Ron Paul to Keep Donation From White Supremacist

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/

your thoughts on him keeping the money and on the irony of a white supremacist named Black

[TheOtherAndrew]

I was confused for a second, but once I read the explanation I pretty much agreed with his logic.

"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."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.


Good for him.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Thats the conclusion I came to

Giving back the money just as a symbolic stance against this guy doesn't do much. Using it for what he believes in kind of makes sense to me.

[senatorlamb]

The supremacists love Paul, they get their small libertarian government along with their much desired isolationist foreign policy. Basically they want to go back to the good ol' days of the Republican Party that didn't support Israel.

Ron Paul people are nuts.

[Justin_stacy]

Good for Paul, his answer to this question when ask by Beck was perfect. If some moron wants to give away five hundred dollars why shouldn't it be spent?

[bossman calling]

If you guys want to open this can of worms and look at all of the hate-mongers, nutcases and criminals that have given to the candidates...we can do that.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

If you guys want to open this can of worms and look at all of the hate-mongers, nutcases and criminals that have given to the candidates...we can do that.

Not one person has criticized Paul's handling of this yet so you can holster your gun

Although I'd be more than interested in other campaign contributions just for curiosity's sake

[bossman calling]

I'm just saying...it isn't unusual for these types of people to give to campaigns.

I'm also pretty sure that if this were one of the mainstream candidates and this was their reasoning for keeping it, we'd never hear the end of it.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I'm just saying...it isn't unusual for these types of people to give to campaigns.

I'm also pretty sure that if this were one of the mainstream candidates and this was their reasoning for keeping it, we'd never hear the end of it.

You may have a point there

If one of them gets a check from a nut then maybe we will see

[The Revisionist]

...why shouldn't he keep it?

[Sabian]

Dude thats awesome. I found my candidate. Someone who is down with the Aryan Brotherhood. Word up. WP.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't see a problem. He isn't going to campaign for any white sepremacist points so it doesn't matter.

And it’s better spent by Ron, then towards the goal of hate. Really only someone with their head fully extended up their up ass would see a problem with this.

[Broken Parachute]

I don't see a problem. He isn't going to campaign for any white sepremacist points so it doesn't matter.Pretty much.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I don't know who's spinning this, the neo cons or the Dems but someone is trying to create a scandal out of nothing.

there's something new in politics, a scandal out of nothing

[The Fix]

I'm not sure why this is surprising, seeing that Ron Paul is a racist.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't know who's spinning this, the neo cons or the Dems but someone is trying to create a scandal out of nothing.

Glen Beck said something about it on his show, but that was really only to allow Ron to give his take on the issue. Yahoonews, which overly leans democrat and left, is the only site i’ve seen make an issue of it. But they took it down pretty fast.

If there is someone making a scandal its probably the GOP and neo-conservatives who are threatened by Ron’s openness and ability to raise money in non-traditional Republican ways, which will keep him in the race even with low primary numbers. I think that they knew he brings out the weakness in the others arguments and hurts them in the debates. I can’t see Liberals or Democrats taking issue with him. He's more likely to change his party, then win any election. Besides that Democrats got their wish when Huckabee took over the front runner position, as he will be easy to defeat in ‘08. If anything the Democrats are loving the mess Republicans have brought on themselves, and are staying out of it (notice they didn't make a big deal out of Huckabee's AIDS remark?).

[bossman calling]

I'm not sure why this is surprising, seeing that Ron Paul is a racist.

Care to back that up with some proof?

[HashHolly]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-live-blimpvision-388512p326.html

I just cannot support a candidate with supporters like ”those”

Obama '08

[bossman calling]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-live-blimpvision-388512p326.html

I just cannot support a candidate with supporters like ”those”

Obama '08

Under this logic, shouldn't you also hate on Obama because he has the support of some notable Black Panthers?

[lauren<3s music]

the classy thing to do would be to donate it to a worthy civil rights charity. and i'd be willing to bet that the "mainstream" candidates would return/wouldn't accept it bc of the bad press. in any event campaign contributions are only a small piece of the puzzle. no one is going to buy a position for $500, not even with ron paul

[lauren<3s music]

Glen Beck said something about it on his show, but that was really only to allow Ron to give his take on the issue. Yahoonews, which overly leans democrat and left, is the only site i’ve seen make an issue of it. But they took it down pretty fast.

If there is someone making a scandal its probably the GOP and neo-conservatives who are threatened by Ron’s openness and ability to raise money in non-traditional Republican ways, which will keep him in the race even with low primary numbers. I think that they knew he brings out the weakness in the others arguments and hurts them in the debates. I can’t see Liberals or Democrats taking issue with him. He's more likely to change his party, then win any election. Besides that Democrats got their wish when Huckabee took over the front runner position, as he will be easy to defeat in ‘08. If anything the Democrats are loving the mess Republicans have brought on themselves, and are staying out of it (notice they didn't make a big deal out of Huckabee's AIDS remark?).

for once we agree on something.

[HashHolly]

Under this logic, shouldn't you also hate on Obama because he has the support of some notable Black Panthers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacists

yeah, not really going to apply that logic to Obama sorry....

