Hunting Nazis: Anonymous snares Ron Paul in Operation Blitzkrieg

Just like you said, the e-mails show nothing from the Ron Paul campaign, it's just white people e-mailing back and forth about Ron Paul.

Big deal. People from all walks of life are e-mailing each other back and forth about Ron Paul.

The two black guys who sit in front of me at work are e-mailing each other back and forth and talking about voting for Ron Paul.

The problem doesn't seem to be Ron Paul so much as far leftists like unimatirx0 being more upset at at the fact that these white-oriented movements are organizing politically. For some reason whites (especially white Christians), and to some extent, Muslims who organize politically is a big No-No.

All other ethnicities and poltical subgroups like abortionists and the militant LGTB movements, Communists etc are allowed to organize politically without being called racists or slandered by the media.

That's the real issue here, because you don't see them attacking black groups who are organizing and supporting Ron Paul.

Thanks for posting that.

Ron Paul says nothing in those emails... Actually, he is totally not involved in any of the conversations. What IS there is a group of white supremacists organizing THEIR OWN support of Paul. I don't see an issue here.

Ba da boom! :}

What truth is here? That white supremacists happen to support Paul? If so, wtf is the issue of that, when there is no proof of Paul being racist. I don't get it, you say there is truth here, and there is, but it's not anything people can't handle... racists fucks supported obama too, solely based on race... That's not why Obama is bad, there are far more other, more important reasons. Why is everyone (including you) still so childish and ignorant?

"Freedom"? Predatory attacks on freedom of speech are "freedom"? No, they are a slap in the face of freedom. What you miss is the fact that "freedom of speech" isn't designed to protect popular speech - it is designed to protect unpopular speech.

What could be less popular than the childish speech of white supremacists?

If Anonymous is fighting for "freedom", it is my hope they stay far, far away from me and those I care for.

They have freed the little gnome "To Be All He Can Be" just like the immoral, ignorant, pig-brained, dead fish that call themselves Libertarians would free people to suffer and die.

Ironic, ain't it?

Well, if you're truly free, but you suffer and die anyway, there's no one else to blame, is there.

The Washington Post reports (below) a Romney--Paul political accommodation.

Your comments---Is this a "say it ain't so, Joe" moment for you as a Paul fan, OR just more smart political alliance making by Ron? Nazis, Romney,racists, its all good.

"Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party."

Good one.

Splitting hairs as to who or who is not "anonymous" is retarded.

It's just a group of hackers that frequent IRC channels or 4chan or other centers that affiliate themselves with the label.

They're a diverse group of people and there is no official membership list or even a set of criteria required to be one of them.

I'd have to see the documents before I believed it, but it's hardly "fake."

Things aren't looking good for Ron Paul. Since he opposes the Civil Rights act and is a Confederate sympathizer, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Considering 4chan postings and threads are usually about as racist as the white supremacists sites taken down, you're FoS.

As you said it is a "group". There are no lists. Tthere is a distinct group of individual hackers from the Soros fakers that attack CBS, Komen for the Cure( a website dedicated to eradicating breast cancer), and an apparent white supremacist website with an attempt to link it to Ron Paul.

C'mon Saladin you're smarter than this.

There's no proof of what is being claimed here, this is just what people some simple-minded people want to believe. It's just a purely made up claim.

I can write some bullshit about Barack Hussein Obama being a secret Muslim wanting to bring Sharia Law to American because Obama has a funny name and he was once photographed wearing some ethnic clothing.

Dumb people will believe it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Splitting hairs isn't as important, but it's not retarded. Hackers or not, the name Anonymous has been tied to strict idea of freedom of speech, whatever that speech may be. It's inherent in the idea of being anonymous... Having the security and freedom to say whatever the fuck you want. Defacing websites is not part of this idea. Slander is not part of this idea. Exposing truth is, and they've exposed nothing new here, nor anything shocking, nor anything important, except create a little negative buzz.

It's not about membership, I'll give you that, and nor is this 'fake'... There isn't a real anon or a fake anon, but to the main idea being anonymous (as a pen name even) is to be free and safe in whatever you wish to say. Using the moniker to identify yourself with others is backwards, and using it as a guise to do exactly what you hate (restricting free speech) is hypocritical and honestly weakens any effort put forward to secure free speech.

It's just ok for the majority of people because they don't agree with racism... This is a double standard for most, and should not be celebrated... If you have a brain at least.

since when do you need proof.
or do you need ron paul to dance, as that obviously meets the burden of proof?

