Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I watched an intereview on fox with ron paul about this, and honestly the guy could hardly keep his head up while talking after Ron Paul gave his explaination.

They got 35,000 donors in 1 day, you want them to screen each and every one and send money back to people that the majority of the public finds repulsive? Thats ridiculous. This money isn't changing his morals or influencing the Ron Paul campaign, so it doesn't matter who gave the money. It is like saying if I give you something as a gift and you accept, you support all my views. That is simply ridiculous and logically doesn't have any ground to stand on.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by grimreaper797]




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I think it goes beyond a persons rights.

Yes that man no matter how twisted his beliefs are is entitled to "Try" to make a donation. However it is also the right AND responsability of the Paul campaign to look at where his money is comming from.

If he takes money from white supremists, what about NAMBLA? Hizbollah? or any of the other groups most here find repugnant.

He and his campaign can make up whatever reason they want as to why they are going to keep it, but this will cost him in the long run far more than the $500 he got from this guy. It speaks to charecter, it speak to integrity. Yes ALL politicians take money from groups etc, but this guy is being placed on a pedistal by himelf and his supporters as our savior. Seems to me he is pretty much part and parcel like the rest of them.

Perhaps he is all hype and little substance? perhaps this man of the people act is simply that an act designed to raise his profile and generate $$$$. What he does not spend will stay with his campaign comittie and he can use that down the road on other endeavors.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


Yeah right~!

The Ron Paul Internet militia has distorted all the phone in and online polls by essentially bombarding these sites with pro-Ron Paul votes. Now this might make the Ron Paul camp all warm and fuzzy on the inside but the reality of the matter is far from it. None of the independent polls conducted by GALLOP, Rasmussen, Zogby etc concur with any of these online polls at all.

The True candidate is not someone who takes any money from people who are reprehensible, be it 5 cents or $500.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 



Grim, who was interviewing him?
Was it Cavuto?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


No I don't expect them to screen every donor. HOWEVER when revelations like this hit, I expect more the "eh... were keeping it"



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


Do you have something against common folk using the available media for their own gain? As opposed to Large corporations using the media for THEIR gain?

It's organized, but disseminated. It's much bigger than Old Media is admitting.


apc

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The True candidate is not someone who takes any money from people who are reprehensible, be it 5 cents or $500.

Won't cya later Hillary. Don't let the door hit you Giuliani. Say hi to God, Romney. Terribly sorry Mr. Os^H^HObama.

Come on. We're tryin to have an election here.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I understand your post, and agree with it to some extent, but you cannot deny that Paul will be hammered to oblivion by ALL sides on this issue in the MSM, and like it or not it does have a big effect.

That is why I don't understand keeping this contribution.

It is purely politics, you have to weigh that into the equation no matter how much we don't like the way the game is played right now.

Most voters don't spend the time like we do here analyzing the candidates, a story like this will be burned into the minds of potential voters by the MSM.





I included your whole post for a reason. First, yes, this will likely become a soundbite issue. Something to "hammer' RP with. And what a trivial point it will be.

But I must disagree that this "is purely politics". This is right and wrong, not a political game. This isn't the Superbowl. Why should someone who has stood for the right of the people to speak now bow to PC because some of those people are scum? What happens when it's you that becomes the "scum"? Do you want him to then wash his hands of you?

Ron Paul has taken the legal and moral high ground here, even if political correctness blinds 90% of the people from seeing it. Just as in other issues, like the Iraq war, he is unpopular for standing by a principle.

And we need to get past the idea that "it's purely politics", because it isn't. politics is a game, and we've had enough games. This is reality. We don't like "the game" because we know it's rigged. As it stands now, the talking heads get to decide what is right and what is wrong just as much as that "damned piece of paper" we started out with.

We need to stop buying their game.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   


If he takes money from white supremists, what about NAMBLA? Hizbollah? or any of the other groups most here find repugnant.


LOL

Nice
Small list there...not creative enough to try and tie RP to serial killers, communists, or wife beaters?

Your statement was the funniest thing I had read today until I read this...



The True candidate is not someone who takes any money from people who are reprehensible, be it 5 cents or $500.


You two are hiliarious!!!
Gee guess people who have different opinions than you are not allowed to donate money to politicians.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I do understand your principles and your passion to get our country back, I feel the same, but this is a war, one which WE usually do not have a voice in, someone who stands on some of the same principles that we cherish.

When is the last time you saw anything positive on candidate Paul in the MSM besides the report of his record breaking internet fundraising?

The reports I saw did not once mention what he stood for, most just said he has alot of young college aged student backing.

You and I know this to be far from the truth as I see yard signs and talk here and across the internet supporting this candidate. He has a growing and potentially successful candidacy.

He is making progress, even without the support of the MSM.

But make no mistake, Paul cannot win without some MSM exposure, and I am talking of the good exposure, not the likely hammering associated with keeping a contribution from someone who helped David Duke get elected in Louisiana, let alone taking the top position in the KKK after Duke.

This guy also served federal time, can this contributor even vote?

It is not worth the risk to Paul's campaign to keep the money.

It is too important to those who like his message to see it thrown away on a measly $500.

Is that going to make the Paul campaign backers feel better when his campaign fails and another member of the DC political machine gets sworn in in 09?

Paul didn't win but he had principles

I don't see how anyone could feel good knowing this was the cause of his failure, when it can be avoided now very easily.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
It all comes down to this:

vote for someone to further the NWO cause that leads to disaster, death, oppression, turmoil.

vote for someone who accepted a donation from a group of people who hold controversial views.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
No I don't expect them to screen every donor. HOWEVER when revelations like this hit, I expect more the "eh... were keeping it"


And what would giving 500 dollars to a White Supremacist say? Honestly, the only way I would have a problem is if this guy gave a large sum of money and was having inside talks with Ron Paul.

The only time I have a problem with somebody taking money is if I feel they are taking money with a clause. When the money isn't a donation, its a barganing chip. This isn't such a case.

As much as I hate white supremacists, and racists in general, acting like they should be barred from the political process is contradicting the entire message.

If you send the message "this kind of person is not acceptable, and should not be allowed to participate in politics" you are creating a precident I do not wish to see. This man, however disgusting he may be to me, is still part of the country, and the political process.

I would be appalled if Ron Paul sent back any donation based on somebodies views. It would tell me that there are certain people he wishes to exclude from the political process, even if they are US citizens. That to me, is the worst of wrongs.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Jack, your right, $500 is a drop in the bucket. And yes, it would be a sad day if such a thing cost him the presidency.

But where does he need to draw the line on PC? the $500 donation? the IRS? withdrawal from Iraq? where?

Once you allow the voices of power to dictate where you stand, they never stop. Yes, it may hurt his chances. But I for one would rather stand with a man that NEVER let circumstances dictate his position, than one who did it because it was the politically best move to win.

I guess I value honor above winning at all costs.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The guy pulled in $6 million dollars in one day. I'm sure there were plenty more predjudice people who donated.

My question is, who cares? There is tons of predjudism in the world. If he gave back all the money he got from someone the mass population didn't like, he would give a LOT more back than the $500. Also, since Ron Paul stands for freedom and rights, he shouldn't feel he has to not let someone donate money to him because of their beliefs.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This about as important as the guy who owned the bunny ranch saying he supported RP;or the person who supposedly supported RP threatning Glen Beck. Everyone was supposed to be shocked.

I see this as another tired attempt to besmirch RP.


[edit on 19/12/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Since his politics have nothing to do with white supremacy this is like trying to smear him. The MSM is quick to jump on 500 Dollars from this guy, but what about all the stuff not covered by MSM?



It's nothing but a smear campaign. The people who bring this nonsense up all the time are making a deliberate effort to turn people off of Ron Paul.

We are also being presented Mike Huckabee as the 'real underdog' and they are attempting to make an online following for HIM to RIVAL Ron Pauls...

rest assured, these are the works of 'plants' and people can sense this easily. Hence this thread. I don't care about the allegations of white supremacists supporting Paul, White supremacists supported the HELL out of George Bush. This is a smear campaign and everyone knows it
They couldn't get a drop of dirt on Paul so they went after his supporters and are trying to use them to throw Pauls campaign off trail...

really, it's a sad attempt.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
[
The Ron Paul Internet militia has distorted all the phone in and online polls by essentially bombarding these sites with pro-Ron Paul votes. Now this might make the Ron Paul camp all warm and fuzzy on the inside but the reality of the matter is far from it.





You see? We are an 'internet militia' now.

This is the kind of hysterical bias being thrown at Ron Paul ALL over the internet and I am appauled at it. IT is so terribly and transparently jealous/vindictive.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
They are jelous!

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Shall we debate Hillarys whitewater involvement,or Obamas drug use,or Gulianis incest,or Thompsons various hollywood affairs,or Romneys religion? $500.00 seems like a paltry amount when compared to the history of most of the other candidates.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


I am proud to be a part of the Ron Paul Internet Militia. I have sent thousands of personal e-mails, I have sent thousands of questions to MSM, And I have spent a lot of time online recruiting.

But wait, "they" do too. So why am I a bad guy?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
So what would be the difference between someone who was an open white supremacist and a closeted white supremacist? Simple, this one was open and gave the ability to smear mud on a candidate.

I personally see it as a good thing that Dr. Paul did not allow the fact that it "isn't PC" for him to accept money stop him. Hell, he'd still be getting my vote if he took a donation (within legal limits) from the leader of the largest anti-gay group in the universe! It's their right to donate money where they see fit, and good for Dr. Paul for not returning the money simply because some people decide that freedom of speech only matters for people we agree with.

That's what this is all about after all, it's about the nastiest possible person that the media could find, which the majority of America would despise, and using that person's contribution as a way to smear mud.

I can personally wait until 2008.

[edit on 12/19/07 by niteboy82]





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join