Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

page: 26
5
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
I cant say that I have "studied" his voting record.


Thanks, at least you can openly admit it. 'Nuff said.



Originally posted by IAF101
I dont care to study him with the reverence you assign him because he hasnt captured my attention


No "reverence" here. My issue is with MSM sensationalism. They're hyping a non-issue, and nationally advertising for a hate site. The candidate is basically irrelevant. I'd feel the same if it were Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney, etc. in this situation.


Originally posted by IAF101
and with his supporters on this site's rationalizing his affiliations with hate groups


Again with the pluralized "groups"... If you're going to make accusations you need to provide evidence to be taken seriously.


Originally posted by IAF101
Do you have any evidence that there have indeed been no other donations by groups like Storm Front or the like?


It's not my responsibility to "prove a negative". Again, if you're going to make accusations slandering someone, you need to provide the evidence to support such claims.


Originally posted by IAF101
he has done nothing to distance himself from them. And for not doing so I find him guilty of association.


Incorrect. Both Paul, and Black, have openly, and publically, stated that Paul does not support white supremacy in any way, shape, or form. Even FredT has acknowledged this fact. Those distasteful beliefs had nothing to do with Black's donation supporting Paul's beliefs regarding smaller Gov., and border control.


Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by redmage
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.


Sure, you can do whatever you'd like to, and no one has stated any differently. The choice is yours, and it's quite simple:

A) Research all of the candidates; so that you can make an informed decision in the voting booth.

Or

B) Embrace ignorance, and vote accordingly.

Again, the choice is yours. I'm not telling you to vote for Paul, or anyone else for that matter. All I said was; "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."

[edit on 12/23/07 by redmage]




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


Hmmmmm, how different is he that the rest of the scum that inhabit Washington these days? Seems like he also tries at least to feed from the pork barrel like all the other ones:


Paul defends asking for special projects

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.
news.yahoo.com...



Now I will say he seems to try to get less earmarks than some of his fellow reps. But the fact remains that he has. He claims he puts them in there for his district yet votes against them later?

I posted a link to his entire voting record and I have to agree by and large the reference to him as 'Dr. No" in regards to voting. He is kind of like the antithisis of Robert Byrd who is the pork barrel king. However, there were some non votes on issues as well and those could be very well be ones that had those earmarks in them. Thus preserving his statement that he has never voted for an earmark etc.

However, do I know this for certain? No, nor am I going to waste all that time reading throught all the texts of his non voting to see what was there. it would be a waste of my time and would any of the Paul supporters really care or accept it if anything was found anyway?

[edit on 12/23/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


The money is already there waiting to be alloted and his district should not get ignored by money that essentially is already spent and will be spent otherwise. He still votes against the BILL if it is unconstitutional.


However, do I know this for certain? No, nor am I going to waste all that time reading throught all the texts of his non voting to see what was there. it would be a waste of my time and would any of the Paul supporters really care or accept it if anything was found anyway?


The question is, would any Anti Ron Paul supporters really care if nothing was found anyway? Would it change your views about Ron Paul? Well then theres your answer. If it's not 'big enough' a problem to change your views, why should it be for us? There are much more important issues at hand.

[edit on 23/12/07 by Navieko]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 



Originally posted by Navieko
The question is, would any Anti Ron Paul supporters really care if nothing was found anyway? Would it change your views about Ron Paul? Well then theres your answer. If it's not 'big enough' a problem to change your views, why should it be for us? There are much more important issues at hand.

[edit on 23/12/07 by Navieko]

So, if a news item made an RP supporter drop his support, would that make you change your mind?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, if a news item made an RP supporter drop his support, would that make you change your mind?


That would depend on the importance of the claim, the legitimacy of the claim -- and how it fits in my overall priorities. Not everything is black and white. I might question how exactly the RP supporter came to the conclusion that the the news item was such a legitimate and important enough claim -- for it to make him drop his support.

We are different individuals afterall, and don't all share the same opinions or mindset.

I do also acknowledge that it's a similar situation for some anti Ron Paul supporters aswell, I was just making a point.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I posted this as reply on he other Ron Paul thread here on PTS...

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by omnicron
I'm waiting to see if he returns the checks he has been sent by neo-nazis, he seems to be quite popular with them.


Hey by the way, was it one of these groups?

BUSTED! SO-CALLED WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP EXPOSED AS ISRAELI PROPAGANDA OPERATION!

Knowing Ron's stance on the Federal Reserve, this could be interesting...


Not all these hate groups are what they appear, I'd go so far to say most of them aren't. Ever wonder where they get the funding, funding, distributution, or the legal immunity to continue their agendas unimpeeded by law enforcement or opposition from the other side of the fences?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
The money is already there waiting to be alloted and his district should not get ignored by money that essentially is already spent and will be spent otherwise. He still votes against the BILL if it is unconstitutional.


What? Can you clarify this for me? The money is already allotted? No its not. Thats why he puts in the earmarks. Then votes no, yet many proabably still pass (no thanks to his NO vote mind you)

This way he gets to be a man of the people all the while feeding from the same pork barrel as the rest of the bloodsuckers. The only difference is they are up front about thier earmarks, Pauls seems to backdoor it to preserve his image.

The only differeence im now seeing here is that he spins even his own voting hypocracy :shk:

You guys almost had me beleiving he was different but shucks he is just like the rest of them...... Perhaps worse

[edit on 12/24/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I didn't read this whole thread, I don't know if I could take 26 pages about a single 500 dollar donation. But I just read this last page about earmarks and the system is there, he uses it for the people he's representing. He didn't put it there. If the pot is there he will try and get it for the people in his state, it's his job.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by captainplanet]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Someone said earlier to do some research, so I did just that and I did find some tidbits to consider when considering candidate Paul.

I was surprised to see that Paul left the GOP to go to the Libertarian party where he spoke on much of the same issues that he does today, in fact alot of his positions on bring home the troops, get rid of the IRS etc. etc. are long time positions of Paul's.

However, after being a strong member of the fledgling Libertarian party, he jumped back to the GOP. Now he is claiming that his views are staunch GOP positions when they have all the hallmarks of the Libertarian party. No problem with that, i just wonder why he made the move.

Also the alleged association with white supremecy groups is not new either and you can check out the links I will supply to articles from days gone by.

The shocker for me was that back in 1981, Ron Paul's name was tied to Black's when Black and others were going through their trial for planning and participating in a coup on the island of Dominica. While the judge refused to subpoena John Connally (yes that one) and Paul, it is interesting that the defendents lawyer's wanted these two to testify at the hearing. This ties Paul's name to Black all the way back to 1981, I couldn't find anything further, and I was limited to FREE archives, but what I found is definitely interesting and something to consider going into the election year.

1981 NY Times article



www.nyt imes.com

New Orleans, June 13 (UPI) - The Federal authorities said today that John Connally, former Governor of Texas, and Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, had no connection with a plot to overthrow the government of a Caribbean island, despite a lawyer's request that they be subpoenaed for the Federal District Court trial of three alleged mercenaries.


Other articles:

Now for a Real Underdog: Ron Paul, Libertarian, for President (1996) - NY Times piece on Paul's Libertarian Presidential run


Paul-itically Incorrect (1996) - discusses political race between Paul & Charles "Lefty" Morris in which Morris' campaign claimed Paul was tied to racists.

CAMPAIGN '96/U.S. HOUSE/Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent/GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime -self explanatory

So it appears that candidate Paul has a long history being accused of an association with white supremecy groups.

While it might be considered to be a smear campaign, I would say that it definitely is a factor when deciding who you want to represent the nation as President.

Deny Ignorance,

and as someone said, do some research



ed:add word alleged before association for clarity.



[edit on 12/24/2007 by JacKatMtn]


apc

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
All that says to me is that Paul supports freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, no matter what that opinion is.

If I understand it correctly he switched to the LP when it was still relatively young as did many Republicans who were uncomfortable with where the GOP was headed, i.e. where it is today. He then went back to the GOP realizing that if he wanted to make a difference in his lifetime, it wouldn't be through a third party. The LP is growing in step with the shrinking of the GOP and the Dems, but I don't expect it to become a comparable party of influence for at least a decade or two longer.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
This way he gets to be a man of the people all the while feeding from the same pork barrel as the rest of the bloodsuckers. The only difference is they are up front about thier earmarks, Pauls seems to backdoor it to preserve his image.

The only differeence im now seeing here is that he spins even his own voting hypocracy :shk:

You guys almost had me beleiving he was different but shucks he is just like the rest of them...... Perhaps worse


An interesting dilemma. I suppose that's one way of looking at it; however, it does require large assumptions regarding his intent. Another posibility is that he's merely "hedging his bets".

If I were a representative, I might consider using a similar tactic. Hypothetically speaking, say a gun control bill, to raise the legal age of purchace to 40, was circulating around with great popularity. Personally, I know I'd vote no, and nothing would change that; however, if the bill looked popular enough to actually pass, I'd consider trying to add an earmark for my district. Would it change my vote to a yes? Not a chance, but if it passed then at least I'd get something that would benefit my district, and reflect my beliefs.

I'd actually be more troubled if he let earmarks sway his position on important issues (which many representatives do). That would seem far more hypocritical to me. I can't really fault him for hedging his bets with "popular" bills. That just seems like smart politics.

Like I said though, the issue does require assumptions regarding his intent; however, as long as he's still voting "no", I'd think that would reflect his intent pretty clearly.

