Ron Paul knowingly keeps campaign contribution given by a White Supremacist.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

If you are running on your own deeply held values you would. Then again if you have no values then I can see why.

If a person with ties to the communist party in China sends Paul money should he return it?

You don't see the difference between someone with ties to a foreign government and a US citizen? :roll:

So a US citizen with ties to a terrorist/hate group is okay in your book? What about a US citizen with ties to organize crime?

A "terrorist" group?

Shees, he's a white supremist. I may not know anything about him, but you make it sound like it's something illegal. You got anything to back that up?

If it's just you find his (free speech) positions distasteful, I'm not sure that's sufficient for the outrage. There are plenty of PACs/groups with distasteful positions donating to candidates and no one is complaining.

Where are other "race promoting groups" donations going? Who is the Black Caucas promoting? Who are the Black Panthers donating to? Where are Luis Farakhan's group's donations going? etc etc.

I guess it's only bad if it's white people promoting themselves, and OK for any other group.

Fern

No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
That rings totally true to me.

The lengths Ron Paul supporters go to to rationalize and justify whatever he does/says reminds me the diehard Bush supporters and frankly I find that dsturbing.

In this particular scenario their excuse is that the end justifies the means. Sounds familar, no?

I'm no rabid RP supporter - the guy's got some common sense ideas, but doesn't have a snowball's chance - but his response to that Cavuto jackass was pretty much spot on.

You get millions upon millions of dollars from tens of thousands of supporters, and you actually expect him to research and evaluate the political and idealogical beliefs behind each and every dollar bill? And once he discovers them, he's expected to carefully weigh their entire belief system against every one of his campaign platform issues, and if any don't match 100%, then he should refuse and refund their donations?

Riggghhhtt!! So your claim is your not for Ron Paul, your just rabid?

So, you're saying, what?

Yes? You think all candidates should conduct research and evaluation into the idealogical beliefs behind every cent they receive and determine whether or not to accept that money based on thier findings?

No? That would be silly and you guess you made a mistake in your blind bigotry towards a particular candidate?

Maybe? Perhaps you're just a bit lost?

Oh look, a stalker. Let's just get this over with. FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!! SHOVE IT UP YOU HOLE SIDEWAYS.

Now I feel better.

Ban.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

If you are running on your own deeply held values you would. Then again if you have no values then I can see why.

If a person with ties to the communist party in China sends Paul money should he return it?

You don't see the difference between someone with ties to a foreign government and a US citizen? :roll:

So a US citizen with ties to a terrorist/hate group is okay in your book? What about a US citizen with ties to organize crime?

A "terrorist" group?

Shees, he's a white supremist. I may not know anything about him, but you make it sound like it's something illegal. You got anything to back that up?

If it's just you find his (free speech) positions distasteful, I'm not sure that's sufficient for the outrage. There are plenty of PACs/groups with distasteful positions donating to candidates and no one is complaining.

Where are other "race promoting groups" donations going? Who is the Black Caucas promoting? Who are the Black Panthers donating to? Where are Luis Farakhan's group's donations going? etc etc.

I guess it's only bad if it's white people promoting themselves, and OK for any other group.

Fern

No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

Great. Then I'm sure that you would agree that any and all communist and socialist ideologies, speech, and groups should be banned too because they killed 100 million people last century and oppressed a billion more. Clearly that's a disorder that's harmful to others, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, anyone foolish enough to exercise free expression of such ideologies should be punished, no?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
That rings totally true to me.

The lengths Ron Paul supporters go to to rationalize and justify whatever he does/says reminds me the diehard Bush supporters and frankly I find that dsturbing.

In this particular scenario their excuse is that the end justifies the means. Sounds familar, no?

I'm no rabid RP supporter - the guy's got some common sense ideas, but doesn't have a snowball's chance - but his response to that Cavuto jackass was pretty much spot on.

You get millions upon millions of dollars from tens of thousands of supporters, and you actually expect him to research and evaluate the political and idealogical beliefs behind each and every dollar bill? And once he discovers them, he's expected to carefully weigh their entire belief system against every one of his campaign platform issues, and if any don't match 100%, then he should refuse and refund their donations?

Riggghhhtt!! So your claim is your not for Ron Paul, your just rabid?

So, you're saying, what?

Yes? You think all candidates should conduct research and evaluation into the idealogical beliefs behind every cent they receive and determine whether or not to accept that money based on thier findings?

No? That would be silly and you guess you made a mistake in your blind bigotry towards a particular candidate?

Maybe? Perhaps you're just a bit lost?

Oh look, a stalker. Let's just get this over with. FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!! SHOVE IT UP YOU HOLE SIDEWAYS.

Now I feel better.

Uh.. alrighty then.

 

[cKGunslinger]

DP

 

[HeXploiT]

In may of this year Mary Ann Akers of the Washington Post asked Ron Paul who he'd like to have as a vice president. Paul responded, "Somebody like
Walter Williams . Walter Williams is a very good economist".

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...aul_on_babies_pro.html

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

If you are running on your own deeply held values you would. Then again if you have no values then I can see why.

If a person with ties to the communist party in China sends Paul money should he return it?

You don't see the difference between someone with ties to a foreign government and a US citizen? :roll:

So a US citizen with ties to a terrorist/hate group is okay in your book? What about a US citizen with ties to organize crime?

A "terrorist" group?

Shees, he's a white supremist. I may not know anything about him, but you make it sound like it's something illegal. You got anything to back that up?

If it's just you find his (free speech) positions distasteful, I'm not sure that's sufficient for the outrage. There are plenty of PACs/groups with distasteful positions donating to candidates and no one is complaining.

Where are other "race promoting groups" donations going? Who is the Black Caucas promoting? Who are the Black Panthers donating to? Where are Luis Farakhan's group's donations going? etc etc.

I guess it's only bad if it's white people promoting themselves, and OK for any other group.

Fern

No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

Great. Then I'm sure that you would agree that any and all communist and socialist ideologies, speech, and groups should be banned too because they killed 100 million people last century and oppressed a billion more. Clearly that's a disorder that's harmful to others, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, anyone foolish enough to exercise free expression of such ideologies should be punished, no?

Has the communist or socialist movements as a whole advocated violence toward people in this country based on their religious, ethnic or racial identity as one of their core beliefs? Come on you can do better then comparing apples and oranges.

 

[YoungGun21]

I'll take money from anybody.

PM me if you want to give contributions to my 2040 Presidential compaign.

Who cares who gave him money?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
I'll take money from anybody.

PM me if you want to give contributions to my 2040 Presidential compaign.

Who cares who gave him money?

Partisan hacks.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Partisan hacks.

Yeah, because no one should be concerned with dirty money in politics. :roll:

The right thing for Paul to do here was return the contribution and move on. $500? Was it really worth the bad PR for a lousy $500?

I'm not suggesting that campaigns can possibly vet every single donation at the time, but when it comes to light, they ought to do the right thing.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Partisan hacks.

Yeah, because no one should be concerned with dirty money in politics. :roll:

The right thing for Paul to do here was return the contribution and move on. $500? Was it really worth the bad PR for a lousy $500?

I'm not suggesting that campaigns can possibly vet every single donation at the time, but when it comes to light, they ought to do the right thing.

You should watch that video that was posted, RP gave a perfectly good explanation as to why he didn't give the money back. This is a stupid and petty argument.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Partisan hacks.

Yeah, because no one should be concerned with dirty money in politics. :roll:

The right thing for Paul to do here was return the contribution and move on. $500? Was it really worth the bad PR for a lousy $500?

I'm not suggesting that campaigns can possibly vet every single donation at the time, but when it comes to light, they ought to do the right thing.

You should watch that video that was posted, RP gave a perfectly good explanation as to why he didn't give the money back. This is a stupid and petty argument.

Sadly, I think someone would still have to explain it to him.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Partisan hacks.

Yeah, because no one should be concerned with dirty money in politics. :roll:

The right thing for Paul to do here was return the contribution and move on. $500? Was it really worth the bad PR for a lousy $500?

I'm not suggesting that campaigns can possibly vet every single donation at the time, but when it comes to light, they ought to do the right thing.

"The right thing" being ignoring well-reasoned common sense and replacing it with useless pandering to illogical twits?

 

[bbdub333]

It's my understanding that RP has wide support from all types of white supremacist groups. I recall hearing that a vast number of prominent hate-group leaders publicly support his campaign. Why is this the case? Anybody care to shed some light?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bbdub333
It's my understanding that RP has wide support from all types of white supremacist groups. I recall hearing that a vast number of prominent hate-group leaders publicly support his campaign. Why is this the case? Anybody care to shed some light?

It's my understanding that Islamic radicals and militant black hate groups support the Democrats in their run for the white house. Why is this the case? Anybody care to shed some light?

 

[spittledip]

This man was voting with his money. He wants Ron Paul to win just like anyone else that donated money to Ron Paul, so he donated his money. If RP has to give his money back, maybe he should also just subtract one vote come election time to be consistent

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: bbdub333
It's my understanding that RP has wide support from all types of white supremacist groups. I recall hearing that a vast number of prominent hate-group leaders publicly support his campaign. Why is this the case? Anybody care to shed some light?

Wow, where did you hear that, 'little green footballs'?

The only thing you need to know is that the man cannot be bought. Schrillary and Ghouliani, on the other hand, another story. So whereas Schrill and Ghoul will sell you out for special interest donators' whims, Ron Paul will not repay this racist in kind for his contribution -- nor any other collectivist mentality or group.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

If you are running on your own deeply held values you would. Then again if you have no values then I can see why.

If a person with ties to the communist party in China sends Paul money should he return it?

You don't see the difference between someone with ties to a foreign government and a US citizen? :roll:

So a US citizen with ties to a terrorist/hate group is okay in your book? What about a US citizen with ties to organize crime?

