Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now?

posted at 10:12 am on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Fullosseous Flap, the screencap doesn’t lie. Or does it? Click for full size.

stormfront.jpg

If you want to see for yourself, it’s at the bottom of the thread here. Note that the “Ron Paul for President” text isn’t part of the ad; it simply redirects to the top of the SF thread. The ad is the graphic immediately below it, which points here, at a site that should be familiar to you by now. A serious, honest question for our web-savvier readers: Is it possible to do some sort of ad buy across a whole swath of online bulletin boards such that any mention of Ron Paul on one of those boards will automatically trigger placement of the ad? If so, it would absolve the November 5th people from the charge of deliberately advertising on Stormfront. Follow-up question, though: If it is possible, is it also possible to designate certain bulletin boards as no-go areas where the ad shouldn’t appear, even if Paul is mentioned? That would point back towards deliberation, which, let’s face it, isn’t all that unlikely from a site predisposed to “V for Vendetta” metaphors.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the organizers of the November 5th fundraiser — or rather the Guy Fawkes Day fundraiser, as I assume they’d prefer it to be known — actually did choose to advertise on a white supremacist website. Will America’s Greatest Patriot still be accepting the funds raised from the event? We know that he’s capable of taking strong, principled stands about refusing money from unsavory influences. Presumably Nazis and Truthers also qualify as unsavory. Or are they just practicing their own brand of EVOL in the rEVOLution?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

can add this to the mix

Local news briefs: Reform Party backs Ron Paul

At its convention Saturday, the Reform Party of Ohio endorsed Texas Rep. Ron Paul for President.

Paul, running as a Republican, pledged to bring troops home from Iraq and is the only candidate who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Convention speakers were Robert Owens of Delaware, Ohio, a member of the John Birch Society, who spoke about the society’s petition to repeal NAFTA and to stop the North American Union.

David Buess of Arlington spoke about the charges he has filed against state and federal government entities alleging criminal activities by government employees.

William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Almost like Mike Gravel getting an endorsement on DU. Cranks being advertised by hate groups.

MadisonConservative on October 23, 2007 at 10:14 AM

As far as my knowledge of online ads go those who make the ads don’t have a choice where they show up. I’m looking at a VISA ad right now on Hot Air, doesn’t mean they asked to have it pop up at Hot Air, in fact I don’t know why it’s there.

I’m not aware of any way you can tell the ad companies to not display your ad at certain sites. The story isn’t that there is a Ron Paul ad on Stormfront, it’s that Stormfront is ghey to Ron Paul.

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

From that vomit stain of a site:

Ron Paul’s priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

…aren’t Jews white?

MadisonConservative on October 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM

…aren’t Jews white?

They’re semitic, not caucasian.

RaHoWa on the ZOG!

:p

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Just imagine for a moment if Ron Paul actually WINS IN IOWA

JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I think it would be telling to ask Ron Paul if he has ever read “protocols of Zion”

William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM

William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM

He would, but with the Federal Reserve screwing him over his money with an “Inflation Tax” he simply doesn’t have the money to pay for it.

Though I suppose he could pay in pure gold.

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:25 AM

As far as my knowledge of online ads go those who make the ads don’t have a choice where they show up. I’m looking at a VISA ad right now on Hot Air, doesn’t mean they asked to have it pop up at Hot Air, in fact I don’t know why it’s there.

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

It’s different… I’m too tired to get in to it, but maybe AP will respond… but I promise you, it’s different.

RightWinged on October 23, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Ugh, by following the link from that ad, I was then introduced to the “Ron Paul Girl”… what a moron. I mean, not that the others weren’t too (and I said so at the time), but she support Ron Paul, so it’s that much worse (or at least the thing she’s reading supports Paul):

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/827544/ron_paul_girl/

BTW, the guys behind that ad aren’t dumb… Getting 100,000 people to donate $100 on the same day to send a message… Actually a damn good idea. A waste of $10 million, but a damn good idea.

RightWinged on October 23, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I want to know of there is any commection to the Hillary campaign with all of this.I am serious, divide and conquer IS a strategic move that would only benefit the Beast.

bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

The Visa ad you seeing now is being served through Doubleclick’s network of ads (please correct me if I’m wrong, Allah).

The Ron Paul advertisement Flash is being hosted by SWFUP – a free .swf file hosting service. The RP ad also doesn’t change if you reload the page. If you reload Hot Air, you’ll most likely get a different ad. That RP ad was put there. It doesn’t appear to be part of a network that showed up because of the page’s context.

That’s just MHO.

amerpundit on October 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Someone on LGF was doing anagrams of Ron Pauls name and came up with LUNAR OP

I reversed it and got

PRO ANUL

William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM

BTW, I just visited multiple threads on the site, and all of them had the RP ad on the bottom.

amerpundit on October 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM

That RP ad was put there. It doesn’t appear to be part of a network that showed up because of the page’s context.

That’s just MHO.

amerpundit on October 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Makes sense, thanks.

Then it does look like they are targetting Stormfront. Luckily this isn’t Paul’s campaign… for Paul.

I for one wish he was just for the hellstorm that would follow.

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 10:43 AM

What is Stormfront?

CP on October 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM

CP on October 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM

White supremacist group.

amerpundit on October 23, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Just imagine for a moment if Ron Paul actually WINS IN IOWA …

Maybe when the truthers acknowledge Islamic terrorism(which will never happen), there is no poll that shows that he stands anywhere near the front runners, Huckabee has 3x as much as he does.

Complete7 on October 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Paul’s support seems to come largely from people who are not what they claim or seem to be.

Jaibones on October 23, 2007 at 10:59 AM

‘Tis why I don’t accept advertising, though I probably should start selling Paul-Nuts </self-promotion_shameless>.

steveegg on October 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM

It’s not an advertisement — it’s a text link and a hardcoded flash object, embedded by Stormfront. View the HTML source.

Mark Jaquith on October 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM

bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 10:36 AM

You’re not the only one thinking this. I told anyone who would listen back before Empress Pantsuit the First announced her ’08 campaign that not only would she run, she would set up the same scenario that got Bill into office in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote.

When Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination, he’ll probably jump on the Reform ticket. Then we’ll see 1992 all over again. Ron Paul and Ross Perot – same initials, same spoiler status, everything.

angryoldfatman on October 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM

One small difference, aofm. He won’t have any support. The lefties will go back home where they belong, and the white supremecy freaks don’t vote because it requires that you register with the government. They want to pretend they’re invisible.

RP will garner the .5% that he so richly deserves and frankly that he has earned.

Jaibones on October 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM

I thought all the white power nuts were voting Hillary this time around.

Buzzy on October 23, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it again: Ron Paul is a Jew-hating b@st@rd. Just read his remarks on the Israel Resolution.

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.

I do agree with the resolution’s condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.

I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.

Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don’t have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, “The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.” I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.

HUGE A$$HOLE.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM

I think the EVOL in revolution is flipped, so that it spells
LOVE backwards.
Kinda clever actually, like it was made by a liberal movie poster graphic artist.

silverfox on October 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM

the Key with Paul and the primary states is to watch new voter registration. They advertise on their site the deadline date to switch parties, most of his supporters are not Republicans and have to go and register. So for him to do good in Iowa, he would need a lot of Dems, Independents, Neo-Nazi’s, Truthers, etc. to all go and register Repub just to vote for him.

jp on October 23, 2007 at 12:30 PM

It’s the 5th Dimension’s comeback album cover!

silverfox on October 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM

It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Actually, this part is pretty reasonable. Hezbolla is a proxy of Syria and Iran, and if the Lebanese government tried to take them on it would lead to another civil war that Hezbolla would likely win.

Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Actually, this part is pretty reasonable. Hezbolla is a proxy of Syria and Iran, and if the Lebanese government tried to take them on it would lead to another civil war that Hezbolla would likely win.

Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 12:32 PM

No, no, no!!!! His “facts” are all wrong. Israel invaded in 1982 as a result from PLO attacks, Hezbollah did not even exist then.

When Israel asked the Lebanese government if they needed help (militarily, financially, etc.) with the PLO in 1982, Lebanon turned them down. When Israel warned Lebanon about the PLO, Lebanon turned them down. When Israel invaded Lebanon to stop rocket attacks and infiltration, Lebanon fought against Israel (so did PLO and Syrian soldiers). So my point was that I object to the use of the word “occupied”. The word is “liberated”. And Israel did neutralize northern border attacks for 18 years. He’s entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM

i’m all for beating up on the paulies, but my guess that that ad is of the “Put this widget on your site. Cut and past the code below…” variety.

jummy on October 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM

It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Ron Paul is right about that. Israel occupied south Lebanon quite some time and failed miserably to keep the Shi’ites from taking over. They ran all the Christians out and now form part of the south Lebanon-Syria-Iranian crescent.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Ron Paul is right about that. Israel occupied south Lebanon quite some time and failed miserably to keep the Shi’ites from taking over. They ran all the Christians out and now form part of the south Lebanon-Syria-Iranian crescent.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM

PRCalDude, while I do enjoy reading your comments, this post was not up to your usual standards. If you recall the history of that conflict, Lebanese Christians were the buffer between the Litani river and northern Israel. Israel set up the buffer turned it over to the Christian Army and protected the Christians. Only when Israel withdrew from the buffer, and brought the Christians into Israel, did the Shites move in. Those are the facts.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Ron Paul is right about that. Israel occupied south Lebanon quite some time and failed miserably to keep the Shi’ites from taking over. They ran all the Christians out and now form part of the south Lebanon-Syria-Iranian crescent.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM

PRCalDude, while I do enjoy reading your comments, this post was not up to your usual standards. If you recall the history of that conflict, Lebanese Christians were the buffer between the Litani river and northern Israel. Israel set up the buffer turned it over to the Christian Army and protected the Christians. Only when Israel withdrew from the buffer, and brought the Christians into Israel, did the Shia (ites) move in. Those are the facts.

I reposted to avoid moderation.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:29 PM

I’m not sure how this ad buy happened, but if it was bought in a block then Paul got tangled up in the same thing that (ostensibly) happened to Obama re The Israel Lobby

A small ad for barackobama.com was one of a group of advertisements that rotated as “sponsored links” on the page for “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that has drawn rebuke from supporters of the Jewish state. The Illinois senator’s campaign said it had bought ads on Amazon.com to appear with the keyword category of “politics” through a subsidiary of the popular Internet shopping site. The placement on the ” Israel Lobby” page was unintentional, a campaign spokeswoman said, and the ad was gone hours after a New York Sun reporter notified the campaign of its location.

Again, not sure if this is what happened in the case of the Paul ad buy. And I’m not sure it matters given what must be under his bots’ reflex to find an Israel angle to every story (I know, I know, you’re speaking truth to power…) But just on the limited issue of ad buys, it seems like buying blocks through subsidiaries and then getting into trouble for it is certainly possible.

omriceren on October 23, 2007 at 1:36 PM

PRCalDude, while I do enjoy reading your comments, this post was not up to your usual standards. If you recall the history of that conflict, Lebanese Christians were the buffer between the Litani river and northern Israel. Israel set up the buffer turned it over to the Christian Army and protected the Christians. Only when Israel withdrew from the buffer, and brought the Christians into Israel, did the Shia (ites) move in. Those are the facts.

I reposted to avoid moderation.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Where can I read up on this some more?

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM

RP will garner the .5% that he so richly deserves and frankly that he has earned.

Jaibones on October 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM

I certainly hope you’re right. I’ve just got a bad feeling about it.

angryoldfatman on October 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:29 PM

BTW, thanks for the compliment and gentle rebuke. Heh.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Mark Jaquith on October 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Good call, thanks.

