You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paul finally gave up his principles
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
When are people going to wake up and understand that we need to fall back to what made this country what it is (i.e. the constitution)? It never seizes to amaze me that people never seem to realize what going on outside their pathetic life's as to what really at stake. When it comes to their THEIR rights is responsibly to their country and the US Constitution. WAKE UP! Our fore father revolted on a whole lot less?
jakeswensonmt
New member
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Fremmer: Before you get all red in the face denouncing anyone who doesn't denounce this quote, perhaps you should check out the US Department of Justice statistics. They say it's true. And this is not the white supremacist website, this is the US DOJ official site. Hard to argue with.
Why is it when a black says "I'm black and proud of it," it's called progress, but when a white man says "I'm white and proud of it," it's called a hate crime? There is plenty of racism being perpetrated these days, and whites are not the ones doing the perpetrating. I am so sick of the dumbed down, shrill, P.C. B.S., white/america hating trend in modern media and politics.
Mr. Paul also wrote that "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism
How very, very true.
Now, if Ron Paul accepted money from the NAACP, that would be ok with everybody, even though they are themselves racist? Why the double standard?
wheres your documentation? you make an awful lot of accusations without any proof.
From everybodys favorite encyclopedia...
Black joined the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1975, one year after David Duke took over the organization. He moved to Birmingham to become the group's state organizer. After the resignation of Duke in 1978, Black became Grand Wizard, or national director, of the Klan. He ran for mayor of Birmingham in 1979 and received 2 percent of the vote.
On April 27, 1981, Black and nine other would-be mercenaries - many recruited from Klan affiliated organizations - were arrested in New Orleans as they prepared to board a boat stocked with weapons and ammunition to invade the island nation Dominica in what they would call Operation Red Dog. However, the local media would label the botched attempt the "Bayou of Pigs,"; a play on words for the unsuccessful 1961 "Bay of Pigs" invasion of Cuba.
Black tried to spin the invasion as an attempt to set up an anti-communist regime later saying, "What we were doing was in the best interests of the United States and its security in the hemisphere, and we feel betrayed by our own government," The invasion was intended to restore former prime minister Patrick John to the mostly Black Caribbean island. Prosecutors said the real purpose for the invasion would have been to setup tourist, gambling, offshore banking, and timber logging operations on the impoverished island.
Black was sentenced to three years in prison for his role in the attempted invasion and his violation of the Neutrality Act. He was released in 1984, having served his sentence in a federal prison in Texas. During his time in federal prison Black took computer programing classes which ironically led him to establish Stormfront on the Internet years later.
This is not about morality, but control - defining which groups are acceptable or unacceptable and dictating how people can interact with those groups.
Its 100% about defining which groups are unacceptable. To all sane people nazi sympathizers fall into this category.
from what i can gather, it is actually not illegal for a felon to donate. so dont even bother with the evidence, ill accept that its true. cause it doesnt matter.
I see. So now the standard changes from "anyone but felons" to "anyone". I will admit you guys are a real flexible group.
huchahuchax
New member
I will admit you guys are a real flexible group.
Not me, I'm as rigid as they come. And since guilt by association is the new standard we are using for judging the moral character of a Presidential candidate, I feel it is my duty to inform you all that Rudy Giuliani is a Harlem drug kingpin.
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/old_drug_lords_respect_rudy_bu.html
This is nuts...
This entire thread starts off with a presumption that RP's campaign did something wrong. Further, the choices offered are between "you're an incompetent boob if you give it back" and "you're a loser if you keep it."
The supposition that because RP has raised some money he should give it back, even if his opponents are able to outspend him 6:1, denies the realities of modern politics. Claiming that if he keeps it, that somehow says he's incompetent and lacking integrity which disqualifies him to be president is ludicrious. Especially in light of the alternative...
Which the OP says that acceptance of a donation it lends tacit approval of the donor's mindset and thus it must mean that RP harbors similar thoughts. Does that mean the candidates have to grill each donor to make sure the candidate agrees with all of the donor's stances on all issues?
If you found that Sarah Brady made a $50 contribution to RP's campaign and he wasn't going to return it, would you suddenly spout off that he must, therefore, endorse every idiotic anti-gun thought that's gone through Sarah Brady's five braincells?
Disclaimer: For what it's worth, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Mostly 'cuz I think he's got a snowball's chance, but it also might be because watching him seems to be as appealing as dusting your shoes for athlete's foot.
This entire thread starts off with a presumption that RP's campaign did something wrong. Further, the choices offered are between "you're an incompetent boob if you give it back" and "you're a loser if you keep it."
The supposition that because RP has raised some money he should give it back, even if his opponents are able to outspend him 6:1, denies the realities of modern politics. Claiming that if he keeps it, that somehow says he's incompetent and lacking integrity which disqualifies him to be president is ludicrious. Especially in light of the alternative...
Which the OP says that acceptance of a donation it lends tacit approval of the donor's mindset and thus it must mean that RP harbors similar thoughts. Does that mean the candidates have to grill each donor to make sure the candidate agrees with all of the donor's stances on all issues?
If you found that Sarah Brady made a $50 contribution to RP's campaign and he wasn't going to return it, would you suddenly spout off that he must, therefore, endorse every idiotic anti-gun thought that's gone through Sarah Brady's five braincells?
Disclaimer: For what it's worth, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Mostly 'cuz I think he's got a snowball's chance, but it also might be because watching him seems to be as appealing as dusting your shoes for athlete's foot.
to me it's a minor issue
Sorry, but the racist garbage spewed by Ron Paul's newsletter is hardly "minor." Ron Paul also objects to giving blacks their civil rights:
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Paul doesn't seem very happy that blacks have civil rights, or that they elect their own mayors. And then he talks about the "black agenda." Paul's past opinions like the instant one are the best demonstration of his character, and Ron Paul's own newsletter speaks for its disgusting, racist self.
Just a minor issue, indeed. Well, unless you're black, and Ron Paul is elected. Then it might become a major issue when the Civil Rights Act isn't enforced by someone who classifies 95% of blacks are criminals.
Paul kept the campaign donation from a White Supremist wacko? Somehow, I'm not surprised. :barf:
This entire thread starts off with a presumption that RP's campaign did something wrong. Further, the choices offered are between "you're an incompetent boob if you give it back" and "you're a loser if you keep it."
Sorry Bill, thats not what was said. Paul's incompetence is that he didnt see this for the huge political gift it could have been. Paul's "looser" moment is that he doesn't have the conviction to do the right thing.
The supposition that because RP has raised some money he should give it back, even if his opponents are able to outspend him 6:1, denies the realities of modern politics. Claiming that if he keeps it, that somehow says he's incompetent and lacking integrity which disqualifies him to be president is ludicrious. Especially in light of the alternative...
The alternative which is what? Thats he gives it back and looks like a media hero? Yeah some good press is the last thing Paul needs right now. In the last few days I've seen this story run on several different shows on several different networks. On every single headline it reads "ron paul takes money from white supremacist". If Paul was actually a contender, this would have ended his campaign. The only reason why its not going to sink him much further is because the "true believers" will vote for him no matter what.
Of course this all assumes that 500 makes or breaks a presidential election, which you and I know doesnt. Thus the choice Paul had was keep the money and deal with the bad PR, or give it back and get some much needed good PR that 500 several times over couldn't buy.
Which the OP says that acceptance of a donation it lends tacit approval of the donor's mindset and thus it must mean that RP harbors similar thoughts. Does that mean the candidates have to grill each donor to make sure the candidate agrees with all of the donor's stances on all issues?
And like I've said for the 3rd time, I don't expect any candidate to do anything other than what the law requires. However when its brough to their attention I expect them to not pretend it didn't happen.
If you found that Sarah Brady made a $50 contribution to RP's campaign and he wasn't going to return it, would you suddenly spout off that he must, therefore, endorse every idiotic anti-gun thought that's gone through Sarah Brady's five braincells?
Well, if he has said some questionable things in the past, had articles in anti-gun magazines, and had a huge following among the brady crowd I'd certianly take a long hard look.
Its 100% about defining which groups are unacceptable.
How many years has it been since blacks were unacceptable?
Or gays?
The PC crowd does not have a good record of "defining which groups are unacceptable."
stage2 said:I see. So now the standard changes from "anyone but felons" to "anyone". I will admit you guys are a real flexible group.
if you actually paid attention you would have noticed that i believed that it was illegal for a campaign to accept donations from a felon. if that were true, then i would have a problem with it. since i researched it a bit and found out it is not illegal, then it doesnt matter if he was a felon or not. why would you think i would be ok with a white supremacist donating, but not a felon? your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
gc70 said:The PC crowd does not have a good record of "defining which groups are unacceptable
unless they agree with me, that is. if they disagree, then they are a bunch of leftist libtards.
Silver Bullet
New member
Shunning groups because you disagree with them politically is just another form of bigotry. The liberalMedia has successfully indoctrinated much of this country into believing that intolerance is a narrow-minded quality of the less educated, unless it’s regarding people who they don’t like: then intolerance suddenly becomes a “virtue.”
If I were to reject Ron Paul for the silly reason that some big bad scary white supremacists (did these folks commit any crimes ?) sent him money, then I would feel like little more than a stooge for the liberalMedia, to be manipulated into their groupthink of right and wrong.
If I were to reject Ron Paul for the silly reason that some big bad scary white supremacists (did these folks commit any crimes ?) sent him money, then I would feel like little more than a stooge for the liberalMedia, to be manipulated into their groupthink of right and wrong.
I want to thank the individuals who started and contributed to this thread it certainly helped to open my eyes and see the reality of Ron Paul.
I must say I was concerned to read the quotes from the newsletter and it led me to start doing my own more in depth research on Ron Paul. I was fairly shocked by what I found to say the least.
I reviewed the man's voting record and looked into a lot of the legislation that he has sponsored and I discovered that it consistently reflected a commitment to a smaller limited government within strict constitutional boundaries. I did not discover any support for racist legislation.
I discovered a lot of information documented from people in the district he represents and from people that have known him personally and professionally for years and decades and universally the reports indicate that he is and has been a kind considerate and fair man of principle both publically and privately. He has evidently been faithful to his wife, supportive of his children, and a good and helpful neighbor.
I learned that many of his political views are unorthodox and are considered out of the mainstream. So, I read more about his views on the gold standard and on limiting the federal government in regards to taxation and on other issues. What I discovered when I went past the sound bites was a well thought out philosophy and a plan for reasoned gradual change.
So thank you for this thread, for I discovered that Ron Paul has more personal and professional integrity and courage than any candidate for national office that I can recall in my lifetime. Now, not only will I support Ron Paul with my vote, I am also going to support him with my money and my voice.
I must say I was concerned to read the quotes from the newsletter and it led me to start doing my own more in depth research on Ron Paul. I was fairly shocked by what I found to say the least.
I reviewed the man's voting record and looked into a lot of the legislation that he has sponsored and I discovered that it consistently reflected a commitment to a smaller limited government within strict constitutional boundaries. I did not discover any support for racist legislation.
I discovered a lot of information documented from people in the district he represents and from people that have known him personally and professionally for years and decades and universally the reports indicate that he is and has been a kind considerate and fair man of principle both publically and privately. He has evidently been faithful to his wife, supportive of his children, and a good and helpful neighbor.
I learned that many of his political views are unorthodox and are considered out of the mainstream. So, I read more about his views on the gold standard and on limiting the federal government in regards to taxation and on other issues. What I discovered when I went past the sound bites was a well thought out philosophy and a plan for reasoned gradual change.
So thank you for this thread, for I discovered that Ron Paul has more personal and professional integrity and courage than any candidate for national office that I can recall in my lifetime. Now, not only will I support Ron Paul with my vote, I am also going to support him with my money and my voice.
if you actually paid attention you would have noticed that i believed that it was illegal for a campaign to accept donations from a felon. if that were true, then i would have a problem with it. since i researched it a bit and found out it is not illegal, then it doesnt matter if he was a felon or not. why would you think i would be ok with a white supremacist donating, but not a felon? your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
I know exactly what you said. I just find it funny that the group of "acceptable" people keeps expanding. It seems that there is nothing "legal" that you find repugnant.
The PC crowd does not have a good record of "defining which groups are unacceptable."
Are you suggesting that there will be a time that Nazi sympathizers are acceptable?
Shunning groups because you disagree with them politically is just another form of bigotry. The liberalMedia has successfully indoctrinated much of this country into believing that intolerance is a narrow-minded quality of the less educated, unless it’s regarding people who they don’t like: then intolerance suddenly becomes a “virtue.”
Wow. I expected some Paul supporters to spin this, but I'm actually shocked. This is the third person to post in this thread to defend the ideology of these people. I guess according to Paul supporters, thinking the KKK is bad is actually wrong. I'm narrow minded because I think people that worship hitler and deny the holocaust are evil.
On the wall in my office there is a navy cross pinned on a folded flag. Its there because 66 years ago people with this same ideology decided to act on it, causing men of principle and honor to leave their homes and lives to stop them. It serves as a reminder to me that stuff like this isn't "no big deal". There is a right and a wrong, and folks with integrity know the difference.
This donation is Ron Paul's potential Sista' Soldier moment, a chance to put a controversial moron in the spotlight and then just destroy them.
Please elaborate on what you are trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
How passe; Nazi and Bolshevik sympathizers were the darlings of the PC crowd long ago.Are you suggesting that there will be a time that Nazi sympathizers are acceptable?
The folks who want to tell people how to think are a fickle bunch, frequently changing the objects of their adoration and derision - much like Oceania's changing relationships with Eastasia and Eurasia.
stage2 said:It seems that there is nothing "legal" that you find repugnant.
so now you are putting words in my mouth trying to make me look like a white supremacist sympathiser. youre really taking the high road now. if you cant see the difference between legal and illegal, you have some issues. i have specifically said, in this thread and the other, that i find their views repugnant. i dont find ron pauls beliefs or position on this matter repugnant. you apparently are incapable of seperating the two.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.