0 votes

is this subject taboo?

Yesterday someone posted an alert here that Daniel McCarthy, the official ronpaul2008.com blogger, was featured elsewhere on a blog which is by any account anti-Jewish. A column by him appeared there uner his name and an offensive headline. I and others became concerned. After some digging, though, we found that the same column had already been posted 2 days before that, under an inoffensive headline, at LewRockwell.com. So it appears that it was just a reprint, presumably without McCarthy's blessing.

I bring this up only after searching DP unsuccessfully for any items about it still viewable here. I want a record to exist where *someone* points out that McCarthy wasn't posting on that blog (they were, instead, copying his article from LRC, on their own).

So... did I miss anything here? Why are there no forum entries about this in the archives?

Quick-n-dirty bottom line for the stupid:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Several websites reprint

This type of linking happens all the time. If people aren't intelligent enough to figure out where the original text appeared they've got some seriously flawed researching skills. Rense.com for instance, reprints and links to stories from all over the web. Most here probably know and realize this fact. Media outside the traditional media of the U.S. raises topics that the OM here won't touch with a ten foot cattle prod. The example of Rense.com is a good one. It's listed as a "conspiracy theory" site by U.S. governments websites. However, if you actually read or look through a lot of the articles they are reprints of outside sources.

The OM has people in the U.S. so brainwashed that to even say the word Jewish in a context that's not favorable is painted as being antisemitic. It's the broadest form of stifling dissent, in a country run amok with political correctness.

The world is changing and the wall of deceit surrounding "Israel can do no wrong" is crumbling before the establishments eyes. This is what so called antisemitism (whether it truly is or isn't) is facing. Sadly enough, real antisemitic actions won't go reacted to in a positive way because the excuse is now so defunct and overused to only defend "all things Israel". It's a game where most people don't understand the stakes, OIL.

I wouldn't concern myself with such trivial things as where a Daniel McCarthy article ended up. The web of today is not the same as old dusty library books of yesteryear. And besides, the mainstream media will often say time and time again you can't trust what you read on the web. ;)

Puppets come and puppets go but the world's stage is getting cluttered.

I am fairly confident

that: though charges of racism will be used to attack Dr. Paul, as well as anyone in his campaign, it will not diminish his support to any degree. We know WHO he is and we believe in his message.

We are all so relieved to find a candidate whose message DOESN'T change for demographics. We know we are supporting an honorable man who sees us as individuals, not separate divisive groups.

that's nice but...

I'd still like an answer to my question, if anyone has one. The DM issue arose yesterday and I'm eager to be sure that it's been put to bed successfully.

For Mayberry or others confused by his/her comments on this thread: I am the opposite of a troll, as anyone who has been around here a little while already knows. Flagging and banning isn't going to make problems go away, when the information about them is already on the record elsewhere. What makes problems go away is dealing with them. In this case it would be wise for the campaign, or at least DM, to make a public statement clarifying why the article from DM appears on the offensive blog -- which, again, is because the offensive bloggers copied it from elsewhere, *not* because DM posted it there. As I said: NO SCANDAL. (But someone could try to make one, which is what I'm trying to avoid by clarifying what happened here before anybody else gets the wrong idea like yesterday's original poster on this matter apparently did -- along with countless other readers of that thread.)

Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com

What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

A good thread on the racism controversy

Was also deleted.


Was the URL, and the thread featured a very well written reply by a longtime Ron Paul supporter who happens to be black.

Strangely enough, the controversy didn't disappear magically with the interesting thread. Oh well.

I posted here yesterday re: race and was flagged and my

post reads "Access Denied" whenever I try to get in there. Fools like Mayberry think that banning controversial topics rather than dealing with them head on is going to get all the non paul believers to convert?

I think I'm getting to be really over the Paul movement. HQ that pays no attention. Believers that are so obsessed that they cant see the forest for the trees. Plain ignorance...

As I said last week...right message wrong candidate and DEFINITELY wrong followers...

If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Oh by the way...FLAG FLAG FLAG...omigod I said something unflattering about the Paul campaign!!!!!


-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you

-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you

Don't leave because there is nowhere else to go

I agree that:

1) Ron Paul should show he listens more and, if he doesn't break out of single digits before Florida, needs to be less conservative about speaking his mind on SPECIFIC laws that take away our civil liberties.

Of the 8-10% who support Ron Paul, I wonder if it is only 2% that are thinking that specific rights have been taken away (the others voting for RP because they are against the war but financially conservative).

Ron Paul needs to educate Americans on the specific rights they have lost.

2) DP will hopefully not turn into a bastion of political correctness. The women's issues thread did not upset any women yesterday. And, in any case, being accused of being against radical feminism is not the same as being accused of being sexist and nowhere near the same as being accused of being racist.

I really hope the thread was not deleted that seemed to be written by a Clinton supporter. It is often helpful to allow an "enemy" to post on a forum because it educates forum members.


smear attempt by word association
flag and ban

Hi Mayberry. I've noticed

Hi Mayberry. I've noticed that you are very quick to call someone a troll and announce that you've flagged their post. You've done this numerous times now, even to members of longer standing than yourself. Would you please stop doing this? Thanks.

Signature: Individual Liberty for Newbies (Pass it on!)

If in fact I have been doing that

then maybe the posters should stop inserting inflammatory posts and posts that are harmful to the election of Ron Paul. Length of membership may or may not be a determinant of a Troll.

cause it was negative.

the negative police can't stomach any debate on issues. we have to tow the line or be flagged. soon we'll be banned.

i think it should go to a closed format and only those that adhere to the DP code can post. then it'll just be folks that agree.

then when they have a disagreement, they can split up some more until it's just a handful of folks saying "woohoo" we're the positive ones.

But it wasn't even negative. It was just anti-Hillary

Nobody was arguing on that thread. Jane Aitken and other women were agreeing that there was a problem with women not voting for RP.

I would seriously like to know if Michael believes the word "feminism" is too hot to handle.

Hillary is running on gender politics and ALL of her opponents will lose badly if they are scared to grapple with the subject, which is a home run topic because most women do NOT agree with Hillary's concept of gender politics and feminism.

I would like to know why the "women" thread was deleted


Please tell everyone why the "Are women the problem" thread was deleted yesterday.

It was popular and many women, including Jane Aitken, were replying that there is a problem with women joining the campaign.

With Hillary doing so well, gender politics will probably be the #1 hidden issue in the general election.

Is there going to be a policy that, for instance, radical feminism cannot be discussed at DP?

I noticed that one of the gotchas the Neocons were trying to make about the old Ron Paul newsletters was a person criticism of a woman politician in Texas that implied she was an "ideologue". Ron Paul could withstand any criticism for having said that. It is not anywhere near seen as being equal to saying a racist remark.