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Can somebody make a case against Ron Paul. I realize that there’s a lot of kooks and nuts who like him, especially of the 9/11 Truther crowd, but a lot of the stuff he says is really good. I don’t buy any “guilt by association” arguments. They’re not valid, kinda like the one being used against him on this post. If somebody has something to say against his voting record, or against something he’s said, I’d really like to hear it.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM

What am I missing here? Click on the link and you’ve got an immediate screen capture that could destroy Paul. You don’t even have to scroll to the ad at the bottom.

Just point out RP is endorsed by Stormfront.

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM

I don’t buy any “guilt by association” arguments.

Good for you!

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM

I do not see any indication that this a paid ad. The file is a flash object which had to be embedded by the site admin. The file is hosted by a image host as mentioned by

amerpundit on October 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM

***
Go to this page for the Ron Paul adcode.

If you look above the actual banner as it sits at Stormfront, you will notice the link Ron Paul for President. The text uses an H1 tag. One obvious reason to do this would be search engine optimization.

As a site admin, I can place any graphic anywhere on my sites I please. Even if I do not have direct relationship with the advertiser, I can run their ads.

If this ad was being served by a reputable ad broker, you would see rotating graphics and there would be ad tracking. I don’t any such coding.

I think Stormfront’s admins are just like the rest of us. They see that RP supporters are fanatical and can drive tons of traffic to a particular web destination instantly.

Most fringe groups know that their message is not suitable for mass consumption. So they must rely on a small but steady percentage of people who will resond affirmatively to their message if and when they see it. It’s a numbers thing. The more eyes on, the more people for your movement.

The linkbacks and pings their server is getting from all the discussions and threads is great news for stormfront. They now have legitimate non-reciprocal incoming links from multiple news giants online, including HotAir.

Round 1 goes to Stormfront.

The Race Card on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM

I can’t see this is an outside ad buy. I’m no web geek, but I see nothing to suggest it is being fed in connection with forum text. In addition, it is on every one of the 15 different pages I went to in different forum categories and it was where there was no “Ron Paul’, Ron or Paul text otherwise.

In my run through the forum I picked up only the one storm front cookie and an odd google video cookie. None of the cookies that suggest an outside ad vendor ever showed up. There are no links to such in the page info and the embedded ‘ad’ does not look like an dedicated space for second party use.

If this was paid for and not just put up by StormFront, then I would think it was a direct arrangement with StormFront.

Dusty on October 23, 2007 at 2:05 PM

FWIW, I just went back to SF 10-25-2005 post in Katrina thread and it has the ‘ad’.

Dusty on October 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM

[The Race Card on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM]

I’ll go with your implication that SF just put it up themselves to promote RP and, to some extent, troll for patrons.

Dusty on October 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM

The linkbacks and pings their server is getting from all the discussions and threads is great news for stormfront. They now have legitimate non-reciprocal incoming links from multiple news giants online, including HotAir.

Round 1 goes to Stormfront.

The Race Card on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM

It also boosted them in the google rankings and other pages that track popularity of websites. Way to go, AP!

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 2:17 PM

I believe in a little caution here, and be clear that Strom Front is allowed to endorse whoever they like even Barack Hussein Obama. It’s not that I’m naive about what the Storm Front trash is, but efforts to ban voices seem to work only one way. The nutcases on the right are declared beyond the pale, but the nutcases on the left get invited to all sorts of conferences. This double standard has several bad effects on our political dialog, but let me give just one. It encourages us to follow the Left down the anti-racist path where racism becomes both the original sin and the most evil sin. We reach the point where Huckabee’s and Bush’s ideas about immigration are the only moral ones. We become a victim of the left’s argument that anything impacts different races differently should be called racism–like permitting only legal immigration. We find ourselves unable to make the obvoius counterpoint: should we permit murder, because laws against murder disproportionately punish blacks in the United States?

thuja on October 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Hey, AP, this thread already has a mention at Ron Paul Planet.

