PDA

View Full Version : Ready for Fascism? H.R. 1955/S. 1959


Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 10:04 AM
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

H.R. 1955 already passed almost unanimously back iin late October while everyone was distracted with the Presidential candidates. Here are some wonderful tidbits for your viewing pleasure.


`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

Don't plan to coerce your Senator to vote against this by proposing an email and fax blitz that forces him/her to hear your voice, you dirty terrorists!

And you filthy bastard terrorists better not even think about showing up en-masse and peacefully making it difficult for any of our new Royalty to make it to the palace where they can vote on this thing. Such a show of force will not be tolerated in this country!

It's good to know that our elected representatives don't support the same sort of activities that set up the positions they now hold, isn't it?

Link to full text of H.R. 1955 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955)

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Be careful about putting yourself in peril with the Department of Homeland Security by openly posting propaganda that opposes this legislation.

Filthy terrorists.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 10:08 AM
Well, what is the impact of this? What does it criminalize?

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 10:12 AM
Well, what is the impact of this? What does it criminalize?

Planning to use "force" to make your elected officials represent your point of view.

It is, quite honestly, the beginning of the end of free speech in this country.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 10:16 AM
It is, quite honestly, the beginning of the end of free speech in this country.
This doesn't surprise me since Fox has been promoting this line for awhile and folks like Newt Gingrich want to regulate, even shut down free-speech on the internet.

Even something like a peaceful idea of a Tea Party to raise funds could fall under this. Or the Ron Paul revolution....even though it's a velvet revolution like the Reagan revolution.

Bowser
12-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Wow.

banyon
12-10-2007, 10:30 AM
Yep. Wow. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=175124) :)

patteeu
12-10-2007, 10:30 AM
This topic was discussed in another thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=175124) a couple of weeks ago. Here is part of a post I made in that thread which went unanswered:

From my perspective, what's going on here is little more than the creation of a commission to study a problem. It's possible that at some point, this commission may make recommendations that are odious to those of us who want to preserve our liberties (as well as to progressives like yourself ;) ), but the time to get agitated about that is when those recommendations are made and corresponding legislation is considered, IMO.

When the 9/11 commission was created, the chance that they'd ultimately recommend liberty-curtailing legislation was real, but that wasn't necessarily a good reason to object to studying the issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks so that, among other things, we'd have a better chance of preventing the next one. I don't see much difference here.

Can you or anyone else give me a concrete example of something liberty threatening that could come of this legislation without a further act of Congress? For example, what kind of regulations are you and Taco talking about?

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 10:32 AM
Yep. Wow. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=175124) :)

A quick search didn't turn it up.

Please forgive someone who doesn't spend much time wading through this corner of the site. ;)

patteeu
12-10-2007, 10:49 AM
A quick search didn't turn it up.

Please forgive someone who doesn't spend much time wading through this corner of the site. ;)

No, no, it's good that you bring this back up. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the big deal is with Congress authorizing a study.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 11:23 AM
Well since a few of the talking heads are calling for the arrest of RON PAUL SUPPORTERS and I happen to be one, YES this is just a smidge scary. I can't wait for the upcoming police state.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:29 AM
Well since a few of the talking heads are calling for the arrest of RON PAUL SUPPORTERS

wtf are you talking about?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 11:30 AM
wtf are you talking about?

Glenn Beck said that Ron Paul supporters are just so kooky they should be arrested. Sean Hannity made similiar statements.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 11:39 AM
A quick search didn't turn it up.

Please forgive someone who doesn't spend much time wading through this corner of the site. ;)
Awe! I forgive you Mr. Dole. I missed that thread myself.

Fishpicker
12-10-2007, 11:40 AM
actually, G Beck said military force should be used on RP revolutionaries because they are a domestic threat. He didnt advocate arresting RP supporters, he implied that they should be shot.

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:42 AM
Glenn Beck said that Ron Paul supporters are just so kooky they should be arrested. Sean Hannity made similiar statements.

Quotes.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 11:44 AM
Glenn Beck said that Ron Paul supporters are just so kooky they should be arrested. Sean Hannity made similiar statements.
OMGawd! Really?
Acts of desperation. They really feel threatened. But whaddya' expect when folks like Horowitz say we're embedded with the terrorists? Imagine that even intelligent educated folks on the right actually believe such folks, that they actually are advising our president....particularly on Iran. Says all about these policy wonks.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 11:47 AM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eg8M2JBIoqo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Eg8M2JBIoqo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

patteeu
12-10-2007, 12:03 PM
Glenn Beck said that Ron Paul supporters are just so kooky they should be arrested. Sean Hannity made similiar statements.

actually, G Beck said military force should be used on RP revolutionaries because they are a domestic threat. He didnt advocate arresting RP supporters, he implied that they should be shot.

