so, we are defending bigotry now?

[geronimotwo]

please excuse my sophomoric logic.

for those of you not paying attention, a presidential candidate is being scrutinized because he took money from a white supremecist organization. scrutiny is good. i would not vote for a leader who used his influence to help such a cause above others. this is because of my own beliefs that all races are created equal.  however, i also believe that the Constitution of the USA (right or wrong) does not differentiate between the civil liberties given to this type of organization versus a rotary club. these ideals are why the USA is a great nation, as we are supposed to be given the tolerance to persue happiness as individuals see fit. we all agree that the first amendment gives the right to free speech. why then is it that when an individuals view opposes ours, we feel their money is not entitled to be used for a candidate of office.

[Manedwolf]

I know what you're speaking of.

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

But he's not astute. He's naive. And so this will remain as a black mark.

[Scout26]

Yes, any group can donate to which candidate they choose and any candidate is free to say "Um....No Thanks." or take that money and donate to a cause that is at odds with the goals of the original group.

By accepting the money, the candidate is at least tacitly agreeing with/approving the group. 

G2, Would you feel the same way if RP was taking money from Brady and the VPC ?

[geronimotwo]

I know what you're speaking of.

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

but that would be implying favoritism to a different organization. the whole point is that one view should not be held (by the government) above another.

Yes, any group can donate to which candidate they choose and any candidate is free to say "Um....No Thanks." or take that money and donate to a cause that is at odds with the goals of the original group.

By accepting the money, the candidate is at least tacitly agreeing with/approving the group. 

G2, Would you feel the same way if RP was taking money from Brady and the VPC ?

in the same way, does not the constitution "agree with/approve" of every individuals/groups right to say what they believe. why should a candidate, who is and will be sworn to uphold the constitution, pretend this group is not worthy of american status?

[Manedwolf]

I know what you're speaking of.

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

but that would be implying favoritism to a different organization. the whole point is that one view should not be held (by the government) above another.

Um. Ron Paul is not in the office of president, he is a candidate running for president, hence that argument is completely invalid.

Also, such a donation would defuse this and making it a nonissue, because in the mind of the public, money from an abhorrent group like Stormfront or from someone associated with such is "dirty". Paul has no clue.

[geronimotwo]

I know what you're speaking of.

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

but that would be implying favoritism to a different organization. the whole point is that one view should not be held (by the government) above another.

Um. Ron Paul is not in the office of president, he is a candidate running for president, hence that argument is completely invalid.

Also, such a donation would defuse this and making it a nonissue, because in the mind of the public, money from an abhorrent group like Stormfront or from someone associated with such is "dirty". Paul has no clue.

no, he is not in the presidential office, but his actions are being looked at as someone that we would/wouldn't like to have in that position. therefore the argument stands. in addition he is a senator who, i believe, need take a similar oath.

in some ways i believe his stand should be (among much fanfare, and flag waving)"bring me your leperous causes for i believe, as americans, we all have the same inalianable rights .".

[The Rabbi]

I see constant confusion here between "right to" meaning having the legal ability to do something, and "right to" meaning doing the correct, moral, or ethical thing.
Ron Paul has the right to accept money from any source he wants within Federal law.  But he is not right to accept it from an organization that represents views most people find abhorrent.

[geronimotwo]

I see constant confusion here between "right to" meaning having the legal ability to do something, and "right to" meaning doing the correct, moral, or ethical thing.
Ron Paul has the right to accept money from any source he wants within Federal law.  But he is not right to accept it from an organization that represents views most people find abhorrent.

look, i have not come entirely to grips with this donation being accepted either. but i am at least able to see my own hypocrisy in admitting that a person has the right to speak/believe something that i don't, while at the same time condemning  the acceptance of their donation. if you were to tell me that you believed the constitution should be changed to exclude certain groups from the rights of freedom, then i would understand why you feel these less than worthy persons ought not to have their donations accepted.

[wooderson]

There is no hypocrisy.

There is no contradiction between believing that the state should not prohibit unpleasant ideas and the expression of same (free speech) and believing, at the same time, that not all ideas and modes of expression are worthy of respect.

White supremacy or "God Hates Fags" or that women are unequal to men or any number of ideas do not deserve our silence.

The notion that 'free speech' creates an anarchic zone where all ideas and speech are on equal footing is absurd.

[HankB]

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

Might be difficult, as many of the so-called "anti-racism" organizations are simply hatemongers of a different sort . . .

[Finch]

Also, such a donation would defuse this and making it a nonissue, because in the mind of the public, money from an abhorrent group like Stormfront or from someone associated with such is "dirty". Paul has no clue.

In your eyes. Yours. I don't see it as that because I am smart enough to know that Ron Paul is not a follower of racists scumbag ideology and that $500 dollars in his pocket is a lot better than $500 dollars in the pocket of a piece of trash like Don Black.

If anybody belives that Ron Pauls decision not to return the money is in anyway an acceptance of Stormfronts ways...well then I give up. 

[GigaBuist]

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

Agreed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If Paul wasn't as naive as he is, he'd leverage this into a plus by donating that exact amount to an anti-racism organization, thus ending the controversy.

Agreed.

The beauty of Ron Paul is that he isn't bound by practicalities.  Any other politician might take some action to put this mess behind him, so that he could move on to more important things.  But not Paul.  He doesn't need to.  He can  keep the money and ignore the consequences, because there is no constitutional requirement to do otherwise.  True enough, there really isn't any constitutional or liberty-minded motivation for him to do a darned thing.  So what if it damages his image or his campaign in the eyes of the average American?

[GigaBuist]

True enough, there really isn't any constitutional or liberty-minded motivation for him to do a darned thing.  So what if it damages his image or his campaign in the eyes of the average American?

Well, any damage done to the Ron Paul campaign is a hit against the possibility for further liberty, so there is a connection, and a reason to handle it better.

I sent an email to the Ron Paul campaign asking them to donate it to charity.  I figure if we Ron Paul supporters can flood online polls and post-debate polls surely we can flood the Ron Paul campaign's inbox with requests to do the sensible thing here.

HTG, if you want to help the Ron Paul campaign what they need right now is for supporters to send tem a note telling them that they're idiots and should just send the money to charity.  Surely you could do that.

[CNYCacher]

 

Ron Paul's spokesman said (I am paraphrasing).  "We are keeping the money, yes.  We are using it to further promote Ron Paul's message of [freedom, smaller .gov, blah blah].  If the guy expected that he would get some racist support from Ron Paul, then he has thrown his $500 away, and it's just as good because that is $500 that he can't spend on his racist agenda."

The guy who donated the $500 said "Yeah, I know Ron Paul is not a white nationalist.  I know that and I don't care.  I donated to him because I like his ideas on [freedom, smaller .gov, blah blah]."

I fail to see how this is a big deal.

[Perd Hapley]

please excuse my sophomoric logic. 

Why should I?  Oh, right, FREEDOM OF TEH SPEECHES means no one should ever criticize you or Ron Paul.  Sorry. 

[LAK]

Just what exactly by name, or who, are these alleged "white supremicists" that Paul took money from?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the guy who wrote the check would be po'd bout the use of allegedly.

[Manedwolf]

Just what exactly by name, or who, are these alleged "white supremicists" that Paul took money from?

Stormfront. You can look at their site, but you'd likely want to take a shower if you did. It's...disgusting. They're disgusting. Bunch of neonazi white supremacist keyboard commandos. They also give gun owners a bad name.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they give homo sapiens a bad name.
funny though  to watch their stuff filter out and see "nice folk" post something that originated with the new riechers

[GigaBuist]

Just what exactly by name, or who, are these alleged "white supremicists" that Paul took money from?

Don Black, founder of Stormfront.

[MechAg94]

My issue with this is: 

There is the expectation that if someone donates money, the candidate will then look favorably on that group or that group's ideas.  So we have an expectation that the candidates treat their donations as bribes and will support whomever they get money from. 

Anyone see a problem with that? 

[Manedwolf]

My issue with this is: 

There is the expectation that if someone donates money, the candidate will then look favorably on that group or that group's ideas.  So we have an expectation that the candidates treat their donations as bribes and will support whomever they get money from. 

Anyone see a problem with that? 

Depending on the veracity of this, the shoe might fit.

Copyright (c) 1996 National Journal Inc.

A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings. Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

[GigaBuist]

Oh man, not this again.

A 1996 article containing cherry picked quotes from a 1992 newsletter entry that was written by an aide?

That's the best evidence anybody has to show that Ron Paul is a racist?

[wooderson]

"written by an aide"