Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

Originally posted by intrepid
[You would be more comfortable if the nazi used that $500 to promote hate?

Ideally no, but im far more concerned by a candidate for the higest office in this country that has no issue with taking the money from a neo nazi.

reply to post by FredT


I really don't get what you're trying to say. How is this immoral? I haven't seen you explain how it is immoral, you just say that it is. I don't think it compares to stealing something that someone will never use. This guy willingly donated the money to Paul. I don't have a problem with either scenario by the way. This world's way too much about excess, too few have too much, if a guy wants to take a newspaper and actually use it from a guy who just uses them as a toilet for his dog, I don't have a problem. When actual harm is done through these actions, I might view these as moral dilemma's. Until then, I don't consider them a problem.

By the way, I really couldn't care less about Ron Paul so this isn't some Ron Paul supporter blindly supporting him regardless of what he does.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by UnbiasedObservations]

Originally posted by FredT
Ideally no, but im far more concerned by a candidate for the higest office in this country that has no issue with taking the money from a neo nazi.

If we really got down to where the cheese binds I would wager we would find much more nefarious contribution to the major candidates. It's a wonder why THIS hasn't been brought up. THEY aren't a threat to the PTB.

Maybe one of the reasons why we have such a massive national debt maybe because people are so short sighted with money and exalt money with some kind of "superior" status. Money appears to most as a decent way to function, but as Paul and the rest of us know, money maybe merely a belief system, a narrow one as well. How shallow and bereft of imagination do people really become that all they care about maybe whether Paul maybe doing something illegal with money. It just seems to me strange how this man questions the validity of the "federal" reserve system, and yet nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care that he maybe being attacked on that very prinicple by the very same forces that seek to impart value to paper painted with green ink. Why does the "federal" reserve garner so little attention? Maybe people that want Paul to be marginalized would like people to consider the "value" of money as being important, while Paul merely will use any fiat currency simply because it's the systems cash anyways. The system set up makes money that goes into the hands of racists, does that mean the system maybe racist? Seems as if people don't even question the function of the very currency that Paul seeks to eliminate. Paul doesn't care about fiat currency, these are system based rules of game competition. In this system Paul knows the deck maybe already stacked against him and he knows that people are going to be associating with him in order to try and prevent his candidacy from winning. Maybe money just destroys anything that can ever be good from happening. This maybe could be another example of how others use money to control people. The money no more represents value no matter where it may come from, in fact all the money maybe more akin to releasing energy. The guy whom gave the 500 dollars released energy that he cannot control, apparently, Paul now controls that energy. Most of these other candidates are on short leashes provided by their sponsers, not the case with Paul. Maybe every person that has ever donated to Paul have some kind of flaw, the same can be said of any candidate. Paul can harness energy from people that don't agree on everything and most of these candidates actually are incapable of bringing about these kinds of incredible degrees of individual preceptions. I would rather live in a society with people that have views that I disagree with than one which censors and marginalizes those with whom I disagree. The last thing the PTB want would be for groups all coming together under the same tent in opposition to those in control, why would they not like that? There are more of us than them. THat makes for a scary situation, one in which more of the events such as 911 take place inside. They don't want people accepting each others differences and working together to eliminate the largest government expansion in world history, they want people at each others throats over race, class and absorbed in entertainment. I suspect some fishy business involved with this and the "liberty" dollar raids, I also question the timing and the fact people literally are going bonkers over Paul's financial intake and ignoring the wonderful Boston Tea Party. Maybe there could have been a racist or two that threw some tea into the harbor, I guess then that means that maybe the tea party was misguided and immoral too? You could speculate endlessly, the TV loves to paint with such broad imaginative brush strokes as soon as someone comes along and speculates on the validity of insert cherished myth here _____. To make something appear what it may not be or might never be maybe to more or less ignore the truth. Sticking your head in the sand wishing he were or may be a racist, because racists like him, maybe also like saying Geraldo profits from racism by having skinheads on his show, or that people that publish Mein Kampf profit off of the Holocaust. At some point people need to at least know this stuff can't be wished away.

If anybody thinks that this guy is the only racist in this country that has contributed money to a candidates campaign SNIP take a break from fairytale land and step back into reality.
I'm sure it has happened to all of them.

Mod edit: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 21-12-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Some money facts for ya Freddy...

Rather than rely on your propaganda, how about his true voting record.

You state that as if you've found some discrepancy between the "propaganda", and his "true voting record"; so where's the discrepancy?

Originally posted by FredT
But then again who really cares...

Quite a few people care about his voting record; however, I take it that you're not one of them...

Originally posted by FredT
and why is it relevent to his decison to keep the neo nazi's money?

It would seem that some people are more concerned with choosing a candidate based on whether or not they research into hundreds of thousands of private citizens lives/opinions (those who donate) rather than looking at a candidate's political beliefs, and/or their voting records. Personally, that seems a bit backwards, and unrealistic to me.

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

What candidate wouldn't get "hit hard", and isn't rather "well off"? Personally, I'm glad he's invested in gold, and gold producing companies. It further shows that he has no vested interest in supporting the MIC's perpetual war machine. Better gold than "Big Pharm", "Big Oil", KBR, Bechtel, Halliburton, Rand, Kroll, or companies such as Bradley...

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

In short, it's a valid reason to choose whether to support, or oppose him. It's what really matters.

This 4th quarter he's already raised over $18,000,000 from over 122,000 private citizens. The sheer logistics of trying to uncover each of their individual, and various beliefs is insane. If a company, lobbyist, or organization donates a sum it's quite easy to discern where they're coming from; however, when you're dealing with private citizens' donations, the logistics become staggering, and unreasonable.

If you, or I donate $100-$500 should we be subject to an FBI background check? Who's going to perform so many, let alone pay for them all? Since it's strictly a "moral and ethical issue" for you, and the amount doesn't matter; what if the donation is only $1? Should an FBI background check ensue then as well?

Some people seem to be acting like Black walked right up to Dr. Paul and said; "Howdy Ron! I'm a white supremacist! Shake my hand, and take this $500!". To which Ron replied; "Why thanks Mr. Nazi! Glad to have you onboard!" Followed by much hugging, and back slaping... :shk:


[edit on 12/21/07 by redmage]

Is anyone who supports RP going to care about this? I mean come on, we live in this nanny state where if someone is offended by something it's the end of the world. Get over it and focus on important issues. I'm sorry if your delicate sensibilities have been violated, but IMO this situation will draw more supporters for RP who are sick to death of these rules of political correctness. I also think it shows that the panic over RP must be growing in mainstream media if they are making this an issue.

Originally posted by FredT
He did handle the situation well...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.

I guess we have different perspectives then. To me, he really didn't look "prepared" at all. It mainly seemed like a non-issue to him; not something that he arduously prepped for.

Past performance does not insure future results or something of that anture.

Uh oh! Looks like it might be time to revise the scientific method.
It's based on repeatable past results.

You're right though. They don't insure future results, but they can give you a good sense of probabilities.

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?

It's really a question of who's supporting who. Paul and Black have both stated publically that Dr. Paul does not support white supremacy, and I can virtually guarantee that you'll never see Dr. Paul sending money to that cause; however, Black does support smaller government, the Constitution, and border control; three issues that Dr. Paul has repeatedly stood up for.

The notion that Dr. Paul is supporting a neo-nazi cause, by keeping the donation, is a clear fallacy of Composition against Dr. Paul, and his various other supporters. One that many are failing to see through.

[edit on 12/21/07 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage
I guess we have different perspectives then. To me, he really didn't look "prepared" at all. It mainly seemed like a non-issue to him; not something that he arduously prepped for.

I was involved in the GOP for some time (and having run for a statewide position within a sub group of the party) I do have some insight into how these guys operate. They have talking points for every subject you can imagine. These guys do NOT want to be spontaneous at all even if it looks that way.

Uh oh! Looks like it might be time to revise the scientific method.

It's based on repeatable past results.

Sure when we are talking about math and physics, however we are talking about politics

It's really a question of who's supporting who. Paul and Black have both stated publically that Dr. Paul does not support white supremacy,

please show me where I EVER said he was supporting neo nazi's? Sure there are a few web sites that show some connection, but they are less than credible im my book to use as any sort of evidence. But again I have to go back to the ethics and morality of taking money from neo nazi's

Because this keeps comming up I want to be very clear here:

Based on my research on his voting records, speeches, position papers etc. I do not believe that Ron paul is a member or supports these neo nazi groups.

Nor do i beleive that the first ammendment rights of these groups to free expression should be curtailed.

I do OBJCT to the refusal to return the money on moral and ethical grounds, and think it is simply rediculous to try to spin it as some sort of constitutional issue or pricipaled stand on the first ammendment. That alone smacks of politics as usual.

Originally posted by redmage
This 4th quarter he's already raised over $18,000,000 from over 122,000 private citizens. The sheer logistics of trying to uncover each of their individual, and various beliefs is insane.

Once again you are choosing to ignore what I have said in multiple posts on this very matter.

It is totaly unreasonable to expect his campaign or any other for that matter to have the ability to check every donation that comes thier way.

However, it is well within his control to send the money back once a source such as neo nazi's come to light.

Its really that simple

Originally posted by FredT
I do OBJCT to the refusal to return the money on moral and ethical grounds, and think it is simply rediculous to try to spin it as some sort of constitutional issue or pricipaled stand on the first ammendment.

I see what you're saying Fred but why does it only apply to RP? If the major players had to give money back that they didn't actually believe in how much would the big boys have made? Maybe I'm giving THEM more credit than they deserve. Maybe this small incident is getting more recognition than it deserves.

That alone smacks of politics as usual.

As opposed to what? Romney? Hillary? You are going to discount this guy because of $500? Those other ones have sold themselves for a whole lot more.

Racists donate to politicians, very often. If any popular politician accepts money from millions of people, we should expect that a portion of those donors might be racists or even worse.

Originally posted by FredT
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.

I was going to reply using the replies you made to my previous arguments, but I think it's clear we'll get nowhere that way. I think we've gone past the point where you'll be willing to acknowledge any actual point I made...we'll just agree to disagree. But I will reply to the above. I'll try and answer this in a way that actually contributes to the progress in ending this silly debate.

First -- The fact that 'most other candidates' in the same situation would have returned the money ASAP, is what makes Ron Paul different from the other candidates in the first place (which in case you didn't notice, are idiots). So you see... the entire reason Paul has as much support as he does, and it continues to grow rapidly, is because he chooses to oppose the mainstream standards of "morality" and what they call "common sense" -- or rather, chooses not to play by their priorities.
This 'standard', this clearly defined 'line' -- is what seperates the two.

You claim that by not giving $500 back to the man, it was immoral and served no point to be made -- other then just wanting to keep the money. I objected... saying that the moral issue he was trying to uncover, is a particular section in the constitution that ensures everyone has that particular right.

In saying that I'll make my point. You see, here we have a choice of not one but TWO possible paths to go down, in defending or making a point on a particular issue of morality. The one YOU say he should of gone down, is the one that makes him 'cross the line' (in which I talked of above). The one that HE took, is the side that has been seperating him from the others the entire time. He has based his entire campaign on it. The constitution, the right to freedom, liberty etc. So which path seems more logical for him to have taken? The one which actually touches a much more important issue of freedom and rights (his main message thoughout HIS campaign)...or the the one that SHOUDLN'T need addressing, because it should be COMMON SENSE (that he does not endorse racism just because he kept the cash).

I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and the point I'm trying to make. I'll leave this thread for awhile while you think about it.

[edit on 21/12/07 by Navieko]

What a fatigue to see so many people fall for the big propaganda over and over again. RP's answers are splendid and anyone failing to see how ridiculous and biased this whole story is should really check those pink glasses sitting on their nose. C'mon guys we are on ATS ffs!

Maybe you guys are really on the wrong forums and should reconsider nauseating the rest of our community in such a repetitive way.

As many people said; No one cares about millions being paid to other puppet candidates by corporations and whatever groups of interest. Just because it is not picked up by the mainstream media.
But when Fox News tries to smear RP with that stuttering, retarded Cavuto guy about some ridiculous amount of $500.. Hell then there must be something about it! Some big-media hypno-truth!! Where is it?! It must be somewhere...

Just open your eyes and ears and listen to what this brave man is telling you.
After all he shows some true courage and mentions the true corrupt campaigns and corporations on Public TV. I would say that's worth listening to someone else for a minute and shutting the f... up already for a change.

Ron Paul: I'll take campaign money from anyone

[edit on 21-12-2007 by osram]

Originally posted by FredT

I guess we have different perspectives then. To me, he really didn't look "prepared" at all. It mainly seemed like a non-issue to him; not something that he arduously prepped for.

As to the question that was posed to him in regards to him keeping that donation by Black, I agree with you FredT... he addressed that 'issue' as if it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience to be dealt with as dispassionately and quickly as possible by simply saying that "I'm keeping the money ... next question please".

You are right, it was a non-issue for him and when confronted with his acceptance of that money, it was as if he was merely brushing off a fly which speaks volumes about his OWN personal ideology which clearly indicates, no matter what's coming out of his mouth, that he has no issues with Black's organization and what it stands for.

But let's give another example of another similar situation .... but this one had a different ending...

A few days after 9/11, a Saudi Sheik presented Giuliani with a 10 million dollar donation to the Twin Towers Fund but Giuliani rejected that donation as a matter of 'principle'.

Now if it was Ron Paul who was the mayor of NY at that time, instead of Giuliani, you can bet your boots that HE would have accepted that donation without hesitation.

I'm not a supporter of Giuliani's campaign but I can tell you now, if the choice was between Giuliani or Ron Paul, I'd go with Giuliani -- without hesitation -- because RP has clearly demonstrated to us that he's not a man of personal integrity and has a very distorted and twisted sense of logic when it comes to doing THE RIGHT THING.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by Palasheea]

If I was a R/P supporter, I'd just laugh at this scandal and how they made it to the news, then move on.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by TheoOne]

Interesting

Originally posted by Palasheea
As to the question that was posed to him in regards to him keeping that donation by Black, I agree with you FredT... he addressed that 'issue' as if it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience to be dealt with as dispassionately and quickly as possible by simply saying that "I'm keeping the money ... next question please".

You are right, it was a non-issue for him and when confronted with his acceptance of that money, it was as if he was merely brushing off a fly which speaks volumes about his OWN personal ideology which clearly indicates, no matter what's coming out of his mouth, that he has no issues with Black's organization and what it stands for.

Coolio. I've been saying this all along. Glad to have another that sees this as an non-issue.

But let's give another example of another similar situation .... but this one had a different ending...

A few days after 9/11, a Saudi Sheik presented Giuliani with a 10 million dollar donation to the Twin Towers Fund but Giuliani rejected that donation as a matter of 'principle'.

Now if it was Ron Paul who was the mayor of NY at that time, instead of Giuliani, you can bet your boots that HE would have accepted that donation without hesitation.

I'm not a supporter of Giuliani's campaign but I can tell you now, if the choice was between Giuliani or Ron Paul, I'd go with Giuliani -- without hesitation -- because RP has clearly demonstrated to us that he's not a man of personal integrity and has a very distorted and twisted sense of logic when it comes to doing THE RIGHT THING.

OK, now we differentiate. You're not a supporter of Giuliani? Seems like it to me. That being said, it's been said before that Rudy is making his living off of 9/11. Ask New Yorkers what they think of this guy. He's not that popular in the state, or city, that made him.

Originally posted by Palasheea


I'm not a supporter of Giuliani's campaign but I can tell you now, if the choice was between Giuliani or Ron Paul, I'd go with Giuliani -- without hesitation -- because RP has clearly demonstrated to us that he's not a man of personal integrity and has a very distorted and twisted sense of logic when it comes to doing THE RIGHT THING.

So are you telling me, Palasheea, that you somehow managed to come to the conclusion that Ron Paul has no integrity, and had no intention of doing the right thing -- based on the single occasion he didn't reject/refund $500? Are you making the assumption that he didn't do it to prove a much GREATER point... but rather just because he has no personal integrity? EVEN when his entire 11 year track record in congress says the complete opposite?

If you actually think Rudy Guliani has so much as even 5% of the integrity and genuine good intentions for the country, that Ron Paul has -- you have clearly taken a misinformed stance on this issue, and need to do a lot more researching. Don't just hop on the bandwagon and dismiss all the logic that many intelligent members on this board are presenting right infront of you. I really thought you were smarter than that.

I'd like for you to read my previous post that was directed at FredT -- it applies just the same to you. Are you able to answer me that same question?

Thanks.

Originally posted by intrepid
Interesting

Originally posted by Palasheea
I agree with you FredT... he addressed that 'issue' as if it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience...

Coolio. I've been saying this all along. Glad to have another that sees this as an non-issue.

Shhhh. Palasheea thought (s)he was quoting/agreeing with Fred, but was actually quoting me.... What Fred believed was that Ron Paul was quite prepared, and that he handled Cavuto well.

You're right though Palasheea, it is a non-issue.

A few more mis-quotes, maybe a lil' research to boot, and you just may figure out the truth of the matter yet, Palasheea.

[edit on 12/21/07 by redmage]

Navieko,

You want an answer to your question??

Here's you answer.

Look at the photo and then you tell me that anyone who accepts money from those scumbags who say that 'this' never happened .. an organization that supports everything that Hitler ever stood for... YOU tell me if that candidate who accepted money from that org is fit to hold the highest office on this planet. Think about that, ok?



[edit on 21-12-2007 by Palasheea]