1 As a lunatic residing on the internet, may I ask which position of Ron Paul's you find most b i z a r r e ? (I only spaced out that word because it freaked out your screening program for some reason) It's often the case with Ron Paul haters that what then they say "Ron Paul's position on X is crazy" they really mean "I don't understand Ron Paul's position on X."

2 Well, Mr. Zappa, since you are dead AND lack a real email address, you don't merit a response. When you grow up and grow a pair, come back and we'll talk.

3 Just another lunatic here mindlessly defending Ron Paul. I know you wish we'd all just go away but the fact is we're not going to. Dr. Paul is the only candidate on the GOP side who is a true Republican. He is also the only candidate on either side who has a chance to defeat Clinton. You can attempt to tie him to white supremacist groups if you wish but anyone who seeks out information concerning this man will quickly dismiss this and any other character assassination s. I am not here to disrespect you or your blog. I just thought the white supremacist remark was ill founded.

4 He has been endorsed by white supremacists and refuses to reject their support. One major white supremacist site, Stormfront, has links directly to Ron Paul's donation page -- and the campaign has not acted to have that link removed or to stop folks coming from Stormfront from donating (you know, by having their site refuse redirects from Stormfront). He is now clearly tied to white supremacy by a donation from the fellow who runs Stormfront, which the campaign has not returned or donated elsewhere in an effort to cleanse itself from the link to racism. Taken together, it is clear that Ron Paul welcomes white supremacists to his coalition. Speaking as a Republican, I can tell you that such a move is hardly indicative true Republicanism. Real Republicans reject racism and racists. It is therefore clear that Ron Paul is not a true Republican.

5 I'm getting tired of having to rebut these slanderous articles. All Americans, no matter how crazy they may be, have a right to donate to whichever candidate they want. In fact, only crazy people and felons can't vote but I don't know if that stops them from donating. To me, donations are a form of free speech so no matter how hateful or absurd that speech may be it is still protected. Would I take the donations? Probably, not. But I'm not as strict about following the constitution as Dr. Paul is either. With that said, can't you think of some better dirt to dig up? I'll even help you. These numbers are from the center for responsive politics at opensecrets.org: Lobbyist donation totals at end of 3rd Quarter: Hillary: $518K McCain: $315K Romney: $216K Dodd: $212K Giuliani: $206K Ron Paul: $0.00 Casinos/Gambling: Giuliani: $176K McCain: $108K Ron Paul: $3K Commercial Banks: Hillary: $920K Obama: $879K Giuliani: $603K McCain: $585K Romney: $583K Dodd: $451K Ron Paul: $29K Oil & Gas Industries: Giuliani: $541K Romney: $296K Clinton: $211K McCain: $190K Ron Paul: $30K - and he lives outside of Houston! Hedge Funds & Private Equity: Giuliani: $1.131 MILLION Clinton: $971K Obama: $950K Romney: $946K Dodd: $916K Ron Paul: $5K Securities & Investment Industries: Clinton: $4.7 MILLION Giuliani: $4.4 MILLION Obama: $4.4 MILLION Romney: $3.5 MILLION Dodd: $2.6 MILLION McCain: $1.8 MILLION Ron Paul $82K Lawyers & Law Firms: Clinton: $9.2 MILLION Edwards: $8.1 MILLION Obama: $7.8 MILLION Giuliani: $3.1 MILLION Ron Paul: $76K With that information... do you think you might be able to dig up a story a little more interesting than a couple of racist stormfront owners? We're talking millions of dollars here folks, not small potatoes like $500 or a couple thousand bucks. Perhaps some of the clients of the lawyers and lawfirms that make up Clinton's $9.2 Million dollars from that group have represented cases for neo-nazis? Or maybe corrupt drug industries? I'd say it's a pretty good bet. -Christopher Burch

6 Perhaps you could look up who Rupert Murdoch donated to? Too lazy? Ok, I'll do it for you: http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php Seems like ol' Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a fan of Hillary for 2008. He's donated directly $2,300 to her run at the primary and indirectly to "Friends of Hillary" in 2006. I wondered why Fox News keeps propping up the totally un-electable Rudy Giuliani while at the same time discrediting Dr. Paul as much as possible. The debate questioners are making a point to ask questions about Hillary as much as possible. They're subtly convincing America of Hillary's inevitability and they're very good at it. Fact is that Paul cuts to the "left" of Hillary on the war and to the "right" on everything else. He's got perhaps the most electable position on nearly every issue of any candidate in decades. This is a real danger for Hillary and it explains a lot about Fox News' actions this year. -Christopher Burch

7 Convicted Felon Martha Stewart: $4,600 to Hillary Clinton. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/18/the-vanity-fair-_n_68910.html

8 Will you explain how telling the truth about who a candidate takes money from is slanderous? By the way, all candidates have the right to reject donations from those they find morally or politically repugnant. That Ron Paul is keeping the money from Stormfront referrals and Stormfront's owner is proof that he does not find racists like the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists at Stormfront to be all that objectionable. Which in turn tells us just how objectionable Ron Paul really is.

