We’ll lookie lookie. It appears some white supremacists love them some Ron Paul. This comes from Lone Star Times:
A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading
figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided
financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of
Stormfront, a “white
power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier
English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.~~~
– Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand,
and publishes a contact address on the Internet— PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405
– A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don
Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405– A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”
– That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black
associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke– Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance
hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203
Lakeland Drive– According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07
the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don
Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation
as “self-employed/website manager”
Not only that but it appears his website, Stormfront, has widgets on the page that lead to donation pages for Ron Paul.
Shocker? I think not. You have the twoofers and militia nuts who love the man, not a stretch to have some big time racists mixed in.
What a candidate.
See author page
I’m still waiting to find out if and why President Ron Paul would have a US Navy if he’s a non-interventionist, OR if he thinks that genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, etc is a casus belli for President Ron Paul. Best of all, can a doctor order men into battle or would that violate one of his oaths?
Isn’t it amazing that not only is Ron Paul popular amongst the white power crowd, but he is also the most popular Republican amongst blacks too? Not only that, but he also seems to be really popular amongst people between the ages of 30 and 50, and is the only Republican that polls higher than Hillary in this key demographic.
I guess as Ron Paul says, “Freedom is Popular.”
Man, it took 31 minutes for a PaulBot to visit and leave a comment. You guys are falling down on the job.
I guess he and the Brain (midget) from Ohio will divide up the 34% of Americans that believe in Ghost and UFO’s. Honestly the American people are scaring me. It may be time for a nuclear cleaning.
“It may be time for a nuclear cleaning.”
what is a nuclear cleaning?
“Man, it took 31 minutes for a PaulBot to visit and leave a comment. You guys are falling down on the job.” -Curt-
I’m not gonna flame you dude, but is that really the best you can do? You can’t respond to Johnnyb’s comment about RP’s support from black voters… so you label him a “paulbot”.
The reality is, all politicians have some unsavory support in their fringe. That’s fine, that’s healthy, dare I say, that’s what America is all about. These whacko-skinhead-nazi types support Ron Paul for the same reason that black people do… they want the government off their back. Think about it.
I understand that you aren’t down with Dr. Paul, and that’s cool. Lots of people aren’t. I can dig it… but how about some substance, rather than cheap name calling.
Cedric
Ahhh, the Paulbots. I ask three important and interesting questions about the Dr, and instead of DARING to answer they popup and rant about how great he is in digital polling.
This is fascinating. The Authoritarians vs. the Libertarians in the Fight for the Soul of Modern Conservatism.
Cool.
Cedric, there have been many many many posts and comments left , of substance, on this blog about this man. Check it out. But the PaulBots refuse to answer, all they spout is that he is the next messiah or some other kind of foolishness. Your smitten with the man, good for you. But he is a joke, his followers are a joke, and as such they will all be treated as a joke.
We should get many more of these kind of comments from Ron Paul’s fans soon since Salon (that conservative bastion of thought) has linked to this post.
Only REAL conservatives read Salon…
Sigh…..
I’ve always found names intriguing…we had a dentist in the military (no doubt he’s still out there dentisting somewhere) by the name of Phil Molar. Really. I can’t remember others off hand, but I’ve run across them and have no doubt others have as well – where the person’s name “matches” or at least links in some way to their life’s work.
So here we have a man named “Black” who is a white supremacist. Wouldn’t you think that the first thing he’s do would be to change his name? And why are do many blacks have names that are colors? (Green, White, Brown) It’s not really relevant to anything – I just find it interesting….
Curt I think there is more to it than the candidate. Speaking as an unapologetic liberal, I was once afflicted with the same feeling of euphoria and hope about Howard Dean. It was less about the charisma of Dean and more about me finally being able to hitch my unabashedly left-leaning wagon to someone who I thought shared my views or at least respected them.
I think Paul represents that same type of hope for these hardcore Ayn Rand-ish types of conservatives. They have hitched their hopes (and vanities) to this candidate, for better or worse. I would not dismiss them as cultish idiots. Yeah, there is a laughable element of selfish, greedy, geeky, childish silliness to libertarianism. And yes, he also attracts the Randy Weavers, Timothy McVeighs, and the David Dukes – all of the assholes that feel it is their constitutional right to practice their freakishness with complete autonomy.