[bossman calling]

Hmm...Stormfront.org, a website that has advocated violence in the name of race...and the Black Panthers, a group that advocated and used violence in the name of race. Logic still applies.

[thetrueblood]

Hmm...Stormfront.org, a website that has advocated violence in the name of race...and the Black Panthers, a group that advocated and used violence in the name of race. Logic still applies.

While I don't care whether he keeps the money or not, you're comparing what people did in the midst of the civil rights movement to what people are doing today.

[Nevuk]

The Black Panthers are still around, aren't they?

[bossman calling]

That's not my point. The point is it is not logical to base your lack of support for a certain candidate based on a few members of a radical or fringe group who happen to support him, given that all candidates tend to attract any number of radical or fringe groups somewhere along the line...I mean they generally have to support someone, right?

Just because a fringe group supports a candidate doesn't mean that it is a reflection on the candidate himself, that the candidate supports the group or its agenda or that the candidate will become influenced by the agenda of the group. Ron Paul is not a racist, nor is Barack Obama a supporter of violence against the police just because they have fans that are or were.

[saysmydoctor]

I would donate the money to the NAACP to smite that bigoted fuck.

[Until The Bombs]

Not worth a second thought.

[ghostyouare]

Hmm...Stormfront.org, a website that has advocated violence in the name of race...and the Black Panthers, a group that advocated and used violence in the name of race. Logic still applies.
White Sepremacy vs Black eqaulity? Same logic?

[bossman calling]

1. That was not the point.
2. You know pretty much nothing about the Black Panther movement.

[Sleepaway]

He's entirely right to accept the money

[Syz]

I'm just saying...it isn't unusual for these types of people to give to campaigns.

I'm also pretty sure that if this were one of the mainstream candidates and this was their reasoning for keeping it, we'd never hear the end of it.
Bossman: Go Ron Paul. The other candidates accept the money and announce to the world they are going to donate it to some fine cause. Then they turn around and write the donation off business expenses and think they come out looking honorable. They used the corrupt money for their own purposes. Paul tells it like it is and is honorable enough not to inform the uninformable what the other candidates are really doing with their ill-gotten gains. Paul will pay the taxes on it even though he understands taxes have to stop so our youth can live on their hard earned salaries. No wonder he had 6 mil dropped in his lap. People have had it with this broken self-serving two party thivery.

[Syz]

I Found the 2002-2006 in Social Security Documents and the other years were printed in Detroit Free Press a few years ago:

CONGRESS VS THE REST OF US:

Annual Salary for Average annual U.S.
members of Congress Income

1855 -- $3,000.00 1969 -- $3,000.00
1935 10,000.00 1984 10,328.00
2002 154,000.00 2001 22,851.00
2006 165,200.00 2006 39,201.00

This does not include the perks they receive of donations, health care, continued salary for the remainder of their lives after only 4 years of service, vacations, entertainment, golf outings, housing (Bill and Hillary's New York Home a donation to them by "hmmmm" friends) etc. It is clear the Constitution which was originally for the citizens to keep this Government acting on their behalf - we now have our government usinging this Constitution against the citizen and our Nation.

If you feel this is fair, then announce your love of despotism and step aside and allow the rest of us to smack this conceit of idiocy by our leaders out of the ballpark. We'll let you know when it's over so you can come back and know what FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT.

[Syz]

Oh Great, let me try that again:

The years on the right are the Average annual U.S. incomes

[bossman calling]

Bossman: Go Ron Paul. The other candidates accept the money and announce to the world they are going to donate it to some fine cause. Then they turn around and write the donation off business expenses and think they come out looking honorable. They used the corrupt money for their own purposes. Paul tells it like it is and is honorable enough not to inform the uninformable what the other candidates are really doing with their ill-gotten gains. Paul will pay the taxes on it even though he understands taxes have to stop so our youth can live on their hard earned salaries. No wonder he had 6 mil dropped in his lap. People have had it with this broken self-serving two party thivery.

Yeah, that comment was actually an indictment on the attitudes of the media and the reactionary nature of the mainstream parties and their mainstream candidates...not on Ron Paul.

[bossman calling]

I Found the 2002-2006 in Social Security Documents and the other years were printed in Detroit Free Press a few years ago:

CONGRESS VS THE REST OF US:

Annual Salary for Average annual U.S.
members of Congress Income

1855 -- $3,000.00 1969 -- $3,000.00
1935 10,000.00 1984 10,328.00
2002 154,000.00 2001 22,851.00
2006 165,200.00 2006 39,201.00

This does not include the perks they receive of donations, health care, continued salary for the remainder of their lives after only 4 years of service, vacations, entertainment, golf outings, housing (Bill and Hillary's New York Home a donation to them by "hmmmm" friends) etc. It is clear the Constitution which was originally for the citizens to keep this Government acting on their behalf - we now have our government usinging this Constitution against the citizen and our Nation.

If you feel this is fair, then announce your love of despotism and step aside and allow the rest of us to smack this conceit of idiocy by our leaders out of the ballpark. We'll let you know when it's over so you can come back and know what FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT.

I'm actually in support of paying members of Congress and the President more money so we can ensure that those who aren't already independently wealthy have an incentive to run.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm actually in support of paying members of Congress and the President more money so we can ensure that those who aren't already independently wealthy have an incentive to run.

In theory it could also help control coruption.

[Justin_stacy]

That’s nonsense. Just because they share ideological views with you, doesn't mean they're somehow beyond the corruption that is always prevalent in big government. Yes, Gravel, seems like a man of character, but how are we to know what went on behind closed doors? Until given evidence to the contrary, I don’t think its unfair to assume all politicians are as corrupted as the likes of Ted Kennedy.

[SgtFumunda]

I don't see a problem. He isn't going to campaign for any white sepremacist points so it doesn't matter.
This should have been the end of the thread.

[Justin_stacy]

Go dig some dirt on them. Your position is they are corrupt unless proven otherwise? That's a pretty dumb stand point. Show me how any of those three are corrupt please.

No what‘s stupid is to hold these three out above the others with out reasons. What cause do you have to say its fair to label all politicians as corrupt, except these three.....etc? What have they done that puts them above the numerous other politicians with outwardly “clean” records?

Either all are given the benefit of doubt, or there has to be reason for singling these individuals out for being above reproach.

[Nevuk]

No what‘s stupid is to hold these three out above the others with out reasons. What cause do you have to say its fair to label all politicians as corrupt, except these three.....etc? What have they done that puts them above the numerous other politicians with outwardly “clean” records?

Either all are given the benefit of doubt, or there has to be reason for singling these individuals out for being above reproach.
By this same logic, Ron Paul is not above corruption either. So fish again. The other reason those 3 are unlikely targets is who would donate to them in an attempt to buy their corruption? All 3 have stances widely against those wealth enough to corrupt people. Gravel's campaign is several hundred thousand dollars in debt, hardly a feature apparent from someone who is on a bankroll. In addition, all 3 are extraordinary longshots, not worth the return on investment in any case.

[Justin_stacy]

I might have misread the argument. But I stand by my point. If it’s justifiable to label most politicians as crooks, what makes these three exceptions? Is it just ideology, or do you have some proof that makes them standouts?

[EasySkankin]

I'm actually in support of paying members of Congress and the President more money so we can ensure that those who aren't already independently wealthy have an incentive to run.

The only incentive there should be for politicians is to benefit the ruled society, and enrich their lives.

I compare it to teaching. Having wages so low filters out those who would take the profession for the money, and leaves those who are genuinely interested in educating young people.

The real problem stopping people who are economically inferior from running is the campaigning process, not the income.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

We've established that he definitely is fine keeping the money

But come on people, the white supremacists name was Black. Thats funny.

[Syz]

Unlike our salaries, our representative's salaries are insignificant to them. They are not bound together by party or even ideology, but by mutually advantageous financial relationship which I call the "coffers of power".

This group holds sway over the politically disorganized middle class and the well-beaten poor. (that's the majority of us).

They develop these financial relationships and hone them (in other words, they watch out for each others needs until they can call in their chits down the road.) This is the typical Art of the Con.

The rewards outside of these relationships are tremendous. They get to work only 4 years which entitles them to leave with full pay, pensions, health insurance, lobbyist rights and all the vacation perks, golf outings for the remainder of their lives. Hence, the reason one acquires 100 mil to run for an office that pays them $175,000.00 annually.

Do you get this same set up where you work or if you are an entrepreneure? NO, you get to pay the social security for old geezers like me, pay for all the above perks for your representatives that you want to pay more out of your salary to keep them honest. LOL

Ron Paul says (and so do I) You thieves have had it. The young, middle class and yes, even the rich get to keep the dollar they make, you deserve health care accounts, privitized social security and best of all we'll give you back your Constitution in the process.

When the Clintons left the White house, they were broke, yet those wonderful coffers of power managed to buy them a mansion in New York so Hillary could stay in the freebie crowd and get the final ring from our noses by the best coffer job of all. The Presidency.

You are talking about wanting to give more to this group of top feeders. Don't know if any of you are old enough to recall, but let me list another perk this crowd worked. The Federal Post Office allows free stamps for all our reps business adventures. They took the stamps by the thousands of dollars, then returned them for the cash.

We are the big Master Card in the sky for these rats (I decided to speak kindly) They use our Credit Card, take the merchandise back and get cash and leave us no shoes. This is what must come to an end. We can no longer afford this monumental welfare group.

[Love As Arson]

Hmm...Stormfront.org, a website that has advocated violence in the name of race...and the Black Panthers, a group that advocated and used violence in the name of race. Logic still applies.
A distinction must be made between the violence of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressor. Violence in the name of white supremacy belongs to the latter, as it is part of American institutions. Setting this aside, the comparison still fails, since the movement was about black empowerment in the context of a time in America when they had very little. If we are to follow your line of logic, then the violence of the Ku Klux Klan is the same as the violence of a slave that took up arms against the southern aristocracy.

[littler101]

its really not a big deal