I watched the YouTube that Killer posted and saw that Glenn Beck clearly makes a distinction between the Ron Paul supporters who understand that his "revolution" is a rhetorical call for ideas and free speech and those kookier Paultards who might take it more literally and commit acts of violence.

Unless you guys are self identifying with the latter group, you have no reason to think Beck is out to get you.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 12:09 PM
OMGawd! Really?
Acts of desperation. They really feel threatened. But whaddya' expect when folks like Horowitz say we're embedded with the terrorists? Imagine that even intelligent educated folks on the right actually believe such folks, that they actually are advising our president....particularly on Iran. Says all about these policy wonks.

What he says is that some right libertarian websites like Lew Rockwell are indistinguishable from leftist rhetoric when it comes to the GWoT. He accuses such sites as being "in bed with" not "embedded with" the terrorists. While I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, there is absolutely no denying that your goals are aligned with the some of the fundamental goals of the terrorists.

For example:

Osama bin Laden's goal is to force a US retreat from Iraq.

Ron Paul's goal is to force a US retreat from Iraq.

Osama bin Laden's goal is to get the US military out of the ME.

Ron Paul's goal is to get the US military out of the ME.

Osama bin Laden's goal is to stop US aid from going to ME governments like Israel and the moderate Arab states.

Ron Paul's goal is to stop US aid from going to ME governments like Israel and the moderate Arab states.

Taco John
12-10-2007, 12:09 PM
This legislation scares the hell out of me, but I'm ecouraged to see guys like Bob Dole posting concerns about it... And them being the same concerns that I have.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 12:10 PM
That's disgusting.

I heard about this segment of his program. So they put a former Communist on to lie for him. Fawkes was not a libertarian he was responding to oppression of Catholics since Henry VIII by the English govt. He was no anarchist either. Fawkes worked for the Spanish Hapsburgs.
The Nov 5th fundraiser was based on V for Vendetta.

Our domestic enemies are folks like Horowitz and AEI crowd influencing our govt who have no respect for upholding our Constitution.

Taco John
12-10-2007, 12:13 PM
The Ron Paul movement is the only ones fighting this erosion with any credibility right now. People who share these concerns need to participate in the primaries and caucuses. We can reverse what is happening in our nation right now. We just need to get back to the Constitution.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Pat your post is agitprop. I'm done discussing such nonense over and over when you don't even support policies that go after the real AQ; but nation states unaffiliated with his group like Iran.

Fishpicker
12-10-2007, 12:21 PM
I watched the YouTube that Killer posted and saw that Glenn Beck clearly makes a distinction between the Ron Paul supporters who understand that his "revolution" is a rhetorical call for ideas and free speech and those kookier Paultards who might take it more literally and commit acts of violence.

Unless you guys are self identifying with the latter group, you have no reason to think Beck is out to get you.


I never had a reason to think Beck was after me. He's out to get Paul. Or scare off potential voters at least.

Taco John
12-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Well, what is the impact of this? What does it criminalize?

No, no, it's good that you bring this back up. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the big deal is with Congress authorizing a study.


For being such war hawks, you guys make pathetic guardians of what matters back home.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 12:30 PM
All Ron Paul supporters must realise everyone hates our freedoms!! Since when did freedom become so unpopular? We want our freedoms back, before it goes to far and we don't have a voice. I happen to think the only reason other countries Love us so much is Because of our FREEDOM! ;)

Pitt Gorilla
12-10-2007, 12:37 PM
I watched the YouTube that Killer posted and saw that Glenn Beck clearly makes a distinction between the Ron Paul supporters who understand that his "revolution" is a rhetorical call for ideas and free speech and those kookier Paultards who might take it more literally and commit acts of violence.

Unless you guys are self identifying with the latter group, you have no reason to think Beck is out to get you.Is there evidence that the second group exists? Have they been violent in the past? Or is Glenn trying to passively discredit Paul supporters?

On a related note, Romney says on his commercials that "marriage MUST come before children." I wonder if Glenn is worried that Romney's "kookier" supporters might try to enforce that edict in some violent manner.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 12:40 PM
Is there evidence that the second group exists? Have they been violent in the past? Or is Glenn trying to passively discredit Paul supporters?

