Rand Paul elected.

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
DegradationParadox said:
Menelik said:
Its getting worse. Now the press is reporting that he employs racist aids.
smiley5.gif
Is it even possible anymore for a pro white candidate to be elected?

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/18/rand-paul-aide-quits-over-myspace-racism-afro-americans-have-kkk-radar/


It BS how Obama can get elected president while going to reverend wright's chruch for so many years, not to mention his association with Bill Ayers, but Rand Paul is most likely screwed now because of this.


Peope NEED wake up to this hypocrisy!!!!!
smiley7.gif



Agreed.
 

guest301

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
4,246
Location
Ohio
Hightower is a idiot to so involve himself in Paul's campaign and not figuring out for himself that if Paul wins the primary all sorts of investigations would be launched in regards to Paul and anybody that works on his campaign.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
guest301 said:
Kaptain Poop said:
Nothing to see here. This is just a controlled attempt to oust Rand as the Republican candidate. I actually think he handled the questions pretty well. I don't think he would lose many votes by saying he would repeal the act (minorities would never vote Republican anyway), but the Republican establishment is eager to force his removal before election. It sounded like Paul still said he supported the freedom of private enterprise to discriminate - without actually saying it.


I am in agreement with you on this one. Paul did a nice little tap dance around the issue and there is nothing to worry about here at this moment in time.

He didn't do a "nice little tap dance", he stumbled and fell. There is plenty to worry about here. This is the type of guy the MSM has been licking their lips for. A political newcomer with "wild" out of the mainstream views that enjoys neither parties support. He should go on the offensive. If he retreats like he has he's going to be toast. We have seen the results in apologies and backtracking before.
 

guest301

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
4,246
Location
Ohio
I have not seen him stumble and fall yet, at least certainly not anything yet that will cost him the Senate seat in Kentucky. I saw him on the Factor a couple of nights ago and he came across well and Paul should stay away from dikes like Maddoux and networks that are clearly out to get him. I agree with you that he should go on the offensive and according to Drudge this afternoon he is starting to do just that.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
I hoping Mr Paul can over come this bump in the road. However, I seriously question his judgement in going on Rachael Madcows program. He, I mean she is a liberal leftiest drone who purposely set up Rand. She succeeded in making him look clumsy about this issue.

My hope that this fires up the Tea Party even further. A word to the wise, all Tea Party / conservative republicans....Avoid MSNBC like the plauge. Their sole aim to is damage the momenteum of the Tea Party, its candidates and conservative movement afoot.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,986
You see this over and over. Paul makes a comment that he did not think about beforehand and was unwilling to defend. Naturally, he grovels in submission. The reigning liberal orthodoxy is made that much stronger.

Paul would have been better off not visiting the 1964 civil rights act at all. If he was going to say something along that line, Paul had better be prepared to back it up, which he obviously was not. Before this incident, I had been thinking about making a post warning my colleagues at CF not to put too much faith in either Paul.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,363
Location
Minnesota
It doesn't matter what Paul would have said in response. Short of announcing that he wants to kiss black arse, loves lesbians like Rachel Maddow, and hates all white people, Rand was going to be made out to be a racist. They did the same thing to Ron Paul. The storyline was going to be the same no matter what and it's a story only because it's on TV.

I don't think this hurts him in the least. No liberals, blacks, or virtually any other minority was going to vote for him anyway. If anything he should go on the attack and bring up racist intrusive laws like affirmative action/racial quotas and its connection to the Civil Rights Bill. It's a great time and place to start talking about that again.
 

Paleocon

Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
330
Location
On the far Right
This is disappointing, but entirely expected. Paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, etc. will always have to deal with the accusation of racism. It is the first issue the media will attack them over (other than neo-cons going after an anti-war personality). The Establishment depicts government action as anti-racist, but those actions generally exceed the government's constitutional authority, restrict property rights, and increasingly there is a push to restrict freedom of speech and press.

If you say I believe in private property free from government intervention, well the Establishment attacks you with the Civil Rights Act. Then you are backed in the corner of compromising your views on property or opposing the Civil Rights Act (which is the modern equivalent of committing heresy in the medieval period). Oppose the Civil Rights Act, well now you are a racist and the well trained sheeple won't vote for a racist because that would evil. Like being an anti-war protester or saying something negative about Israel.

Labels like racist, anti-Semite, bigot, homophobe, and theocrat are nothing more than attempts by the Establishment to restrict the scope of acceptable positions on issues having only the most tenuous tangential connection to these terms. Any conservative or libertarian had better be ready to defend their positions with intelligence and vigor because both parties will oppose you and the media is out to destroy your campaign.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,363
Location
Minnesota
BTW, did we expect anything less than a full-out assault on Rand Paul no matter what he believes or says? The assault will come most from the left, but watch out for the betrayal from Neocon Republicans. The establishment doesn't want him as their candidate and they will try anything to get him removed. Watch for big shot Republicans to also start calling Rand Paul a racist.

