so, we are defending bigotry now?

[Perd Hapley]

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?

Let me see if I can make the problem go away for you. 

There is the expectation that if someone donates money, it is because the candidate will then look already looks 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. can only be elected if enough people agree with them and give them money.

Now, of course, the first interpretation is something that also happens. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

if stuff written by an aide getss sent out unveted somene has organizational shortcomings


though as some one spent 20 years in and around dc hes not that wrong  off by maybe 7-10 percent is all

[Glock Glockler]

I don't care who a politician takes money from, I care what they do WHEN in office. 

[GigaBuist]

though as some one spent 20 years in and around dc hes not that wrong  off by maybe 7-10 percent is all

If I'm not mistaken the sentence was extrapolating that 95% figure based on a recent study (at the time) saying that 85% of black males in DC were somehow involved in police investigations.  Sorta poking fun at how inept law enforcement in DC  was or something like that.

Kinda hard to verify though as I haven't ever been able to find the full text, just the quoted bits and the '96 explanation from Ron Paul on the matter.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't care who a politician takes money from, I care what they do WHEN in office. 

If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from. 

[Glock Glockler]

If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from

The proof is in their actions, Clinton courted labor unions and then supported NAFTA when he was in office, just because a politician gets into bed with someone and/or accepts their money is no garantee that he'll vote that way. 

And BTW, I rather doubt any politician will get that worked up over a whopping $500.

Much ado about nothing.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, that's pretty obvious, Glock.  No one's proposing an absolute correlation between donations and political favors. 

[Tecumseh]

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.

  And he has been a 10 term Congressman, while you, the true expert are sitting at your PC just exploding with knowledge.  Where do we vote for you?  Are you a Presidential candidate?

[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.

  And he has been a 10 term Congressman, while you, the true expert are sitting at your PC just exploding with knowledge.  Where do we vote for you?  Are you a Presidential candidate?

How many terms has Teddy Kennedy been in? Does the ability to stay entrenched for lack of opposition mean that someone is worthy of respect as a politician?

Or merely that nobody else really cared to challenge them?

Besides, Paul is running on the fact that in those ten terms, he basically did absolutely nothing. Except vote against protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits, that is.

[Finch]

Besides, Paul is running on the fact that in those ten terms, he basically did absolutely nothing. Except vote against protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits, that is.

Ahh yes. After all, his colleagues in the House have done a much better job. Passing law after law with absolutely no though on the constitutionality or necessity of said laws. Thats just the kind of guy I want. A Congressman who thinks that it is their job to pass law after law after law. Because history has shown that when Congress critters accomplish something, it usually means that they are just making more laws. If the PATRIOT act, McCain Feingold, Military Commissions, and various other B.S. pieces of legislation are considered doing something, then I am glad he did "nothing".

[Perd Hapley]

Paul has no clue.

 

And he has been a 10 term Congressman, while you, the true expert are sitting at your PC just exploding with knowledge.  Where do we vote for you?  Are you a Presidential candidate?

Wait a minute.  You're using congressional experience as proof of clue?  Shouldn't it be the other way around? 

 

[Paddy]

All this does is emphasize the need for public financing, exclusively, for elections.  Money corrupts.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Right!  Rich people don't deserve the freedom to spend their own money how they choose.  Gotta take that money away from them, then give it out equally to our politicians to use how they choose. 

Property rights are for suckers and fools!

[Glock Glockler]

All this does is emphasize the need for public financing, exclusively, for elections.  Money corrupts

Please tell me what right the govt. has to steal money from me to dole out to politicians who will then lie to me?

[Perd Hapley]

All this does is emphasize the need for public financing, exclusively, for elections.  Money corrupts.

More small-govt. conservatism brought to you by Barry Goldwater and Co.   

[Bigjake]

Finch said:

Ahh yes. After all, his colleagues in the House have done a much better job. Passing law after law with absolutely no though on the constitutionality or necessity of said laws. Thats just the kind of guy I want. A Congressman who thinks that it is their job to pass law after law after law. Because history has shown that when Congress critters accomplish something, it usually means that they are just making more laws. If the PATRIOT act, McCain Feingold, Military Commissions, and various other B.S. pieces of legislation are considered doing something, then I am glad he did "nothing".

Equivocate all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is no friend of gun companies.  That vote puts him in league with that ambulance chaser Edwards.

[GigaBuist]

Equivocate all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is no friend of gun companies.  That vote puts him in league with that ambulance chaser Edwards.

By what authority does the legislature have the power to interfere with what cases are heard by the judicial branch?

[Bigjake]

Probably the same power they use to meddle with Professional Baseball.

[Perd Hapley]

Equivocate all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is no friend of gun companies.  That vote puts him in league with that ambulance chaser Edwards.

By what authority does the legislature have the power to interfere with what cases are heard by the judicial branch? 

The Constitution, I think. 

[Finch]

The Constitution, I think. 

Eh. I think the only check that the Legislature holds over the Judiciary is that they hold confirmation powers of judges. I think saying that they can also choose which cases gets heard would be far to much.

[TwitchALot]

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 ?

As I've said before, if you (not you in particular scout) want to argue he's racist or supports racism because he accepted the donation, then I have to ask:

Who is the racist- the one that takes money from a racist and spends it to promote the message of liberty, or the one who GIVES MONEY TO A RACIST so he can spend it to promote the message of racism? Sounds like the second group of people are the real white supremacists to me. 

As far as you go, Scout, I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?

If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.

If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from.

Or, you can look at their voting record and what they're saying, and realize that when they've been consistent for decades, you can probably safely assume they aren't going to be changing drastically any time soon.

[roo_ster]

The Constitution, I think. 

Eh. I think the only check that the Legislature holds over the Judiciary is that they hold confirmation powers of judges. I think saying that they can also choose which cases gets heard would be far to much.

Congress has the power to determine just what can be reviewed, as described in Article 3, Section 2:

...In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks, jfru.  That's what I was thinking of.

If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from.

Or, you can look at their voting record and what they're saying, and realize that when they've been consistent for decades, you can probably safely assume they aren't going to be changing drastically any time soon. 

Yes, of course you should consider their record.  And then follow the money, too.  BTW, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul can be bribed or that he's a racist.  I'm saying he should know better than to keep the money.

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.

Who is the racist- the one that takes money from a racist and spends it to promote the message of liberty, or the one who GIVES MONEY TO A RACIST so he can spend it to promote the message of racism? Sounds like the second group of people are the real white supremacists to me.   

Scout never said anything about giving money to racists.  He said refuse it or give it to an anti-racist group.  Or, Paul could just cut an equivalent check to a charity organization.

I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?

If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.

Those situations have nothing to do with campaign contributions.  They don't compare at all. 

[TwitchALot]

If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from.

Or, you can look at their voting record and what they're saying, and realize that when they've been consistent for decades, you can probably safely assume they aren't going to be changing drastically any time soon. 

Yes, of course you should consider their record.  And then follow the money, too.  BTW, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul can be bribed or that he's a racist.  I'm saying he should know better than to keep the money.

Why? As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument lies around the notion that it is a tacit approval/conflict of interest. With other candidates, I might agree. Taking money from corporations, for example, might be a conflict of interest. But I'd only believe that if the person has a record of being influenced by the source of their money. Since I'm particularly convinced Ron Paul can't be bribed and isn't racist, it seems like nothing but an attempt to smear him (unless the people who are turning this into a big issue do believe he can be bribed or is racist, and we can discuss that). The only reason such things are seen in a negative light (and the reason politicians tend to give this kind of money back), is because of what I stated earlier. It looks like a conflict of interest or an approval of that person. In many cases, it is, and that's why we perceive it as bad. But that is not always the case.

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.

Who is the racist- the one that takes money from a racist and spends it to promote the message of liberty, or the one who GIVES MONEY TO A RACIST so he can spend it to promote the message of racism? Sounds like the second group of people are the real white supremacists to me.   

Scout never said anything about giving money to racists.  He said refuse it or give it to an anti-racist group.  Or, Paul could just cut an equivalent check to a charity organization.

I know. Which is why I specifically addressed him after that by saying, "as far as you go, Scout..."

I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?

If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.

Those situations have nothing to do with campaign contributions.  They don't compare at all.

Those situations are in principle, the same. So what if your money came from a white supremacist? So what if your gun came from a Nazi who used it for evil purposes? So what if you accepted a pamphlet or information from the Brady Campaign? Unless it's going influence you to do bad things, it's not a big deal.

[GigaBuist]

Congress has the power to determine just what can be reviewed, as described in Article 3, Section 2:

...In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Well, I've learned something tonight!  Thanks for setting me straight, jfruser.