Topic: Ron Paul
James P. Nelson Smears Ron Paul and Paul's Backers Nick Flint rebutts a letter-to-editor sent by James P. Nelson to Hudson Star-Observer and Published Friday, February 22, 2008by Nickalis N. Tower
(Libertarian)
Friday, February 22, 2008
Regarding a letter-to-editor: 'Letter: Questions Paul backers' James P. Nelson, New Richmond, Hudson Star-Observer Published Friday, February 22, 2008
It's clear that Mr. Nelson, who wrote his letter on 22 Feb 2008 'Questions Paul backers', wants to distance his own narrow conservative view with Ron Paul's wider conservative views.
Mr. Nelson instead smears simple people like me who back Ron Paul by implying that Ron Paul 'keeps company' with idiot racists like David Duke, and that people like me don't hold valid views of limiting government liberty and not personal liberty simply because I don't care whether someone smokes dope and doesn't harm anyone else.
Ron Paul doesn't hold nor endorse any racist views, and neither is Ron Paul a white supremicist. Ron Paul's moral character isn't diminished one iota by racists sending him money for his campaign. Nor would it enhance Ron Paul's moral character if a self-annointed paragon of virtue, such as Mr. Nelson implies he is, donated to Ron Paul's campaign.
For the record, I'm one Ron Paul supporter that's not a racist, I don't smoke dope, and I wanted to reveal that collective moral guilt is invalid for your readers. Because, Mr. Nelson, this Paul backer is no dope.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 55 thumbs so far
2008 Nickalis N. Tower, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, February 22, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 22, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Nickalis N. Tower only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nickalis N. Tower is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
He probably won't respond to the open letter, just like he hasn't respond to my (hurried) e-mail...
E-mail:
1. Where's your Question?
2. Where's the "comment" section where Paul supporters are suppose to answer this non-existent question?
I don't believe that anyone should give back legit/legal campaign contributions. The only reason people even know what these people are is because they haven't kept it secret, so who's to say that your neighbor down the street isn't also a kkk member, nazi, etc.? Also equally as bad or possibly worse, at least to me, are the socialist, globalist, etc. that give to McCain, Huckabee, Hillary, Obama, etc.
Your entire article belies your statement of "I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist or extremist" but the two main statements that make a lie out of that statement are... "People get judged by the company they keep." & "if elected, Paul’s clothes would certainly be adorned with fruitcake fringe."
You judge people by the company they keep. I can't believe you actually get paid to write. Thank God that my parents raised me to judge people on their own merrits.
That was one of the worst articles I have read in a while. I can't beleive anyone would publish that - oh wait...I lost what little respect I have for the majority of media outlets ages ago.
The article is clearly written as a smear tactic - linking Ron's campaign with unsavory characters - explaining their (not Ron's) negative attributes for over 50% of the article - then goes on to say I dont believe Ron is a racist or extremist. Making a campaign contribution hardly defines that individual as "close company" of that candidate. Hundreds of thousands of people donated money to Ron - its just plain stupid to associate him with any of them.
His issue with gay rights and marijuana are purely moral issues. Ron is more fiscally conservative than any candidate in the last 2 decades. If you want to define conservatism to mean the moral agenda of evangelical christians - he doesnt fit that bill - by neither does McCain - feel free to vote for Huckabee. Just know Huckabee is no fiscal conservative.
Publishing the editorial opionions of someone who is ignorant on that topic does not educate your readers. That is just lazy work by the editing staff of Hudson Star-Observer.
I think it's equally important to remember that this is about public perception.
Part of the problem is that when people go to see what Ron Paul has written about racism, they get a completely incomprehenisble page of absolute gibberish. Ron Paul doesn't see racism as a big issue, and for a lot of minorities at least, if he doesn't see it as a big issue, then he's automatically "not going to act in their interests".
Ron Paul supporters, who see his positions in light of fiscal conservatism and limited government as most important, don't see why anyone would pay attention to the claims of people like the editorial writer. But minorities are sensative to the issue because they fear that some of the posititions Ron Paul champions have also been taken up by racist groups. They see a link that libertarians say doesn't exist.
I think the statement DreamerSS made, "Also equally as bad or possibly worse, at least to me, are the socialist, globalist, etc. that give to McCain, Huckabee, Hillary, Obama, etc." sums up the mindset of most libertarians perfectly. But to minorities -- especially those who remember the period before the civil rights legislation -- a canidate who is anything less than openly and clearly against racism -- or even has hints of being less than totally against it --- is completely unacceptible.