I agree with Jaxvid and Guest 301 on this one though they appear to have differing views. Rand needs to aggressively go on the attack and seize the opportunity to talk about Obama's racism and affirmative action etc. He needs to attack the Democratic party and their "non-change." He needs to now start talking about getting out of foreign wars and point out how Obama is expanding the war - not stopping it as promised.

I agree with Guest 301 in that I don't think Rand's responses hurt him. That's just the storyline they were going to run NO MATTER WHAT. He was going to be demonized immediately. Did we not know this?

He could tap-dance and still be OK, but I'd like to see him grab the bull by the horns. To h*ll with worrying about liberal and minority votes that will NEVER come.

You know, it just may be that at this stage in his political career he isn't quite as good as his father at dealing with the media. But on the other hand they did the same screw job on his father.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,447
Location
Pennsylvania
Well, the same persecutors and smearmongers have broadly painted the Tea Party movement as "racist" so this shouldn't hurt Paul's base of support. In a good scenario it strengthens his base and continues to polarize the country between its destroyers and the Tea Party. Sides are beingdrawn as America goes down due not to external enemies but from being systematically plundered from within; this may help to clarify them.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,986
It is true that the MSM attacks won't hurt Paul with his base supporters but he did not show a lot of acumen. Consider that Rand Paul won a smashing victory over an establishment candidate in the GOP primary. What does he do? He sits down for a half hour of hostile questions from Rachel Maddow and wastes time trying to explain that "I'm not a racist."

This serves to make him look either weak or not very bright. It might mean trouble in the general election. At the least, Paul now has a tougher fight in November than he had after he won the GOP primary.
 

Realgeorge

Mentor
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
675
From ANUNEWS.net [Realgeorge]:

We all knew this was coming. Now it's a good gut test for the Ron Paul Revolution. The NWO-USA is down to a single tactic left to attack the Ron and Rands of the world, and that's to shout "Racist!" The Ron and Rand folks, who have the keys to the Kingdom in their hands, if they want it, themselves have a single tactic available. They must must embrace the attack, and be racist, like we are racist. The reason is that the Tea Party movement, and the Glibertarian movement is a totally White phenomenon. As American Nationalists, the Ron Paul Revolution may join us as partners, if and only if, they say "I'm a racist? So be it. I'm a racist." Now we get to see if they have the guts to do it.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,986
Rand Paul's opponents are going to hit him with the "against civil rights" club from now on. As I said before, if Paul isn't able to form an argument, he should have stayed away from hostile forums.

The Soccer Moms and DWFs (it is said) "won't stand for anything that smacks of racism." That will likely sink Paul in November unless things are so bad that anyone with a GOP label can win.
 

Tom Iron

Mentor
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
1,597
Location
New Jersey
sports historian,

Seems to me, all he has to do is stay on the offensive and not apolgize. If he backs up i the least, they'll tear the skin from his bones.

Tom Iron...
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,363
Location
Minnesota
For all the talk about how Rand Paul is now done, I just watched the closet homosexual Chris Matthews and couple of his liberal guests have to admit that Rand Paul is way ahead and will probably get elected. Nothing to see here. I'd like him to come out more aggressively in his stances, but he is watching his words very closely probably because he does have a huge lead.

He should just turn every philosophical question into a discussion about current policy. Just like Bill Maher asking his father about the civil war, the media trys to stay away from current policy discussion with the Pauls because they know they have a very popular message in comparison to the establishments.
 

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
i just watched the mcglaughlin group on pbs. they wouldn't allow pat buchanan defend the anti-civil rights stance (or he simply chose not to). they simply asked buchanan "who is rand paul?".

the pauls nor buchanan will stand up and say that white people have the right to defend their ancestry. and until they do, none of them deserve our support.

gentlemen, the civil rights act is our issue. it is the law of the land that makes it illegal to defend european heritage. the cra allows for affirmative action, non-white immigration, and the 'caste system' its self.

the libertarian route is a dead end. whites are going to need to cooperate in order to survive, acting as individuals and in one's own self interest is putting your heritage second. unless whites unite as whites to defend our heritage, we will soon be in the same situation as the boer.
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
C Darwin said:
i just watched the mcglaughlin group on pbs. they wouldn't allow pat buchanan defend the anti-civil rights stance (or he simply chose not to). they simply asked buchanan "who is rand paul?".

the pauls nor buchanan will stand up and say that white people have the right to defend their ancestry. and until they do, none of them deserve our support.

gentlemen, the civil rights act is our issue. it is the law of the land that makes it illegal to defend european heritage. the cra allows for affirmative action, non-white immigration, and the 'caste system' its self.

the libertarian route is a dead end. whites are going to need to cooperate in order to survive, acting as individuals and in one's own self interest is putting your heritage second. unless whites unite as whites to defend our heritage, we will soon be in the same situation as the boer.