Someone hacked a white oriented website and found them discussing and organizing for Ron Paul. Big deal.

You can go on black websites and find people discussing and organizing for Ron Paul. They have dozens of Facebook pages devoted for that.

that isnt the question at hand.the question is why guilt by association is iron clad sometimes (when it serves to demonize jews) and not other times (when bigots share views with paul).

if israelis supposedly rejoicing at the wtc being hit serves as a piece of evidence that the israeli government was behind the attack, then how would literal direct correspondence between paul and proud open racists not show his agenda?

their are plenty of paul supporters that arent nutjob racists.and their are plenty of zionists who love america above all else.but it doesnt seem to work that way when applying your standards of judgement.that is what i am calling into question.

so explain to me how 3/4/5 (depending on which tin foil hat wearing freak you listen to) people who happen to be israeli, seeming to rejoice at the wtc being hit is enough evidence to implicate the israeli government in the attacks.
while literal literal correspondance with bigots who share political views with paul, doesnt serve as evidence that paul is a racist prick?

im allgood with the notion that paul is a victim of circumstance.im not gunna hate on paul until he himself deserves it and pulls a mel gibson.im asking you for equality n your standards of judgement, or to explain the variables im not seeing.which we all know you totaly cant do

yup, thanks for listing all the examples of how guilt by association is all you need to attack jews, while not applying that same standard to others.
it would have taken me a very long time to go from example to example of your assumptions creating what you claim is facts, but you went ahead and just listed them one after another for us.

thanks

"According to these messages,"

Where are these message so we can read them?

Thanks Sandy, but this is just a forum talking about Ron Paul, just like hundreds of other forums out there.

Jebus Christ man, didn't you even read the whole article that you are responsible for posting? I wrote: From the Examiner article ... the sentences in quotation marks are from the article that the EXAMINER printed -- the sentences in quotes are what Anonymous wrote.

Pwr 2 Anonymous! LIBERAL lobotomies for Ron Paul and his paulomatons!

"didn't you even read the whole article that you are responsible for posting"

I didn't post any article, and I've found nothing in that article, nor the one that Sandy Berman linked to that suggests that members of this group are working for Ron Paul. That's why I challenged you to support the claim and post the messages.

and the tin foil hat element is now inolved.
ill give ya credit, you made it like 4 comments without defaulting to the usual crazy assumptive reasoning

If you think that the war and the economy are the only two things on Paul's plate, you're in for a very rude awakening.

Exposing Nazi scum - Good.

No rights, no freedoms, were violated. Documents were released linking Paul and his supporters to Nazi scum.

Why do you continue to defend Paul? Even if he is not a racist, which I doubt, he clearly does not mind getting into bed with racists.

That is a major cop out Buddha. He's been exposed. Good.

Actually, this is just like Anonymous. Anonymous are criminals who engage in the criminal activity of hacking websites and publishing people's private data on the internet.

Anti-fascists are criminals too. There is actually a video of these anti-fascist scumbags actually destroying the home of a "white supremacist," breaking his windows and trashing the place. I wish I could find it now but I cannot.

It's because it wasn't anonymous . Look at the modus operandi.

I suppose thats a way to look at it. I'm glad we got downvoted for speaking truth.

He has been exposed of what? Gimme the docs, please, be specific about what's being exposed here. If you're going by hearsay then that's not exposure, that's lies.

So now we're in the business of 'exposing' people because we disagree with them? There is no history of violence being exposed, no racist policy, no one being subjugated, except for Paul here. Defacing a website is a violation of free speech, trying to paint someone a certain color (LOL) is slander.

Paul is not racist, hasn't acted racist and has far more evidence for being for racial equality, especially in treatment under the law... He doesn't get in bed with racists either, though he does take time to talk to all of his supporters. Even racists like the idea of freedom, even though it's total perversion of their racism. You need evidence to substantiate your claim that talking to a racist, for whatever reason, is bad.

What size are your boots? Amigo. I don't need no stinking papers!

It's a paraphrase from a movie Einstein. I did not mention your body parts, if you don't get it no amount of explanation will suffice but it does give the collective some clues as to your IQ.

So you use an obscure quote in reference to nothing... That says more about your IQ.

Golly gee! You are a great person to debate.

1. It's anything but obscure.
2. It's on topic.
3. Your lack of preparation should not be a hindrance to my response.

Keep at it. So far you are proving to be better for my mood than than a joint.

modus operandi?
look at masaanovas postings, and the position he is taking here.
more offended at anonymous than nazism.
modus operandi in full swing here

Or for being an idiot.