Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation , page 20

reply to post by tyranny22

---

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by jsobecky

---

Rupert Murdoch represents corporate dominance and influence on politics. Black represents supremist ignorance. There's a difference. It's a shame that some can't see it.

But but...

We've been told that it is the individual's rights that are paramount here, not what the individual stands for!

Originally posted by tyranny22
A $500 donation is the real issue? Not the Iraq war? Not healthcare? Not the ecomomy?

wow.

I suggest you step back for one moment and examine your priorities.

Where are you trying to go with this?

I'm discussing the issue of whether it is a good idea for a political candidate to accept donations from a less than savory individual. That's the real issue here.

You want to drag foreign and domestic issues into the debate, and make them the issue.

You then presume to know *my* priorities on the issues.

Are you serious?

[edit on 21-12-2007 by jsobecky]

reply to post by NGC2736

---

Originally posted by NGC2736
Or do we say that ANY person that is an American citizen has an equal right to participate in government? Do we allow the media to steer the "morals" of the political process, or do we follow the Constitution, which allows each person equal access?

Please do not misunderstand me in this. I have no use for people like Mr. Black, ( an ironic name for someone with his particular sentiments ), nor do I dislike Jewish bankers any worse than other flavors of bloodsucking parasites. But it would seem that each has a place in our political system, and one voice is as valid as the other. To do any less than to allow them to participate, on an individual basis, is to renege on being a Constitutionalist.

Please explain how they are being eliminated from the political process.

Is their right to vote being taken away?

Where in the Constitution does it demand that all contributions must be accepted?

The word "Constitution" is being bandied about here as a basis for accepting this donation. So is "discrimination".

I'm afraid that you'll have to appeal to reason, and less to emotion, to convince me that accepting this donation is acceptable.

reply to post by the sloth

---

You're black and you're not only going to accpet this scandal, but endorse the scandalee?!

wh..wh..wh..what?

but, but ... he's accepting money from racists!

lol. thank you for using your deductive reasoning to determine what's really important in this election.

Kudos and stars!

reply to post by Freenrgy2

---

Originally posted by Freenrgy2


Is he deliberately and intentionally soliciting donations from these groups? I think not. Again, this wasn't a donation on behalf of an orginaization. This was a donation by an individual who espouses these dispicable views.

Yeah, I've already torn down that argument. See the post where someone says "Oh, RP would never accept money from Rupert Murdoch because of what Murdoch stands for!"

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
The donation was made because this individual believes in the message that Ron Paul preaches and it isn't one of white supremacy, but rather freedom and our right to individual liberty.

If you can't make that distinction, then the message of freedom is lost on you.

Bwahahaha!

Keep drinking your Kool-Aid and repeat after me: "Ron Paul can do no bad. Ron Paul can do no bad".

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by NGC2736

---

Originally posted by NGC2736
Please explain how they are being eliminated from the political process.

Is their right to vote being taken away?

Where in the Constitution does it demand that all contributions must be accepted?

The word "Constitution" is being bandied about here as a basis for accepting this donation. So is "discrimination".

I'm afraid that you'll have to appeal to reason, and less to emotion, to convince me that accepting this donation is acceptable.

Part of the political process is that citizens of the United States can donate money to whichever candidate they choose.

This discussion wasn't about his right to vote.

The Constitution does not speak on this subject, but in a nation where all men are equal, then the duty of the leader of that nation is to accept the right of it's citizens to have an equal chance to be a part of the election process, and to not hold some to his own personal convictions.

I should perhaps said that it is not in the SPIRIT of the Constitution, but I assumed that was so self evident that it could be plainly connected.

And yes, it would be, in the truest sense of the word, discrimination to refuse money from a supporter based on their personal belief system. Such would only re-enforce the elitist viewpoint that "they" are somehow better citizens, able to decide FOR we lesser citizens, who and what is acceptable in the political process and who and what is not.

Somehow the idea does not seem to be understood that this nation is either for ALL the people to be a part of, or we're going to start picking and choosing. And guess who wants to do the picking and choosing for you?

----------------------------------
Fixed quote

[edit on 21/12/07 by masqua]

reply to post by jsobecky

---

In your reference to logic and you quest to understand it, try this: Someone ties your shoelaces. You tie someone else's shoelaces. Do both events represent the same thing? Hint: If someone ties your shoelaces for you, are you guilty of tying your own shoelaces?

As for your own emphasis on what is good or not, consider that there is a difference between good and the common good. Also consider and understand that your pedophile scenario does not represent symbolically, metaphorically, or politically the same context as the Ron Paul campaign contribution scenario. There is in fact no logic or valid reason to your statements on this issue at all.

Simply because you have a strong dislike for the viewpoints presented by others does not also mean that you are right about yours. Your viewpoint is only different and opposing. The question remains to be answered if you, yourself, are pimping out your daughter to thieves? Anybody can play the foolish game you are playing, just as anybody can raise the stakes, however, it does not address any relevant issues to this thread. Instead it serves as provocation to mudslinging. This is not to be done here at ATS and as a fellow member I am advising you against it.

Also, as for any explanation that I might offer, I am sure that those who would feel compelled to address me would do so of their own accord and not depend on your mouthpiece to do it for them. It is not your responsibility to air the agreements or disagreements of others. Rather than presuming to know what I and others think, just ask.

reply to post by NGC2736

---

Originally posted by NGC2736

Part of the political process is that citizens of the United States can donate money to whichever candidate they choose.

And an equally big, if not bigger part of the political process is that the candidates can refuse any donations they choose to.

Originally posted by NGC2736
This discussion wasn't about his right to vote.

Ultimately it is, because it is the sole individual right that we have. Donations involve *2* people.

Originally posted by NGC2736
The Constitution does not speak on this subject, but in a nation where all men are equal, then the duty of the leader of that nation is to accept the right of it's citizens to have an equal chance to be a part of the election process, and to not hold some to his own personal convictions.

I don't want to vote for someone who thinks it's OK to encourage illegal activities.

Originally posted by NGC2736

And yes, it would be, in the truest sense of the word, discrimination to refuse money from a supporter based on their personal belief system. Such would only re-enforce the elitist viewpoint that "they" are somehow better citizens, able to decide FOR we lesser citizens, who and what is acceptable in the political process and who and what is not.

Bullcrap. I want a leader with strong convictions. Not a wishy-washy moral relavist.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Somehow the idea does not seem to be understood that this nation is either for ALL the people to be a part of, or we're going to start picking and choosing. And guess who wants to do the picking and choosing for you?

So you see no problem with forcing a candidate to accept every donation he/she receives?

If I don't want money from a pedophile, I have no choice. I must accept it, or else I will be accused of discrimination? As if discrimination is a bad thing in this case?

Because that is exactly what you are espousing.

reply to post by jsobecky

---

This is where you are wrong. There is no "much GREATER point" being made by RP. He is setting a bad example for the youth of this country. They will end up being confused about this apparent double standard being exercised.

Maybe we are wrong, but I frankly doubt that. There maybe no greater point, but there maybe no point in bothering with explaining why this doesn't matter to people that think this maybe so important. He might be setting a bad example, but odds are that he sets the only example worth emulating by "the youth". Kind of makes you sound like you have placed yourself upon some kind of stage to protect the youth from different ideas, just out of curiosity what other different ideas do we need to shield the little ones from, since we all know they can vote if they create a fake ID for that purpose, right? Maybe some people get confused, but maybe they also get confused deciding which happy meal to get while waiting in line for the world to change. Maybe we are tired of these stalling and diverting tactics and want real change, maybe you could think about why RP differs from the other candidates as opposed to worrying about the children so much. I think speak for most of us when I say we can take care of our children just fine, thank you.

reply to post by FredT

---

Seriously Fred-T........ You say you are well versed on the constitution??????,,, That’s funny, cause I swear you posted.

"This goes beyond personal rights”

Ohh I'm sorry, I must have read that wrong,,,,, Nope just checked again,, that’s what you said.
You might be well versed in the constitution, but it would appear you have no interest in abiding by it.
Every other argument you have made from that point forward in this thread is a NON-Issue.
By the way I didn’t make a strawman out of your statement; you made a stone statue of your statement by even posting such a comment.

As others have tried to explain to you, YOUR morals and YOUR ethics have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Ethics and morals are personal choices, not a global consensus. A great book you should read is called “There's No Such Thing as Business Ethics” by John C Maxwell

I personally don’t care what another mans thinks (including you); as long as they do not physically harm other people. If you response is “well this guy hurts people”, then do something about him, not slander Dr. Paul for someone else’s beliefs. According to your logic no politician should accept a donation from any organized religion, special interest group or lobbies, because it might offend someone who disagrees with their position?!?!? You must have a huge ego. Everyone has their own belief system and who are you to question it. I’m not religious, but I wouldn’t refuse a ride in a St. Johns ambulance after a car accident, simply because I don’t agree with their personal or religious views, no matter what I believe.
Would you?

Even though you obviously despise Dr. Paul for whatever reason, he is fighting for your freedom to say moronic things like you’ve posted on this thread. If he’s doesn’t win this election you can kiss your rights good bye. No more internet, no more free speech, no more warrants, your economy WILL collapse, your troops will continue kill innocent people and die in illegally declared wars, the IRS will continue to steal your money, The Fed will continue to create money out of thin air and so on….

It is my contention that if you do not support Dr. Paul, you either a: Have no idea what your talking about, or b: you are a supporter of world government. Either way is not acceptable in my opinion.

Now a lesson in semantics:
If you would have put the rider “In my opinion” before you wrote “This goes beyond personal rights” you would have saved me a lot of time writing this for you, but it would seem that you are content assuming your OPINION is the final word.

Ohh and I forgot to thank you for posting this thread. You see there is no such thing as bad press. I’ll bet my life some people who have read this thread had no idea who Dr. Paul was until they read about him here. So if that’s all this thread was good for, thanks for your contribution to the revolution.

P.S Why has no one brought up the FACT, the Bushes and the Clintons have proven direct Nazi connections, not by indirect association?? And why is this post on ATS, this is not a conspiracy, it’s a political smear campaign???

reply to post by Areal51

---

Originally posted by Areal51
As for your own emphasis on what is good or not, consider that there is a difference between good and the common good. Also consider and understand that your pedophile scenario does not represent symbolically, metaphorically, or politically the same context as the Ron Paul campaign contribution scenario. There is in fact no logic or valid reason to your statements on this issue at all.

The scenario I gave is perfectly valid. Accepting money from a pedophile, knowing full well where the money came from, is morally reprehensible. So is accepting money from a racist.

I can understand the frustration of RP supporters on this issue. They think he is infallible, super-human. They cannot accept that he might have made a mistake in this case. They see it as a crack in his armor. Thus they will defend him at any cost. Insecurity is an uncomfortable pebble in one's shoe.

Originally posted by Areal51
Simply because you have a strong dislike for the viewpoints presented by others does not also mean that you are right about yours. Your viewpoint is only different and opposing.

This is a perfect example of moral relativism. Everything goes, there is no right and wrong.

Originally posted by Areal51
Anybody can play the foolish game you are playing, just as anybody can raise the stakes, however, it does not address any relevant issues to this thread. Instead it serves as provocation to mudslinging. This is not to be done here at ATS and as a fellow member I am advising you against it.

Where am I mudslinging? I am stating fact. You are the one that is defending Mr. Black and his so-called"Constitutional right" to participate.

Originally posted by Areal51
Also, as for any explanation that I might offer, I am sure that those who would feel compelled to address me would do so of their own accord and not depend on your mouthpiece to do it for them. It is not your responsibility to air the agreements or disagreements of others. Rather than presuming to know what I and others think, just ask.

I speak for myself. Nobody asked me to speak for them, although I have received u2u messages of support.

If you knew me, you would know that I am no stranger to controversy. I am not afraid of being a singular voice in dissent. I am not afraid to speak for myself. I do not need the support of others to survive. And I think I am doing quite well in holding my own end in this discussion.

reply to post by Areal51

---

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by jsobecky

---

In your reference to logic and you quest to understand it, try this: Someone ties your shoelaces. You tie someone else's shoelaces. Do both events represent the same thing? Hint: If someone ties your shoelaces for you, are you guilty of tying your own shoelaces?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by teleonaut

Originally posted by jsobecky
And an equally big, if not bigger part of the political process is that the candidates can refuse any donations they choose to.

Can, but not must. Money is money. You get it and you roll with it the way you would regardless of who gave it to you. If a pedophile or some racist gives me $500, there is no weird transitive property in effect that will cause me to spend that money on racist, child-raping causes. I'd probably use it on rent.

You are way off the mark here. Nobody said anything about what the money would be spent on. That is irrelevant.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ultimately it is, because it is the sole individual right that we have. Donations involve *2* people.

Originally posted by teleonaut
I don't get it. How does donating anything affect anyone's right to vote, thus how can this be about anyone's right to vote?

Supposedly Black would be discriminated against if RP reurned the money. People have actually said he would be kept from participating in the elective process.

I say that the right to vote is the only right he actually has. It is much more important than the right to donate.

Better to vote and not donate than to donate and not vote.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't want to vote for someone who thinks it's OK to encourage illegal activities.

Originally posted by teleonaut
Just FYI, but the last time I checked, racism, while reprehensible, is not actually illegal and there was nothing illegal about accepting this money. I don't think any law-abiding citizen wants to vote for someone who encourages illegal activities. In so arguing this point, you denigrate NGC and try to cast him in a lower moral role than your own. I disapprove wholeheartedly of this tactic.

Oh please, stop it, willya? I made no such connection to NGC.

You're really grasping at straws now.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So you see no problem with forcing a candidate to accept every donation he/she receives? If I don't want money from a pedophile, I have no choice. I must accept it, or else I will be accused of discrimination? As if discrimination is a bad thing in this case?

Because that is exactly what you are espousing.

Originally posted by teleonaut
Nothing about the passage you quoted from NGC infers that he wants to force anyone to do anything. He is, in my opinion, arguing that a candidate should be, *if he or she so chooses,* able to accept *legally donated money* and apply it to the campaign.

And that is the point. RP chooses to accept money from racists.

Originally posted by teleonaut
I also find it humorous that you don't want wishy-washy candidates but you find no problem with it yourself. You want someone who takes a hard moral stance and says "discrimination is bad." Your last sentence seems to indicate that you believe that SOMETIMES one should discriminate, or to use some of your own words against you again, that sometimes one ought to be a wishy-washy moral relativist to a certain extent.

Just food for thought.

/tn.

Well, that does it. Now I'm convinced you have no clue what you're talking about.

I have always maintained that discrimination in and of itself is a good thing. That is what has made evolution successful.

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
  Posted 9 days ago with 41 member flags

Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
  Posted 1 days ago with 27 member flags

European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The \'Masquerade\' Behind ACTA
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbl
  Posted 6 days ago with 25 member flags

Romney Reports Income From Funds at Goldman Sachs
  Posted 16 days ago with 23 member flags

Again, Eric Holder Caught Lying Under Oath Regarding F&F!!! He knew about Agent Terry\'s Murder
  Posted 10 days ago with 23 member flags

Catholic Church Strikes back at Obama Administration
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Obama Tells Woman: "Interesting" Unemployed Husband Can\'t Find Job
  Posted 10 days ago with 20 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: