Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

reply to post by shooterbrody


Im glad I was able to provide you with some amusment here. But the question remains: What about those other groups? Will he take donations from everybody? Where will he draw the line?

greetings...

i saw it mentioned but not posted, so here it is:

Ron Paul Interviewed By Neil Cavuto's Smear Campaign 12-19-07

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NGC2736
Ron Paul has taken the legal and moral high ground here, even if political correctness blinds 90% of the people from seeing it. Just as in other issues, like the Iraq war, he is unpopular for standing by a principle.

He may have taken the legal road, but ethics and morality are a different matter in this case IMHO. What principle? raising $$$$$? thats all I see here. Yes we have the spin doctors on his campaign trying to make this into some sort of pricipaled stance but the fact remains he took money from a less than savory sort. If he takes money from Stormfront, what about the mafia? La Eme? etc. etc. etc do you consider those fair game for campaign contributors?

As far as being blind, the same could be said of the people who seem to take no issue with this whatsoever.

I am not voting for Ron Paul. It isn't because he took the donation, though I wonder why he would accept a white supremacist's money but not the support of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. If Paul is the noble character who represents ALL the people no matter how reprehensible they may be--as many are saying here--then why would he spurn the pimp?

Ron Paul is a Luddite, a laissez-faire capitalist and a social Darwinist. I think he was unwise to accept the contribution, but that's the least of his shortcomings.

Originally posted by FredT
Im not buying the explanation for taking it either.

Oh please.

If you don't support him, go ahead and say that. Don't eat up every little bit of information that supports your own personal opinion.

Does this white supremacist have a right to vote?

Does this white supremacist have a right to freedom of speech?

Does this white supremacist have a right to donate to which ever candidate he wishes?

The answers are yes.

Now does this white supremacist have the power to influence Ron Paul's policies if elected president?

I know you'd like to think he does since that would fit your views, but I'm sorry to break it to you - he doesn't.

You seem to have no issue with the CFR, Bilderberg, Carlyle Group, Wall Street and others funding candidates far more than $500 in the hopes that their candidate will get elected so that they can force their power on to their newly elected president to influence domestic and foreign policy against the interests of the American people and for the interests of their bank account, which will ultimately lead to decreased freedom and increased wars.

No - let's focus on $500 from some nobody who was able to create a free forum to express his views.

It seems that you think because Ron Paul took the donation that Ron Paul HAS to share the views of this white supremacist. You really think it's that black and white? Either Ron Paul refunds the money or he absolutely shares the views of this man?

The guy has already said he supports Ron Paul because of issues such as the war in Iraq and the border issues. It has nothing to do with white supremacy. That's as ignorant as saying all black people that vote for Barack Obama are only voting for him because he's black, or all women that vote for Hilary Clinton are only voting for her because she's a woman. It's the same thing - making a generalization about either the voter or the candidate based on minor technical details that have absolutely no play in the situation.

Originally posted by FredT
Will he take money now from Hizballah next?

Good one. Nice jump to personal attacks, slander, and baseless assumptions.

Look at the facts. Don't distort them and blur them with minor details that don't matter.

If you don't support him - good for you. But leave the worthless insults out of it.

[edit on 12/19/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

reply to post by FredT


Fred, I think the world of you, and I would not want that you misunderstand me. I in no way support the donor's position. However, as an American citizen, I recognize the rights of all other citizens, no matter how diametrically opposed I am to their life themes. It is the exclusionary practices of politics that have brought us to this dire straight we now face.

And to name organizations situated OUTSIDE the U.S. is to further obfuscate the matter, as they are legally barred from contributions anyway, and is at best an effort to be inflammatory.

It all boils down to the choice of do we represent ALL the people who are legally allowed to have a voice, or do we bow to those who decide (for the rest of us) what is "American" and what is not. If the donation had come from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, no one would have said a word. But is this group "Stormfront" any less American citizens than "MADD", just because many of us identify with one and not the other?

Sadly, too many people let the MSM and others decide the rules here. And the rules change as we go along. However, the Constitution does not, and it says that all citizens are equal.

reply to post by NGC2736


Exactly

You don't have to agree with the guy to accept his right to freedom of speech. I don't support his crap, nor would I ever, as I'm sure Ron Paul would never either.

Ron Paul isn't supporting the white supremacist. The white supremacist is supporting Ron Paul.

If you find Ron Paul paying this guy's internet bill or something, then you have a case. But anything short of that or a public endorsement of his views - it's all political slander and bias based on very little hearsay information.

I mean, saying Ron Paul represents this guy's views is basically saying all Ron Paul supporters are white supremacists. We all support Ron Paul like a white supremacist does, so we might as well be white supremacists, right?

I know I'm not a white supremacist, so either I'm in the wrong candidate boat, or claiming Ron Paul supports this guy's views is a meaningless attack that's completely false.

I'll go with it being false.

Like it or not, this guy has rights. Once you start putting conditions on freedom of speech, you start down a very slippery slope to full restriction of freedom of speech all together.

Everything everybody says on the internet isn't always true. This guy may truly be a white supremacist, but there are people on the internet that say things they don't really mean all to get the publicity or to get a rise out of their readers. It happens.

If this guy acts out his views and commits a crime based on those views, then I'm all for throwing him in jail and bashing him. But to do it and to basically strip him of his right to donate and right to support and vote for a candidate based on something he says on the internet that breaks no law is completely ridiculous and is counter productive to what freedom of speech stands for.

[edit on 12/19/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by IAF101
The True candidate is not someone who takes any money from people who are reprehensible, be it 5 cents or $500.

Won't cya later Hillary. Don't let the door hit you Giuliani. Say hi to God, Romney. Terribly sorry Mr. Os^H^HObama.

Come on. We're tryin to have an election here.

Not sure what you're trying to say in that first sentence there, if you're trying to be funny, the jokes lost on me.

An election doesnt justify taking money from reprehensible people. Its better to loose elections than loose your principles. IF Ron Paul and/or his supporters cant realize that simple fact than they need to pull their heads out of the clouds and reevaluate if they are really doing the right thing.

To quote Gandhi; " The ends dont justify the means".

FredT

Your argument sounds like talking point for the MSM. There is absolutely no correlation between being a racist and a terrorist organization like Hizbollah or NAMBLA. To create such a loose argument is simply smear. To not accept the donation from this american citizen - regardless of his personal beliefs - would be the thing that is immoral and dishonorable. Do you really want a President who Judges it's citizens based on their beliefs but has not violated any law in doing do?
I sure dont.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I have never supported Ron Paul and am not likely to in the near future.
you can spin it all you want the bottom line in this is about morality and ethics period.

Is it legal for him to take the money? Yes
Does it means that Ron Paul or his supporters are sympathetic to the position of the StormFront? No (And I never said that)

Being correct in a legal sence by no means distcharge ones responsabilities to be moral and ethical in ones decisions.

All this spin is making me dizzy. The bottom line is that he took money from the founder of a neo nazi organization and refused to return it. Period!

reply to post by FredT


I once fixed a flat tire for a pimp that came into the shop where I worked as a young man. Does that mean I support pandering? I sure as hell got him back on the road, so maybe I even aided him in his endeavors.

Sorry, Fred. You're reaching here.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

The True candidate is not someone who takes any money from people who are reprehensible, be it 5 cents or $500.

You two are hiliarious!!!
Gee guess people who have different opinions than you are not allowed to donate money to politicians.

I have no problem in KKK supremacists donating money to campaigns, I have a problem with campaigns that accept this money without any inhibitions. And even after being informed of the situation fail to return it.

That to me and to most of the clear thinking people free from political attachments out there shows a disregard for any moral and principles by that campaign. And for a candidate who claims to be a champion of American principles, this sort of behavior demonstrates to me that his "principles" are NOT American principles.

reply to post by IAF101



And who decides who these reprehensibile people are? You? Please tell me where it stops...all racists on your left please. Followed by Muslims, Jews, Pro-Lifers, CTers..

This argument is ridiculous.

Originally posted by FredT
this is about morality and ethics

Ethics and morality? What ethics and morality? It's a DONATION!

Where is your ethics and morality argument against Halliburton, the Military Industrial Complex, and all of the criminals in between with their never ending cycle of un-ethical and immoral treatment of nations and their people?

Pay the MIC to build the bombs.
Use the bombs to destroy things.
Give Halliburton no bid contracts to rebuild.
Wash, rinse, spin, repeat.

Originally posted by FredT
The bottom line is that he took money from the founder of a neo nazi organization and refused to return it. Period!

The bottom line is we have a Nazi style regime resting comfortable in the White House until 2008 when another Nazi style candidate controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations will be elected unless we get our heads out of our asses and realize that Ron Paul is the only supporter of freedom, economic prosperity, security, and the Constitution. Period!

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by IAF101

 

And who decides who these reprehensibile people are? You? Please tell me where it stops...all racists on your left please. Followed by Muslims, Jews, Pro-Lifers, CTers..

This argument is ridiculous.

If Ron Paul and his supporters really have a hard time determining if the KKK and other such organizations are reprehensible or not then they are the ones who's perspective is ridiculous. For it doesnt take a Lincoln or a Buddha to find in ourselves the morality to make this determination.

It is ridiculous that you actually want to adopt that line of reasoning.

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by FredT

 

I in no way support the donor's position. However, as an American citizen, I recognize the rights of all other citizens, no matter how diametrically opposed I am to their life themes.

I never said you or any of the Ron paul supporters endorsed, supported, or were members of that organization. However, I did object to the labling this is some sort of moral or ethical stand to be pointed at and cheered. That simply smells of spin IMHO.

And to name organizations situated OUTSIDE the U.S. is to further obfuscate the matter,

Actually they are fitting and appropriate. I want to see the baseline for what he and his supporters feel would be inappropriate to accept money from. While the last time I checked in general terrorist orgs do not have PACS, would he say take a contribution from Reid? Or any of the other people in custody. This speaks directly to his charecter IMHO. So either he does not care, he has no issue with the organization, or he is all about the money: which of these three do you find okay?

It all boils down to the choice of do we represent ALL the people who are legally allowed to have a voice, or do we bow to those who decide (for the rest of us) what is "American" and what is not.

You will note that I have never said that this guy did not have the right to donate money to the candidate he wants. However, it is well within Pauls right to NOT accept the donation. Thats is a huge issue IMHO. He chose to keep this money knowing full well who and what the contributor represents.

[edit on 12/19/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by IAF101
Its better to loose elections than loose your principles.

Principles like people are entitled to their opinions. I couldn't agree more... although not literally I suppose.

But opinions like mine, such as the other major candidates whom I listed are funded by some of the lowest scum to ever be scraped off my boots ergo the only reason this is getting media play is because they have NOTHING else to trash the congressman on. Actually I guess that's not really an opinion.

I have no trouble at all figuring out that certain groups are reprehensible, including white-supremacists.

Now, tell me why they deserve to get their Ill-spent money back?
Why would you give it back to them? They just lost 500 bucks.

Giving the money back would be akin to admitting that something "wrong" occurred. Nothing illegal happened.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Ethics and morality? What ethics and morality? It's a DONATION!

Exactly it is a donation. A donation from the founder of an organization that most people find repugnant (I would wager that 95%+ of Ron Paul supporters find the neo nazi movement repugnant).

Ron Paul was faced with a moral and ethical decison. he chose to keep the money and then try to spin it to his supporters about this great constitutional stand he was taking. The only constitutional stand here was the neo nazi's right to donate the money. Ron Paul had two rights here: The legal right to keep the money (which he did) or the moral and ethical choice which was to return the $500. He chose not too.

That gives some insight to his moral and ethical charecter.

Edit to add; not sure what exactly you are talking about regarding Haliburton etc. The topic of this thread was about Pauls refusal to return neo nazi donations.

[edit on 12/19/07 by FredT]

reply to post by IAF101


Please. Obviously racism is not something that is commendable but it is not the role of a President or someone running for President to pass judgement and point a finger down on ANY citizen. Once he takes the oath of office he is required to uphold the law in an unbiased way towards all citizens. There is no room for morality or ethics where this is concerned. You treat everyone the same REGARDLESS of whether you agree with them or not. To marginalize any segment of society that one does not agree with - especially comming from the President and the government he represents is the root of Fascism and that ideology and has no room in our Republic.
I believe YOU need to recheck YOUR morals.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by xEphon]