A "terrorist" group?

Shees, he's a white supremist. I may not know anything about him, but you make it sound like it's something illegal. You got anything to back that up?

If it's just you find his (free speech) positions distasteful, I'm not sure that's sufficient for the outrage. There are plenty of PACs/groups with distasteful positions donating to candidates and no one is complaining.

Where are other "race promoting groups" donations going? Who is the Black Caucas promoting? Who are the Black Panthers donating to? Where are Luis Farakhan's group's donations going? etc etc.

I guess it's only bad if it's white people promoting themselves, and OK for any other group.

Fern

No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

Why am I not surprised that Craig doesn't value free speech?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

If you are running on your own deeply held values you would. Then again if you have no values then I can see why.

If a person with ties to the communist party in China sends Paul money should he return it?

You don't see the difference between someone with ties to a foreign government and a US citizen? :roll:

So a US citizen with ties to a terrorist/hate group is okay in your book? What about a US citizen with ties to organize crime?

A "terrorist" group?

Shees, he's a white supremist. I may not know anything about him, but you make it sound like it's something illegal. You got anything to back that up?

If it's just you find his (free speech) positions distasteful, I'm not sure that's sufficient for the outrage. There are plenty of PACs/groups with distasteful positions donating to candidates and no one is complaining.

Where are other "race promoting groups" donations going? Who is the Black Caucas promoting? Who are the Black Panthers donating to? Where are Luis Farakhan's group's donations going? etc etc.

I guess it's only bad if it's white people promoting themselves, and OK for any other group.

Fern

No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

Why am I not surprised that Craig doesn't value free speech?

Craig does value free speech. As long as he agrees with it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
If a White Supremacist sent me $500, I wouldn't give it back either.

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, Fern, people who have a better understanding of right and wrong recognize degrees of wrongness.

I'd find a 100 foot statue of Elvin on the White House lawn 'distasteful'.

I'd find a national fund for some sporting thing a waste of money I disagree with.

But White Supremacy is a movement which has a broad national consensus against it at this point. It's not viewed as a 'legitimate political orientation', but as a sort of disorder that's harmful to others, that has a long history of oppressing groups in our nation that we want to stand against just as Germany has special laws against Nazi symbols.

So no, this isn't just opposing something 'distasteful', it's opposing something there is a broad and passionate moral opposition to.

You oppose something by, in essence, giving them money?

$500 in white supremacist hands or $500 in libertarian hands.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
LOL
While I don't favor Ron Paul, this looks like someone just looking for some dirt.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I don`t think its wrong of anyone to question where Ron Paul`s campaign contributions come from. That should be an accepted part of America.

However, questioning campaign contribution sources should be applied equally to all candidates.

Ron Paul`s campaign gave a reasonable explanation of why they are keeping the money. And quite frankly, if $500 buys influence, I`ll pay $1000 to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom.

 

[Siddhartha]

Accepting money from a white supremacist establishes a relationship between Paul and the white supremacists. If Paul were a front runner, we would see cartoons depicting him taking cash at a KKK rally.

Personally I would not want my campaign to be associated with white supremacists. I would not want to have to spend time talking about it.

Appartently being associated with white supremacist is not an issue with his supporters, at least the ones in this thread,

But I bet if Paul comes in 2nd or 3rd in NH this will be a national issue.

 

[Craig234]

My take:

It sets a precedent of all contributions being 'ok', insofar as the candidate can use the 'why let THAT nasty person have the money back' line for unattractive donors. But, the line seems to be drawn whether the candidate can credibly claim to be an opponent of the donor - whether the donation will hurt him politically.

If Ron Paul can get away with that line, because people think he's against the donor, he can do it. If it were a donation to Trent Lott or Allen of Virginia, it might be different. So, he squeaked by, and even got some bonus points for not just doing the normal thing of returning the donation, looking like an independent person.

There still might be a taint to it at some point though - it raises the issue why a white supremacist who Paul says he disagrees with finds him the candidate he likes. The safer bet was returning the money.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Craig234
My take:

It sets a precedent of all contributions being 'ok', insofar as the candidate can use the 'why let THAT nasty person have the money back' line for unattractive donors. But, the line seems to be drawn whether the candidate can credibly claim to be an opponent of the donor - whether the donation will hurt him politically.

If Ron Paul can get away with that line, because people think he's against the donor, he can do it. If it were a donation to Trent Lott or Allen of Virginia, it might be different. So, he squeaked by, and even got some bonus points for not just doing the normal thing of returning the donation, looking like an independent person.

There still might be a taint to it at some point though - it raises the issue why a white supremacist who Paul says he disagrees with finds him the candidate he likes. The safer bet was returning the money.

I think a white supremacist would want someone like ron Paul in the White House b/c Ron Paul is for states having more power to govern themselves rather than the Federal Govt having such a great say in how states are run. Plus freedom of speech issues, etc.