Scroll just a little bit.

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM

The Race Card on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Race Card, I am utterly ignorant on all of this tech stuff, but explain for me. Stormfront cannot possibly benefit from ad revenue for an increase in traffic — no one in their right mind would advertise on a white supremecist web site (would they? I won’t click the link – eff them).

So the only benefit is in trolling for new racists, right?

Jaibones on October 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Ron Paul’s database must be bigger than Able Danger. ;)

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I don’t buy any “guilt by association” arguments.
Good for you!

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM

So if your friend also happened to be a member of the KKK you’re okay with that. Interesting.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Here ya go.

Ron Paul endorsed by Stormfront Radio

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Can somebody make a case against Ron Paul. I realize that there’s a lot of kooks and nuts who like him, especially of the 9/11 Truther crowd, but a lot of the stuff he says is really good. I don’t buy any “guilt by association” arguments. They’re not valid, kinda like the one being used against him on this post. If somebody has something to say against his voting record, or against something he’s said, I’d really like to hear it.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Come on!!! I just did. I alread exposed him as an anti-semite. How about the fact that he’s a racist too?

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Heh. Thanks for the chuckle. You are brilliant, you saw right through me by implying something I didn’t say. Par for the course, it seems.

I comment on HA. Also on HA are people who speak with vitriol and people who put words in other peoples mouths. I am associated with them by internet location. But I don’t equate all commenters with those characteristics, nor would they be accurately applied to me. To paraphrase a great line for Shaara, ‘Any man who judges by the group is a peawit. You take men one at a time.’ Seems pretty clear to me to be the charitable and more importantly, the honest thing to do.

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Stormfront can endorse anyone they want.

But unless Ron Paul steps forward and denounces the endorsement, then I’m also free to associate him with them.

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Sorry guys but if you think this’ll sink Paul you underestimate just how anti-government and anti-American Paul’s supporters are. This Neo-nazi connection’s old news (I blogged it several times already) and the Paul camp always comes out with the same “Dr Paul thinks racism is collectivism” stock answer. ED Brown was a Jew hating crank and Paul was supporting him. Alex Jones has been known to reach out to the White Nationalists if he thinks he can sell them something and Paul still supports him.

The connection is not just within Paul’s camp, it’s with Anti-War.com, Lew Rockwell and Vdare. All are site that White Nationalists frequent, and in the cases of the authors like Justin Raimado and Brian Wilson there are authors there willing to distribute their propaganda, although heavily modified.

Many a Paul supporter has been told this by myself or the other bloggers who have been hitting this story and guess what? They don’t care. It’s one of the reasons I left the Libertarian Party so many years ago, they’re always willing to ally themselves with anyone whose anti-government )even if they’re authoritarian themselves) to raise money and look like a bigger party than they are.

Have fun with the deaththreats you’ll get though, I average 1-2 every time I point out Paul’s a money grubbing hypocrite.

Rob Taylor on October 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Internet associations are not personal and therefore not the same. I don’t have an association with you (thankfully) even though we both post at HA. Furthermore, if that is not what you said, then you were not clearly conveying your opinion. If you knowningly associated, and by that I mean found in the company of, being a friend of, or have any personal relationship with (be it friendly or business), an unsavory character, then YOUR character is questionable. An association is an act. And behaviour is ALWAYS one’s responsibility. Ron Paul’s character is very questionable, and not just for his associations, but because of his own statements. He is a libertarian (like you), not a Republican. And libertarians have immoral foreign policies.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Rob Taylor on October 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Yeah, Lew Rockwell has Ron Paul quotes all over the website. Has for a LOOOOOOOONG time. Do you think Ron Paul minds? I don’t. Therefore he endorses these White Supremicists. And I pronounce him guilty by association.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Internet associations are not personal and therefore not the same. I don’t have an association with you (thankfully) even though we both post at HA.

And yet AP and MM try to maintain civility in here because it reflects poorly on them.

Furthermore, if that is not what you said, then you were not clearly conveying your opinion.

I said “Good for you.” Spin that anyway you like. It stands for itself of course, I was supporting the perspective of another poster. If you have issue with that perspective perhaps your discomfort is misdirected.

If you knowningly associated, and by that I mean found in the company of, being a friend of, or have any personal relationship with (be it friendly or business), an unsavory character, then YOUR character is questionable.

This is erroneous. The human mind likes to categorize to make it easier to manage the vast amounts of stimulus we input every day. No one should be held responsible for the perspectives of another. For example, your perspective is that I am a libertarian. I am not; so I should not be held responsible for your error.

An association is not the same as a friendship. You do not choose the ethnicty with which you are born. You do not choose the family into which you are born. (Nor do you choose the location or nation etc.) However they are all part of one’s identity and associates them with people of like characteristics. I don’t think all people from Houston are like Ron Paul. If you were to say you can judge a man by his friends, then your statement could stand on some merit. But then we would be discussion your statement, not your preconceived projections on mine.

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Unfortunately, the net effect of Stormfront’s endorsement will be that the left will use it against the right. Let’s work just a little harder to ensure that Hillary will be POTUS, ok?

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM

But unless Ron Paul steps forward and denounces the endorsement, then I’m also free to associate him with them.

Connie on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM

By that logic, I could post “Ron Paul endorsements” on any obscure website I want and say Ron Paul endorses the content on that website. Can Ron Paul somehow know of everyone who endorses him on the web? Isn’t the web, you know, a little bit too large for that?

Come on!!! I just did. I alread exposed him as an anti-semite. How about the fact that he’s a racist too?

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 2:43 PM

He has the right to say something about Israel if he wants. That doesn’t make him an anti-semite, though I am cautious around people who start mentioning AIPAC. He said a few politically incorrect things about blacks, but that doesn’t make him a racist or a white-supremacist. Blacks do commit crime out of proportion to their numbers.

I’m afraid you’re steering me more into his camp than out of it.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Holocaust & 9/11 deniers…..sounds like a match made in heaven.

The Ugly American on October 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM

This is erroneous. The human mind likes to categorize to make it easier to manage the vast amounts of stimulus we input every day. No one should be held responsible for the perspectives of another. For example, your perspective is that I am a libertarian. I am not; so I should not be held responsible for your error

Now you are doing the same thing you chastised me for doing. I did not, repeat, did not say anything about being responsible for the perspectives of another. I said if you associate with an unsavory character your character is questionable. If someone associates with Jesse Jackson, OJ Simpson, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke or Al Sharpton, there characters are in question. If you think these are upstanding citizens of this country, you’re delusional. It is perfectly reasonable to generalize about a person’s character based on associations. Of course, there are always exceptions to any generalization but not in Ron Paul’s case.

Oh and BTW, your political party may not be Libertarian but your posts certainly are.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:40 PM

He has the right to say something about Israel if he wants. That doesn’t make him an anti-semite,

Yeah, it does. I don’t buy the line that one can be anti-Zionist or anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite. Anti-Israel is anti-Jewish because Israel is the only Jewish nation on the planet.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Yeah, it does. I don’t buy the line that one can be anti-Zionist or anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite. Anti-Israel is anti-Jewish because Israel is the only Jewish nation on the planet.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Let me clarify one thing. It is certainly acceptable to criticize Israeli policies based on FACTS. But it is pure anti-semitism to question the way Israel defends itself to insure its survival. Ron Paul did the latter.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Now you are doing the same thing you chastised me for doing. I did not, repeat, did not say anything about being responsible for the perspectives of another. I said if you associate with an unsavory character your character is questionable.

Okay, I have no intent to put words in your mouth.

Allow me to clarify: To judge an association between two people necessitates a third party. The third party is not privy to the details of the two involved in the association, thus the 3rd party must based his/her opinion on their perspective.

It is perfectly reasonable to generalize about a person’s character based on associations.

You are welcome to that opinion. I don’t share it, I think men are better judged by their actions, but suit yourself.

