Paul finally gave up his principles

Status
Not open for further replies.
The title of this thread is "Paul finally gave up his principles."

Which started me thinking, what exactly were these principles that Ron supposedly gave up?

Perhaps these violation of principles were:
- Accepting a donation from a non-approved racist. In this country your choices for approved racism are limited. Acceptable racists include the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, La Raza, B'nai B'rith, et al. Groups or individuals which support the white race are automatically labeled as "Nazi," "KKK," denounced, and vilified.

- Telling the truth about black crime rates. According to the US DOJ blacks commit homicide at seven times the rate that whites do. This fact is never to be discussed, no matter how true it is.

- Telling the truth about Rodney King, PCP user, criminal, thug. Any views that do not portray Rodney King as a saint who was beaten nearly to death for no reason by JBT's will be labeled as "racist" and "incendiary" and denounced. (see: "Can't we all just get along?")

- Telling the truth about the LA riots. Any views that show the perpetrators of the LA riots as anything but victims will not be allowed. Any views which promote the idea that the LA riots were not the fault of the LAPD and the white race in general will not be tolerated.

- Mentioning the severe beating of Reginald Denny at the hands of black rioters, for the crime of being an innocent white person in the wrong neighboorhood. Reginald deserved this beating because he probably did something in the past against blacks. In fact, come to think of it, the beating of Denny probably never happened at all. He probably doesn't even exist.

- Mentioning that black racism exists. The rulebook of Political Correctness states that only whites can be racist. Any anti-white behavior by non-whites will be traced back to their oppression and victimization by racist whites.


Of course, if you were to approach the PC-leftist media talking heads about these lost principles, they would knee-jerk agree with everything that Stage2 has proposed. Blame-whitey, white guilt, and anti-white themes are the default positions. If a white and a non-white come into conflict, always side with the non-white, as whites are always guilty (as many brainwshed whites believe these days.) There is no problem suffered by non-whites that cannot be traced back to white racism. There is also no problem suffered by non-Americans that cannot be traced back to Americans.

The reason that Stage2 is surprised at the resistance that he is running into in this thread is that he has become used to the media positions listed above, and used to default compliance with these opinions. Most people, whites included, are not critical thinkers and accept media positions as uncontested truth ("If it's on TV it must be true, right?") However, most people on this forum are critical thinkers, and do not accept everything that they see in "the news."

It's not going to work, boys. Most Americans recognize that smell. It comes around during every election.
Click to expand...

I wish this was true, I have my doubts. Too many Americans have de-activated their brains, their opinions are provided, broadcast pre-fabricated and shrink-wrapped, accepted without question with slack jaws and TV-illuminated glazed eyes.
 
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.
Click to expand...
\

You'll hear a lot of excuses, but not the acknowldegment and rejection of the racist remarks in Ron Paul's newsletter. I guess they actually think that 95% of black people are criminals. Somebody asked what the downside would be to taking a stand against racism; it looks like the downside would be a loss of campaign donations for the Ron Paul campaign.

And speaking of the Constitution, it does not authorize congress or the president to be racist. :rolleyes: For someone who is supposedly so "constitutional", Ron Paul sure doesn't know much about the equal protection clause, or maybe he just ignores it. And complaining that blacks have civil rights is absurd. Perhaps Paul has forgotten that the civil rights act was passed by congress and signed into law by the president. Let me guess: the civil rights act is unconstitutional. :rolleyes:
 
False question

Now I'm curious. Are the Paul supporters going to show up here and say that taking money from a bigot is perfectly acceptable, or are they going to do the right thing and denounce this.
Click to expand...

I say there is nothing wrong with taking the money, and that IS THE RIGHT THING. Accepting money from a donor doesn't mean a candidate supports (or agrees, condones) the donor, it means the donor supports the candidate over the other candidates in the race. In this case, both donor and candidate understand that perfectly well, and so should anyone reading it with above a 5th grade education.
 
If you want a President that won't back down or abandon his principles when they become unpopular then enjoy the next year. G.W. has been staying the course while dealing with approval ratings below thirty percent.

I support the President, and I believe that history will judge him well. But I also disagree with some of his policies. For example I think that his approach to illegal immigration is misguided and wrong.

Why are so few Ron Paul supporters here willing to say that accepting money from a nazi is wrong?
 
Why are so few Ron Paul supporters here willing to say that accepting money from a nazi is wrong?
Click to expand...

Why aren't all supporters of all candidates willing to say that accepting money from the NAACP is wrong? One racist vs. another, why does the NAACP get by scot-free because of the color of their skin?
 
