Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation , page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:28 PM by FredT
reply to post by NGC2736


you can do far better than that. You actually provided a service to the pimp for which you were paid. Are you implying that Paul provided a service or a promise of service for that neo nazi donation? I can reach as far as you can

[edit on 12/19/07 by FredT]


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:34 PM by xEphon
reply to post by FredT


So if I think people who have abortions are murderers - which I believe is WAY more reprehensibile than being a racist - can we include them in the "immoral" category too? Lets get a list of all donators who aborted a child and have ron paul give them back their donation since ron paul is pro life.
...
Once again. Where does it stop and who makes this master list?



reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:35 PM by FredT
reply to post by krackedkid



No I don't think that is feasable and the donation was legal. What I find concerning is AFTER the source came to light, we get the 'Im not returning it" and people hailing him for taking money from a Neo nazi group


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:39 PM by NGC2736
reply to post by FredT


I address this to my friend Fred, but it covers more than Fred's post.

Let us be reasonable here. where would it stop if he did give back the money? Would someone then find that a doctor at an abortion clinic gave a donation? Maybe we would find that someone who supports the legalization of a certain herb donated. Maybe an ex-convict or a pederast or a bigamist donated. Where would it end?

But no matter how we feel about these people as individuals, as long as they are citizens, then it is not only legal to allow them to participate in the great American experience, but it is the DUTY of he who would be president to accept them, with all their flaws, as equal citizens, and equally worthy of his consideration.

Some here want to set themselves up as arbiters for who may be represented, and who may not. Who may be worthy, and who may not. Who may be real citizens, and who may not. This is a form of the "Morality Police", proctors of Americanism. Shadows of McCarthy.

I, and it would seem many others, want a president that doesn't favor one group, one ideology, one tax bracket, one special interest, over another. We want a president for ALL the people, not just the "right" people. Too many of us recognize that being on the "right" side is transitory.


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:41 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by FredT
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).


95%? So basically, for every million Ron Paul supporters, 50,000 of them are white supremacists?

Care to raise that number up to at least 99%?

I know you put the + there, but 95% seems way off.

Originally posted by FredT
Ron Paul was faced with a moral and ethical decison.


Like spacedoubt said, that's $500 less that this organization has to spend on it's neo-nazi efforts.

Would you rather that $500 go in to helping his campaign where he promotes freedom and economic prosperity, or would you rather that $500 go to neo-nazi propaganda efforts?

Don't dodge the question, and yes you have to pick from one or the other since that's the only two choices in regards to this topic.

Originally posted by FredT
That gives some insight to his moral and ethical charecter.


The insight it gives is to his understanding and acknowledgment of everyone's equal inalienable rights.

Originally posted by FredT
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.


I think the point I was making was made fairly clearly. If you don't want to address it just say that. But it is related because you're questioning the morality of Ron Paul taking $500 and not questioning the morality of those in charge whom Ron Paul would remove if elected.

Basically, my point: You would rather maintain the status quo (which would happen if Ron Paul is not elected), and allow unethical treatment of humans in other nations during times of war, which will be often due to the current system, than vote for or at least acknowledge support of what he hopes to achieve if elected simply because you think it's unethical to accept $500 from a man who has his right to freedom of speech.


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:47 PM by NovusOrdoMundi
Originally posted by xEphon
So if I think people who have abortions are murderers - which I believe is WAY more reprehensibile than being a racist - can we include them in the "immoral" category too? Lets get a list of all donators who aborted a child and have ron paul give them back their donation since ron paul is pro life.
...
Once again. Where does it stop and who makes this master list?


I'm quoting this so everyone can read it again. It's the perfect example.

Let's toss out the legal aspect of this discussion since we all seem to agree that no law was broken here, and let's focus on the moral and ethical side. Fair enough.

Now, since we are focusing on that, I re-direct you to xEphon's post quoted above.

Where does it stop? Face it - moral and ethical reasoning is opinionated and biased.

You think he should give a racist's money back? Well I think your candidate should give a pro-choice person's money back.

See how that works?

There is no set standard of what is moral and what isn't. There's only the perceived reality standard of social political correctness. Beyond that, it's personal opinion. The media is playing on that personal opinion of some in a situation like this to bash Ron Paul because they have nothing else to go on.

When you take a step back, you'll realize that it's only immoral because you see it that way. That's how it is, and that's fine. That's your opinion and you have a right to it. But don't expect everyone to conform to your standard of morality and ethics.


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:50 PM by IAF101
Originally posted by xEphon
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.]

That is perhaps the most warped view of a president ever. A President has every right to condemn groups like the KKK and other organizations that are counter-productive to the USA and its goals and to decent society at large. The fact that you are saying that the President shouldnt be saying anything about them is almost as if you are defending the KKK and the like. That is ridiculous and absurd position.

To claim that there is no place for morality and ethics in the Presidents office is perhaps the most shocking of all statements and is utterly damning to his candidacy. It describes the principles of an immoral and unethical president who mechanically follows the rules like some mindless automaton. America doesnt need a robot and a rule-book preacher, presidential office is about the values and principles of the people of this country to steer this nation to greater prosperity and happiness, to espouse american values and be a role model for Americans everywhere. If you're saying that it is okay for Ron Paul to accept this money and you defend his decision to do so then I know for sure that his candidacy as an American traditionalist is a bad joke because Americans dont need money from reprehensible people to get ahead. That is not the American way.

If you fail to see that your position is utterly untenable morally, ethically and runs contrary to everything this nation stands for that you in your very support of Ron Paul are a bane on his candidacy for I and many like me wouldnt want to be associated with anybody who believes that it is okay to take money from the KKK to become president of the USA.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by IAF101]


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:53 PM by krackedkid
Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by krackedkid



No I don't think that is feasable and the donation was legal. What I find concerning is AFTER the source came to light, we get the 'Im not returning it" and people hailing him for taking money from a Neo nazi group


This is a double edge sword as i see it. He takes the money and he gets slammed for accepting the donation from a neo nazi. Then if he were to return it he would get slammed for excluding individuals from supporting his candidacy, I'm sure.


reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 11:03 PM by FredT
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I know you put the + there, but 95% seems way off.


I did add the plus in there and your right its probably closer to the 99% you said. Every candidate no doubt has supporters from EVERY avenue of life.


Like spacedoubt said, that's $500 less that this organization has to spend on it's neo-nazi efforts.Would you rather that $500 go in to helping his campaign where he promotes freedom and economic prosperity, or would you rather that $500 go to neo-nazi propaganda efforts?


I would return the money. I don't think I have ever dodged this one and have been pretty clear on the issue in this entire thread (at least I thought)
So just for clarities sake I will repeat myself:
I would have returned the money

However the whole question of where I would want the money spent is really a or a False Dilemma or Two Wrongs Make a Right


The insight it gives is to his understanding and acknowledgment of everyone's equal inalienable rights.


Yes it also shows his morality and ethics as it was also within his rights to refuse such a donation.

I think the point I was making was made fairly clearly. If you don't want to address it just say that.


Again this whole line is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that we ignore this ethical and moral issue because the people in Washington are worse? Is he a lesser evil? Is he a greater evil? who knows, we certaily don't want to risk finding out by daring to question his moral and ethics in accepting a donation froma neo nazi organization (And its supporters I might add).

Again it was well within the neo nazi's rights to donate to his campaign as it was well within Pauls rights to NOT accept it or to return it.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^