On a related note, Romney says on his commercials that "marriage MUST come before children." I wonder if Glenn is worried that Romney's "kookier" supporters might try to enforce that edict in some violent manner.

Rep Bomb! :)

or is positive rep now considered an act of voilence? :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Is there evidence that the second group exists? Have they been violent in the past? Or is Glenn trying to passively discredit Paul supporters?
You know these folks don't ever provide evidence for their claims. When they do it's pretty flimsy or very circumstantial. They merely assert things over and over hoping the lies stick. they use blanket sweeping generalities. If they say this about us then what does that say about their other allegations say like on Iran?

The irony of it all, is just look at the projection they engage in. They're talking about themselves. They start af war of aggression on a weak country that poses NO threat but call a campaign whose supporters who don't support such violence on a massive scale. They want to do more of the same. Yet call Paul "supporters"—another blanket sweeping generality they resort to—"violent." Paul's message is one of peace, friendship and trade. Paul does not use imprecise language...the language of a demagogue.

Shakespeare wrote about those who "protest too much." Classic projection is being played out here before us. But "the end justifies the means."—Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. I know pat believes in this because he agreed with it once here. But this is the same tactic communists used to use to agitate within countries. Agitprop.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Is there evidence that the second group exists? Have they been violent in the past? Or is Glenn trying to passively discredit Paul supporters?

On a related note, Romney says on his commercials that "marriage MUST come before children." I wonder if Glenn is worried that Romney's "kookier" supporters might try to enforce that edict in some violent manner.

First of all, Beck doesn't say this problem is exclusive to the Ron Paul camp. He identifies extremism on both the left and the right. Did you watch the YouTube? We see worrying signs around here all the time when people start using terms like fascist, brownshirts, and war criminal casually to describe GWBush and his administration. Would anyone blame a German citizen for assassinating Hitler if they'd had the chance? The leap from the extreme rhetoric (which is more prevalent than at any time during my adult lifetime) and fringe kooks acting on that rhetoric isn't a huge one, IMO. Most of the dopes who use that kind of language aren't going to follow up with violence, but the prospect of some doing so isn't negligible.

I don't see "marriage MUST come before children" in the same class as "BusHitler and his fascist brownshirts are destroying our liberty and creating a police state. Not to mention all the war crimes he's guilty of committing in this fake GWoT which isn't about terrorism at all but instead a plot to destroy democracy and create a despotic new world order".

So far as I know, Romney hasn't willingly accepted donations from any leading white supremacists either.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:32 PM
You know these folks don't ever provide evidence for their claims. When they do it's pretty flimsy or very circumstantial. They merely assert things over and over hoping the lies stick. they use blanket sweeping generalities. If they say this about us then what does that say about their other allegations say like on Iran?

The irony of it all, is just look at the projection they engage in. They're talking about themselves. They start af war of aggression on a weak country that poses NO threat but call a campaign whose supporters who don't support such violence on a massive scale. They want to do more of the same. Yet call Paul "supporters"—another blanket sweeping generality they resort to—"violent." Paul's message is one of peace, friendship and trade. Paul does not use imprecise language...the language of a demagogue.

Shakespeare wrote about those who "protest too much." Classic projection is being played out here before us. But "the end justifies the means."—Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. I know pat believes in this because he agreed with it once here. But this is the same tactic communists used to use to agitate within countries. Agitprop.

Beck didn't make any statements that can be construed as blanket sweeping generalities. You apparently didn't watch the video.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 01:35 PM
So far as I know, Romney hasn't willingly accepted donations from any leading white supremacists either.


Who has?

I will give ya brownie points for the propagando tho... :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 01:37 PM
Pat sounds more like a liberal these because he uses the race card now.

The top candidates get money from war mongers and mongresses.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:38 PM
Who has?

I will give ya brownie points for the propagando tho... :rolleyes:

Your candidate has, that's who.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:39 PM
Pat sounds more like a liberal these because he uses the race card now.

The top candidates get money from war mongers and mongresses.

Race card? I'm colorblind. :spock:

banyon
12-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Race card? I'm colorblind. :spock:

LOL, at least you're not a Marxist. ;)

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 01:43 PM
Your candidate has, that's who.

where is the proof that he WILLINGLY accepted race supremicist money?

Pitt Gorilla
12-10-2007, 01:46 PM
First of all, Beck doesn't say this problem is exclusive to the Ron Paul camp. He identifies extremism on both the left and the right. Did you watch the YouTube? We see worrying signs around here all the time when people start using terms like fascist, brownshirts, and war criminal casually to describe GWBush and his administration. Would anyone blame a German citizen for assassinating Hitler if they'd had the chance? The leap from the extreme rhetoric (which is more prevalent than at any time during my adult lifetime) and fringe kooks acting on that rhetoric isn't a huge one, IMO. Most of the dopes who use that kind of language aren't going to follow up with violence, but the prospect of some doing so isn't negligible.

I don't see "marriage MUST come before children" in the same class as "BusHitler and his fascist brownshirts are destroying our liberty and creating a police state. Not to mention all the war crimes he's guilty of committing in this fake GWoT which isn't about terrorism at all but instead a plot to destroy democracy and create a despotic new world order".

So far as I know, Romney hasn't willingly accepted donations from any leading white supremacists either.I don't recall claiming that his comments were "exclusive." Did you read my post? ;) Also, I'm curious as to why the prospect of violence by Paul supporters isn't negligible. I would assume that you are basing that position on some sort of data, which would likely be beneficial to us all.

Regarding Romney, I have no idea how he will mandate that "marriage MUST come before children," which, honestly, seems a lot scarier than "kooky" RP supporters. I don't envision a human-enacted Passover-type scenario, but I wouldn't anything past that shyster.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:47 PM
LOL, at least you're not a Marxist. ;)

Yeah, I'm just a liberal now. Maybe I can achieve "socialist" if I work at spinning her up some more. I *did* get one of my posts called agitprop which I guess is supposed to have Bolshevik connotations.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:51 PM
I don't recall claiming that his comments were "exclusive." Did you read my post? ;) Also, I'm curious as to why the prospect of violence by Paul supporters isn't negligible. I would assume that you are basing that position on some sort of data, which would likely be beneficial to us all.

Nope, no data. Just my interpretation of the implication of language that is further over the top than anything I've ever heard in American politics (including some pretty over the top stuff directed at Clinton). I probably should have added "IMO" to that comment. Oh, and btw, yes I read your post. Did you watch the entire video?

Regarding Romney, I have no idea how he will mandate that "marriage MUST come before children," which, honestly, seems a lot scarier than "kooky" RP supporters. I don't envision a human-enacted Passover-type scenario, but I wouldn't anything past that shyster.

I don't believe that you are at all concerned with that statement.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 01:54 PM
It is a FACT that you used the race card here, pat, and to describe paleo-cons just a short while ago. AFAIK it's the left that relies this canard. ( do a search of the race card and the word paleo-con and neo-cons sites and articles come up....one is titled "neo-Neo-Con!" LOL! Liberal hawks! )

Meanwhile, your heroes policy has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad even if done by proxy or unintentionally. They knew when they advocated it that they'd be killing the brown people of Iraq.

A white supremacist who gives money to Paul is at least voting to just be left alone and to leave the brown people of the ME alone.

Who are the real white supremacists?

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:57 PM
where is the proof that he WILLINGLY accepted race supremicist money?

Here is an interview reported by the LoneStarTimes ("http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/) who I believe were the guys responsible for outing this donation in the first place:

Bottom line– Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?

At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days.

As far as I know, the campaign has not yet rejected Don Black's contribution. If you have different information, please share.

(BTW, Don Black is the well known white supremacist who operates the Stormfront forum. A Ron Paul donation link appears at the bottom of each page at that site.)

patteeu
12-10-2007, 02:07 PM
It is a FACT that you used the race card here, pat, and to describe paleo-cons just a short while ago. AFAIK it's the left that relies this canard. ( do a search of the race card and the word paleo-con and neo-cons sites and articles come up....one is titled "neo-Neo-Con!" LOL! Liberal hawks! )

I still don't have a clue about what you mean. I'm just talking about political extremism. But don't worry, if you guys scrape together that $220 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176185), I'll be proudly standing shoulder to shoulder with the white supremacists, peace-at-all-cost freaks, blame-America-firsters, Jew haters, NAMBLA mentors, dope smoking hippies, and assorted other extremists in the leave-me-alone lobby at the next Ron Paul meetup. :Poke:

Meanwhile, your heroes policy has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad even if done by proxy or unintentionally. They knew when they advocated it that they'd be killing the brown people of Iraq.

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about when you say "playing the race card"? ;)

A white supremacist who gives money to Paul is at least voting to just be left alone and to leave the brown people of the ME alone.

Who are the real white supremacists?