Good post
 

Paleocon

Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
330
Location
On the far Right
C Darwin said:
the libertarian route is a dead end. whites are going to need to cooperate in order to survive, acting as individuals and in one's own self interest is putting your heritage second. unless whites unite as whites to defend our heritage, we will soon be in the same situation as the boer.


That is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism taken to its ideological conclusions is humanist and creates social atomization. The idea of culture would be very tenuous if not outright unsustainable in a libertarian society. It is a debatable point, but I kind of feel that Libertarianism would only succeed after the leviathan state has stripped man of his spiritual and cultural side.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
I agree with many facets of libertarianism, but am not one due to their embrace of open borders & opposition of the death penalty. I consider myself a hybrid of Old Right Republican, Libertarian & White Nationalist...who embraces strict Constitutionalism.

As for Rand Paul, he needs to not back up or cower 1 iota & keep pushing his paleo-conservative platform. Give the MSM the collective "middle finger" as they planned to blackball & smear him anyway. He needs not waffle & stand strong on his principles.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
this doesn't look good ...


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="98%" align=center>
<T>
<TR>
<TD =title colSpan=2>Rand Paul kisses neocons' ring, but some neocons remain wary</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD =textsmall>Published on09-27-2010</TD></TR></T></TABLE>


Source: Washington Post


One faction of the GOP that has remained particularly wary of Rand Paul's Senate candidacy are neoconservatives who are still angry about his father Ron Paul's criticism of Israel and his disdain for Bush-era military adventurism.


In the past, Rand has echoed his father's views, opposing the Iraq War, and from the neocon point of view, the Paul family's isolationism is as whacked out as anything hatched by the anti-war left.


Now, it turns out, Rand is looking to mend fences. He made a quiet pilgrimage and met privately with some of Washington's most influential neocons, as well as the pro-Israel lobby, delivering them a not-too-subtle message: Never mind my father's views, you guys can trust me now.


The episode is buried in Jason Zengerle's big new profile of Rand in GQ Magazine:
<BLOCKQUOTE>


At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who'd been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. "He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic," Senor says of their two-hour encounter. "He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn't confrontational, and he wasn't disagreeable. He didn't seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode."


The following month, he met with officials from the powerful lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has frequently clashed with Ron Paul over what the group views as his insufficient support of Israel. Paul, according to one person familiar with the AIPAC meeting, "told them what they wanted to hear: 'I'm more reasonable than my father on the things you care about.' He was very solicitous."</BLOCKQUOTE>


But some neocons still remain highly wary of Rand. Michael Goldfarb, who still works closely with Kristol, tells me that Rand's summit with the neocons has "dampened some of the concern" but that neocons remain split over whether Rand can be trusted.


"While there was once pretty much universal hostility to Paul among neoconservatives, there's now a split, with some folks inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and others still convinced he's his father's son," Goldfarb says. "Those folks aren't likely to change their minds until he starts casting votes on national security and defense issues."


It's the latest chapter in Rand Paul's extreme makeover: From neo-isolationist to neocon in 60 seconds!
 

Riddlewire

Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
2,570
Even the Greeks had to hide in a horse to sneak into Troy.
When there's simply no other way to breach the city walls, you have to disguise yourself. I'll make no judgements until I start seeing votes.
 

Ladyfiaran

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
41
Location
New Jersey
I'm not quite sure what to make of Paul, I like that he scares the establishment but I don't like how he kisses their asses. Then again, I understand why, too many folks won't vote for independents. I do like some libertarian ideas like lesser government and privacy rights, but I don't like their open borders stuff and they don't seem to care much about culture and they are a bit too about the individual, sometimes you got to go it alone and sometimes you need to stick together. I get the idea that many libertarians wouldn't care if there was a distinct American culture, as long as there's money. I'm certainly for capitalism as long as it's not the robber baron type, but not at the expense of our culture.
 

Freethinker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
7,583
Location
Suffolk County, NY
Last night, aside from the House passing their 10 month extension of the "PATRIOT" Act, the Senate attempted to sneak through a 3 year extension by unanimous consent.

Thankfully, Senator Rand Paul objected, meaning the Senate will have to go through the entire procedure for passing this bill.

For those of us who worried about Rand's platform being "neocon leaning", I think it's safe to say he's a chip off the old block. He will be a thorn in the establishment Senates side as proof by his letter he wrote them explaining his objection. I wish more of the Senators had his articulation and constitutional morality.

Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act
 
Top