It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by shooterbrody
 


It won't matter if he's the second coming of Abe Lincoln. Or the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's the appearance of questionable morality in the acceptance of this money.

Why won't that sink in, people? No one of us taking him to task is accusing him of being racist, or espousing racism, or that he would be/will be under undue influence because of it. Anyone can make a mistake, he should have returned the money with a smile and said thanks but no thanks. The furor would never have happened, or at least would have died abourning. I'd be here saying what a good guy, rather than having a question or two about his and his campaigns ethics.

It's all about appearances, rightly or wrongly. He appears to be willing to take money from any source. So how does this make him different from Hillary again?




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Yes, Ron Paul is a cashcow, a bloodsucker. That's what's going on here...
It's 500 dollars.


Once again, what exactly is the amount you would be concerned with? 10000? 500000? What? Many of you have put forth the notion its only 500 dollars.

You have put forth the idea that its money and you are going to keep it no matter what the source:

Are you saying That its just all about the money??

IMHO that pretty much what you guys just said here. Ethics and morals for sale cheap. Only $500 dollars. For what its worth, even a 5 spot would have gerneated the same responce from me.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Trouble is, it wasn't a donation from an organization, it was from an individual. An individual who's stated reasons for donating are because of Ron Paul's stances on taxes and the border, and not any race issues (Well... given that a surprising number of Americans don't consider the border to be a race issue...)

I bet a lot of checks from our fellows here would be sent back if such is the case.

I don't see the difference between an individual or an organization when it comes to donations. Neither do their "stated" reasons for donating mean anything. They could be lying, and probably are.

Most, if not all, candidates receive donations from all sorts of sources. They have to scrutinize the sources, and refuse donations where appropriate. It happens all the time.

It's not the fact that Black decided to donate to RP. RP has no control over that. What matters is what RP did when he was made aware of the donation.

If $500 means so much to the RP campaign, it makes me question the validity of those so-called record breaking donation amounts.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
How about Ron Paul openly, and honestly shows his disdain for these kinds of groups? And that the money is in a much better place.....


Far better to do that and return the money IMHO.

I don't buy the "we will spend the money for a better cause" rationale either. It comes off as quite a flimsy rationale Jsobecky is spot on on this one. His advisors or paul himself blew it.

Return the money and poof...... Non issue. Keep it and it rasies these very ethical and moral questions that none of his supporters seem to understand OR want to understand.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


You and I seem to be, along with Jsobecky, the only ones saying this. It just reflects badly on him.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Let's look at the article again:


"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.


$500 less in Stormfront's pocket. That's a bad thing? Btw isn't Stormfront getting its advertising worth out of the money?



Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.


Even Stormfront says he's not a "white nationalist."

[edit on 21-12-2007 by intrepid]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by FredT
 


You and I seem to be, along with Jsobecky, the only ones saying this. It just reflects badly on him.


Only because you want it to imo. I don't know much about the guy but some love him, some hate him, even within his own party. That says something. He's dangerous to certain interests enough to make a mountain out of an anthill.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


We're not saying he is a white supremist, Intrepid. We're saying that to avoid this non issue all together, he should have returned the money.

It just plain doesn't look good, when you take money from sources like this, whether legal or not. I'm not sure how else I can say this. I know he's not a white supremist, his campaign finance people goofed...plain and simple. If he'd sent back the check, there would have been no issue. Now there is an issue...for better or for worse.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
LOL Now FredT is gonna smear RP with the"its all about the money" line of thinking.
Some money facts for ya Freddy...



Rather than rely on your propaganda, how about his true voting record
www.vote-smart.org...

But then again who really cares and why is it relevent to his decison to keep the neo nazi's money?



How about some money facts for you as well


Yeah why raise taxes when he would get hit hard eh?
www.opensecrets.org...

For a "man of the people" he is rather well off. Lot of investment in gold and gold producing companies but that is way off topic

But again, please explain how his voting record relates to his acceptance of money from a neo nazi?????



Move along FredT nothing to see here.


Im sure you would like me too, but hey where is the fun in that?

But the bottom line is that you guys have been making an issue over "its only $500.00 implying it IS a money issue. As far as I am concerned the donation amount is irrelevant to the discussion that its a moral and ethical issue.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Oh, I got that but if you look at the money raised by the big boys, that includes Hillary
, you have to know there are many undesirable people that have donated but this is blown out of proportion for a reason.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by FredT
 


You and I seem to be, along with Jsobecky, the only ones saying this. It just reflects badly on him.


Only because you want it to imo. I don't know much about the guy but some love him, some hate him, even within his own party. That says something. He's dangerous to certain interests enough to make a mountain out of an anthill.


Honestly, Intrepid, I couldn't care less about the man. I think he was a non entity before, and he'll be one again after the Primary season ends. Do I think he's a good man? Probably. Do I think he'd be a good President? Don't know. I know he tries to portray himself as a "man of the people" type. How many of us would keep the money once we knew where it came from? I wouldn't...would you, or the others here in, who think its not a big deal?

This, in essence, boils down to a question of owning up to a mistake made by someone in the Paul campaign. Instead of owning up to it, returning the money, and moving on, they spun it. Phooey...how's he different again?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by FredT
 


You and I seem to be, along with Jsobecky, the only ones saying this. It just reflects badly on him.


I think that is because there are so many RP supporters on ATS. So it's understandable that the majority would come to his defense.

But if you phrased it like this:

"Your Poli-Sci professor poses this question to you: Should a candidate accept donations from sources which are racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some objectionable way?"

then I think most people would answer differently.

There's too much vested interest here to have an objective debate.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
FredT -- I really thought you were smarter than this. You've clearly showed your lack of knowledge on Ron Paul by saying "he's all about the money"...


Ron paul supporters in this very thread have said it and I simply repeated it and ran with it. Responces from its only $500 dollars etc. etc etc.


And about your ridiculous assesment that Mr. Paul had no point to make, or moral obligation to prove, by rejecting the $500? Open your damn eyes!


Dude go easy on the damms eh? What point is he proving here? he cares not about getting money from neo nazi's. He has made it very clear that money is they key. So what if he can spend it better. The moral and ethical implications here are that as long as the money is green donate away.



The only damn reason he's not giving a measling 500 bucks away, is to prove his bloody points... That the constitution gives everyone the right to legally contribute/vote.


Yes, and the very same constitution gives him the right to NOT accept the money as well. please show me the passage in the Constituion and the Bill of Rights that says he HAS to accept the money or he will deny the neo nazi's right to free speech and expression.



Being a moderator on the biggest alternative news website -- I'm shocked that you cannot see this... truly am.


What see that the candidate in question refused to return a donation from aneo nazi and raised moral and ethical questions? Is this how we should treat ALL question about Paul and his intentions and actions? Don't ask question, don't dare raise an objection.

In as far as "not seeing" you could just as easily fit in that category.



I'll say it right now... I'm sorry, I know I'm coming off as extremely pissed off... but it's because I am, and don't take it all too personally.


Never have never will
Unless you say something about my mother



Because I honestly believe if you put your ego aside, you'll learn that you are/were far from the truth in this case.


My large ego is a whole nother issue, but has nothing to do with this topic. I still fail to see why NONE of the supporters on the thread even think this IS NOT an moral and ethical issue.



[edit on 12/21/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


There's no amount of money that he could accept that I'd be concerned with as long as his integrity is not affected by the donation. It's that simple. I don't care who the money comes from if it's going to be used for the right cause. This money isn't going to be used to oppress black people. This money wasn't generated from the oppression of black people. This guy doesn't get paid to lynch black people(far as I know). This isn't blood money that's being accepted.

I see no reason for him to give back the money, other than to appease ignorant people who can't see that Paul taking money from a racist does not in any way shape or form support racism.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


But that's the American way Fred. MONEY!!! If it wasn't why would they gauge a candidates strength by the donations received?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
So you agree that Ron Paul took Cavuto "down a peg or three", even though Cavuto was supporting your "cause" by throwing it in his face? If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you actually believe RP handled the situation well...


He did handle the situation well as did John Stewart a few years back. But just because the guy can handle himself on TV does not change the moral and ethical issues regarding the donation. That speaks more to preparation and the fact that most of these talkign heads are easy to take down if the speaker is prepared and willing to go ont he attack.




If you've done your homework and still don't agree with the man, by all means, fire away; however, if you havn't researched the man,


Past performance does not insure future results or something of that anture. If this is not who supports or believes in then it gets back to the simple question. Why keep the money from a eo nazi?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Oh I agree but most candidates when faced with this type of issue would have returned the money ASAP. The fact that he chose to keep it is the issue here.

Throughout this thread I have said more times than I can count: Its not Pauls fault the donation was sent his way. There is ZERO evidence that he solicted the donation etc. But the refusal to return it raises these ethical and moral issues.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Why keep the money from a eo nazi?


Um, from your source Fred:


"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
[Um, from your source Fred:


"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.


Intrepid to me that is a flimsy rationale. And again its a moral and ethical issue. Its no differnet than stealing a neighbors newspaper cause he would not have read it anyway.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


You would be more comfortable if the nazi used that $500 to promote hate?




top topics



 
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join