Ron Paul to keep white supremisist money

[cheewiee]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59 294

So what do all of you Ron Paul fans have to say about this?

I dunno, I sometimes find myself sort of torn... Ron Paul isn't a bad guy just because a former KKK grand wizard wants to give him money... but isn't that money sort of tanted based on who it comes from???

[WeaselInYerFoot]

He gave Fox News a good response here (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8).

He basically says that it's impossible to screen every single donor (over 100,000 donors) and chances are that he already spent that man's money, and it would be unfair to use someone else's donated money to pay him back.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Best quote in that interview from Paul:

"I believe in warm fuzzy things like freedom"

By the way, RP compaign did make a commercial for the holidays (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPCWGtIupE). Shows how much effort Fox News puts in to doing a simple YouTube search.

[Valpo]

Guy's gonna take a big hit for this. May see him slow down some. Absolutely inexcusable in the "name of freedom" to be accepting money from a white supremacist, I'm sorry. Now if he honestly had no clue about it until after the point, then gotta deal with that I suppose. But whether he knew or not, I could see him taking a hit for this. Never looks good to have the support of the KKK.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

How does a person screen and monitor each donor? That's impossible.

[Jason]

How does a person screen and monitor each donor? That's impossible.

What? There's not a field that says: "KKK Member? ___Yes? ___No?"? ;)

[kiwisongbird]

Pretty wimpy of him to say that he can't give someone else's money back to the KKK guy... I'm sure he could spare some of the millions he's been given to pay this guy off rather than keeping filthy money... guess it'll show how serious he is about being popular...

[mat1583]

I like this reply to the whole situation:

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

"[...]that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. (In response to a $500 donation Don Black made to RP).

-------------

Would you all take a donation from an Atheist to go towards a fund raiser for a mission trip at your church?

-washboard

[sandyandporter]

I like this reply to the whole situation:

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

"[...]that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. (In response to a $500 donation Don Black made to RP).

-------------

Would you all take a donation from an Atheist to go towards a fund raiser for a mission trip at your church?

-washboard

Very good point.

[Valpo]

I like this reply to the whole situation:

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

"[...]that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. (In response to a $500 donation Don Black made to RP).

-------------

Would you all take a donation from an Atheist to go towards a fund raiser for a mission trip at your church?

-washboard


Why bother with hypothetical situations that would not happen? What atheist would give to a church?

I saw that response by the member of his campaign, but I'm still saying he'll get flack for this, I just have a feeling that's the way it is

[VerbumReale]

I like this reply to the whole situation:

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

"[...]that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. (In response to a $500 donation Don Black made to RP).

-------------

Would you all take a donation from an Atheist to go towards a fund raiser for a mission trip at your church?

-washboard

Sugarcoating at it's finest, or worst, depending on how you see it.

spin, spin, spin

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Why bother with hypothetical situations that would not happen? What atheist would give to a church?


It has happened (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aIoCqO3AaMm0&refer=home)

Not missions, but it was to keep inner-city kids in Catholic schools ($22.5 Million).

Granted, Ron Paul's decision is politically incorrect. But he's never really cared about being PC in the first place.



I saw that response by the member of his campaign, but I'm still saying he'll get flack for this, I just have a feeling that's the way it is

He already has, it was in the front page of Yahoo. But I doubt he'll budge, and rightly so. If I donated 500 dollars to him, I wouldn't want him say "Thanks for the money Tom, I'm going to go on ahead give this to Mr. White Power Moron here and let him use it for whatever he does".

[cheewiee]

I like this reply to the whole situation:

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

"[...]that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. (In response to a $500 donation Don Black made to RP).

-------------

Would you all take a donation from an Atheist to go towards a fund raiser for a mission trip at your church?

-washboard

I would have liked to have seen that reply. I think it's bold to say, were keeping his money, because this guy as small minded as he is has the right to give it.

[mat1583]

Why bother with hypothetical situations that would not happen? What atheist would give to a church?

Hypothetical?

I had to raise $3000 this past year so I could go on a mission trip to Africa to help orphaned children. I received donations from at least a couple of people I am completely sure were not Christians, including one Buddhist (no kidding, his son is one of my roommates) that sent me $500 and another non-believer that donated $20. They may not have been atheists, but they were supporting me because I was giving humanitarian aid to children who needed it. It wasn't a matter of religion to those people, but a matter of helping someone who is in need.

It's very narrow-minded to think that just because someone is atheist they do not support any kind of humanitarian aid or community service just because it is sponsored by some church or has other goals besides just the aid.


-washboard

[mat1583]

Sugarcoating at it's finest, or worst, depending on how you see it.

spin, spin, spin

Do you think that every single candidate should screen every single donor before they accept a donation? What determines who you should accept donations from? There is bound to be some pro-choice people that support Ron Paul, but I don't see anyone crying out that he shouldn't accept their donations since he is pro-life. I think killing babies is just as horrible as what a white supremacist advocates.

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

I have mixed feelings. I would not support an organization that openly discriminates. Every year, we have a food drive run by the Boy Scouts. I do not support the Boy Scouts because they discriminate. While I believe they have a right to discriminate; I also believe they should be classified as a private (as opposed to public) organization. I have questioned management at work. If the KKK came to management and offered to sponsor a food drive, would management accept?

To washboard: you said you were given money by an athiest and by a Buddhist for a humanitarian trip to Africa. If this situation were reverse and these individuals came to you and asked you for money to sponsor a humanitarian trip, would you give? There's no right or wrong answer, I'm just curious.

[mat1583]

To washboard: you said you were given money by an athiest and by a Buddhist for a humanitarian trip to Africa. If this situation were reverse and these individuals came to you and asked you for money to sponsor a humanitarian trip, would you give? There's no right or wrong answer, I'm just curious.

Of course. I support the American Cancer Society by participating in their events such as Relay for Life, and I also give blood when I can. When I give blood, it could go to a Chrisitan, and Atheist, or even a convicted felon. As long as it goes to help someone, I don't care if their an atheist.

-washboard

[Valpo]

Hypothetical?

I had to raise $3000 this past year so I could go on a mission trip to Africa to help orphaned children. I received donations from at least a couple of people I am completely sure were not Christians, including one Buddhist (no kidding, his son is one of my roommates) that sent me $500 and another non-believer that donated $20. They may not have been atheists, but they were supporting me because I was giving humanitarian aid to children who needed it. It wasn't a matter of religion to those people, but a matter of helping someone who is in need.

It's very narrow-minded to think that just because someone is atheist they do not support any kind of humanitarian aid or community service just because it is sponsored by some church or has other goals besides just the aid.


-washboard

And yet you are a Christian, a believer of God, who gave and fundraised for these impoverished children. I never said that being an atheist automatically means they are not humanitarian, in fact a good lot of atheists are. But they would not give to a Christian church, they would go through secular means in order to help out. That was my point.

[mat1583]

But they would not give to a Christian church, they would go through secular means in order to help out. That was my point.

Did you not see Weasel's example?

excerpt:

May 23 (Bloomberg) -- Philanthropist and retired hedge-fund manager Robert W. Wilson said he is giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools.

Wilson, 80, said in a phone interview today that although he is an atheist, he has no problem donating money to a fund linked to Catholic schools.

``Let's face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization,'' Wilson said. ``Shunning religious organizations would be abhorrent. Keep in mind, I'm helping to pay tuition. The money isn't going directly to the schools.''

--------

And I also made it clear to every donor that my primary purpose for the mission trip was not humanitarian aid, but to witness about the love of Christ and share the word of God with them. When they wrote the check for the donation, it was made out to the Church, not me.

-washboard

[danbos]

Why bother with hypothetical situations that would not happen? What atheist would give to a church?

I don't think that's hypothetical at all. A year and a half ago I went on a mission trip to Romania, and we had an auction to raise money for it. We asked local businesses for donations for this auction, and got a lot of them. I pretty highly doubt that every one of those owners were Christians, and we didn't ask either.

[mat1583]

Ron Paul addresses this very topic while being interviewed by Neil Cavuto. RP completely owns Cavuto and makes Fox news look like a fool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8

This is probably one of the best videos of RP I've seen in a long time. I think it'll answer everyone's questions.

-washboard

[Valpo]

Well first of all let's just settle the dust here and admit that you Washboard, and Weasel think Representative Paul can do absolutely no wrong. So had he been receiving checks from Nazi's you would defend it in the name of freedom. And even in the instance you cite of the 80 year old man giving to the Catholic Church, he makes a point of saying it does NOT go directly to the schools but to help offset the cost of tuition. And he does it in the name of western civilization, NOT Jesus Christ or some love of the church. Paul should not have accepted the donation, this guy is a prominent white supremacist, he isn't Joe Schmo, white supremacist. He is a well known white supremacist and this would have been recognized by someone upon receiving the check. Although white supremacists are not the only controversial groups giving money to the Paul campaign, we know many of his supporters are part of the 9/11 truth movement, our own backpacker and E among them. In addition to that he receives campaign donations from pimps and whores. Because "in the name of freedom", these abhorrent lifestyles and behaviors are protected. No candidate is perfect, to make excuse after excuse for accepting an inexcusable donation, and accepting other inexcusable donations do nothing, and if this news even gets out there it will hurt Ron Paul, especially with independent black voters who are deciding whether to go with him or another candidate, probably a Democrat. It is okay to admit Mr. Paul made a mistake, I promise, you can still support him even in light of that.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/ron_pauls_moonlite_bunny_ suppo.html

[HotWireD]

He gave Fox News a good response here (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8).

He basically says that it's impossible to screen every single donor (over 100,000 donors) and chances are that he already spent that man's money, and it would be unfair to use someone else's donated money to pay him back.

I agree that he can not screen every donor - the salary for a team of people to check the backgrounds of all the people would be exorbitant - and also quite possibly impossible to do due to data protection and privacy laws.

However, I think his excuse for not returning the money is invalid - I would imagine that the donations go into one fund, a 'pool' of money. Unless every donation is specifically targeted to a particular cause and recorded as such, he should be able to return the money. He would be returning that persons money from the 'pool' where it has been sitting since donation - unless of course he has no money left in the account, which I doubt.

The only downside from returning the money would be sending a message to the people like the donor that their money and supoport is not wanted.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Well first of all let's just settle the dust here and admit that you Washboard, and Weasel think Representative Paul can do absolutely no wrong. So had he been receiving checks from Nazi's you would defend it in the name of freedom. And even in the instance you cite of the 80 year old man giving to the Catholic Church, he makes a point of saying it does NOT go directly to the schools but to help offset the cost of tuition. And he does it in the name of western civilization, NOT Jesus Christ or some love of the church. Paul should not have accepted the donation, this guy is a prominent white supremacist, he isn't Joe Schmo, white supremacist. He is a well known white supremacist and this would have been recognized by someone upon receiving the check. Although white supremacists are not the only controversial groups giving money to the Paul campaign, we know many of his supporters are part of the 9/11 truth movement, our own backpacker and E among them. In addition to that he receives campaign donations from pimps and whores. Because "in the name of freedom", these abhorrent lifestyles and behaviors are protected. No candidate is perfect, to make excuse after excuse for accepting an inexcusable donation, and accepting other inexcusable donations do nothing, and if this news even gets out there it will hurt Ron Paul, especially with independent black voters who are deciding whether to go with him or another candidate, probably a Democrat. It is okay to admit Mr. Paul made a mistake, I promise, you can still support him even in light of that.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/ron_pauls_moonlite_bunny_ suppo.html

Sure, Ron Paul isn't perfect. But when you resort to attacking his supporters instead of him, then he's pretty decent by political standards.

If you're going to criticize someone because of the supporters who like him, then lets start with Jesus. Fred Phelps, The crusades, the Inquisition, the pedophiles in priesthood, Saxon wars, the which hunts, the Reconquista, The 30 years war against the roman empire or French wars of Religion. The list is huge but I'll leave it at that. I'm not saying that RP is some kind of Jesus, far from it. But your attempts to make him look bad because of his supporters is similar to how atheists try to make Jesus look bad because of the previously listed actions.

The guy has a wide range of supporters, old and young, Christians and atheists, republicans and democrats, heck, even some anarchists. There's a variety of people who are simply fed up with the present system. There's bound to be some crazies, and I guarantee you that he's not the only one who has them.

If I was campaigning for a good cause, and Black came up to me and gave me money WITHOUT any conditions, I'd take it. However, you got these other politicians who make themselves look pure with a politically correct image by turning down the few dollars in donations of some controversial crazy man, but then go and take thousands of dollars from lobbyists and oil companies and ACCEPT the conditions provided. Tell me exactly which one is wrong. Taking money from a moron? or taking money from a huge corporation and then doing their dirty jobs to make sure they stay on top.

[mat1583]

edited because Weasel's post is a much better reply than my own. Thanks, bud!

-washboard

[HotWireD]

Sure, Ron Paul isn't perfect. But when you resort to attacking his supporters instead of him, then he's pretty decent by political standards.

If you're going to criticize someone because of the supporters who like him, then lets start with Jesus. Fred Phelps, The crusades, the Inquisition, the pedophiles in priesthood, Saxon wars, the which hunts, the Reconquista, The 30 years war against the roman empire or French wars of Religion. The list is huge but I'll leave it at that. I'm not saying that RP is some kind of Jesus, far from it. But your attempts to make him look bad because of his supporters is similar to how atheists try to make Jesus look bad because of the previously listed actions.

The guy has a wide range of supporters, old and young, Christians and atheists, republicans and democrats, heck, even some anarchists. There's a variety of people who are simply fed up with the present system. There's bound to be some crazies, and I guarantee you that he's not the only one who has them.

If I was campaigning for a good cause, and Black came up to me and gave me money WITHOUT any conditions, I'd take it. However, you got these other politicians who make themselves look pure with a politically correct image by turning down the few dollars in donations of some controversial crazy man, but then go and take thousands of dollars from lobbyists and oil companies and ACCEPT the conditions provided. Tell me exactly which one is wrong. Taking money from a moron? or taking money from a huge corporation and then doing their dirty jobs to make sure they stay on top.

Good post. Particularly the last part.

[Sam!]

I have mixed feelings. I would not support an organization that openly discriminates. Every year, we have a food drive run by the Boy Scouts. I do not support the Boy Scouts because they discriminate. While I believe they have a right to discriminate; I also believe they should be classified as a private (as opposed to public) organization. I have questioned management at work. If the KKK came to management and offered to sponsor a food drive, would management accept?

To washboard: you said you were given money by an athiest and by a Buddhist for a humanitarian trip to Africa. If this situation were reverse and these individuals came to you and asked you for money to sponsor a humanitarian trip, would you give? There's no right or wrong answer, I'm just curious.
Accepting a campaign contribution from a (former?) KKK member does not constitute support. CONTRIBUTING money to the KKK would equate with support.

[sandyandporter]

Accepting a campaign contribution from a (former?) KKK member does not constitute support. CONTRIBUTING money to the KKK would equate with support.

Sam.... BRILLIANT! Sometimes someone says something so profound you just sit back in awe. Thanks!

[VerbumReale]

Do you think that every single candidate should screen every single donor before they accept a donation? What determines who you should accept donations from? There is bound to be some pro-choice people that support Ron Paul, but I don't see anyone crying out that he shouldn't accept their donations since he is pro-life. I think killing babies is just as horrible as what a white supremacist advocates.

-washboard

No that's not what I am saying. Of course among all of those donating to his campaign there is bound to be some less than reputable sources. And of course he's not going to be able to screen every donor.

But the less than reputable aspect of this donor was revealed. He didn't have to screen it, the information was given to him. He could have done the honorable thing and returned it and told the person that he has no interest in reveing support from racists.

But instead they spun some "What he intended for evil we will use for good." rationalization. They're not spinning why they didn't see this guy early on, they're spinning why they are keeping his money now that the revelation has come out.

They can rationalize it all they want but as long as he keeps that money then he loses a great deal of credibility and he should.

[mat1583]

No that's not what I am saying. Of course among all of those donating to his campaign there is bound to be some less than reputable sources. And of course he's not going to be able to screen every donor.

But the less than reputable aspect of this donor was revealed. He didn't have to screen it, the information was given to him. He could have done the honorable thing and returned it and told the person that he has no interest in reveing support from racists.

But instead they spun some "What he intended for evil we will use for good." rationalization. They're not spinning why they didn't see this guy early on, they're spinning why they are keeping his money now that the revelation has come out.

They can rationalize it all they want but as long as he keeps that money then he loses a great deal of credibility and he should.

See Weasel's post above. Would you rather Ron Paul give the money back so that Mr. Black can use the $500 to further his own cause - white supremacy?

-washboard

[Valpo]

See Weasel's post above. Would you rather Ron Paul give the money back so that the Black can use the $500 to further his own cause - white supremacy?

-washboard

(emphasis mine)

I see what you're saying...I think...but prob should correct this?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

(emphasis mine)

I see what you're saying...I think...but prob should correct this?

haha! Good catch.

[VerbumReale]

See Weasel's post above. Would you rather Ron Paul give the money back so that the Black can use the $500 to further his own cause - white supremacy?

-washboard

I think if Paul had refused the money and used that as an opportunity to make a bold stand against racism, that would have far outweighed anything that Black might have been able to do with $500 to further the cause of white supremacy.

[mat1583]

(emphasis mine)

I see what you're saying...I think...but prob should correct this?

heh, whoops! That was an honest mistake. Thanks!

I think if Paul had refused the money and used that as an opportunity to make a bold stand against racism, that would have far outweighed anything that Black might have been able to do with $500 to further the cause of white supremacy.

How is sending someone else's money back to a white supremacist, so he can use that to further his own goals, taking a bold stand against racism? That doesn't make any sense.

This is Ron Paul's official stance on racism:

"A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. "

-> www.ronpaul2008.com .

-washboard

[VerbumReale]

heh, whoops! That was an honest mistake. Thanks!



How is sending someone else's money back to a white supremacist, so he can use that to further his own goals, taking a bold stand against racism? That doesn't make any sense.

This is Ron Paul's official stance on racism:

"A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. "

-> www.ronpaul2008.com .

-washboard

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense to you. You are already sold on Ron Paul so whatever spin he puts on this you're inclined to buy it.

It's not just the giving the money back, it's the stand that such an action would take. Like I said you're sold on the guy so your gonna be inclined to believe whatever rationalization he offers.

On the other hand I am coming from the perspective of one who is undecided, but has been somewhat intrigued by a lot of the things Paul has said. Now when this happened it got my attention. I didn't instictively assume the worst, but waited to see how he would respond. When I heard the explanation for why they were keeping it, it just sounded like a cheap rationalization and quite honestly he lost credibility with me. I am not saying I've ruled him out as someone I would vote for but he has lost some credibility with me.

You said that combatting racism is about changing hearts, not making more laws. I agree and I never suggested that it was about making more laws. With that in mind, think about how all this might come across to Black himself. It's possible he could have heard the rationalization and it might have struck a chord. More likely I think he probably figured Paul was just spinning it the way he had to. In the end I don't think he really cares if Paul is a racist or not.

On the other hand, if Paul returns the money, the message to Black is undeniable, "We are so opposed to the ignorance and hatred that you stand for that we don't want your money." I think something like that is more likely to convict Black than Paul keeping the money.

