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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
How many RP supporters would find no problem with him accepting donations from the KKK? NAMBLA? Phelp's Church?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by NGC2736
Part of the political process is that citizens of the United States can donate money to whichever candidate they choose.
Originally posted by NGC2736
This discussion wasn't about his right to vote.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Ultimately it is, because it is the sole individual right that we have. Donations involve *2* people.
Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't want to vote for someone who thinks it's OK to encourage illegal activities.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Bullcrap. I want a leader with strong convictions. Not a wishy-washy moral relavist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.