Not that it won’t be amusing to see you guys rip each others jugulars out over this guy, but learn from OUR mistakes: If you try to crush them, they will fetishize their “oppression” and use it to cause all manner of trouble. If you let them come to the table and yammer until everyone sees them for the brats they are, then they sniffle a bit and then either join the grown-ups or go back to their corner.
I ask three important and interesting questions about the Dr
Your questions seemed a little offbeat to me, so I hadn’t really considered answering. But since you insist:
if and why President Ron Paul would have a US Navy if he’s a non-interventionist
A functioning Navy is part of having effective armed forces of any kind, and Paul isn’t calling for the abolition of the military. Of course, he does plan to pay for the abolition of the income tax by steep reductions in military spending, among other things. And I expect that those cuts would result in a steep reduction in the size of the Navy, as well. A good concrete question for Paul might be ‘how many carrier groups should we maintain’, though I expect that even he is enough of a politician to avoid giving a straight answer to that.
if he thinks that genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, etc is a casus belli
Based on his voting record I think the answer is clearly no.
can a doctor order men into battle or would that violate one of his oaths?
Without knowing which version of the Hippocratic oath he took it would be hard to say with absolute certainty what grounds there would be for supposing this (the classical version seems to present no obstacle). But given his service in the Air Force and his stated willingness to prosecute declared wars, I think there is no problem, or at least that he doesn’t see one.
I understand your point Lisa, but when you were pulling for Dean did you do constant searches via Technorati for Howard Dean and then post to EVERY SINGLE blog that mentioned the name? Did you bombard the digital polls with votes and votes and more votes? I’m telling you, this Ron Paul thing has indeed turned into a cultist phenomenon.
This blog has had posts on the man where the comments reach to over 100 from these guys coming to the table and yammering (reaching 100 on a blog that gets 3-4k in traffic a day is a little over the top), after awhile it looks like lunatic ravings.
In the end, his followers and the man himself is nothing but a blip in the race. Dean, meanwhile, had a real chance there for awhile. Big difference.
Great comments Lisa!
bbartlog (popping my aspirin now…), the reason I asked about the Navy is because unless it was scrapped and replaced by Bassmaster Assault craft, it would still be the most powerful navy in the history of man designed almost entirely for use BEYOND the nation’s 12mile limit; ie, designed for intervention…the core of Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
I do appreciate-sincerely appreciate-your comments re genocide and Dr Paul. I find it ironic that a Dr with the ability to save lives by ordering in military forces (with or without intl support) would refuse to do so. “Let em die-they’re not Americans” ought to be the name of his foreign policy platform.
But again, I sincerely appreciate your taking the effort to spin for him. Well done. Ignored the signifigance of a Navy in #1, falt out admitted it’d be ok to let millions die in #2, and in #3 I think you did a good job of distracting by asking another question rather than looking it up and answering the core question: Would Pres Paul be able to send men and women to die in war?
I understand your point Lisa, but when you were pulling for Dean did you do constant searches via Technorati for Howard Dean and then post to EVERY SINGLE blog that mentioned the name? Did you bombard the digital polls with votes and votes and more votes?
LOL. WOW!!! Now that is some serious devotion. It is almost religous in nature. Well, you have to do what you have to do to keep everyone focused – I know from painful experience that if you get just enough people running off after some jackass (like Nader) the results can be devastating. And this is going to be a very intense election. Good luck. May the best(Democratic)candidate win!
But just in case Paul and his supporters do not evaporate as quickly as you hope they will, I will leave you with this: We have been trying to get rid of Jesse Jackson for 3 decades. He is unspeakably annoying. He knew we were trying to get rid of him and he used that to nearly get the nomination once or twice. It was Clinton who neutralized him for good by listening politely and “giving him a place at the table” and showing everyone that Jackson is a moron and has no fucking idea how to make anything happen. He slithered away into heel-nipping obscurity.
Scott –
I can’t easily expand on my answer about the Navy without potentially substituting my own position for Paul’s. I think we clearly need to maintain the Navy so that we have the (deterrent) capability to project forces across the globe, even if I think that capability should be rarely used. Paul on the other hand has said (off the cuff) at some point that we could defend this country with a few nuclear submarines (I assume he was talking in the context of deterring attacks from other nation-states). So it seems likely that I disagree with him, and I’m not going to try to establish or defend his position in detail. But since both he and I are far more dovish than the Republican mainstream I think you can see why I would still find him more agreeable than other candidates on this issue.
As for item two, yes, we will just have to disagree. Millions of people die every year on Earth who could have been saved if only our government had acted. Not just from dictatorships, genocide, and war, but also from lack of clean water, malaria, tuberculosis, AIDs, and malnutrition. I don’t think trying to save them is a legitimate function of our government. But if you think that our government *should* be in the business of improving the welfare of non-US citizens, I should point out that opening our southern border is one of the easiest ways to do that. Being opposed to increased Mexican immigration, while supporting the idea of our government spending money to improve the lot of foreigners abroad, seems inconsistent to me.
Of course, it is possible to argue for exceptions on the basis of national security. The Marshall Plan would be one example (strengthening our allies against Communism). You could argue for Iraq as another. But this is not the same as arguing for intervention on purely humanitarian grounds.
On the Hippocratic Oath – I did look up a couple of versions and saw no problem. Figuring out whether Duke medical school circa 1960 administered some flaky variant of the oath that might pose semantic issues, when Paul has already indicated a willingness to go to war under the right circumstances, seems like a waste of time to me.
Look the reason that most Republicans hate Ron Paul is not that he is a kook, it is because he is the only Republican candidate that wants to end the war in Iraq. Republicans can tolerate kooks, but it is anathema to be against the war that a sitting Republican President started.
And Bushbots know that trying to win a debate on the war is rather difficult in any arena so their attacks end up more as just name calling which really isn’t very effective with adults
Winning a “debate” on the War in Iraq is difficult? Having been there and fougt the islamofascists, I find that a woefully ignorant thing to say.
Well, now I have the makings for the next post. Thanks.
The decision on who wins the debate is not made by either of the debaters
John Ryan wrote:
“Adults”? You mean like Pete Stark?
bbartlog wrote:
In general, I would agree; much of it having to do with lack of resources to “save the world”. But the reason why “winning” in Iraq is important is because a perceived U.S. defeat will harm America’s credibility far greater than our removal of Saddam from power. And consequently, that will have serious consequences on our national security.
Al-Qaeda deemed Iraq to be the central front on “the war”. The “jihad” movement would be emboldened by a perceived U.S. defeat, similar to how Osama proclaimed victory at the Lion’s Den in Afghanistan against the Soviets. There is nothing more effective at recruitment than the appearance of victory, and that you are joining a “winning team”.
If Iraq succeeds as a free nation, it can have great ripples throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. And in the long run, that makes America safer and it makes the world at large, safer.
Of course it is always easier to attack the worst examples or mistakes of any political group. Did you think that what Stark said was going to actually effect the course of the debate ?
Pete Stark !!! he said something bad
Cindy Sheehan !!!! stupid and ugly
Ted Kennedy !!! he is fat and drinks too much
Everyone who does not support the war is a terrorist loving,treasonous,defeatocrat !!!
In spite the flaws of the “leaders” of the anti war movement a very strong majority of Americans can no longer support the war.
As for recruitment being determined by the sense of winning many are motivated by other factors. I don’t think that many join al Qaeda think that they have much of a chance of iving long enough to see “victory”
My response was to take one recent, high-profile example to reprimand your condescension of “Bushbots” with “namecalling”, implying that you are the adult with whom to carry an argument with.
Why is this?
Of course not. Al-Qaeda is a death cult, and these cultists seek martyrdom.
MOM HE STARTED CALLING ME NAMES FIRST !!!!
Paulbots=Bushbots
So then I guess al Qaeda isn’ really motivated by being on the “winning” side.
I have no problem with either terms.
But when Cedric writes,
He’s obviously commenting in ignorance of a history of comments on previous FA posts, with Johnnyb being a regular ArPee defender.
Your original comment added nothing, other than to feign adult maturity while denigrating one-side as exclusive namecallers.
I consider neither “paulbots” nor “bushbots” as offensive insults, in and of themselves. Just labels used to identify.
Their idea of winning is, on a personal level, to meet their Maker and 72 virgins.
As a movement, they seek to create a new Islamic super-caliphate.
No, Al Qaeda is motivated by having Islam (as they practice it) being the ONLY religion and political system on Earth and all others converted or slaughtered. They will not stop until they are either dead or this is achieved. ANY retreat strenghens them. Any lack of resolve emboldens them.
It does not matter to islamofascists if they die as they will become worshipped and earn their place with their moon-god. However, notice that AQ’s leaders and their contemporaries, like Arafat, Ackmenajad, and other Muslim “leaders”, are not rushing to embrace death while we are killing their followers much faster and effectivly than the media and our critics will ever give us credit for. Maybe the mon-god’s “paradise” is not as nice as the benefits of being a Earth-bound dicator.
And this is the bottom line. It does not matter WHAT the US foreign policy is or is not. It does not matter WHAT aid we give or where it goes. It does not matter if we pull our forces back to the US borders or nuke Mecca. It does not matter if we become a green-socialist nightmare “paradise” or a conservative nation of rugged individualists. All that matters to our enemies is that we either convert, surrender (pay jiza and live as disarmed slaves), or preferably die. Anything else is just obvuscation meant to deceive us.
Don’t worry, when Ron Paul is out of the race the white supremacists will align themselves with whatever Republican is nominated. You guys can allways depend on the white supremacist vote.
Randy,
Actually, Stormfront is a socialist group who is alligned with Code Pink and participated in several Code Pink events.
Sorry, your pathetic lies end here.
Somehow I don’t think so this time Randy. The White Sheet Contingent is split between Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Neither will get the nomination so the repubs can rest assured that that particular strain of freaks will stay on the fringes. Bush is not nearly militant enough about illegal aliens for them. Nor does he subscribe to the “let them damn a-rabs blow each uther up, the ugly sumbitches” doctrine.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/24/0320/2227
Looks like the cowards at Kos are ready to convert.
And Lisa, Robert Byrd is in what political party?
I thought he disavowed his racism 30 years ago? Not that he is my favorite person. He talks like Foghorn Leghorn – that makes me nervous.
Is that the same Don Black that endorsed George W. Bush when he was running for office?
Randy wrote:
Yes, because we all know that Republicans are the party of racism and Democrats are not the Party of soft bigotry and low expectation race-profiteers:
linked here at FA:
Chris back a long time ago, probably before you learned to read each of the 2 major political parties each had a wide view on all matters. Certainly the yellow dog dixiecrats were believed to be on the extreme right wing of the Demoratic Party.
However for the last 30 years or so the right wing side of American politics has been claimed by the Republican Party. The left side by the Democrats. However since each party only has 1/3 of the population elections are controlled by the independents and since 2006 they have chosen to vote with the Democrats.
So, yes Byrd was a KKK memnber and was undoubtably a racist then, and yes Lincoln was a Republican but I am not sure how important either of these things are to current American politics. Certainly Lincoln was not thought of by his contempoaries asa social conservative, he would have been thought of as a radical liberal upsetting the established social order.
Ok, my mom raised me with the knowledge that once upon a time, it was the Repbulican party that was the champion of the black American. However, you cannot deny that there has been fundamental racism in the soul of the Republican party for the last 30ish years. I am not saying Republicans are all racists or anything close to that. But many of your own conservative fellows have written about the damage done by the exploitation of race. Some have even apologized for the “Southern Strategy”.
As each party has had its nasty history with race, it is pointless to try to say one is worse than the other. There are a whole lot of Democrats that are racist jerks too. Both parties fetishize the asshole sitting on his porch talking about how “the blacks” and “the mexicans” are a bunch of welfare-recipient criminals. This is referred to as “common sense straight talk” coming from “the heart and soul of America”. Everyone rushes to hear what the “heartland” voter has to say, because you know the only REAL Americans live in the South or Midwest. The rest of us were imported from France just to annoy “real Americans”.
Actually, Stormfront is a socialist group who is alligned with Code Pink and participated in several Code Pink events.
True enough (surprisingly), at least for some sense of ‘aligned’. The unifying factor seems to be anti-semitism. Of course it’s still entirely possible that the white supremacist vote will skew Republican; if they perceive both major party candidates as being ‘pawns of the ZOG’ or what have you I’d guess that they’d tend Republican just for the gun rights, stance on immigration, and the lack of racial pandering. But in a democracy with two major parties rather than a hundred tiny ones you’re always going to end up with some real weirdos casting ballots for your side.
According tro the CNN Exit polls for 2006 the 2 blocks of voters with the highest percentage of votes for one particular party were
Blacks they voted for the Democrats 87% of the time
Jewish voters who voted for the Democrats 87% of the time.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
It is a little hard to believe that Stormfront would be aligned with either of these groups.
bbartlog, Why “surprisingly”?
And yes, both parties have their racists in them. Maybe a third or 4th real party would help break the cycle. Maybe scrapping the party system would work (any idea how?). I take issue with Lisa’s “last 30 years” comment. Working for total equality is not racism. I believe someone once stated he had a dream that a person would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.
THAT is my position and one I have used my entire life. My family history is of abolitionism and the costs associated with it. To be called a racist because I oppose the leftist nightmare of socialism and “reverse” discriminatiuon is upsetting and a lie. And actually, please look at the individual issues voted in 2006. The republicans lost because they abandoned small government and would not stand against the left or their idiotic base (though they did not lose by a landslide even then). State ballot issues supporting conservative ideas, however, won in many areas.
Funny thing is, Stormfront supported Bush back in 2004.
I wonder if the writer over at LoneStar Times thinks that the white power groups can buy presidential influence with a mere $500 campaign donation?
I wonder who we would see investing in Guiliani or Hillary? Insurance companies, investment banks, HMOs, Big Pharma etc. I wonder who is more dangerous to the prosperiety of the American people, corrupt financial interests or a few nuts playing army and screaming white power in the back woods?
I support Ron Paul because he’s the first guy since Reagan who’s actually reflected my own views. I thought that Bush was a guy that I agreed with too, but I was painfully let down and so were a lot of other people, which is why the party base has shrunk from 34% to 30%.
I look at the politicians out there campaigning for the Republican Nomination and all I see is a bunch of slick liars, some of them are not even that slick, and they all seem to be running to lose the general election, and right now they will lose the general election because everyone is sick of what Bush gave to the Party Brand.
Poeple hate Hillary. She’s the most hated person running for President, but she will win simply because people want to punish the Republicans. What the party needs to do is distance itself from Bush, and the only candidate that is promising anything different is Ron Paul. If we run Ron Paul not only will we have the best chance of winning the general election, but we also get a chance to redefine the party brand to something more appealing than Hilary Clinton Socialism so when Hillary does run this country into the ground the people can look back to a memory of capitalist solutions and we might be able to win back the house in 2010.
If Republicans are backing Ron Paul because he wants to end the war (which all candidates have said they want to do), and he wants it ended immediately, then…what’s he gonna do in Nov 09? I mean, according to the DoD, the first troops in the already, long since declared Iraq withdrawal start coming home in 5-6 weeks. After that, we have a steady stream of withdrawing units until June when more withdrawals are hoped to be scheduled. If that happens-as expected-then there’s hardly gonna be any troops at all in Iraq in Nov 08 let alone 3 months later in Jan 09.
Oppose the war, demand withdraw…
NEWSFLASH!
It was announced months ago. The troops are coming home. Why oppose it or demand a rout? Nah, he’s pandering to people who don’t understand the war, who think there was no WMD threat, no direct threat to the US, and no AQ in Iraq.
btw, bbart, happy to see that the carriers will be scrapped. After all, there’s no need for intervention-err, “force protection”, right?
Chris I am going to ask this question and I am not being facetious: What has Bush done that has been out of line with your core beliefs? To acheive the level of security and safety that you feel is necessary, you have to spend some serious cash (which he did). You have to expand the government to get the kind of personel and resources you would need to respond to another 9/11 (which he did). You have to do some serious encroaching on civil liberties to prevent another 9/11 or at least try. Bush has done all of those things, which you (and most loyal republicans) don’t seem to have a problem with. So where did he go wrong? He seems to have done exactly what you wanted him to do.
If I were him, I would kick all of your asses. After all, he worked hard to be what you wanted him to be.
Chris the most important issue in the 2006 race was the war in Iraq.
The second most important was the incopetence/corruption oin the Republican Party
As for not being a landslide the Democrats in the House won 30 seats from the Republicans. The Democrats lost none of their seats to Republicans 30-0
In fact no Democrat Senator OR Govenor was defeated in 2006
2008 elections are now just over a year away and the Democrats look even stronger than they did a year ago.
Btw, this is a good blog. Very lively discussion without a ton of namecalling (not that I have a problem with name calling. Name calling is totally underrated). It appears that people are actually READING each others posts before responding, which is really novel (most people scan for key words and then go from 0 – Incandescent With Rage in .006 seconds).
I think I might start checking you out even when you are not on the Blog Report at Salon.
Scott of course some troops are coming home. But also more are going over to Iraq the Army just recently announced the next 6 National Guard brigades.
I have yet to see any solid date when the troop level will be below the pre surge level. Most Americans by about a 60-40 % spread want a firm timetable set for withdrawal regardless of the situation in Iraq.
aren’t these the same people who voted for bush?
If the war is going to be all but over by this time next year then why not back Ron Paul?
Bush deviated from my core beliefs back in 2001 when the economy was hinting at a recession, and he applied both Keynsian and Laffer economic theories at the same time by reducing taxes and increasing government spending while the fed was lowering interest rates. Of course this beats a recession, but its a little bit of over kill and now the consequences are people losing their homes that they could not have afforded if it had not been for Bush, and we have all this extra big government that is not needed.
The correct course of action would have been to lower interest rates, reduce wasteful spending and lower(eliminate) taxes.
Next, they made a serious miscalculation when invading Iraq. Bush said it would cost about $50 Billion bucks, but now its way over $600 billion, current projections have the war cost around $2 Trillion. Now I ask you, if they had told us that it would cost that freaking much, who would have said that we should go into Iraq? After all we could have just paid Saddam off with $1 Billion.
In addition to the continuing easy money policy of the fed, the political instability created the middle east and the on going hostilities with Iran is causing the price of oil to skyrocket as everyone is speculating on it and no one is shorting it. It used to be that an easy fed policy created jobs and funded technology, but now its all going straight to the commodities market which is rapidly driving our economy towards stagflation, and the dollar is going a lot lower before its all through.
With a steeply sagging dollar, there is less motivation for foriegn investment banks to hold dollars or dollar denominated debt as its a losing investment. When they reduce their supply the amount of dollars in the market will increase driving down demand, while foriegners run up the cost of all commodities which are denominated in dollars.
If you’re smart and wealthy you can get out in front of this coming problem, and make alot of money, but if you are an average working stiff you are about to feel the pain. Already Americans are working their asses off and now they are about to get their wages cut and they are not even going to know it.
John, the timetable was presented to Congress on or around Sept 10. The first units started going home then, and while new units come in, the numbers coming in are less than those going out. More will go out in December, and continue steadily to June. In June, if things go well (it is a war, and the enemy DOES get 50% of the vote), then more reductions will be announced. Given that it takes 6 months to get units out, we should see US forces far belove surge levels 5 months later (around election time).
🙂
Don’t think they like Bush much:
And highly doubt they would have liked him even in 2000. Everyone knew his stance on immigration which is why I was a bit amused with all the “outrage” over his “new” stance on immigration. Only thing is it wasn’t new.
Either way, the racists love them some Ron Paul. Along with the twoofers and the militia anti-government nuts.
Like I said…some candidate you have there.
Lisa,
Oh, I deny it because that is a complete and utter falsehood. Sure the left has spun it so it looks that way. Against illegal immigrants and we’re racists. Pro-law enforcement and we’re anti-minority. Against affirmative action and victocrats, racism again.
When in fact the opposite is true, and history bears that out. We are for less government restrictions and the individual. We are for getting people off (or forced off if they refuse to help themselves) welfare and actually help themselves.
Just as the Democrats tried to paint us as against poor kids with the SCHIP story(which brought FA alot of Salon traffic also), they spun it way out of control. We are against helping those who can obviously help themselves, as the Frost family could have PRIOR to the accident. We are against spending tax dollars to help families making 80 grand a year. We were for the keeping the original program as is, which means actually helping the poor…not the middle class.
A party that does its best to keeping people dependent on Government is way more racist imo.
“If things go well……”
You mean if like the Iraqis stand up then we will stand down ? Because I heard that in June of 2005.
As for those being the same people who voted for Bush well the first time he got less than 48% and in 2004 he got 50% so NO, those are not the same people. Some are the same but not all. Now they are a strong and clear majority.
Well it certainly would be good newsd to see the number of troops come down that is what so many have wanted for such a long time. But since we have not seen any sign of the main objective of the surge, political reconciliation, taking place I remain skeptical. Also has anyone else noticed that along with the good news about fewer casualties in Iraq that there has also been BAD news in that the total number of insurgent casualties has also dropped by 30% ? in the last month ?
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm