It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:48 AM
so thats all they could dig up huh? 500 bucks from a white pride guy.

i think its important to post some quotes from the article..

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money,

you cant say the same thing about the other candidates, knowingly and happily taking huge donations from corporations and lobby groups. (some of which promote the benefit of a foreign country) And who was that big scam shop who donated a few hundred thousand to Bush... uh Enron i belive it was.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

something i found funny is when it was found out that hillary was getting donations from chinatown and 1/3 of the donors could not be located the hillary campaign had this to say..

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.

"We do not ethnically profile donors," growled Howard Wolfson. "Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American."

at least paul contributors can be located.

its hardly a moral question to give back money donated from a citizen excercising his first amendment rights. where would it stop? "uh i dont agree with how you raise your children, heres your money back"

Lets say paul gave back the money to appease the PC crowd. on one had he has denounced racism (which he has already done anyways) and on the other he tells folks country wide, i will uphold your right to freedom of speech only if i agree with that speech..
thats retarded.
People support a candidate who best represents them, and i bet Paul has lost ZERO votes from the "whitepower" groups because of this. Because Pauls stance on the issues that matter to them havent changed, they dont expect him to support their ideology and get swastica tattoos and such but he best represents what they believe in. (and what alot of other americans belive in) so he will still get their votes, and their money.

i wonder:
what if it was found out that obama recieved money from "The New Black Panthers" an equally racist group as the white supremacist groups. would the smear be the same?

edit posted the same time as Hypntick

[edit on 20-12-2007 by turbokid]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by FredT

I'm not sure you understand the constitution in The United States ?? ......

Nothing is beyond personal rights!

Especially not ego or belief. You argument is weak at best.

It is unfair to attack a person because of an indirect association with another.
What is really funny...Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and all the rest have supporters just like this guy. Every one that has ever been in political office has.
The only differences here is that some but plug decided to make this public. If you really wanted to, you could look at campaign contributions from all candidates and you will find people like this guy all over the place.

Like I said , Weak at best.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:46 AM
When an elected official takes his oath of office, He takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution protects the rights of ALL citizens not just the ones you agree with, For him to give this back would go against his principles, It would open up a bigger door for those trying to smear him to say he FLIP FLOPPED, Freedom of speech doesn't just protect that which you agree with, (who would denounce and try to shut someone they agree with up?) It's to protect unfavorable speech...

You can denounce the explanation all you want, it can be backed up with a long record of upholding the constitution.

A record NO other candidate has.

Ron Paul also accepts donations form 9/11 truthers, Does he believe in 9/11 conspiracies? No.

That didn't stop the media from attaching him to the truth movement though did it?

Should he return their donations because a lot of Americans don't like to hear what they have to say?

Doing so opens up the door for this type of thing, his campaign will be torn apart by the media trying to get him to give back donations from people they don't agree with...

This is what will turn out to be ANOTHER failed attempt to thwart his support, Just like before it won't work, This is ALL the dirt they can get on him (Someone else's beliefs), maybe you should start questioning that.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by C0le]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:56 AM
You know smear campaigns by their very nature are so disruptive to a political process one could have a debate dedicated to their purpose.

One thing that really urks me is misrepresentation of the political candidates and what they are standing for - take for example Ron Paul, he only gets such attention from the MSM when there is an attempt to show him in a negative light which is nothing but a way to distract attention from his mandate.

There are a lot of people leading very busy lives working hard at their jobs, going to the shops to provide food for their families etc, they doesn't always have a great deal of free time to get all the knowledge on all the political candidates but obviously they want to do the right thing for their Country. People such as this will be influenced by the MSM at voting time.

America your Country was founded on the ideals of freedom, it is your birthright! You have proven to the entire world that freedom does not mean anarchy.

So like that great American hero Martin Luther King do what is right for your country and speak up against your ruling classes, you all have a voice that needs to be heard and never should it be repressed - shine like a beacon of light give hope to the world.

"Fight might with right"
oh and please vote someone in that doesn't want war! war! oil! war! this time
no pressure but your decision does effect us poor Brits too!

[edit on 20-12-2007 by freeradical]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:51 AM
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.

I never said a President cannot have a view of what he believes is right and wrong and I am definately not defending the KKK.
A President's only job is to uphold the consititution which in itself is just and moral. It is not his job to cherry pick morality in relation to the consitution. It would be UNconstitutional to limit Freedom of expression of any member of society in which the President represents. Furthermore, giving the donation back would also impede on a persons ability to participate in the political process. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORALS THERE.

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.

No what America needs is a President who follows the consitution regardless of his personal tastes and opinions. It's really that simple.

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.

If you fail to see that this nation stands for every citizen regardless of personal beliefs - wheter they be racist, abortionist, homosexual, muslim or christian and that a KKK member has every right to donate as any other group that you dont personally agree with, than you deserve the Fascist government that you are preaching for.

I'm done with this. Northing more can be said to appease the rabid anti RP crowd that hasn't already.
Happy Holidays!

[edit on 20-12-2007 by xEphon]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:23 AM
This $500 donation pales into insignificance when measured against the $Millions in "campaign funds" donated by AIPAC to all the other bought politicians. Especially given the blatant and disgusting racism and violence shown towards anyone who opposes the Jewish / Zionist masters who make the money available.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:01 AM
Ron Paul is such a nobody that it doesn't matter that some undesirables send him donations. Personally, I don't have respect for anyone that gives any politician any money. Especially to someone like Rotten Paul who has absolutely no chance at the nomination. He has consistently polled in the lower to middle single digits. Oh but the MSM controls the polls ..... yeah yeah yeah...

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:11 AM
Anything to smear Ron Paul. Do you think he is the one who collects this money and puts it into his fundraising account? When any candidate accepts donations from hundeds of thousands of people there are going to be times when things like this happen. Can we talk about real issues on here??? This is minute and Im sure once they found this out the money will be returned. If John McCain accepted money from a white supremicist would you make a post about that? Enough said.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:08 AM
reply to post by dirtonwater

Just out of curiosity why are you here?

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:11 AM
I really enjoyed Mr. Paul's responses to the questions thrown at him.
and I whole heartedly agree that the money is in better hands now that the money is not in the hands of the white supremacist..

Mr. Paul seems to always answer even the questions that he does not like with Integrity, dignity, honesty, and in an upright manner in which we have not seen in politics since the late 1800's, all the while leaving no doubt what exactly his views on the subject are I find this impressive I also find it impressive that he never seems apologetic in his comments and answers but stands tall behind what he is saying even as he is saying it, even when knowing beforehand that people will not like the answer..


posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by FredT

Well, gee. Anybody remember Dan Quayle? Anybody?

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:20 AM
If i was Ron Paul, i would keep the money ( no return because they could use this money for promote their hate) and give it to some anti-descrimination organisation or something like that, i think it's what he had to do.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by FredT

A terrorist organization?

Sure. Why not. Better to take their money than to let them buy more munitions with it.

I can see you're really reaching for anything on Paul.

Your candidate voted to go into Iraq which resulted in hundreds of thousands of death and your trying to incrimiate Ron Paul for taking money from whomever wants to donate it?

Get a life.

6 pages of replies, yet not one flag. I think this pretty much sums up your OP and what people think of your slanderous remarks.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by tyranny22]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by untouchable

Hmmm, im actually well versed in the constitution and its tennants and processes. So Despite your attempt to make a strawman out of my first sentance and clearly ignoring the rest of the paragraph I will refresh your memory eh?

It was well within the rights of the neo nazi to make the donation. It was also WELL within pauls rights to either refuse the money OR return it once its source was known.

Because you seemed to miss it the first time I will repeat it again and bold it for you

It was well within the rights of the neo nazi to make the donation. It was also WELL within pauls rights to either refuse the money OR return it once its source was known.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by tyranny22
A terrorist organization? Sure. Why not. Better to take their money than to let them buy more munitions with it.

Ah yes once again the fallicy of logic rears its ugly head. Far better to let Paul keep the money from unsavory sources. Never mind the ethics and morality of the issue.

I can see you're really reaching for anything on Paul.

Nah no reaching needed. The attitude of yourself, many of the other posters and the Paul campaign in accepting the donation did not require a reach at all.

Your candidate voted to go into Iraq which resulted in hundreds of thousands of death and your trying to incrimiate Ron Paul for taking money from whomever wants to donate it?

Now who's reaching. Kindly show me where I said I voted for the current president or which candidate for president I support? If your candidate want the money from a neo nazi and his organizations support that his CHOICE. However, don't expect me to sit by why you and the rest of the 'Paul Army" attempt to spin the donation of a neo nazi as some sort of show of intergrity etc.

Ethics and morality.

Get a life.

I have one actually. They were on sale at the WalMart down the street. Once of those price drop things. Morals and ethics were in short supply, but I hear If you go on down to Stormfront, you can pick up a second hand set for a meer $500.00 US.

6 pages of replies, yet not one flag. I think this pretty much sums up your OP and what people think of your slanderous remarks.

Yeah the 100+ replies are basically nothing eh?

[edit on 12/20/07 by FredT]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:00 PM
I like how everyone gets their panties in a bunch over $500 that Ron Paul received from a white supremacist. To whom Ron Paul denounces any affiliation with.

Meanwhile those who receive untold thousands from 'special interest groups', 'corporations', and or other not so just organizations remain unspoken about.

This just goes to show how much this country is still hung up on race and remain to ignore the true evils happening in politics.


posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by FredT

Ethics are indeed the issue. Ethics like acknowledging and respecting everyone right to their own opinion. You still haven't answered my response to this.

Denying people a voice because of their opinion is unacceptable. If you want to go that route, then I think every dime Clinton and Edwards have accepted should be returned because in my opinion those donors are the scum of the earth.

Do you still support that logic?

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by gabriel5578

The issue is not that someone donated to his campaign. Its the fact that once the source became apparent he simply refused to return it.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by apc
Ethics are indeed the issue. Ethics like acknowledging and respecting everyone right to their own opinion. You still haven't answered my response to this.

Sorry which responce is it? Lets face it the Paul militia is out in force so If I failed to catch one of many similar repsonces I apologise.

Just as the neo nazi's have the right to thier opinion and can donate money to whom they please, they chose Paul. He also had the right to refuse and or return said donation.

Denying people a voice because of their opinion is unacceptable. Do you still support that logic?

This thread is not about Clinton or Edwards or McCain, or any of the other drones we have running for office. this is about Paul and his acceptance of money from neo nazi's.

How is returning a $500.00 donation denying the neo nazi's a voice. StormFront's site is still up. Nazi's are still marching etc. etc.

However not taking the 500.00 not only exersized Ron pauls rights to chose, it also shows a bit or morality and ethics eh?


posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:28 PM
Yes. Ethics. Like respecting the donor's opinion by not insulting them and returning their money.

Should Paul return any donations from registered Democrats because he disagrees with their ideology? How about donations from hyperconservative Republicans? Unless the money is the product of a crime, it is constitutionally sterile.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in