Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

reply to post by jsobecky


All that should be validated from this is that the Constitution works and freedom of speech is alive an well. Ascribing your own morals to this scenario has nothing to do with the big picture and the real meaning that this donation represents. It does not present an attempt to sway Paul or to link Paul to these abhorable views. This donation in its purest form represents that no matter your persuasion or beliefs, that true freedom is alive and well. Therefore, if one choses to excersise their freedom of speech by donating to someone who's cause THEY believe in, there is nothing wrong with that. If the founders wanted to have freedom based on moral relativity, perhaps they should have written the 1st ammendment to read something like "you have freedom of speech as long as it is wholy accepted by the majority as being of moral and political correctness."

The founders were very smart. They knew that your line of thinking could contaminate our freedoms by making them subject to another's view of what is morally right or wrong. Therefore, the rights were written so that this was not their intent. Your morals are yours individually. Freedoms were granted for ALL men.

We've already shown time and time again in this thread where no illegal action took place with the donation. Paul has made is clear what his stance is regarding this person's views. The only issue that remains is how you find this morally reprehensible. And I'm afraid I can't sway you on this. However, a bit of caution to you. If you percieve your freedoms as being based on what is morally right and wrong (not illegal mind you), then the true meaning of freedom is lost on you.

Well, let's just hope that Ron Paul's attitude has evolved over the years:

Ron Paul: Black Men Are 'Actual and Potential Terrorists'
by jhutson
Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 02:26:37 PM PST
Across the ideological spectrum, only one presidential candidate has identified in black-and-white terms the "actual and potential terrorists" who are destroying America. That candidate is Ron Paul (R).

Among those who aspire to the White House, only Paul has informed his closest supporters that "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." [FN 1]

Paul published a newsletter that issued those words under his byline. He has also taken "moral responsibility" for those words. Yet nine years later, Paul blamed an unnamed staffer for writing them, and claimed that it would have been "too confusing" for him to denounce those words when they were first mailed to his supporters in the column under his byline in the Ron Paul Political Report in 1992.

Either Paul was lying when he admitted to writing those words, or he was telling a belated and convenient lie when he claimed that they were ghost written by an unnamed staffer. Either way, Paul is a liar. Further, he has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. (Paul published the Ron Paul Political Report from 1985 to 1992, then changed the newsletter's name to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993.)

www.dailykos.com...

reply to post by Navieko


Late reply, I know.

He's a kook because he believes you can nearly abolish taxes in total, cut every ounce of spending from the government except for military and other "Defense" expenditures, relegate all decisions regarding civil liberties to "the states" and STILL maintain a unified, healthy country. He believes that the answer for the economy is a mangling of worker's rights and wages, more deregulation, and endless corporate tax breaks, despite the fact that these ideas are the cause of our economic stagnation.

He's a passive racist because of his positions. A side effect of his no-spending, state's rights forever, seal and arm the borders, no public education, deregulatory positions is a lot of harm to people who, unlike him are not rich white people. I don't think he has these positions because of racism, but the effect is ultimately the same. He beleives that minority protections currently in place are themselves racist - a pretty damn silly concept, but one a lot of dumb white people embrace with him. Of course, there's his ramblings about the evil of "bankers" (racist slang for "Jews"), his statements that the black men of DC are either all criminal or semi-criminal, and his assertion that only five percent of American blacks hold rational political views.

Basically he's your run of the mill Republican

REMINDER: Please keep it civil, folks.

Discuss the issue and not each other.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by jsobecky

 

If you percieve your freedoms as being based on what is morally right and wrong (not illegal mind you), then the true meaning of freedom is lost on you.

Morality is a code of conduct, based upon a belief in what is right and wrong. They typically have their roots in your faith.

Laws are merely an axiom based upon current culture. We all know of "bad" laws, and laws which are nonsensical or unjust. You have a duty to disobey an immoral law.

reply to post by jsobecky


There's a problem with that - namely not everyone shares your moral values. Thus it's not inconceivable that someone else's morality will end up biting you on the kiester. Thus the need to step away from "moral" laws, and rather embrace laws based on rationality and cause vs. effect.

Some people for instance think it'd be completely moral to murder a gay couple, 'cause their holy book of choice says so, just for one example. Rationally though, killing another human being is always unacceptable, save perhaps in instances of self-defense. Do you want the moral law, or the rational one?

reply to post by The Walking Fox

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by jsobecky

 

There's a problem with that - namely not everyone shares your moral values. Thus it's not inconceivable that someone else's morality will end up biting you on the kiester. Thus the need to step away from "moral" laws, and rather embrace laws based on rationality and cause vs. effect.

Not really a problem. It's highly likely that others will not share my moral values.

That's why I'd return the money, and RP chose to keep it.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Some people for instance think it'd be completely moral to murder a gay couple, 'cause their holy book of choice says so, just for one example. Rationally though, killing another human being is always unacceptable, save perhaps in instances of self-defense. Do you want the moral law, or the rational one?

The rational one, of course. But back when slavery was legal, I'd have chosen the moral one.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by jsobecky

 

We've already shown time and time again in this thread where no illegal action took place with the donation.

Youve show? Heck man I agreed that there was nothing 'legally" wrong with taking it way back on page one (or somwhere around that)

However, to simply exclude the ethical and moral implications of taking money from a neo nazi, is an ethics issue in and of itself.

Im pretty sure you want the ethical and moral issues to be separated from this donation, but alas it simply does not work this way.

You also keep insisting that this is tied to the constitution. Show me anywhere in the constitution that refusing a political donation violates the neo nazi's free speech rights? Show me where accepting it is required to preserve this mans free speech?

How would this mans rights have been violated? His voice muted?

reply to post by shooterbrody



Don't leave me out. I think that Pauls ethics are more open to question now, too.

You all don't realize, or refuse to, that this donation leaves a rather slimy residue on his campaign. He lost my vote when he refused to admit a mistake was made. I wouldn't vote for him now if he were running unopposed.

His attempt to spin this into better in his hands than in his donors hands lends itself to better my money in his hands in the form of more taxes. No, you all vote for him if you choose, but I won't.

reply to post by spacedoubt


So he deliberately took the ;money from a known white supremist? I'd stick to the mistake were I you. Everyone makes those, not everyone takes money deliberately from white supremists.

reply to post by seagull


Can you clarify?
The only thing that was deliberate was to not return this donation.

reply to post by spacedoubt


My apologies, I misread your post. You seemed to say one thing, when you were infact saying something else entirely. My bad.

What comes from working at night, and trying to argue/converse when one should be sleeping...again, my apologies.

No problem Seagull!
Been there, done that myself..More than I'd like to admit..

Thank goodness for the edit button..


[edit on 22-12-2007 by spacedoubt]

reply to post by jsobecky


That article does more to support your argument than anything else you've said. You should have brought that article to the table to begin with.

You claim not to understand whether someone tying your shoelaces for you makes you guilty of tying your own shoelaces. I find that claim remarkable because the answer is obviously, no. Understanding that simple logic would make it possible to understand that you would not be guilty of being a criminal for accepting stolen money from a criminal for goods that you've sold to the thief. You would also understand the distinction between donating to a campaign and a campaign accepting a donation. That is to say, accepting money from a racist does not make one a racist, just as an evil person does not become a good person simply by donating to a good person's cause or campaign. All of these issues you have disputed with me, taking pride in your ability to create and sustain quarrels over dissension with your point of view. If this is all just amusement to you then it is no wonder why you do not take the time to understand simple logic -- you have no need for it. Otherwise you would create and sustain your argument on a foundation made up of more than just your opinion. Which brings me back to the article you posted.

The article you reference is the subject of a different argument than the one posed by this thread. This thread, the OP, addresses whether Ron Paul's campaign acceptance of a donation from Don Black makes Ron Paul a supporter of racist and separatist policy and agenda. However, the article that you refer in the Daily Kos to addresses whether Ron Paul is a racist because of writings he allegedly authored in a newsletter that was published by himself and his campaign party. Again, those are two distinct arguments questioning whether, one, Ron Paul is a supporter of racism, or two, a racist himself. The stronger case to be made as whether Ron Paul is a racist is made form the article you posted and not the OP. As I've already said, acceptance of a campaign donation from anybody only proves support for the candidate whose party receives the donation. It doesn't prove anything else other than that. Yet the article you've posted goes a long way towards establishing the strong possibility that Ron Paul is at least strongly prejudiced towards Black Americans. There are many reasons to support that contention. One reason is that his newsletter published what has been determined to be pure propaganda based on studies and statistics that have never existed. One more reason is that those writings support the creation of legislation that would target Black Americans as criminals simply because they are Black. Now THAT particular reason is purely racist in nature. Finally, yet another reason is that the article appeared be published under the pen of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's contention in 2001, 9 years after the fact of the article's first appearance in a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report, was that one of his staffers wrote the article. Whether or not Ron Paul's claims are true, the question still arises, does Ron Paul agree with the content of that article?

According to the Daily Kos (sourced in your comment) which is addressing this issue of racist writings in Ron Paul's newsletter:

Either Paul was lying when he admitted to writing those words, or he was telling a belated and convenient lie when he claimed that they were ghost written by an unnamed staffer. Either way, Paul is a liar. Further, he has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. (Paul published the Ron Paul Political Report from 1985 to 1992, then changed the newsletter's name to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993.)

Ron Paul's admission, of course, comes from publishing that article under his own name. Paul's subsequent denial of writing of those words, again, comes from the fact that he credits one of his staffers with the writing of those words published in the article under Paul's name. Paul is saying that he had a ghost writer. So, clearly, a lie has been told. The question is, which lie is the truth? Regardless of which lie is the truth, the publication of the article is without question evidence of Ron Paul's support for the content of the article. This cannot be discounted or spun in a different direction.

