Paul keeps white supremacist donation

[shawmutt]

Quote by: GHook RP liberal hyprocrits

Libertarian, you mean. Please don't insult liberals by confusing them with libertarians.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Odd how what's "intellectually honest" for one would be "political payoffs" for the other. As Decider said, had this been Hillary, you guys would be screaming bloody murder about corruption. Nah... YOU would say he's a racist.

I was actually engaging in some moral relativism, so I thought you would appreciate that aspect of it as well.


For the record, I didn't attempt to "justify" his actions, I just compared them to his oppositions actions in a similar circumstance, and then I weighed the results, and offered an opinion.


I like Pauls handling of the situation better.


As for the racist remark, I really don't know. But given the choice between a potential racist, the theocracy candidates, the Bush Jr's, or a died in the wool commie, I'll stick with the potential rascist. At least some rascists have shown they are capable of reform.

[Compugasm]

I'm not following all this too closely, but Ron Paul has raised multi-millions from what I've heard. So accepting just $500 out of those millions makes him a racist? Is every donator supposed to be investigated, and their whole life and moral character boiled down to a buzzword? I mean, millions of dollars, and no whore contributed to his campaign? No ex-cons, no tax dodgers, no pedophiles...

What is truly amazing, is Ron Paul has seemingly found the only person out of all the candidates, and all the money raised, where the donators money is not welcomed. That's an amazing find. I wonder if the stores where Mr Black shops accepts money from a racist?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Compugasm So accepting just $500 out of those millions makes him a racist?

No, some of Paul's own statements make him appear racist. His supercilious response to this incident makes him appear indifferent to concerns about racism, and his supporters blind support of his indifference makes them appear hypocritical in light of the scathing criticism of other candidates for who they've received donations from.

Come to think of it, the other candidates have been ripped for accepting campaign funds period, since all of it is presumed to be quid pro quo for any and all foreign and domestic special interest going. Yet, Paul starts taking in millions, it's Hooray, hooray and no questions asked. Why is that?

Quote by: Compugasm What is truly amazing, is Ron Paul has seemingly found the only person out of all the candidates, and all the money raised, where the donators money is not welcomed. That's an amazing find. I wonder if the stores where Mr Black shops accepts money from a racist?

You're right... you haven't been following too closely. I provided a linked example not 3 posts back, and that's just the most recent.

Romney Fundraising Scandal Ignored By Liberal Media - Clinton Gets Hammered Over Hsu

.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Sonart No, some of Paul's own statements make him appear racist. His supercilious response to this incident makes him appear indifferent to concerns about racism, and his supporters blind support of his indifference makes them appear hypocritical in light of the scathing criticism of other candidates for who they've received donations from.

Actually, you are 100% wrong here. He had a great response to this incident. Instead of cowering away, hoping people would forgive him for accepting the donation in the first place, he thwarted racism completely by telling it like it is.

Quote by: Sonart Come to think of it, the other candidates have been ripped for accepting campaign funds period, since all of it is presumed to be quid pro quo for any and all foreign and domestic special interest going. Yet, Paul starts taking in millions, it's Hooray, hooray and no questions asked. Why is that?

Because Ron Paul is an actual honest, great candidate compared to everyone else. Almost all candidates have been through this at one point in time, and it's clear that some of the donations kept by other candidates are known racist, such as the black panthers supporting Obama, or even women feminists supporting Clinton. How is this different?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley At least he is intellectually honest enough to say, hey, I'm keeping your money, instead of donating it to a charity to sway public opinion like Hillary. If you ask me, Hillarys handling of that suspect contribution she recieved was far more egregious than Dr' Puals cadid response.

This is hilarious. Had Hillary kept Hsu's donations because it's, as Ron Paul's aide put it, "less that this guy has to do whatever it is. that he does," you and the other Paulistas would not have praised her "intellectual honesty."

Paul took this racist money, kept this racist money, and will be reminded of this racist money for as long as he remains a presidential candidate. But I doubt this will hurt him much in the one state where he's generated some poll movement: South Carolina. No, I'm confident a racist donation won't hurt the good doctor there.

But take heart, Paulistas. Most Republicans are focused on Mike Huckabee's anti-Mormon comments and not Paul's small but vocal racist cheerleaders. If Paul ever approaches the success Huckabee has had (with much less money I should add!), then Paul's tiny cadre of racist admirers like this particular donor will receive the national attention they so crave. We'll see how long it takes for Paul himself to publicly diss these folks. I'm guessing not long should that day ever come.

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: Chancellor The difference, of course, is that the Clintons have a long history of questionable involvement with the Chinese and being a white supremacist is not a crime (nor should it be: it's not the role of government in America to legislate against what people think and believe).

Ah, but being a 'white supremist", constitutes being a pariah.
This is simply a case of "do as I say, not as I do"...
Hilary's feet were being held to the fire, when her contribution became public knowledge...as Ron Paul's are now...hell, folks are human, and continue to make mistakes...that is a given.
The question is what mistake attributed to whom.

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: The Decider This is hilarious. Had Hillary kept Hsu's donations because it's, as Ron Paul's aide put it, "less that this guy has to do whatever it is. that he does," you and the other Paulistas would not have praised her "intellectual honesty." Paul took this racist money, kept this racist money, and will be reminded of this racist money for as long as he remains a presidential candidate. But I doubt this will hurt him much in the one state where he's generated some poll movement: South Carolina. No, I'm confident a racist donation won't hurt the good doctor there. But take heart, Paulistas. Most Republicans are focused on Mike Huckabee's anti-Mormon comments and not Paul's small but vocal racist cheerleaders. If Paul ever approaches the success Huckabee has had (with much less money I should add!), then Paul's tiny cadre of racist admirers like this particular donor will receive the national attention they so crave. We'll see how long it takes for Paul himself to publicly diss these folks. I'm guessing not long should that day ever come.

Well-said!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . No, some of Paul's own statements make him appear racist. His supercilious response to this incident makes him appear indifferent to concerns about racism, and his supporters blind support of his indifference makes them appear hypocritical in light of the scathing criticism of other candidates for who they've received donations from.

Why shouldn't he be indifferent? It's all a bunch of nonsense, liberal political correctness crap anyway! There is only one race: the human race. Rights are for individuals, not for groups. We have rights as individuals and not as members of this or that group.

Come to think of it, the other candidates have been ripped for accepting campaign funds period, since all of it is presumed to be quid pro quo for any and all foreign and domestic special interest going. Yet, Paul starts taking in millions, it's Hooray, hooray and no questions asked. Why is that?

Well, in Hillary's case it's because she and Slick Willie have a long history of questionable, possibly traitorous ties to Chinese nationals - and Hillary accepting campaign donations from an ex-con who also has questionable ties to Chinese nationals is cause for concern. As for any one else, I don't care who donates to their campaign as long as there isn't any quid pro quo in return.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: aaronssongs Ah, but being a 'white supremist", constitutes being a pariah.

Only in the minds of the politically correct thought police.

This is simply a case of "do as I say, not as I do"...

Nonsense.

Hilary's feet were being held to the fire, when her contribution became public knowledge...as Ron Paul's are now...hell, folks are human, and continue to make mistakes...that is a given. The question is what mistake attributed to whom.

There's a big difference between Hillary's questionable, and possibly traitorous, connections to Chinese nationals (which is further represented by the donation from an ex-con who also has questionable connections to Chinese nationals) and Ron Paul accepting a campaign contribution from some American idiot who thinks whites are superior to everyone else (such superiority, of course, being the prevailing view in both America and Europe even going into the 20th century).

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chancellor There is only one race: the human race.

Not according to Ron Paul, Chancellor. No, according to him, black males are differemt, and particularly inclined towards criminality. Nor do blacks in general have the sense to make good political decisions.

Quote by: Chancellor Well, in Hillary's case it's because she and Slick Willie have a long history of questionable, possibly traitorous ties to Chinese nationals

No, what Bill and Hillary have is a long history of being targeted by conservative scandal mongering and lies, which never led anywhere... except with Monicagate. Not any different than the shameless campaigns of lies against Al Gore and the swift-boating of John Kerry.

It's what naturally intolerant conservatives do... campaigns of personal destruction.

Quote by: Chancellor Only in the minds of the politically correct thought police.

Oh really!? So being a white supremist is ok in your book? Just another political point of view?

.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . Not according to Ron Paul, Chancellor.

So what?

No, according to him, black males are differemt, and particularly inclined towards criminality.

Since a significant number of black males tend to engage in criminal behavior, one could reasonably come to that conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion but it is one that can be drawn based on simple observation of black males.

Nor do blacks in general have the sense to make good political decisions.

As long as they keep voting for Democrats and Republicans and as long as they keep listening to idiots like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, then one could reasonably conclude that they don't have the sense to make good political decisions.

No, what Bill and Hillary have is a long history of being targeted by conservative scandal mongering and lies, which never led anywhere... except with Monicagate. Not any different than the shameless campaigns of lies against Al Gore and the swift-boating of John Kerry.

Ah, yes, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." If you say so, Hillary.

It's what naturally intolerant conservatives do... campaigns of personal destruction.

Oh, and Democrats engaging in personal attacks against Republicans are perfectly acceptable?

Oh really!? So being a white supremist is ok in your book? Just another political point of view?

Just like being a Democrat or a liberal is just another point of view. I might find all three vile and contemptuous but they are nothing more than points of view and people are entitled to hold such views. One of the messy things about our constitutional republic is recognizing that people whose views you find utterly vile, contemptuous, etc. have just as much right to their views (and to the expression of those views) as you have to yours.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chancellor As long as they keep voting for Democrats and Republicans and as long as they keep listening to idiots like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, then one could reasonably conclude that they don't have the sense to make good political decisions.

They have moved on to the more * cough reputable cough * opinions of Paul Begala, and Donna Brazile.


They're wise to tha fact that Al, and Jesse's help didn't get them very far.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chancellor Ah, yes, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." If you say so, Hillary.

It's actually quite well documented, Chancellor. For instance, look up, the 'Arkansas Project'. David Brock, the self-admitted hitman against the Clintons, wrote a book about it, 'Blinded by the Right'.



--'While working for the American Spectator, (Brock) wrote an article on Anita Hill, which he later expanded into The Real Anita Hill, a book that made him popular in the conservative movement. Brock found out later that many of the uncorroborated details he used were false.

After Bill Clinton came to power, Brock was assigned to write a story, later dubbed Troopergate, about four Arkansas state troopers who held a grudge against Bill Clinton. The troopers made up stories about affairs that could never be corroborated. Brock was given assurances that the troopers would not get paid for telling their stories. He later discovered he was deceived and the troopers were paid by Richard Mellon Scaife, who bankrolled The American Spectator and the Arkansas Project, a secret project to discredit Clinton."--

Quote by: Chancellor I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion but it is one that can be drawn based on simple observation of black males.

Really? 95% of them? We're talking about a member of the U.S. Senate who wants to be U.S. President, Chancellor, not some blue-collar drinking buddy who can be forgiven a few racist stereotypes.

Quote by: kubedawg Actually, you are 100% wrong here. He had a great response to this incident. Instead of cowering away, hoping people would forgive him for accepting the donation in the first place, he thwarted racism completely by telling it like it is.

Is that what you call racist stereotyping? Telling it like it is?

Quote by: kubedawg or even women feminists supporting Clinton. How is this different?

LOLOL!! Omigawd, not FEMINISTS!!! The women version at that!!

Quote by: Milton Bradley As for the racist remark, I really don't know. But given the choice between a potential racist, the theocracy candidates, the Bush Jr's, or a died in the wool commie, I'll stick with the potential rascist. At least some rascists have shown they are capable of reform.

Ok, so... where are we?

His own loyal supporters can't tell if he's a racist or not. He's clearly on record for eliminating the separation of Church and State. And he doesn't believe global warming is actually happening and definitely doesn't want America to do anything about it.... except to eliminate the EPA.

Hmmmm, let me think.... nah, I don't think I'll be voting for Ron Paul.

.

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: Chancellor Only in the minds of the politically correct thought police. Please! You don't see anyone going after "white supremists", the way they went after the Black Panthers...Politically correct for whom? Nonsense. How is it nonsense? Those in power always hold the trump cards, and in doing so, get away with "murder"....but are quick to make sure no one else does. That's George Bush and Co., all day long. To say otherwise would be hypocritical, in the extreme. There's a big difference between Hillary's questionable, and possibly traitorous, connections to Chinese nationals (which is further represented by the donation from an ex-con who also has questionable connections to Chinese nationals) and Ron Paul accepting a campaign contribution from some American idiot who thinks whites are superior to everyone else (such superiority, of course, being the prevailing view in both America and Europe even going into the 20th century).

Please!... a crook is a crook is a crook. Birds of a feather.
I view 99.8 % of all politicians "corrupt" and on the take...so what's the deal? Hilary gave back the money, quick, fast and in a hurry,( lest she be "tar and feathered", which she was "anyway")....Ron Paul, if he becomes "the spoiler" ( and that is unclear, as of yet), will, undoubtedly, do the same...it's a big racket, is all....P.J. O'Rourke accurately labeled Congress, the Parliament of whores..

[G. Adams]

Why would anyone with those views associate themselves with someone who they wanted to win the presidency? They know fine well that it would hurt his chances. There is no sensible reason for this donation and then announcing it to a reporter unless your goal is to smear him.

If I was a reporter I would now be looking into Black, his organisation and find out where his funding is coming from.

[Milton Bradley]

This should help put to rest mony of the racist claims flying around about Ron Paul.

YouTube - CNN asks Ron Paul about racist writings he didn't author

I found it difficult being in a position where I couldn't really defend the guy from these allegations. I admit, these claims took me by surprise.


I think he nailed it in his response, that libertarian principals don't really lend themselves to racist ideas. It's kind of hard to be a racist when you're in a constant struggle to defend the rights of all individuals, without distinction.


An even larger point that he missed, is that as he defends the individual, he asks that you help by defending yourself, and joining him in the great struggle.


Arm yourself for the future conflict with information, the best weapon.

[Compugasm]

Seems like a smoke screen if you ask me. They do the same thing with bugging Huckabee about mormonism which is pretty unfair.

[lsbskins1]

I think if you advocated dismantling the Fed, abolishing the EPA and taxes, most "libertarians" on this board would be ok with you drowning kittens in a bucket, pumping lead paint into Happy Meals and shooting your next door neighbor cause he walked on your property without permission. What a crowd.

[Sonart]

.

Amazing isn't it, that Paul let all those newsletters go out under his name without ever commenting on them or denying them at the time! Yet NOW, 'gosh, I never wrote that'.

And Milton, who has no qualms calling anyone and everyone a liar, simply accepts his denial on face value. Ain't that sweet.

The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008 -- "In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it."

"But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views." --

"To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books."

"...but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole."

"Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage."

Quote by: Milton I think he nailed it in his response, that libertarian principals don't really lend themselves to racist ideas.

Sure they do, Milton, if that particular libertarian thinks welfare-loving blacks are the original government-suckling anti-libertarians.

"According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."


.