Posted By: James P. Nelson
Date: 2008-02-22 21:07:38
It's interesting to note the response here to my letter. My letter was written in response to a local blogger who wrote a glowing endorsement of Ron Paul the previous week. I stand by what was in my letter. If you find anything that isn't factual, please post them here. The David Duke and Don Black information is correct and can be found on Black's Stormfront website.Cut out of my letter was the following paragraph, which would have been the second to the last, paragraph:"Currently, the local blogger has a post calling John McCain a communist. When did McCain become a communist? Was it when he was tortured in a Communist prison camp in North Vietnam?"I'm a local citizen who wrote a letter to the editor in response to a letter writer who allows such comments to appear on his blog. The same blog also has a post calling our local state senator, a Republican, a Nazi.Obviously, most of you commenting on my letter didn't read it without your Ron Paul blinders on. I didn't "smear" Paul, as Mr. Flint states, but rather pointed out some facts about the fringe groups that support Paul. I could easily dig up information on fringe groups that support McCain, Clinton or Obama. However, that wasn't the focus of my letter. My letter was to point out that a local blog that is notorious for slandering anyone. There are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. If you don't think libertarians are in favor of legalized marijuana and gay rights, you need to do a little big of homework. Check out the CATO Institute or Reason magazine. Paul is a fiscal and moral conservative in the tradition of libertarian ideals. He might not be 100-proof libertarian, but he's a stronger brew than any of the other major candidates.Evidently, there are more Ron Paul supporters commenting than libertarians. Maybe Mr. Flint can point me to one of his articles that help to break the link between Paul and the white supremacists backing Paul. Tagging my letter with words like "smear" or "effeminate, half-a-man statist stooge" or "ignorant" without supporting the statements with any facts to back them up is so junior high. I'm sure a small town, weekly newspaper would find it interesting that "Boris" is going to boycott the paper. Gee, it's a two-day drive to Wisconsin to spend $1.25 on the weekly paper. I usually read it in the library or on-line.To DreamerSS, I'll point out that my parents raised me to judge people on the contents of their character, but pointed out regularly that you will be judged by the company you keep. Maybe Paul is saddled with the challenge of dealing with the people who keep him for company.
Mr. Nelson, you'll see a lot of people here who are very brave on paper. Most of them, like whoever Pier Johnson is, are probably cowards who don't have the intellect or courage to actually deal with someone directly, and love to engage in name-calling.
Furthermore, a lot of libertarians are very good at looking at one tiny piece of something and generalizing that out into a whole, and then acting offended when you do the same to them. The Libertarian movement as a whole has a huge problem with hypocracy, and over and over in their rants you'll see large tracts of empty rhetoric, empty promises and slogans and no plans -- and then the same person will turn around and bash Obama.
The truth? Your article, sir, was a bit skimpy on cause-effect. Ron Paul can't be honest and say that he has more in common with those who believe in racial equality with those who don't because that isn't the case. Most of the people who champion racial equality also cast whites as evil, big government as good, and see nothing wrong with taxing the upper classes into bankruptcy and being socialistic. I think the reality is Dr. Paul dislikes these sort of fringe people immensely, but unfortunately he sees them a lesser evil than the damage in his mind caused by big government.
As for the fact that Nick Flint only quoted part of what you wrote, well, he wrote another article where he took one tiny piece of what someone said and turned that into an attack on Ron Paul. Nolan Chart has many writers. It allows anyone to be a columnist. As someone in the public eye who gets opinated responses to what you write, you should be able to dismiss cranks, clowns, and apologists with aplomb.
No I am sorry Mr. Nelson do not agree with your asurtions, When those name's are thrown around and to say you are not put a spin on what you are trying to say is a joke, ok maybe the old people that support McShame will also believe in your clever atempt to play word association with Dr. Paul and David Duke, side not on David, When I lived in New Orleans, he was running for office, and I new black people that were going to vote for him, does that make them Klan? DreamerSS wrote about his parents teaching's and your lack of the said same, Here's on for you to ponder, Judge not least you be judged! Just face it it's a smeer job, even though it's a clever one, still a smeer job.
Logical Premise, I didn't take a 'tiny piece' of what Mr. Nelson said and turn it into an attack on Ron Paul. The theme of my letter was simply that Mr. Nelson's closing argument is a person should be judged by the company he keeps, implies that Ron Paul keeps company with racists, and thereby not only has he smeared Ron Paul, but he has smeared ME PERSONALLY, BECAUSE I'M NOT A RACIST. Ron Paul and I do not endorse racists, period.
Do you really think that I'm dumb enough to believe what you say here:
"I didn't "smear" Paul, as Mr. Flint states, but rather pointed out some facts about the fringe groups that support Paul."
If you had included that missing paragraph you mention in your comment above, and then summized in order to provide the context that a few supporters of each campaign try to attach 'fringe' support allegations to all the other campaigns without supporting facts, then that would be fine.
Anyone can verify via the internet that the racist supporters you mentioned backing Ron Paul have done so, but I'm rejecting the 'collective guilt' you ascribe to me as a Ron Paul supporter. Because when you impugn Ron Paul's character by implying he "keeps company" with the wrong sorts of people, you did it to me too -- not to mention all other non-racist Ron Paul supporters -- because I 'kept company' by voting for him, donating to Ron Paul's campaign and by volunteering for him at my local caucus.
Thank you for clarifying the context of your 'intended' letter. Perhaps you'll do better next time, and leave out the collective guilt premise.
Nick,
Perhaps the best approach was to simply ignore the writer who cars less about saving our nation.
It's clear to me that if we are to have a sound dollar policy it will becuse of Ron Paul supporters... It's clear to me if we are going to change our nation then it will be up to us...
