Who?

[combustafarian]

Who is Ron Paul

Comments

[madcap23]

I have yet to go over all his blogs, but just wondering does Dave Neiwert cover any candidates other than the right-wing? From what I see thus far he vilifies the right without looking at any candidates from the left, is this a bad thing? Not really, but does it qualify him as a reliable source of information? If he only ever points out flaws of one side I would not consider him impartial or independent, I would consider his point of view skewed by his own political bias. As such it would be at best one source of information to consider.

Mind you, I suppose you could say that since the blogger is not being actively paid by any party he could be considered independent, but that would be like saying Fox is independent since the right wing does not contribute to them.

[combustafarian]

Actually, he doesn't cover candidates per se. He is covers modern and historical racism and eliminationism in the US, particularly right-wing extremist organizations like the Patriots, Minutemen, KKK, etc

[fitzthetoad]

I have spent the last 24 hours digging on this and so far the ONLY people reporting such things about Ron Paul seem to be FAR left organizations. Mainstream press has not hit on this. The New York Times apologized for running an article that hinted at it.
I have seen Ron Paul on Leno, Bill Maher, MSNBC, FOX, CNN and many other shows and NOT ONE has brought this up.
This seems not only unlikely but damn near impossible in our gossip driven news world.

[combustafarian]

I don't give a rat shit what Fox News and MSNBC have decided to cover this week. This information's been around for years, and lack of coverage on CNN does not invalidate it

Broadcast media is not the best measure of truth or relevance. Rush said so.

[fitzthetoad]

I understand. What about every other news source out there ignoring this? This is huge news and not one source other than extreme liberal (If we can use the term far right) are bothering with it.
This simply doesnt make any sense at all.

[combustafarian]

I totally agree with you. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Okay, so let's say that anything we can't look at is a bunch of partisan bullshit. Fair enough. That still leaves:

** Voing against the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
** He's supported by David Duke.
** StormFront, the foremost white supremacist group on the internet, thinks he's their guy.

You don't have to listen to the people who dislike him. Listen to the people who do. You think that StormFront.org likes his monetary policy? Give me a fucking break.

Fact

[failureboy]

Ron Paul isn't a likely nominee for President - at least not in the Republican party. And since the Libertarian and/or Independent parties won't win this election either, any mud on him becomes a low priorty - as far as being newsworthy goes. The most newsworthy thing about him seems to be that he is as popular as he is (among young voters especially). Those unique, third pary-esque characters usually get similar blind-eye treatment. Think Perot. And I swear to God I know what I'm talking about!

So he ain't really a big factor, and that, I think, is the biggest reason why most news organizations wouldn't investigate this part of his past. Because who cares?

As far as people like David Duke liking him?

Meh. Doesn't effect me.

Re: Fact

[combustafarian]

All of those are excellent points. I didn't give a shit either, just filed that information away, until people I knew started stumping for him...and that made me angry. It makes me angry when people I care about are misled about a guy like that.

Re: Fact

[failureboy]

So do you think Ron Paul still holds many of those views?

If he didn hold any of them, how uch does it matter? (he said he think MLK is a hero - doesn't that sort of close the book?)

Do you think he did hold this views at one point, and has now changed?

Do you think he is insane?

Re: Fact

[failureboy]

that was my worst grammar ever.