That Ron Paul refuses to release all of his newsletters to the press further raises suspicion, and ironically goes against the pledge for open, transparent and accountable government that Ron Paul has repeatedly said he subscribes to. Apparently, Ron Paul agrees that there is a need for secrecy after all.

The publication of "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism" in Ron Paul Political Report, 1992 states:

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

In the same issue Ron Paul wrote:

We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

Without question both statements taken together represent fear, a racist disposition, and the advocation of racist policy.

jsobecky, this is important enough that it deserves its own thread and discussion. If you hadn't been so intent on amusing yourself at being able to handle dissension, we could have addressed this article at an earlier time. From this article alone, Ron Paul does indeed have credibility problems relating to his stance on race in the United States. Never mind the issue of accepting $500 from a known racist, the issue of Ron Paul disseminating or supporting the dissemination of racist opinion and propaganda under the authorship of his own name is MUCH more important. As far as I am concerned, it is of paramount importance and it should be addressed accordingly.






Source

That issue would make an interesting thread.Very True.
Post it, we'll discuss.

Now back to the current discussion!

To return 500 dollars, or not?

reply to post by spacedoubt


Done. Please see: www.abovepolitics.com...

It all boils down to this: You are either ok with the way America has been run in the last 40 years or you are tired of the way America has been run.
That is what this election is all about and it is what Ron Paul is all about.
If you're ok with "out sourcing jobs" and open boarders; if you are ok with secret meetings between people who claim to decide your future: if you are ok with America being in the nation building business; if you don't care that laws are being passed which today targets terrorists but tomorrow will target dissidents; if you like the reptillian attitude of the forming police state in not only America but the world; if you are ok with all of that then you should vote for a Giulliani or a Hillary or maybe one of those inbetween guys who the powers can control. If these things do not bother you then do not vote for Ron Paul. There is a growing population of Americans that are tired and they will vote for Ron Paul simply out of protest if nothing else. The question that needs to be considered here is "how much of the American population is fed up? I'm betting it is maybe not enough to beat the diabold vote cheating but big enough to cause deep internel dissent. In the street dissent. pockets of shooting dissent, and of course the all powerful crackdown and imprisonment and killing of thousands by the fourth Reich.
This election is choosing up sides here in America between those who do not oppose a world government and those who do. cantyousee

[edit on 22-12-2007 by cantyousee]

Originally posted by cantyousee
This election is choosing up sides here in America between those who do not oppose a world government and those who do. cantyousee

That's true. And so the main problem is that our politicians and those who vote for them are ruled by separatist ideals. As long as that's the case we're doomed. Now as well as later, we are doomed to be slaves to a few. That's the intellectual elite's agenda, and they are on the fast track to achieving it in totality. Our politicians have to not only to stand for the right issues they have to stand for all American citizens. It's getting late in the game and I haven't seen one candidate that has captured both of those essential qualities. On my scale of reference, each candidate weighs just about the same. Personally, I do not yet trust any of them. I remain open.

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by IAF101
His actions dont back up his words...

This clearly shows that you have not bothered to look at his voting record.

I cant say that I have "studied" his voting record. But I do know some of his voting record and I find that I reeks of cowardice and misplaced ideals. I dont care to study him with the reverence you assign him because he hasnt captured my attention and with his supporters on this site's rationalizing his affiliations with hate groups I dont think I want to take the time or the effort to study him because I am no longer considering him as a candidate I'd vote for.

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by IAF101
he takes money from Nazi's and the like...

Do you have some unknown evidence that there's been more than just Black? Who encompasses this "and the like", and when did this switch to pluralized "Nazi's"?

Do you have any evidence that there have indeed been no other donations by groups like Storm Front or the like? I choose to believe that there have been and this is just a case which has been publicized. Also if he claims to be the administrator that he says he is, then I'm led to infer that he does know that groups like these support him and he has done nothing to distance himself from them. And for not doing so I find him guilty of association.

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by IAF101
He claims to espouse American traditional values but those are not the values he demonstrates.

Again, this clearly shows that you havn't looked into his voting record at all. Really, if you are of voting age, you owe it to yourself to actually research all of the candidates before jumping to conclusions regarding any of them.

What I choose to look up or not is my wish NOT yours . I can vote for Adolf Hitler if he was running. That is my right. As a Ron Paul supporter you should know that for all the great constitutional values he is preaching.
As I've said before I only research candidates that I am interested in, Ron Paul is not a candidate that I'm interested, now more so than before.

www.ronpaul2008.com...

From his own website...


You can also find various quotes around the web from speeches he has given before Congress, NOTHING hes done or said since the time this newsletter was written would suggest that that newsletter was his beliefs, Hes states his opinions on race many times he believes in equality for everyone, Its funny one need to go back almost 20 years to find something on him which doesn't prove anything... especially when his record since that article contradicts everything in that article....



also heres some info on the letter in question and his response to it back then.


www.freemarketnews.com...



When it gets right down to it as states his record contradicts completely the article in question, but that doesn't seem to matter does it.