Let's don't give these jerks the time of day. This guy may have even lied his way in college...
In closing as a Ron Paul republican I just won my local GOP chair and get this Mike Huckabee supporters voted for me, Mitt supporters vote for me.
I have been asked to run as Mayor of my city and I will do so under the banner of Ron Paul republican.
We only need to replace 500+ in congress and the senate to make changes and it's time... Lets take 8-10% of congress this yes and in 2009 lets take 20-30% of congress.... In order to do so we need to get behind everyone who passes a litmus test. After I prove I can run my city it will be used as a spring board to run for Congress in 2010. I support one step at a time... So if you have the background to run for a higher offer either with an outstanding business background, etc then run... If not and you run a small business like me I think we all need to take smaller teps.
Think of it this way we call support teh law of the land regardless of the office we hold.
Run as a Sheriff they have the ability to stop the IRS and other matters.
One of our Paul meet-up members has a background in business banking so he is running this spring as Clerk of the court as a Ron Paul republican.
It only takes about 2% of the population to make major changes are you going to be part of that 2%.
Posted By: James P. Nelson
Date: 2008-02-23 13:08:48
Nick:
Obviously, your post has little to do with libertarian ideals and a lot to do with cult worshipping of Ron Paul. I'm not a guilt collectivist, but I do like to occasionally jab a stick in the cage of the local fruitcake fringe.
Your comment to Logical Premise is amusing, since you didn't even mention the last paragraph of my letter in post. I requested above that you point out one of your postings where you try to drive a wedge between Paul and the racist groups and characters supporting him. Obviously you have none.
Since you say you are not a racist, how can I tell if all the other Paul supporters aren't racists? Certainly you wouldn't deny that there are racists in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party? Likewise, I certain there are racist independents. Maybe you could use your writing talents to dispel the rumours and innuendo about racists tainting Paul's campaign.
Maybe John could expand on his "mindless sheep" comment? Would I be a "mindless sheep," because I don't see things the way he does? Maybe you folks have forgotten, but we discussing politics and public perceptions here. The cheap-shot comments that have been aimed here at me don't help persuaded me that I may have been wrong in my letter. In fact, those comments strengthen my argument.
Riddle me this...
Why would a white-supremacist/racist support Ron Paul?
The real answer is they would not.
Do racists want people of color or specific religion to be free; have equal rights under our Constitution? Or do they desire them to be suppressed and imprisoned by an overrun welfare system and drug laws and outcast by the fears of people opposed to their ways of life and practice of religion?
The obvious is before you if you choose to see the real truth. The words
Why would a white-supremacist/racist support Ron Paul?
The real answer is they would not.
Do racists want people of color or specific religion to be free; have equal rights under our Constitution? Or do they desire them to be suppressed and imprisoned by an overrun welfare system and drug laws and outcast by the fears of people opposed to their ways of life and practice of religion?
The obvious is before you if you choose to see the real truth. The words "libertarian" and "racist" are complete opposites and using them in context of them having some-kind of similarity is utterly ridiculous.
Posted By: James P. Nelson
Date: 2008-02-24 12:17:35
Lynn:
Why would Ron Paul accept a campaign contribution from Don Black, an avowed white racist? In order to make a point that would have cost his campaign $500, why wouldn't Paul make a public statement by giving the money back? Could it be that many closet racists would quit contributing to Paul's campaign?
I agree that racism plays no part in theorethical libertarian idealism. However, Mr. Flint, in his attacks against, is obviously not concerned about libertarian ideals but rather is intent on bowing to the cult worshipping of Paul at the expense of libertarian ideals.
To be quiet honest, I'm confused as to why his original post was put under the banner of "libertarian."
Hiding behind a screen name, the coward Logical Premise wrote:
"Mr. Nelson, you'll see a lot of people here who are very brave on paper. Most of them, like whoever Pier Johnson is, are probably cowards who don't have the intellect or courage to actually deal with someone directly, and love to engage in name-calling.
How amusing this nerdy, masked Logical Premise is. He calls others the name "cowards" and claims others lack intellect, yet he fails to see that he hides behind a screen name.
So who is the coward? And who lacks intellect to not see his nexus of false beliefs?
"Pier" : As I've already posted in other places, my name is Henry Viley.
As for you, I have no clue if your name is "Pier Johnson" or something else entirely. I *do* know you're a sniveling coward because you can do nothing but insult. You have no ideas, no class, no culture, and -- quite obviously -- no ability to take what you quickly dish out.
Take your feculant brand of trailer-trash name calling back to whatever troll-home you came from. You're a brainwashed zombie, and I'm an American. If you're going to call someone names and insult them in a one line sentence, you'd better be prepared to get called on it. But you can't, because I doubt you could even comprehend the point of the article.
But to sink to your level, your name sounds a little limp-wristed. Pier? Are you FRENCH?
Mr. Nelson: to be fair, sir, labeling people on this site as "fringe nutcakes" doesn't exactly make you stand out. There are a good number of intelligent people on the site, and while I agree the article as written here is excreable, painting the whole community with the retard brush would be unfair.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Nickalis N. Tower, all rights reserved.