LOL, so your claiming that if he gave the money back then there would be a headline saying he donated to a racist group? Wouldn't whoever reported it look silly/stupid when the truth came out. IMO that would have been a Ron Paul story with a positive spin instead of the one he ended up with.
A measley $500 to boot. I think he was penny wise and pound foolish on this one.
Honestly, I would without question.
I like and support Ron Paul but in this instance I would have sent it back with a "Thank-You" letter.
You are reaching way to far here. Dems and Reps despite their bickering still hold some core beliefs and interests that are shared between the two parties. You cannot compare the two situations here. Ron Paul states that he is diametrically opposed to the view held by this person yet he refuses to give his money back. A person of good faith and character would do the right thing and return the money.
There's a difference between excusing and accepting. I accept Joe Biden plagiarized a speech in the 1980's, I realize it's wrong, but I think it's irrelevant. That's not what's going on here.
No one is arguing the constitutionality over whether this guy donating money to RP's campaign is right or wrong. The hate monger has a right to attempt to do so if he feels like it and RP has a right to keep it if he wants too do so.
What the issue stems from in this situation is the moral obligation of Ron Paul to stand by his views and do the right thing and hand it back if he objects so vehemently on the bases of his core belief system of his campaign and personal views.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Who said anything about "accepting"? I think you just made my point right there.
How many millions is Hillary's corporate war chest up to right now? And yet how many rabid anti-corporate types hail her as a hero? How many super-strong atheists are going to vote for her while she has regular private prayer meetings with Billy Graham?
And so forth and so on with both parties and all ideologies until I puke from exhaustion. If you guys are looking for hypocrisy in politics, I suggest a mirror.
Again I am not arguing the legality of someone donating money to his cause just the moral implications. You seem to be mixing the issues here for a reason.
P.S. I haven't decided yet. Then again what's the point of this question in regards to the issue highlighted in this post?
I see that you are trying to change the subject here. If I held a strong conviction against corporations maybe this would hit home but then again Hillary's stance is not what is being discussed here. Her actions should not be the focus of how Ron Paul should react to this situation.
http://www.nizkor.org/features...ongs-make-a-right.html
What are you talking about? You are conflating separate things here. Nobody is going to find a perfect candidate, you do the best you can. But pretending your candidate is perfect when they are not is disturbing. For example, i dont like hillary all that much but i'll vote for her over giuliani any day.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Why? Why not let that $500 be used for something good instead?
As I stated earlier, Napoleon once said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Lobbyists in DC avoid Paul, obviously they are a little smarter than this idiot.
Because that's just me. That's my principals I live by and honestly, I've had no problems living this way. They could take their money and support to someone, anyone else whom would welcome it but I, in no way would want my name associated with them in any way, shape, or form.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
That might mean something if you actually had a point, Drift3r.
And I wasn't arguing 2 wrong make a right above, but thanks.
What has happened is that you have missed the point all along, which is that Paul holds that political contributions are free speech. As such, his acceptance of a misguided contribution from someone whose views he is completely opposed to is entirely consistently with his political ideology. It's not "tainted money." He's just taken the money of some freak who tends to exercise his free speech rights in ways that some other people find questionable.
In the meantime, you're arguing that such speech is akin to criminal.
And I wasn't arguing 2 wrong make a right above, but thanks.
What has happened is that you have missed the point all along, which is that Paul holds that political contributions are free speech. As such, his acceptance of a misguided contribution from someone whose views he is completely opposed to is entirely consistently with his political ideology. It's not "tainted money." He's just taken the money of some freak who tends to exercise his free speech rights in ways that some other people find questionable.
In the meantime, you're arguing that such speech is akin to criminal.
I'm sure worse people have donated more money to Ron Paul, same for all the other candidates.
'Tis politics!
'Tis politics!
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Exactly, and Hiltler was ok cuz the US and the UK along with most of the rest of the world didn't like Jews much either.
What is wrong is wrong no matter who else does it.
Good for Ron Paul.
Strongly advocating Constitutional freedoms one day, and then discriminating against this guy for his personal beliefs the next would be extremely hypocritical.
Strongly advocating Constitutional freedoms one day, and then discriminating against this guy for his personal beliefs the next would be extremely hypocritical.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter