ron paul keeping white supremacist donation! - Page 3

mudwhistle · 12-20-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elliott

Than why is it VKM is so gung ho about him?

Read anhailla's link.

Quote:

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Lolli · 12-20-2007, 08:32 AM

Initially my thought was:

This sort of nonsense is exactly the crap that takes focus away from real issues. So what he took a donation from a supremacist? Did Paul know he was a supremacist when he received the donation? Does Paul or any candidate know each and every person who is donating and their history? This dude makes it known he is a supremacist, but how about all the other people donating who are closet homophobes, racists and haters?

But, since Paul has had a history make making racist remarks - well it is a bit suspect. However, people automatically jumped to the conclusion he is a racist before all the facts are out.

slowhand · 12-20-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richterscale

Well before you go all Ron Paul is a White supremacist on us, whoops, maybe I'm too late, you might want to go peruse Stormfront.orgs forums to see what they actually think of Ron Paul.

Quote:

I know opposition research from other candidates, and media outlets starved for stories are trying to play this up to be a big deal, but frankly, it ain't. Ron Paul couldn't give two lazy turds about these people or their beliefs, and their support for him is marginal at best.

Maybe you should visit stormfront and count a few turds

Quote:

But I guess it's fun to create controversy where little or none exists.

So in other words, Paul isnt a racist..Hes just stupid, right?

eagleclaw · 12-20-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anhailla

As promised...ever wondered why vkmh loves paul so much?

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2...ron-pauls.html

The New York Sun???? hahahahahah.....

eagleclaw · 12-20-2007, 09:12 AM

All of you sound worried about Dr.Pauls popularity. You should try and sift through the bullshit, maybe you would find out that he has many more good points then the straw-man bullshit that keeps gettting dredge up.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ul-for-th.html

Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination
17 Dec 2007 12:16 pm

By now, readers will know who I favor in the Democratic race. Here's my most considered case. But what of the GOP? For me, it comes down to two men, Ron Paul and John McCain. That may sound strange, because in many ways they are polar opposites: the champion of the surge and the non-interventionist against the Iraq war; the occasional meddling boss of Washington and the live-and-let-live libertarian from Texas. But picking a candidate is always a mix of policy and character, of pragmatism and principle. And what these two mavericks share, to my mind, is a modicum of integrity. At one end of the character scale, you have the sickening sight of Mitt Romney, a hollow shell of cynicism and salesmanship, recrafted to appeal to a base he studied the way Bain consultants assess a company. Paul and McCain are at the other end. They have both said things to GOP audiences that they knew would offend. They have stuck with their positions despite unpopularity. They're not saints, but they believe what they say. Both have also taken a stand against the cancerous and deeply un-American torture and detention regime constructed by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my book, that counts.

I admire McCain in so many ways. He is the adult in the field, he is attuned to the issue of climate change in a way no other Republican is, he is a genuine war hero and a patriot, and he bravely and rightly opposed the disastrous occupation policies of the Bush administration in Iraq. The surge is no panacea for Iraq; but it has enabled the United States to lose the war without losing face. And that, in the end, is why I admire McCain but nonetheless have to favor Paul over McCain. Because on the critical issue of our time - the great question of the last six years - Paul has been proven right and McCain wrong. And I say that as someone who once passionately supported McCain's position on the war but who cannot pretend any longer that it makes sense.

Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?

McCain, for all his many virtues, still doesn't get this. Paul does.

Paul, moreover, supports the only rational response: a withdrawal, as speedily and prudently as possible. McCain, along with Lieberman, still seems to believe that expending even more billions of dollars to prop up and enable a fast-devolving, ethnically toxic, religiously nutty region is somehow in American interests. Given the enormous challenges of the terror war, the huge debt we are piling up, the exhaustion of the military, the moral and financial corruption that has its white-hot center in Mesopotamia, I do not believe that an endless military, economic and political commitment to Iraq makes sense. It only makes sense if we are determined to occupy the Middle East indefinitely to secure oil supplies. But the rational response to oil dependence is not to entrench it, but to try and move away from it. Institutionalizing a bank-breaking, morale-busting Middle East empire isn't the way to go.

But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.

He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.

Go Ron Paul!

(Photo: Scott Olson/Getty.)

Permalink :: Trackback (15) :: Sphere It!

cheapseats · 12-20-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

All of you sound worried about Dr.Pauls popularity. You should try and sift through the bullshit, maybe you would find out that he has many more good points then the straw-man bullshit that keeps gettting dredge up.

People feel the way they feel, people are who they are. Ron Paul DOES have some good points. Some people will support Ron Paul either despite or because of his support from white supremacists...who many of us count among our relatives...AND some will support him either despite or because of his support from the Ku Klux Klan.

HOWEVER, comma, support from the Ku Klux Klan is NOT a straw man distraction.

As Special Interests go, support from the Ku Klux Klan is REALLY special. It is NOT neutral. Support from the Ku Klux Klan is a red flag, a head turner, a deal breaker, a show stopper. Not for everyone, I understand that, but for some.

It's about making informed decisions. Where a candidate SAYS he stands is one thing...hence this long and gripping campaign season. But talk is cheap. Who stands with the man who says he stands wherever he stands is an important reality-check.

anhailla · 12-20-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lollipop

Initially my thought was:

This sort of nonsense is exactly the crap that takes focus away from real issues. So what he took a donation from a supremacist? Did Paul know he was a supremacist when he received the donation? Does Paul or any candidate know each and every person who is donating and their history? This dude makes it known he is a supremacist, but how about all the other people donating who are closet homophobes, racists and haters?

But, since Paul has had a history make making racist remarks - well it is a bit suspect. However, people automatically jumped to the conclusion he is a racist before all the facts are out.

I didn't have an opinion of him until I read the comments he has made in the past

anhailla · 12-20-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

The New York Sun???? hahahahahah.....

hey eagle...THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE BROKE THE STORY, the sun was quoting the CHRONICLE

nice try, but no banana

jdanton · 12-20-2007, 10:45 AM

I have to say that what I find strange in this is the lack of laundering.

If I were a KKK member or organization, and I wanted to support a candidate, I'd get the money to him, but I'd find a way where NO ONE would know it was from me.

Wouldn't you?

It's kind of like wiping your prints off a murder weapon, then keeping it in your trunk.

This would only make sense if they truly believed there are enough racists to support the one they openly give money to.

Political contributions are a form of free speech. I just think we need to consider carefully what a particular donation is trying to say.

aloysious · 12-20-2007, 10:47 AM

Hmm... Paul's campaign won't return $500 donated by Don Black, former grand wizard of the KKK. That's clear proof he is a white supremecist.
$500. If he returned that, that would be the end of his campaign.

The military industrial complex appears to be awful worried about someone who is a non-factor. Awful worried.
One thing Paul has made very clear in his message: he does not pander to any special interest groups, lobbyists and certainly not corportions (unlike many, if not most of the other candidates, and one in particular) and any of those looking to buy influence are wasting their money, as he stated. He's more principled than the rest of the bunch combined.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode