Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

reply to post by jsobecky

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

Maybe you are forgetting that there maybe considered degrees of perception, such as you being right or maybe right, or wrong and maybe wrong and thousands of other variations depending on time, place, etc. A perfect example of something that simply might not exist anymore than a perfect chair or table exists. All depend upon your visual and mental percetion of said objects as well as particular to your interests. In nature everything can go, the sun could explode some day and the earth can enter a new ice age, dinsaurs can become extinct and maybe someday we will likely die. Just because the grass appears green doesn't mean that the actual color maybe green, maybe the light and your eyes play a part in conveying the signal to your brain. When you say "I am right you are wrong" you might as well maybe forget about learning anything new, in fact maybe you could consider that the death of the brain, since one might consider the recpetion of new signals to be jammed or blocked, or that everything that does get reception has to be so filtered it ceases to resemble the actual information recieved. Tune in or tune out, but do try not to create "essences" of maybe realities you have no real understanding about, nobody's really an expert except intheir own minds, maybe an expert for 15 min or something. I try very hard not to shut out any information, but I do understand the overwhelming sense of being bombarded with other people's thoughts.

reply to post by bubbabuddha

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
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.

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?

Sounds like anything and everything goes, as long as you don't get caught. If that's how you teach your kids, that's fine by me. That's not the way it goes in my house, though.

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
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.

Here we go again with the "Look at RP's record!" bromide.

Face it. Your guy made a mistake. It's not the end of the world. Accept it and move on.

reply to post by bubbabuddha

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
reply to post by jsobecky

 

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

Maybe you are forgetting that there maybe considered degrees of perception, such as you being right or maybe right, or wrong and maybe wrong and thousands of other variations depending on time, place, etc.

And there are things which are either right or wrong. No in-between.

I'm not afraid to make a decision. Not everybody is right every time.

Originally posted by jsobecky

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

yup. you are correct.

Is he right or wrong for it? There is no answer for that because right or wrong is a matter of opinion. No matter how much you try to force your opinion on another person, it will no doubt remain just that ... an opinion. Same can be said of the Paul camp.

To say that Ron Paul's supporters think he can do no wrong is an incorrect statement. In fact, many of his supporters don't agree with him on all of his political stances. Thus, the average RP supporter thinks he's incorrect on some issue. Yet, the DO strongly agree with some issues that he stands on.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. I don't agree that we should pull ALL troops out of Iraq immediately.

Does it make him a bad person in my eyes that he thinks otherwise? No. It may make him a bad person in your eyes that he accepts donations from racists, but you can sit here and argue till your blue in the face with people and it won't change the fact that his acceptance of said donation is neither right nor wrong.

The same thing can be said for it being a moral issue. Who's morals are we talking about? Yours? Ron Paul's? If we're speaking about your morals, I guess he is wrong. But, if we're speaking on Ron Paul's then his "freedom" morals of putting the money to "good use" would be considered the moral highground.

My point is it's an endless arguement and it's best left to agree to disagree. You've gotten your point across: Ron Paul takes donations from racists.

reply to post by Palasheea


You realize that was not my quote you attributed to me right?

Originally posted by Navieko
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

So your saying that Ron paul has decided that ethicaly and moraly its okay to keep money from neo-nazi's. You said he is avoiding mainstream definitions of ethics and media etc. So by this acceptance of the money you are stating its the right thing to do: take money from neo nazi's?

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...

Hmmm same old tired responce. So what did he show here? He also has the right TO return the donation. He chose not too. this is not some great moral, ethical, constitutional stand, rather based on what it seems a buck is a buck eh? Really, taking this defence in keeping the money opens your candidate up to this line of thought.

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.

I will agree with your there. He is the only candidate in this campaign that has KNOWINGLY taken money from neo nazi's and NOT returned it.

Did other candidates get money from unsavory sources, Sure, but when confronted have they kept it?

reply to post by jsobecky

And there are things which are either right or wrong. No in-between.

That maybe the same as saying ufo's and unicorns are not real, no in-betweens right? No possibilities then. Could it be possible that RP represents a threat to your sense of security in being "right", in your universe you can't be wrong, especially on other people's motives. You seem to know with certainty how people will come to understand this incident of such import. That kind of reminds me of a scientist that has certainty about all of life's answers or a religious person knowing with full certainty what God might be. Knowing that RP "is" wrong only points out the fact that you know this makes sense to your self, maybe you are not right about this matter, maybe kids can't vote because they are not 18 and disempowered from action and self-sufficiency by design rather than in reality. Maybe children once used to work jobs that would make grown men in this current day society cry like babies. Your preception of the possible maybe why people doubt and cast cynicism so often towards political movements of greater freedom and change. Also, I might add that maybe knowing so much about "morality" makes for little to no real exchange of information.

If there maybe already a pattern established it maybe not possible to establish another pattern in the same area because our mind will always swing back to that other pattern.

Maybe you could at least doubt your own pattern of certainty, of course that's a hard thing to accomplish if you invest a large degree of effort in establishing the validity of your points.

Once the perceptions and concepts are frozen into the permanence of language, they control and limit our thinking on any subject because we are forced to use those concepts.

Maybe you are forced to conceptualize good and bad, for fear of uncertainty. Maybe most people do such to avoid uncomfortable thoughts that bother our sense of control over our own world view or belief system. Much like a computer program set to only create one outcome due to the fact that only one program maybe allowed to run on said system.

Patterns rarely die through being attacked, for this just reinforces their use. They die through atrophy and neglect. If you only think a computer can do point A or point B then the others points will seem irrelevant or useless. Maybe RP made a mistake in your mind, that's fine, maybe he made a mistake in my mind as well, but maybe this could be irrelevant to his momentum and attitude.

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by Palasheea

 

You realize that was not my quote you attributed to me right?

Uh oh.. sorry. I think I was still half asleep when I goofed up on that quote this morning. I don't know how that happened but it's a real first for me! lol Had not yet had my morning cup of coffee.. I'm sure that's part of it. My apologies!

I cannot believe there has been over 20 pages of back and forths about this. There was NOTHING wrong with accepting a donation from a racist, it is a transaction in which the personal views of that person have no relevance whatsoever. Convictions, morals, yada yada, don't even come to play here, if a nazi skinhead walked up and put 5 bucks in the Boy Scout jar outside the supermarket, then left, should the boyscouts return it? No, and I seriously doubt they would give it a second thought, they are asking people for money, they don't care who gives it. If the skinhead gave the donation with the agreement the boy scouts adopt and spread his racist views, it would be a different story.

And the pedophile and terrorist comparisons are complete BS. Those are actual criminals, who commit crimes in which they actually hurt or kill people. Just being plain ignorant is not a crime, or most of us would be criminals in somebody's eyes. If it were discovered somebody who donated to Ron Paul was molesting children, or planning terrorist attacks, they would be arrested, so stop with the LAME attempts to make something out of this, it is completely irrelevant. And I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other yet. I agree with alot of what he says, but I have a hard time seeing how his ideas are even possible in today's world. Either way, this is cheap crap.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
[This is where I believe you got it wrong. It ISN'T a moral issue (it is to you), it is a FREEDOM issue. And TRUE FREEDOM must be tolerant of each other's RIGHT to express their own opinions, no matter how much we may not like them.

Please explain how the neo nazi's rights would be violated if he returned it as while he supported the neo nazi's right to free speech, he did not support his views.

Please how the neo nazi's free speech rights were violated?

Really now :shk:

Tyranny22 put it wonderfully.

But I'll just add once again for Jsobecky and FredT something that they continually seem to ignore... While you're arguing the point of just one side of the story (moral highground), you seem to dismiss any other point that may have been made. Just because Ron Paul did not submit to the political correctness that the party line way of thinking normally would -- it does not mean he had no point(s) to make by specifically not doing it. Perhaps the 'moral highground' he took isn't the one you may have taken, but doesn't mean there wasn't one, and certainly doesn't mean it's not one that is more important to take -- given the context his entire campaign message is based on and the state of the nation at the moment. He feels that it should be common sense for people to make that connection, or in this case not make the connection -- in regards to him endorsing racism for refusing to refund $500.

His point was, there is a much more important issue at hand that needs to be addressed...rather than always ignoring those issues and submitting to the petty mainstream line of priorities, when it comes to cases like these. So you see, there was a much larger, precise point he was making... and to make it all the more clear, he purposly did not submit to the media's priorities by refunding the $500.

This is why we think he was correct in doing what he did.

Do you understand?

[edit on 21/12/07 by Navieko]

Originally posted by FredT
So your saying that Ron paul has decided that ethicaly and moraly its okay to keep money from neo-nazi's. You said he is avoiding mainstream definitions of ethics and media etc. So by this acceptance of the money you are stating its the right thing to do: take money from neo nazi's?

No. Once again you're nitpicking out of my post and failing to address the actual point I made. But let me clarify... Ron Paul has decided that it should be common sense that by not refunding the money, he does not endorse such racist views. Once people can agree on this, they can agree that the money NOT in the hands of the racist -- is a lot better.

Hmmm same old tired responce. So what did he show here? He also has the right TO return the donation. He chose not too. this is not some great moral, ethical, constitutional stand, rather based on what it seems a buck is a buck eh? Really, taking this defence in keeping the money opens your candidate up to this line of thought.

What did he show here? I explained that in the original post... conveniantly you left that part out. I explained AGAIN in my previous post (above). Maybe this time you can understand, or atleast address it.

I will agree with your there. He is the only candidate in this campaign that has KNOWINGLY taken money from neo nazi's and NOT returned it.

Wow, some nice spin. I don't know how you managed pull that one off using what I wrote....but I'll give you props on that!

Did other candidates get money from unsavory sources, Sure, but when confronted have they kept it?

Completely different situation, different people, different points to be made, etc etc. You can't compare, unless all these aspects are the same -- sorry.



[edit on 21/12/07 by Navieko]

IMO, the moral thing to do is just to make sure that the views on race expressed by the donator aren't spread in any way because of the donation. Out of the $500 donated, exactly $0 is spent promoting white supremacy and it will also not influence Ron Paul's views on race as well. Ron Paul has stated pretty clearly that he does not agree with the views. Because of this, I don't think accepting the donation conflicts with morality at all. Usually, the conflict comes when the candidate is influenced by the donation, which does not appear to be the case here.

Mother Teresa also used to accept money from many unsavory people as well. She would accept large sums of money and spend it helping the less fortunate. She accepted the money because she knew that money is money, and it is not immoral to accept money from somebody you don't agree with as long as it's spent on something you truly consider to be in the greater good. Does accepting the money make her immoral as well?

Also, I believe that the media was wrong to make a big deal out of this. This is not because it's an attack on Ron Paul, but because of the attention it draws to Stormfront. As I stated before in the first sentence, the moral thing to do is to make sure the message of white supremacy isn't spread. When the media covers this, it is drawing a lot of attention to the issue of white supremacy, and could potentially end up spreading the message itself. If the media did not cover this as much, then this is just another $500 donation because it would not actually affect anything. By covering this, the media is giving Mr. Black, and Stormfront much more media attention than $500 could possibly buy otherwise.

reply to post by FredT


You used the term 'neo-nazi' three times in that short post. It appears you have a very personal axe to grind with neo-nazis, so naturally you are taking this personally and judging what Ron Paul did off of how you would react and feel everybody should react against that particular kind of ignorance. Some people may have an axe to grind with say pro-lifers, and so they wuold feel that a candidate taking a donation from somebody who felt the need to judge others off their religious and moral values (instead of skin color) would be wrong as well. Either way, as long as nobody makes any deals to promote any agendas, a donation is a donation. Period.

You've already stated you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway, so it doesn't hurt his campaign any because you've taken it so personally. I imagine anybody who would let this sway them isn't a strong supporter, and therefore no skin of the campaigns nose.

reply to post by Palasheea


Palasheea, Thank you for looking into the man and what he says he will do and then does, with respect to his votes and how he feels America should be run. I absolutely feel He could garner the popular vote; my concern is more about rigging the Electoral College and it being a rip off as usual. But he has gained some pretty good support in a very short time. I think this is coming from the voters who are on the fence with their normal party line. They know we need change and then they look into Ron Paul and see that he is honest, Votes his conscience, and generally has the people’s welfare in mind. Yes, he is a politician and all have to be scrutinized very closely. Nevertheless, buck for bang id put Paul’s record up against any of the other parasites and he would shine like the electric sun.

This small donation is best answered in the Cavuto Youtube interview video I saw in this thread.

Dead horse nothing left to beat. Take care everyone and have a great CHRISTMAS holiday. LOL

sorry for the rant

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by FredT
Do you really need it spelled out for you? Yet again? The guy runs a neo nazi web site. Based on your statement would he keep a donation from NAMBLA? or any other extremist group?

There's the distinction that, it appears, you're failing to see. He didn't receive a donation from an "extremist group"; he received a donation from a private citizen. If a sizable check was signed "KKK", or "NazisR'us", it might be a different story; however, the notion of screening every small donation, by private citizens, is ridiculous.

Do you think Mitt Romney would return a $500 donation from a private citizen that was pro-choice? Not a chance; however, if he recieved a multi-thousand dollar donation directly from Planned Parenthood... he might actually have something to say about it.

[edit on 12/20/07 by redmage]

This is exactly my point!
Ron Paul is a Libertarian at heart - please utilize google for clarification of Libertarian - to give the money back would smack of hypocricy and run totally against what he stands for. THAT would be the unethical and unmoral position of any Libertarian. The donation was made by a private citizen - not THE KKK - NAMBLA - HESBOLLAH - AL QUEDA or any other organization. Period.
i agree: some people just dont get it.

guys, I wish you would stop pushing this thread to the headlines where all eyes can see "Ron Paul White Supremacist" (thats what the eye reads if it doenst know the details), because its entirely secondary to the Ron Paul debate.

reply to post by jsobecky

 

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

I believe this statement sums up your position for me. You see, to you, it's not about the Constitution or what rights we ACTUALLY have. It is about what rights you THINK he OUGHT to have. How presumptuous of you to think you can ascribe which rights people ought to have based on their personal beliefs. Shame.

To paraphase Bush (not that I really want to):

"You're either for the Constitution and individual liberty, or you're against it."

I believe Ron Paul has drawn a very definite line in the sand and it's time we stood for the principles that this nation was built upon.

So you see, there was a much larger, precise point he was making... and to make it all the more clear, he purposly did not submit to the media's priorities by refunding the $500.

Wow! Imagine that, a presidential candidate who does what hes says. He is the only candidate with a backbone,and the only one who won't bow to the msm.

LOL RP has stated that he in no way endorses what this guy believes, but no one wants to hear him.

Originally posted by seagull
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?

Blah,

you people are delusional. The lot of you. Carry on with your media-indoctrinated propaganda campaign and keep skewing your own ethical boundaries in order to demonize Ron Paul. It's completely asinine and the majority of us know this.