Ron Paul accepts white supremacist donation

[stylicho]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_ ... upremacist
This guy is a class act. He isnt afraid of being politically incorrect which is about the only candidate I can think of that isnt.

[UltraShy]

I'd take money from anybody, even if I disagree with them. I disagree with most SAS members on politics, but will provide my mailing address upon request for your donations.

[orpheus]

So much for being a person of principles.

[orpheus]

So much for being a person of principles.

'Politically correct' has taken on a mocking meaning. I fail to see how one should be mocked for turning down money from white supremacist organizations, unless, of course, you're coming from a slightly racist perspective yourself. And Ron has plenty of money is coffer from less extremist groups, so this isn't an issue about money.

[UltraShy]

Didn't Paul bring in $6M in a day? Do you seriously think $500 will buy him? Being a doctor, I don't think he's poor nor likely to be a ***** for $500.

Taking money from somebody in no way means that you agree with them. So a racist agrees with Ron Paul on the issue of War in Iraq & secure borders. That in no way makes Paul a racist.

If odun sent me a $500 check (which I would cash) does that mean that I'd magically no longer support gun rights and think of nothing but the plight of the poor? Hardly. It would just mean I have $500 more from a guy I frequently disagree with.

Paul stands the same principle I do when it comes to money: I'll take it from anybody who wants to give it to me, but you're not going to buy me & change my mind with it.

[odun]

Taking money from somebody in no way means that you agree with them. So a racist agrees with Ron Paul on the issue of War in Iraq & secure borders. That in no way makes Paul a racist.

racists like ron paul because he is anti-israel. you know how those pesky jews are, always getting us into wars and controlling our money supply.

by the way, i thought libertarians were for open borders?

[AppleEatsWorm]

anti-israel != racist

[orpheus]

Originally Posted by Marooned

I heard about this and Paul's response last week on NOW: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html (~13:00 in the video)

I really don't see his refusal to return the donation as a sacrifice of principles. Unless he were to now feel obliged to take on or accommodate for whatever this group sees in him or he were targeting them specifically for a donation, would he not actually be reinforcing his principles at their expense? .

Because he didn't need the money and it would have been a noble thing to throw the money back at the scum that donated to him to make a stand for human decency. But oh my goodness, that's 'politically correct!'

[Thunder]

Since there is no white supremacist candidate I guess that makes Paul the next best thing.

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by orpheus

Because he didn't need the money and it would have been a noble thing to throw the money back at the scum that donated to him to make a stand for human decency. But oh my goodness, that's 'politically correct!'

Agreed. Refusing the money would have been a better option.

[vicente]

If he's accepting their money in spite of their racism, then he should be prepared to accept a donation from the Communist Party because they are also against the War in Iraq.

[archaic]

Originally Posted by Marooned

his own non-racist values

Which would be...?

[Roberto]

Obama takes money from a black separatists church, of which he is a member. he must be an afrocentric racist. >_>

It wouldn't surprise me if Dr. Paul felt that white supremacists have a right to believe in their little conspiracy religions and put up websites about them, just like christians and mormons and whoever else. Why would he not take money from them, if he takes money from other religious affiliations? To return it would be like saying, "I think you should relinquish your citizenship and your right to vote due to your unpopular religious beliefs." What progress is to be made by further alienating the disenfranchised, anyway? ; - +

[AppleEatsWorm]

This whole thread is really a nitpick.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by odun

racists like ron paul because he is anti-israel. you know how those pesky jews are, always getting us into wars and controlling our money supply.

I oppose US support for Israel or any other nation. Does that make me anti-Jew? I used to know a guy in Canada who was a strong libertarian and he was a Jew. If I wasn't fond of Italy would that make me anti-catholic?

Originally Posted by odun

by the way, i thought libertarians were for open borders?

Ideally, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. You can't have a welfare state to the north handing out goodies have an open border as it simply invites those who'd take advantage of such generosity. Get rid of the welfare state & then you can have open borders.

[Lyric Suite]

Is there a difference between Libertarians and National Socialists?

I mean, besides the whole Jew hating and white power thing.

[stylicho]

Originally Posted by orpheus

So much for being a person of principles.

'Politically correct' has taken on a mocking meaning. I fail to see how one should be mocked for turning down money from white supremacist organizations, unless, of course, you're coming from a slightly racist perspective yourself. And Ron has plenty of money is coffer from less extremist groups, so this isn't an issue about money.

I try to come from every angle my friend. Gives me the broadest observation possible. But, like others have said, why should Paul alienate people who are already alienated from society? That isnt what a presidential candidate should stand for.

[vicente]

Originally Posted by Lyric Suite

Is there a difference between Libertarians and National Socialists?

I mean, besides the whole Jew hating and white power thing.

You can't be serious.

[Lyric Suite]

Originally Posted by vicente

You can't be serious.

A wretched flaw in my character, to be sure. Alas, i can't be funny, either.

[orpheus]

Originally Posted by Marooned

It's not an issue of needing the money. Paul himself said he doesn't need their support. I'm in agreement with UltraShy here. Taking a group's money and taking its beliefs are two entirely separate things. Depriving these white supremacists of their money and using it against them by drawing more attention to his own non-racist values can be seen as taking an equally or perhaps even more significant stand for human decency than simply throwing the money back to be used in spreading more hate.

Did I say it was an issue of needing money or the opposite? As far using white supremacists funds against them, is Paul sending the money to civil rights causes or an anti-discrimination league?
And the fact that his views are non-racist is moot. He took money from scoundrels who are probably enthused that he accepted it. The white supremacist gained more than Paul did.