My guess is that when Black heard Paul's cheap rationalization he probably started laughing.

[Pouye]

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense to you. You are already sold on Ron Paul so whatever spin he puts on this you're inclined to buy it.

It's not just the giving the money back, it's the stand that such an action would take. Like I said you're sold on the guy so your gonna be inclined to believe whatever rationalization he offers.

On the other hand I am coming from the perspective of one who is undecided, but has been somewhat intrigued by a lot of the things Paul has said. Now when this happened it got my attention. I didn't instictively assume the worst, but waited to see how he would respond. When I heard the explanation for why they were keeping it, it just sounded like a cheap rationalization and quite honestly he lost credibility with me. I am not saying I've ruled him out as someone I would vote for but he has lost some credibility with me.

You said that combatting racism is about changing hearts, not making more laws. I agree and I never suggested that it was about making more laws. With that in mind, think about how all this might come across to Black himself. It's possible he could have heard the rationalization and it might have struck a chord. More likely I think he probably figured Paul was just spinning it the way he had to. In the end I don't think he really cares if Paul is a racist or not.

On the other hand, if Paul returns the money, the message to Black is undeniable, "We are so opposed to the ignorance and hatred that you stand for that we don't want your money." I think something like that is more likely to convict Black than Paul keeping the money.

My guess is that when Black heard Paul's cheap rationalization he probably started laughing.

But what you are realizing is that this is a very typical way to dig up dirt on a candidate. It happens all of the time, and sometimes not by accident. In fact, there are certain groups that have been PAID by the opposing party to donate to their competition and then "come out into the public" about it! It is a dirty, underhanded tactic that gets used more and more these days.

For instance, if I wanted to throw dirt on my competition, I just pay some off-the-wall group (say, the Neo Nazis) in a PRIVATE transaction $1000 dollars -- if they will donate $500 dollars of it to my competitor.

Should the person give money back? To do that, they would have to give it back through their own private funds (not use campaign money). What that means is that the person would then have to pay people out of their private funds every time this happened (if they wanted to set a precedence), and it would be a good way for your competitor to hit you below the belt!

Rock

[mat1583]

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense to you. You are already sold on Ron Paul so whatever spin he puts on this you're inclined to buy it.

More inclined? Maybe. But I have also never cared where other candidates' get their money, as long as it doesn't influence their positions. Ron Paul isn't the only candidate this has happened to. I just find it interesting that the worst dirt the media can throw at him is that he didn't return $500 to a white supremacist. He has a spotless voting record they can't touch, follows the Constitution strictly, and has never had anywhere near the problems the other candidates have had (especially Guilianni).


It's not just the giving the money back, it's the stand that such an action would take. Like I said you're sold on the guy so your gonna be inclined to believe whatever rationalization he offers.

Please explain to me how giving $500 back to a white supremacist who could use it for other purposes is taking a stand against white supremacy. Ron Paul denounced those views, said it's Black's loss, and clearly does not support anything racist.



On the other hand I am coming from the perspective of one who is undecided, but has been somewhat intrigued by a lot of the things Paul has said. Now when this happened it got my attention. I didn't instictively assume the worst, but waited to see how he would respond. When I heard the explanation for why they were keeping it, it just sounded like a cheap rationalization and quite honestly he lost credibility with me. I am not saying I've ruled him out as someone I would vote for but he has lost some credibility with me.

Why has he lost credibility? He stood by his decision and gave a very good reason for doing so. His clean voting record gives no indication that he supports any racist views, and he denounced them on national broadcast. Why does this hurt his credibility. Should the catholic church give back $22 million just because they received the donation from an atheist?


You said that combatting racism is about changing hearts, not making more laws. I agree and I never suggested that it was about making more laws.

That was Ron Paul's official stance, not my own words.


With that in mind, think about how all this might come across to Black himself. It's possible he could have heard the rationalization and it might have struck a chord. More likely I think he probably figured Paul was just spinning it the way he had to. In the end I don't think he really cares if Paul is a racist or not.

Why don't we ask Black himself. Wait, his statement was already in the article:

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.


On the other hand, if Paul returns the money, the message to Black is undeniable, "We are so opposed to the ignorance and hatred that you stand for that we don't want your money." I think something like that is more likely to convict Black than Paul keeping the money.

Have you watched the video of his explanation at all? I think Rock explained this very well also. It just doesn't seem we're going to be able to convince you that receiving a $500 donation is a non-issue.

-washboard

[Jason]

I'd give a $500 scholarship to an African-American.

[VerbumReale]

But what you are realizing is that this is a very typical way to dig up dirt on a candidate. It happens all of the time, and sometimes not by accident. In fact, there are certain groups that have been PAID by the opposing party to donate to their competition and then "come out into the public" about it! It is a dirty, underhanded tactic that gets used more and more these days.

For instance, if I wanted to throw dirt on my competition, I just pay some off-the-wall group (say, the Neo Nazis) in a PRIVATE transaction $1000 dollars -- if they will donate $500 dollars of it to my competitor.

Should the person give money back? To do that, they would have to give it back through their own private funds (not use campaign money). What that means is that the person would then have to pay people out of their private funds every time this happened (if they wanted to set a precedence), and it would be a good way for your competitor to hit you below the belt!

Rock


I am not some babe in the woods, I am aware that this type of thing goes on. And it's possible that's whats going on here, but I don't think we can assume that is the case.

[Evanescence]

To me it doesn't really matter, but to the mindless hinge heads that follow the Rep and Dem dog and pony show, they'll eat this up.

How is it any different than the big wheel political players, accepting moneys from corrupt big businesses and corporations?

Its not but the political machine will use it to slander a good man through the media they control.

RP is a good honest man from what i see and so far, has my vote.

[VerbumReale]

Please explain to me how giving $500 back to a white supremacist who could use it for other purposes is taking a stand against white supremacy. Ron Paul denounced those views, said it's Black's loss, and clearly does not support anything racist.

For the umpteenth time, the stand is not in Black receiving the money it's in Paul rejecting the money. By your logic, should he not just take money from anyone?? How about the mafia?? I mean as long as comes out and says he doesn't support organized crime. How about drug dealers?? How about child pornographers???



Why has he lost credibility? He stood by his decision and gave a very good reason for doing so. His clean voting record gives no indication that he supports any racist views, and he denounced them on national broadcast. Why does this hurt his credibility. Should the catholic church give back $22 million just because they received the donation from an atheist?


I have explained to you why he lost some, not necessarily a lot, but some credibility with me. But basicially it seems like he is trying to leave the door open to any questionable donations that might come down the pike.

As far as the atheist giving to the Catholic church, thats apples and oranges. I don't know why an atheist would give to a Catholic church. I may not agree with atheism. But a person's atheism is not a threat to anybody's personal freedoms.





Why don't we ask Black himself. Wait, his statement was already in the article:

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.


Have you watched the video of his explanation at all? I think Rock explained this very well also. It just doesn't seem we're going to be able to convince you that receiving a $500 donation is a non-issue.

-washboard

Well there you go that settles it. I mean a white supremacist wouldn't dream of lying right??

What do you expect him to say??

"Well consarnit, I was under the impression that this fellar was gonna bring back segregation. Color me embarassed."

Look I don't think it's a non-issue, but nor is it anything that's going to make me rule voting for him out. And I know that he's not a racist, I never said he was.

But I worked in PR. I know spin when I hear it, and that is spin. I also know that this white supremacist isn't going to have any influence on his politics, but I am not saying thats what this is about. What I wonder, if he is open to taking this guy's money then who else's money is he open to taking?

Again, I am not saying that this is going to cause me to eliminate him as a candidate I might vote for, but I also just can't simply overlook it. It's just something that I'll consider and take into consideration. I am not obsessing over it, but neither will I just ignore it.

[hochspeyer]

Hmmm... this thread is beginning (!) to sound a BIT like dissipation.

Please fill in the blank-
"Whoever is not against us is ___ us." (HINT:Mark 9:40, NIV)

Our enemy does not need communism, racism, NC-17 rated movies, terrorists, abortion, papparazzi and out of control Hollywood starlets. He has division in the family of God (a.k.a., the church of Jesus Christ.)

[VerbumReale]

Hmmm... this thread is beginning (!) to sound a BIT like dissipation.

Please fill in the blank-
"Whoever is not against us is ___ us." (HINT:Mark 9:40, NIV)

Our enemy does not need communism, racism, NC-17 rated movies, terrorists, abortion, papparazzi and out of control Hollywood starlets. He has division in the family of God (a.k.a., the church of Jesus Christ.)

Oh you haven't seen anything. Check out any thread that has anything remotely to do with baptism. This is a tea-party compared to those.;)

[mat1583]

Hmmm... this thread is beginning (!) to sound a BIT like dissipation.

Please fill in the blank-
"Whoever is not against us is ___ us." (HINT:Mark 9:40, NIV)

Our enemy does not need communism, racism, NC-17 rated movies, terrorists, abortion, papparazzi and out of control Hollywood starlets. He has division in the family of God (a.k.a., the church of Jesus Christ.)

What??? Just because we have differing views about political correctness doesn't mean there's a division in the family of God. We're not all supposed to think/act alike.

-washboard

[Valpo]

What??? Just because we have differing views about political correctness doesn't mean there's a division in the family of God. We're not all supposed to think/act alike.

-washboard

agreed

imagine all we did was get along around here?? I woulda left a long time ago! :D

[hochspeyer]

... just checking to see if anyone is alive!

[Jason]

... just checking to see if anyone is alive!

My nurse says I am, but I'm on Medicaid and you can't trust socialized medicine.

[Pouye]

My nurse says I am, but I'm on Medicaid and you can't trust socialized medicine.

Actually, Medicaid (which has grown larger than Medicare) is in deep doo-doo, financially: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2919851.html

Here is a quote from the article I agree with:

"Following in the footsteps of welfare reform, Medicaid can be restructured to increase personal responsibility and enhance individual freedom. Our best option for securing and improving the physical welfare of impoverished Americans is to move away from a system of socialized health care. In its place, federal and state governments can use their financial resources to help the poor afford private medical insurance and services tailored to their specific needs."

I'm very glad you are able to get the health care that you need -- and with that, nobody likes to "bite the hand that feeds them" so-to-speak. However, at the same time I would like to see the financial resources coming from the people of the USA to the government leaders (Fed, State, Local) be responsibly handled and accounted for.

One of the biggest problems facing the USA is our justice system, which allows lawsuits that are unreasonably excessive. Lawyers like the money they are making, and so they write laws that benefit themselves. Lawmakers and lawyers are making bank from a corrupted system of "justice" that is out of control. The fact that it has become such big business shows that the government not just turns a "blind eye" to the problem, but they actually encourage it! After all, the government benefits from tax money made on lawsuits.

Settlements for physical injury or illness are not taxable at all. However if any portion was earmarked for lost wages, interest, punitive damages or loss of comfort & consortium, etc. than that portion is taxable as ordinary income -- the government benefits!

Settlements that simply make you whole again are not taxed either, to the extent the the settlement covers the damages you suffered. However, any amount above your actual damages is taxable as ordinary income -- again it is advantageous for the government for people to file lawsuits for much more than simple "covering the cost".

It makes me sick that both lawyers and the government "wins" when someone is sued for a million dollars (and wins) over something that could have been simply paid for at the Actual Damage/Loss cost (maybe even less than $100 dollars!)

It is this crazy justice system that is driving insurance rates through the roof, and making it hard for everyone to afford services like medical care, etc.

Rock

[Evanescence]

Actually, Medicaid (which has grown larger than Medicare) is in deep doo-doo, financially: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2919851.html

Here is a quote from the article I agree with:

"Following in the footsteps of welfare reform, Medicaid can be restructured to increase personal responsibility and enhance individual freedom. Our best option for securing and improving the physical welfare of impoverished Americans is to move away from a system of socialized health care. In its place, federal and state governments can use their financial resources to help the poor afford private medical insurance and services tailored to their specific needs."

I'm very glad you are able to get the health care that you need -- and with that, nobody likes to "bite the hand that feeds them" so-to-speak. However, at the same time I would like to see the financial resources coming from the people of the USA to the government leaders (Fed, State, Local) be responsibly handled and accounted for.

One of the biggest problems facing the USA is our justice system, which allows lawsuits that are unreasonably excessive. Lawyers like the money they are making, and so they write laws that benefit themselves. Lawmakers and lawyers are making bank from a corrupted system of "justice" that is out of control. The fact that it has become such big business shows that the government not just turns a "blind eye" to the problem, but they actually encourage it! After all, the government benefits from tax money made on lawsuits.

Settlements for physical injury or illness are not taxable at all. However if any portion was earmarked for lost wages, interest, punitive damages or loss of comfort & consortium, etc. than that portion is taxable as ordinary income -- the government benefits!

Settlements that simply make you whole again are not taxed either, to the extent the the settlement covers the damages you suffered. However, any amount above your actual damages is taxable as ordinary income -- again it is advantageous for the government for people to file lawsuits for much more than simple "covering the cost".

It makes me sick that both lawyers and the government "wins" when someone is sued for a million dollars (and wins) over something that could have been simply paid for at the Actual Damage/Loss cost (maybe even less than $100 dollars!)

It is this crazy justice system that is driving insurance rates through the roof, and making it hard for everyone to afford services like medical care, etc.

Rock

Good post Rock,,.....shows elitists at work, wrecking this country....:mad:

[middletree]

http://www.captainsquartersblog. com/mt/archives/016562.php

This doesn't look good for Ron Paul.

[mat1583]

http://www.captainsquartersblog. com/mt/archives/016562.php

This doesn't look good for Ron Paul.

From Ron Paul: January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."


----------

It's a smear campaign, plain and simple. They posted it a day before the New Hampshire primary...go figure. They gave him no time to respond, which apparently worked. If you've ever read any of Ron Paul's writings, you would know that none of that crap was written by him and wouldn't have been approved if he had read it.

p.s. This was an excellent comment posted on the blog about the thing:

"The criticism of the Mises Institute and "secession" are misplaced. There is nothing racist in the belief that free people have the right to self-determination and to secede from a political organization which they consider tyrannical. Supporting the right of self-determination does not mean support for slavery. In fact, the ideas of slavery and racism are in complete opposition to the ideas of libertarianism - which supports the individual's rights in balance with society's rights. It's unfortunate that the anti big-government, anti military-industrial-complex stand of Libertarians would also attract the political fringes who share some of these views - but that does not mean that Libertarians share all of the fringe's beliefs and views. The simple fact is that if you believe in the inalienable right of the individual to live in freedom , you will support the rights of all Americans to be free and live their lives as they choose. No matter the color, creed, sexual orientation, etc."

-washboard

[middletree]

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."



And the article I linked to says this about that:

------------
But here's the problem, which Andrew grasps as well. If this all had come from a single newsletter, then one could accept the "loose cannon among the staff" explanation, along with an apology. However, these went on for years, according to both the Chronicle and TNR. It stretches credulity to the breaking point that his staff produced these newsletters for that long without anyone in the office, including Ron Paul himself, noticing the objectionable material in them.

Even if one accepts that as the truth, it serves as a damning indictment of Paul. How can he be so out of touch that he doesn't notice the hateful writings published in his own newsletter for so long? Doesn't anyone on his staff read their own publications? Either Paul is a complete incompetent, or the truth is in another, more unpleasant explanation.

[mat1583]

And the article I linked to says this about that:

------------
But here's the problem, which Andrew grasps as well. If this all had come from a single newsletter, then one could accept the "loose cannon among the staff" explanation, along with an apology. However, these went on for years, according to both the Chronicle and TNR. It stretches credulity to the breaking point that his staff produced these newsletters for that long without anyone in the office, including Ron Paul himself, noticing the objectionable material in them.

Even if one accepts that as the truth, it serves as a damning indictment of Paul. How can he be so out of touch that he doesn't notice the hateful writings published in his own newsletter for so long? Doesn't anyone on his staff read their own publications? Either Paul is a complete incompetent, or the truth is in another, more unpleasant explanation.

"For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name. "

He admitted it was a mistake not to monitor the publication and has taken responsibility for it. Ron Paul has continually denounced racism and promoted Freedom for all Americans - this is made obvious by his own true writings, his voting record in Congress, and his message of freedom that so many have heard. I just read a few of the pdf's, and it is nothing and completely opposite of what Ron Paul advocates. The ideas were obviously not monitored by RP. To dig something back up from 10 years ago that he has already addressed and amended, and a day before the New Hampshire primary, is obviously an ugly smear attack on an honest man that has a straight voting record and history of advocating freedom for all Americans.

-washboard

[middletree]

I'll disagree that his lack of monitoring the newsletter ten years ago is not an issue today. However, I'll agree that it's a smear tactic. One thing that bugs me about American politics is that both parties have enormous files on every opposing candidate.


The reason I am concerned about this is not because I think Ron Paul is a racist (I don't), but because I know how the Democrat will use it if he becomes the Republican nominee.

See, you are assuming that just because you have discernment and can compare and contrast RP's actual actions with those newsletters, that American voters will do the same. And for the most part, they won't.

When the D's go public with this stuff, the media will play along, and the American voters, who are pretty much sheep, will be just disgusted enough with RP to not elect him.

Unless, of course, the Republicans dig up dirt from Obama's 3rd grade essay about frogs that somehow makes him look bad. And I say that only half-joking.

[mat1583]

See, you are assuming that just because you have discernment and can compare and contrast RP's actual actions with those newsletters, that American voters will do the same. And for the most part, they won't.



I know. And this is what saddens me immeasurably about United States politics and the election process. The sheep will vote their party lines and believe every single word the main stream media says. It's hardly ever about the true issues and always about the dirtiest thing you can dig up about a candidate...regardless of whether it's been dealt with or whatever.

This is one of the reasons a majority of true Libertarians are non-voters. There are the idealists and also the realists. The idealists would never vote for any candidate unless that candidate fell directly in line with every single Libertarian issue. Ron Paul does not have completely Libertarian ideals. The realist (more of a pessimist) believes that a Libertarian-esque candidate will never have a chance to be voted into office because the two party political system they face allows no room for independent-minded candidates. In other words, they believe their vote is useless and made in vain, so they refuse to cast a vote.

Believe me, I have seen this to be true. The Ludwig von Mises institute is only a couple miles from where I live in Auburn. I have a friend that used to be very active there. He attended seminars, classes, etc. Out of all the people he knew there, he was among a very small group of Libertarians (maybe 10 of 100?) that actually vote. The rest are only theorists and idealists.

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

My nurse says I am, but I'm on Medicaid and you can't trust socialized medicine.

Well there's always an option to get independent insurance. Having worked my whole life, I hope I don't have to rely on any government to provide me with health insurance. However, I do believe everyone deserve to have some form of health insurance.

[Jesuslove]

I suspect that Ron Paul may be a good independent candidate for President. It's a shame his Republican colleagues don't take him seriously.

[Jason]

Well there's always an option to get independent insurance. Having worked my whole life, I hope I don't have to rely on any government to provide me with health insurance. However, I do believe everyone deserve to have some form of health insurance.

I have a major pre-existing condition so that's not an option.

[sandyandporter]

I have a major pre-existing condition so that's not an option.

Being obnoxious isn't a pre-existing condition. ;)