Don Black is real. IIRC, he lives somewhere in your state. Maybe you'll meet him at a Paul event. :shrug:

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 02:17 PM
We see worrying signs around here all the time when people start using terms like fascist...

Ouch.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 02:38 PM
I still don't have a clue about what you mean. I'm just talking about political extremism. But don't worry, if you guys scrape together that $220 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176185), I'll be proudly standing shoulder to shoulder with the white supremacists, peace-at-all-cost freaks, blame-America-firsters, Jew haters, NAMBLA mentors, dope smoking hippies, and assorted other extremists in the leave-me-alone lobby at the next Ron Paul meetup. :Poke:



Is this the kind of thing you're talking about when you say "playing the race card"? ;)



Don Black is real. IIRC, he lives somewhere in your state. Maybe you'll meet him at a Paul event. :shrug:

I'm sure no other candidates accept money from morons, if you actually believe that you had better get a grip.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 02:47 PM
Ouch.

LOL, I actually didn't have you in mind when I said that. Some people use the term more earnestly and repeatedly than others.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm sure no other candidates accept money from morons, if you actually believe that you had better get a grip.
He actually does believe that. He doesn't realize that the real extremists are in power and that by having govt power and grabbing more all the time are the real danger. Meanwhile the Paul message reduces the power of govt overall. Of course he threw in NAMBLA with no evidence that they support Paul...but that's typical guilt by association smear of a liberal hawk! Don't forget it was the liberal progressive Dems that got us in more wars in the past when real conservatives were elected to get us out of them. Yup!

banyon
12-10-2007, 02:51 PM
I'm sure no other candidates accept money from morons, if you actually believe that you had better get a grip.

Not knowingly, after it has been made public.

Locally, everyone gives back Fred Phelps' klan money.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 02:52 PM
I'm sure no other candidates accept money from morons, if you actually believe that you had better get a grip.

The difference is that this donation was identified and brought to the attention of the candidate. If you don't think every single one of the mainstream, double-digit candidates from both parties would return this money once it's origin was brought to their attention, you're fooling yourself.

This isn't a case of accepting money from morons (which I agree takes place in every campaign), it's a case of *knowingly* accepting money from a moron.

penchief
12-10-2007, 02:54 PM
It's good to see that such a noble influence as Bob Dole is motivated to speak out against the forces of fascism that are actively hijacking America.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 03:01 PM
He actually does believe that. He doesn't realize that the real extremists are in power and that by having govt power and grabbing more all the time are the real danger. Meanwhile the Paul message reduces the power of govt overall. Of course he threw in NAMBLA with no evidence that they support Paul...but that's typical guilt by association smear of a liberal hawk! Don't forget it was the liberal progressive Dems that got us in more wars in the past when real conservatives were elected to get us out of them. Yup!

I'll take your specific rejection of my inclusion of NAMBLA as an implicit acknowledgment that the rest of my list is pretty accurate. ;)

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 03:15 PM
patteeu, couple of zingers in the comments after the article like...


The agenda of Lone Star Times becomes more and more clear with continued articles along these lines. I’m sure there are registered sex offenders, rapists, and racists supporting each and every candidate running. But Lone Star Times goes after one candidate with such amazing determination. Previous articles on Ron Paul from this site make it quite clear that discrediting Ron Paul is its goal. It’s a free country, folks. I am of the opinion that white supremacists are backwards idiots… but I honestly have no interest in who they or anyone besides myself support. I am only interested in who I support and what that candidate stands for. So should you be. Lone Star Times is grasping for straws. The author only wishes he had real dirt on a man who has proven to be an upstanding statesman for his entire career.

AND.....


To those who are trying to use this to put a white hood on Ron Paul, you may be interested to know that, of the 4,000 babies he has delivered, more than 700 of them could not pay some or all of their doctor bills. Of these, over half were not white. He provided the medical services for them anyway.

And who is guilty of blind hate here?



OR......

“Does Ron Paul’s status of “Constitutional Savior” exempt him from such scrutiny?”

Yes, because the Bill of Rights allows Mr. Black to believe anything he wants and support any candidate he wants as long as he isn’t breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others. I’ll say it again… I think Mr. Black is a backwards fool, and I don’t care what he does or thinks as long as it falls within the law.

Lone Star Times is pretty small-time when it comes to its importance. If this really becomes an issue that people are actually paying attention to, I’m sure Ron Paul will comment about it when asked. Until then, it is still a non-issue, regardless of how important this publication thinks it should be.

BTW… how much time has the Lone Star Times dedicated to finding questionable supporters of any of the other candidates? Let me answer for them… None. The agenda here doesn’t fool anybody.

Bob Dole
12-10-2007, 03:45 PM
It's good to see that such a noble influence as Bob Dole is motivated to speak out against the forces of fascism that are actively hijacking America.

Despite the silly moniker, Bob Dole the poster is pretty much the definition of libertarian in real life.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 04:33 PM
patteeu, couple of zingers in the comments after the article like...


The agenda of Lone Star Times becomes more and more clear with continued articles along these lines. I’m sure there are registered sex offenders, rapists, and racists supporting each and every candidate running. But Lone Star Times goes after one candidate with such amazing determination. Previous articles on Ron Paul from this site make it quite clear that discrediting Ron Paul is its goal. It’s a free country, folks. I am of the opinion that white supremacists are backwards idiots… but I honestly have no interest in who they or anyone besides myself support. I am only interested in who I support and what that candidate stands for. So should you be. Lone Star Times is grasping for straws. The author only wishes he had real dirt on a man who has proven to be an upstanding statesman for his entire career.

AND.....


To those who are trying to use this to put a white hood on Ron Paul, you may be interested to know that, of the 4,000 babies he has delivered, more than 700 of them could not pay some or all of their doctor bills. Of these, over half were not white. He provided the medical services for them anyway.

And who is guilty of blind hate here?



OR......

“Does Ron Paul’s status of “Constitutional Savior” exempt him from such scrutiny?”

Yes, because the Bill of Rights allows Mr. Black to believe anything he wants and support any candidate he wants as long as he isn’t breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others. I’ll say it again… I think Mr. Black is a backwards fool, and I don’t care what he does or thinks as long as it falls within the law.

Lone Star Times is pretty small-time when it comes to its importance. If this really becomes an issue that people are actually paying attention to, I’m sure Ron Paul will comment about it when asked. Until then, it is still a non-issue, regardless of how important this publication thinks it should be.

BTW… how much time has the Lone Star Times dedicated to finding questionable supporters of any of the other candidates? Let me answer for them… None. The agenda here doesn’t fool anybody.

Uh huh. What point are you making? Here are my responses to those comments:

I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. I don't believe that that's what LoneStarTimes is doing either.

What difference does it make if LoneStarTimes is out to get Ron Paul? The fact that they did get him is what is relevant.

The fact that Don Black has a constitutional right to be a white supremacist doesn't mean he has the right to have Ron Paul accept his campaign contributions.

I believe it was the LoneStarTimes that uncovered this issue, but it has since spread throughout the blogosphere. I'm not sure why the extent to which it has spread matters though. If there is a legitimate question to be answered, why would Ron Paul wait until it becomes an issue addressed by the mainstream media?

As has been noted previously, most candidates would return this contribution as soon as it was brought to their attention, not because they did anything wrong, but because they wouldn't want to deal with the predictable fallout. Ron Paul is free to follow a different path, but neither he nor his followers should complain about the criticism it earns him.

Pitt Gorilla
12-10-2007, 04:35 PM
Nope, no data. Just my interpretation of the implication of language that is further over the top than anything I've ever heard in American politics (including some pretty over the top stuff directed at Clinton). I probably should have added "IMO" to that comment. Oh, and btw, yes I read your post. Did you watch the entire video?



I don't believe that you are at all concerned with that statement.I'm much more afraid of a Romney campaign/presidency and its consequences than a Paul campaign/presidency and its consequences. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 04:51 PM
I'm much more afraid of a Romney campaign/presidency and its consequences than a Paul campaign/presidency and its consequences. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.

I can't imagine anything to fear from a Mitt Romney presidency or from his supporters. I can't imagine a Ron Paul presidency, but I admit that some of his supporters scare me just a little bit.

Adept Havelock
12-10-2007, 05:13 PM
I'm much more afraid of a Romney campaign/presidency and its consequences than a Paul campaign/presidency and its consequences. I'm not sure how much clearer I could be.


I'm not thrilled with the notion of a Romney presidency, but his attitude towards Social Engineering doesn't worry me nearly as much as Gov. Huckabee's. Between Huckabee and the thug Rudillary getting cozy with the PNAC nutters, Mitt worries me least of any of the three.

Nightfyre
12-10-2007, 08:19 PM
I read through this bill several months ago and I didn't find anything horribly objectionable. Just another waste of government money used to study homegrown terrorism. Basically its a violence prevention thing.