[edit on 12/24/07 by redmage]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Let me get this straight.

some of you are upset, because Paul, was able to get his state some of it's money back? and he did it without compromising his principles?
All this while working within the framework of a sick, bloated, and corrupt Federal system?!

I believe another Old Media hit-piece, has failed miserably.
I can see the donation ticker moving upwards even faster now.

BTW, there is a thread on this "earmark subject over here:
www.abovepolitics.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I'm glad people are looking things up. You asked why he dropped out of the republican party and the answer is in your link on his libertarian run:


left Congress in 1985 after an unsuccessful run for a Senate seat, and quit the Republican Party in February 1987.
At the University of Houston, speaking in front of the student union cafeteria at high noon, Dr. Paul explained why. 'They Are in Our Wallets'
''I listened to Ronald Reagan in the '70's. He told me that he would balance the budget, cut back and get the Government off my back. They are not off our backs, they are in our wallets and into our bedrooms and into our private lives more than ever before.''

query.nytimes.com...


He often says he is now trying to turn the republican party back into what it used to represent.

The Caribbean island thing is interesting but in a quick search, your link is the only thing I could find that exists on in. That makes me think that the judge was right in saying he had nothing to do with it.

In the politically incorrect article, "Lefty's" campaign said Paul’s name was on a neo-Nazi website. That doesn’t mean anything, there are a lot of crazy websites and calling someone a neo-Nazi doesn‘t make them a neo-Nazi.

The rest of the racism deal comes from quotes out of the news article he used to put out where he would rant about the failings of our government. He appears to have been very critical of black crime in America and while what he’s written may be politically incorrect, it’s not entirely untrue. At least he is willing to address the un proportional numbers of Black crime in America. He never says they are genetically inclined to crime like some neo-Nazi would, he just doesn’t ignore the problem. I think most minorities would appreciate his willingness to address inner city crime and the disproportionate number of minorities in the criminal justice system. It’s better than avoiding it and tip-toeing around it trying to be politically correct, straight talk gets results.

Saying he has a long history of being tied to white supremacy groups isn’t entirely accurate, his opponent called him a neo-Nazi in a mudslinging campaign. No one ever even sited a specific group.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


Thanks for your input on the links I provided, that helps me to put some of this into perspective.

I plan on coming back to this thread before I have to make a decision on who I would like to see get elected next year.

I pointed those articles out because they do relate to the thread discussion, and thought that it should be out there for everyone to consider, I appreciate your candid response to the posted information



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


What he does is use studies and statistics that have never existed to back up his claims. He categorizes Black men as being terrorists simply because they are Black. Then he advocates policy that would have Black children aged 13 to be tried as adults for their crimes simply because they are Black. That is being Black and also by his definition being terrorists. That's racist commentary, racist propaganda, and advocation for racist policy. It was done to support his campaign at the time the writings were published. He says he didn't write it, nor agree with it, yet it was published as written under his name. Just how responsible is Ron Paul with regards to his reputation? He didn't exactly come out and vehemently deny what he had written or vigorously try to distance himself from the writings when first approached about the matter 15 years ago. He refers to his actions and record in Congress but his newsletter was not published in his official capacity.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 



He categorizes Black men as being terrorists simply because they are Black.



Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
www.chron.com...


He referred to gangs as terrorists. I have no idea why he would make that comment, as it’s out of context, but hey, they can run man.



Then he advocates policy that would have Black children aged 13 to be tried as adults for their crimes simply because they are Black.



"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."
www.chron.com...


Not because they are black, but if they are in a gang and act accordingly. We need someone tough on gang activity, it’s more immediately important then foreign terrorism. It’s mostly a minority problem, it’s not racist to acknowledge that.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


I guess you've never heard of the Aryan Brotherhood. Where does Ron Paul stand on this organization? There just as dangerous as any other L.A. and California street gang. Surely he has heard of them as well. But it is only Black gang members at the age of 13 who should be tried as adults? And the point you seem to miss is that he is referring only to Black gang members. Not any other race or ethic creed. His statements are racists. When properly understood, there is no way to interpret those comments otherwise.

Aryan Brotherhood



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 



I guess you've never heard of the Aryan Brotherhood.


Not how it relates to Ron Paul, no.


Where does Ron Paul stand on this organization? There just as dangerous as any other L.A. and California street gang. Surely he has heard of them as well. But it is only Black gang members at the age of 13 who should be tried as adults? And the point you seem to miss is that he is referring only to Black gang members. Not any other race or ethic creed. His statements are racists. When properly understood, there is no way to interpret those comments otherwise.


We don’t know the context he was speaking in, your implying more than he said. He may have been talking about black crime specifically, again we don’t know, it’s out of context. What do you properly understand from a few out of context quotes?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


In an effort not to take this thread further off-topic, I've addressed your response in the other thread I created that's only somewhat related to this one. Please read here: Response



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
He should have gave it back.





top topics
 
5
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join