9 Oh, and Christopher, I life outside Houston, too -- and am in the last precinct north of Ron Paul's congressional district. Why isn't he getting the oil and gas money? Because these folks know Ron Paul! The fact that folks who know him and have dealt with him -- folks who live in his district -- won't give to him should cause you to ask some questions. And by the way -- if you are arguing that everyone has a right to give money to campaigns, what is your point in listing who got what from whom? After all, by the standard you set, those numbers are irrelevant and mean nothing. Why are you making "slanderous" comments on my website when "all Americans, no matter how crazy they may be, have a right to donate to whichever candidate they want." Are you trying to suppress the rightful political participation of people in these various industries?

10 The author is trying to paint Dr. Paul as being a racist or extremist because he doesn't reject every objectionable donation he gets: "Unfortunately, he has become a magnet for every conspiracist, lunatic, and extremist out there, as I've pointed out more than once..." While technically I guess you could say it isn't "slanderous" it is definitely a smear tactic. It is also rather unfair because "as he's pointed out more than once" he doesn't seem to give a proportional amount of time to scrutinizing the other candidates. It is actually rather hard to go through Dr. Paul's history and find negative stuff about him so the fact that people bring up a couple of racist donations while turning a blind eye to the other candidates makes me think that this is a smear campaign against Paul for reasons that I can't determine. What are the motives behind these articles? Is it to tell information that we truly need to know about Dr. Paul? Why doesn't he spend more time trying to find out if convicted felons (like Martha Stewart) are donating to anybody? These are questions that should be asked of all journalists that purposefully put out articles that show a good deal of bias in their reporting. -Christopher Burch

11 He gets lots of donations from his district in his congressional elections. He has historically had a 3-1 advantage in fund raising in his district even without any support from the Republican party. I'm making the case that "Big Oil" isn't donating a lot to him. I'm listing all of those other contributions to give balance to the attack on Paul and so you can go and find other things to complain about the other candidates for. If you're telling me that in a collection of no less than 2,000 law firms you can't find any dirt in there where they've defended neo-nazis, corrupt medical companies, or anything else? It is apparent that you have a vendetta against Dr. Paul and I am curious why. I don't think it has anything to do with stormfront. How do you know so much about stormfront anyways? I've never been to their website. -Christopher

12 Other notable felon/unsavory/"conflict of neutrality in news" reporting donors: Tony Sirico, convicted felon, mob ties to colombo crime family: $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani. Peter Cherin, News Corp. (Fox News) President and COO, $4,600 to Hillary, $2,100 each to Obama and Dodd. Barry Diller, IAC (media), $4,600 to Clinton and McCain, $2,300 to Biden Norman Shu... do I really need to talk about it? Ivan Seidenberg, verizon chariman (media)(illegal federal wiretapping), ceo, $2,300 to Hillary, $2,100 to McCain I'm tired of looking, there's more if you really want to go check. Sure these people are allowed to donate but I think due to their status as media executives or convicted criminals they should also have their donations returned if you're going to make Dr. Paul return his stormfront ones. Am I wrong? -Christopher

13 Sure these people are allowed to donate but I think due to their status as media executives or convicted criminals they should also have their donations returned if you're going to make Dr. Paul return his stormfront ones. Am I wrong? Yes, you are -- and if you cannot see why, there isn't enough time in the world to explain why. After all, if you cannot differentiate between those who espouse the philosophy of Adolf Hitler and media executives, it is clear that you are substantially lacking in the moral compass department.

14 How many times in the last 6 years has Fox allowed the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" to be uttered? I don't care how you paint it - it never comes with a declaration that only 5% of Muslims might actually be terrorists. That is a direct attack on the Muslim population and it is no different than Hitler's attacks on the Jews. I tend to lump the neo-nazis along with the neo-conservatives in that they are all racist, war-mongering folk and if you can't see that than you, sir, are "lacking in the moral compass department". How do you know so much about stormfront??? I am still very curious about that. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking to find out that kind of information about a presidential candidate. -Christopher

15 That Ron Paul is being pushed by Stormfront? Look at the webpage and the video above. Who the owner of the site is? Public records. What he has given to Ron Paul? Again, public records. And that you would make the comment you do regarding neo-conservatives that you do is proof positive that, in addition to a moral compass, you also lack a functioning brain. And as for Islamic terroism -- when terrorism is committed in the name of Islam, that is the appropriate name for it. Especially when large proportions of the Muslims around the world are supportive of it. For you to equate truthful statements about the connection between Islam and terrorism with false statements about the Jews is frightening. Oh, and as for you "only 5%" comment -- by my math, that still comes in at 50 million terrorists. That you, Ron Paul, and the bulk of his supporters seem to side with them is pretty telling, and sufficient to explain why he should be defeated in this election and driven from American public life.

16 Do you propose that we go slaughter 50 million people on suspicion of being terrorists? Not even including collateral damage it would take to kill them all? This is the racism against Islam I am talking about. It is at least as dangerous as Hitler.

17 Funny, I never suggested any such thing. If your assumption is that my statement equates to a call to "slaughter 50 million people" to defend our nation, then you are clearly not in contact with reality. On the other hand, am I quite willing to see our military bring about the deaths of any individual who seeks to attack our country? Damn straight I am, without apology. And by the way, your heartfelt concern over collateral damages would have required you, philosophically, to oppose US participation in WWII after we were attacked. Methinks I see why you object to my comments about Ron Paul and Stormfront.

18 Mr Burch, you as well should become a public servent, if you are not already! Versed, factual and well written. Ron Paul 2008 Revelution has begun!

19 Very nice site!