come up in the General Election, then obviously you haven't been following American politics to closely.

There is more to a President than ideology. He's got to deal with the entire world.

Ron Paul is incapable of that.

How does this issue show that he's incapable of dealing with the entire world?

 

[geauxtohell]

Fiscally.... Ron Paul wins, but his views on national defense kill his chances at ever winning.

The two issues are intertwined.

If Paul would stop trying to go into the esoteric issue of constitutionality of our foreign policy and simply stick to "we can't afford it" he might be able to gain ground on this issue.

 

[Sallow]

So he should flip flop instead of talking "nonsense" about property rights? No thanks. Maybe people simply shouldn't spin what he's saying into a bunch of crap about racism?

And here you have the reason he will never be President of the United States. Because if you think this issue will not come up in the General Election, then obviously you haven't been following American politics to closely.

There is more to a President than ideology. He's got to deal with the entire world.

Ron Paul is incapable of that.

How does this issue show that he's incapable of dealing with the entire world?

Because it's not even an "issue". Ron Paul allowed it to become an issue. Chris Matthews is a pundit and an advocate.

It should have been easy to brush this whole thing aside. But instead Ron Paul insists on drawing lines in the sand. That's ridiculous.

How do you think that would work on the world stage? Because really..the most important task of the President of the United States is to deal with the rest of the world.

I could just imagine him closing off trade with China because they don't have "a free market economy".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fiscally.... Ron Paul wins, but his views on national defense kill his chances at ever winning.

The two issues are intertwined.

If Paul would stop trying to go into the esoteric issue of constitutionality of our foreign policy and simply stick to "we can't afford it" he might be able to gain ground on this issue.

He is gaining ground on this issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And here you have the reason he will never be President of the United States. Because if you think this issue will not come up in the General Election, then obviously you haven't been following American politics to closely.

There is more to a President than ideology. He's got to deal with the entire world.

Ron Paul is incapable of that.

How does this issue show that he's incapable of dealing with the entire world?

Because it's not even an "issue". Ron Paul allowed it to become an issue. Chris Matthews is a pundit and an advocate.

It should have been easy to brush this whole thing aside. But instead Ron Paul insists on drawing lines in the sand. That's ridiculous.

How do you think that would work on the world stage? Because really..the most important task of the President of the United States is to deal with the rest of the world.

I could just imagine him closing off trade with China because they don't have "a free market economy".

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why is that?

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

 

[elvis]

Why is that?

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

The Bush campaign actually ran Nader ads in the Florida newspapers.

 

[Sallow]

How does this issue show that he's incapable of dealing with the entire world?

Because it's not even an "issue". Ron Paul allowed it to become an issue. Chris Matthews is a pundit and an advocate.

It should have been easy to brush this whole thing aside. But instead Ron Paul insists on drawing lines in the sand. That's ridiculous.

How do you think that would work on the world stage? Because really..the most important task of the President of the United States is to deal with the rest of the world.

I could just imagine him closing off trade with China because they don't have "a free market economy".

You're right it's not an issue, but Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews know that Ron and Rand Paul will tell the truth so they make it an issue so that they can paint them as racists.

If you think Ron Paul would close off trade with China then you don't know him at all. Ron Paul is for completely free trade with everyone. It's the interventionists who want to go around drawing lines in the sand with foreign governments, not Ron Paul.

Seriously you aren't talking to someone who "hates" Ron Paul. And neither, I suppose does Maddow or Matthews. But if it was that easy for them to get both Pauls to paint themselves into a corner..how do you think it's going to go on an international stage? The world is a wild and wooly place.

I don't want to see a Nader or Kuncinch presidency for very much the same reason. While I like Ron Paul's stance on many things..I recognize that as President..you MUST be flexible.

And I don't see that in Ron Paul.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why is that?

I hate to break this to you, Sallow...but nobody really takes MSNBC seriously. Bane? More like laughingstock.

 

[Sallow]

Why is that?

To fracture and marginalize the GOP.

Same reasons why Republicans want Nader to always run. Because of him, Gore lost and Bush won.

Well if Democrats were getting that organized!

That would be great!

 

[elvis]

Why is that?

I hate to break this to you, Sallow...but nobody really takes MSNBC seriously. Bane? More like laughingstock.

The sad thing is A LOT of people take Fox seriously.