Oh and BTW, your political party may not be Libertarian but your posts certainly are.

I can’t really speak to that because I don’t know what comments of mine you have read, save of course the ones you have commented on. But either way, that’s fine – I’m not here to espouse a party line so how I’m seen in regard to party line is not that important to me. I just enjoy the conversation and insight from various commenters.

Spirit of 1776 on October 23, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Yeah, it does. I don’t buy the line that one can be anti-Zionist or anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite. Anti-Israel is anti-Jewish because Israel is the only Jewish nation on the planet.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM

I generally sympathize with your view. But I tend to look at what else a person believes before I decide that the person is anti-semitic. In the case of a Muslim, anti-zionism and anti-semitism are the same thing. Zionism is just code-word for “Jew.” In the case of Ron Paul, I think he generally just believes we need to “avoid foreign entanglements.” I give him a pass on that one. Anti-semites tend to believe that everything is a ‘zionist conspiracy.’ I don’t think RP is like that.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM

HUGE A$$HOLE.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM

There’s still nothing inherently anti-semitic about what RP said there, if one accepts that RP is sincere about his non-interventionist point-of-view. He is naive and ignorant about the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah thing, but from his viewpoint, it shouldn’t matter to us one way or the other because we shouldn’t be intervening in the Middle East. Though I firmly believe Muslims will attack us no matter what, we have done quite a bit of meddling over there that we shouldn’t have done.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Then you must have missed Paul’s interview on Prison Planet. He’s all about the NWO, and the we all know the NWO is a dolled up metaphor for International Jewery in the minds of the tin foilers.

I don’t think Paul himself is na anti-semite, but he’s smart enough to know they’re riding his coat tails and raising money for him. He’s happy to take their taited money, which is why he’ll never come out and say he doesn’t want their help. That would take character, which he doesn’t have.

Even Farrakhan distanced himself from the most outspoken anti-semites in his movement (Prof. Griff from Public Enemy) why can’t Paul issue a staement doing the same?

Rob Taylor on October 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM

You are welcome to that opinion. I don’t share it, I think men are better judged by their actions

Associating with unsavory characters IS an action. Its certainly not a thought.

That was the last word on this for me.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Rob Taylor on October 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM

I don’t know who the heck you are, but you are one smart guy!!!! Keep posting.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Then you must have missed Paul’s interview on Prison Planet. He’s all about the NWO, and the we all know the NWO is a dolled up metaphor for International Jewery in the minds of the tin foilers.

I don’t think Paul himself is na anti-semite, but he’s smart enough to know they’re riding his coat tails and raising money for him. He’s happy to take their taited money, which is why he’ll never come out and say he doesn’t want their help. That would take character, which he doesn’t have.

Even Farrakhan distanced himself from the most outspoken anti-semites in his movement (Prof. Griff from Public Enemy) why can’t Paul issue a staement doing the same?

Rob Taylor on October 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Rob,

Prison planet is run by a Christian who’s a dispensational premillenialist. To summarize their eschatology briefly, DPs basically believe that Jesus is going to return to the modern-day nation state of Israel after a brief tribulation and rule for a literal thousand years in Jerusalem. The entire theology of DPs hangs on the success or failure of the nation-state of Israel and the Jews there. For them, the NWO is not run by Jews, but by a Satanically-empowered antichrist. They don’t believe in the same NWO that Stormfront and their ilk do.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM

William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Hah. He probably has.

Ryan Gandy on October 23, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Yeah, Lew Rockwell has Ron Paul quotes all over the website. Has for a LOOOOOOOONG time. Do you think Ron Paul minds? I don’t. Therefore he endorses these White Supremicists. And I pronounce him guilty by association.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Ron Paul is actually a member of Lew Rockwell’s Mises Institute. So no, he doesn’t mind at all that he’s on Rockwell’s site. Ron Paul is a radical libertarian, and you can take that as you will. If he is elected he’d work to eliminate the CIA, eliminate the income tax, eliminate the Federal Reserve and put us on the Gold Standard, move us out of Iraq and any other nation we are in, cut the defense budget along with every other budget, open trade with all nations regardless of their questionable ethics, legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana, cut the government to it’s bare bones “constitutionality”,

Those are the facts. Take them as you will. Dr. Paul does not play well with others and you only need to see his congressional record as proof. If he were to be elected president NOTHING would get done.

I have to admit he has one incredibly awesome idea. Issue Letters of Marque to rich people like Ross Perot and have them find Osama. I fully support that. But I believe our military should try too, Paul disagrees.

Keljeck on October 23, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Rob,

Prison planet is run by a Christian who’s a dispensational premillenialist. To summarize their eschatology briefly, DPs basically believe that Jesus is going to return to the modern-day nation state of Israel after a brief tribulation and rule for a literal thousand years in Jerusalem. The entire theology of DPs hangs on the success or failure of the nation-state of Israel and the Jews there. For them, the NWO is not run by Jews, but by a Satanically-empowered antichrist. They don’t believe in the same NWO that Stormfront and their ilk do.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Whoa. Boy was I wrong about that. It looks like Jones sees the ZOG as the root of all evil.

Going on Jones’ radio show is not the way to silence those who want to guilt you by association.

PRCalDude on October 23, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Here is some Ron Paul discussion about Stormfront.org over at the Ron Paul forums.

Go figure. Some of the Paulites have reservations.

Flap on October 23, 2007 at 6:14 PM

No, no, no!!!! His “facts” are all wrong. Israel invaded in 1982 as a result from PLO attacks, Hezbollah did not even exist then.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM

If Hezbollah didn’t exist when they went in, they did almost immediately afterwards- they were fighting Israel almost the entire time; at least from ’83 on. The point is that Israel couldn’t dislodge Hezbollah in the 12 years they were there, and the weak Lebanese military couldn’t either- not then and not today.

And like it or not, yes, it was an occupation- while elements of Lebanese society approved of Israel fighting to oust the PLO, it wasn’t with permission of the Lebanese government.

In the midst of all this, a bloody civil war broke out in Lebanon, and they are understandably reluctant to see that happen again- and it would were the government to try and take on Hezbolla.

Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM

@ Andy in Agoura Hills

You have some of the most insane viewpoints I have ever heard. First of all, if I do not support Israel, that does not make me an anti-Semite. The problem with people like you is that you call anything that is a criticism of your race/gender/group bigotry. Does it make me an anti-Semite because I think we should not give a dime of aid to Israel? Does it make me an anti-Semite because I think that Israel overreacts and is CERTAINLY not helping the situation as much as they could in the middle east, to put it VERY lightly? NO. That does not make me an anti-Semite. Nor does it make me racist if I say that black people should stop having so many damn kids out of wedlock, its over 70%. Not to pick only on those two groups, but those are just examples. Those don’t make you racist or a bigot, they make you someone who is voicing problems that you see without regard towards people with delicate feelings like YOU. You can call me a racist or a bigot all you want for pointing out FACTS, and you can do the same for Ron Paul, but if the best thing you can come up with is some quote from him which 80% of the nation would whole-heartedly agree with, then I’d say he is doing a pretty damned good job.

muyoso on October 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Oh, and to all you people trying to associate Ron Paul with this white supremacist website, just stop. Your arguments of association are utterly stupid, and the only reason you are doing it is because you dislike Ron Paul to begin with. If (website you dont agree with or despise) posted an endorsement for (candidate you support for president), would you have the same reaction?? No, you wouldn’t, you would say that those people don’t represent your party and yourself.

muyoso on October 23, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Remember what Reagan did when the KKK endorsed him?

Please muyoso enlighten us.

Flap on October 23, 2007 at 8:45 PM

I CAN’T WAIT FOR THIS ELECTION TO BE OVER WITH!!

CloneTrooper on October 24, 2007 at 1:51 AM