Why aren't all supporters of all candidates willing to say that accepting money from the NAACP is wrong? One racist vs. another, why does the NAACP get by scot-free because of the color of their skin?
Click to expand...

a) Read some history, compare and contrast the experiences of white and black America and then get back to me.

b) Read my posts, I encourage Paul to renounce white racism in the same way that Clinton renounced black racism in the 92' election.

c) Please explain to me how nazism is in any way an acceptable way of responding to liberalism.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You find their views repugnant, but their money is fine. My questions is perfectly valid and I havent put anything in your mouth. You have said that any donation is perfectly acceptable as long as its legal. That means that in your eyes, as long as its legal, there isn't anything repugnant enough to not accept donations. Those are your words, not mine.

You see, the one huge mistake you make is that you assume this money is no different from anyone elses. Thats not the case. Don Black doesn't make his money selling cars, or mowing lawns. He makes his money off of donations from KKK members, nazi sympathizers that post on his website, fundraisers and speaking engagements that promote hate, and publications that do the same. This of course assumes that Black doesn't engage in illicit activities which is sketchy at best. So to say this money isn't tainted is the height of ignorance.

Of course, if you were to approach the PC-leftist media talking heads about these lost principles, they would knee-jerk agree with everything that Stage2 has proposed. Blame-whitey, white guilt, and anti-white themes are the default positions. If a white and a non-white come into conflict, always side with the non-white, as whites are always guilty (as many brainwshed whites believe these days.) There is no problem suffered by non-whites that cannot be traced back to white racism. There is also no problem suffered by non-Americans that cannot be traced back to Americans.
Click to expand...

If thats what you got out of what I wrote there isn't anything I can really say that would be constructive.


Why aren't all supporters of all candidates willing to say that accepting money from the NAACP is wrong? One racist vs. another, why does the NAACP get by scot-free because of the color of their skin?
Click to expand...

A better question should be why are you so determined to point to other behavior or talk about everything else besides this. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined independent of anything else. Justifying something by what others do, or how ofthen they do it is simply that, a justification.
 
I say there is nothing wrong with taking the money, and that IS THE RIGHT THING. Accepting money from a donor doesn't mean a candidate supports (or agrees, condones) the donor, it means the donor supports the candidate over the other candidates in the race. In this case, both donor and candidate understand that perfectly well, and so should anyone reading it with above a 5th grade education.
Click to expand...

And then there were 4. As far as having a 5th grade education, I never learned anything about right and wrong in school, or at least never needed to. I'm beginning to think that may be the problem with some folks here.
 
You see, the one huge mistake you make is that you assume this money is no different from anyone elses.
Click to expand...
If it is legally obtained, money is money - or fungible if you prefer the business or legal term.

So to say this money isn't tainted is the height of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Then you should want someone else to have the money, thus preventing Black from using it for some dastardly purpose.
 
And then there were 4. As far as having a 5th grade education, I never learned anything about right and wrong in school, or at least never needed to. I'm beginning to think that may be the problem with some folks here.
Click to expand...

My comment about the 5th grade education was meant in terms that, one should be able to clearly understand that the donation is support of the candidate by the donor, not the other way around. This should be simple reading and comprehension. And not that it should be necessary, but the article clearly explained the rationale for accepting the donation, and the one for giving it. Anyone who understands what was written couldn't in good conscience/faith, make claims that failing to return it is somehow an endorsement of all beliefs the donor holds. I submit that to do so is either the result of poor comprehension and understanding, or else it is a deliberate attempt to smear the candidate by someone who knows better. Ether way, I'm negatively impressed.
 
Then you should want someone else to have the money, thus preventing Black from using it for some dastardly purpose.
Click to expand...

No. Ideally everyone would ignore him and his money wouldnt be good anywhere of consequence.


My comment about the 5th grade education was meant in terms that, one should be able to clearly understand that the donation is support of the candidate by the donor, not the other way around. This should be simple reading and comprehension. And not that it should be necessary, but the article clearly explained the rationale for accepting the donation, and the one for giving it. Anyone who understands what was written couldn't in good conscience/faith, make claims that failing to return it is somehow an endorsement of all beliefs the donor holds. I submit that to do so is either the result of poor comprehension and understanding, or else it is a deliberate attempt to smear the candidate by someone who knows better. Ether way, I'm negatively impressed.
Click to expand...

Then again I say you have missed the point. I'm not suggesting that by taking the money paul is outwardly supporting the platform of Don Black. What I am suggesting is that 1) its stupid for someone doing so poorly in the polls, and someone who has had issues with racism in the past to pass up this opportunity, and 2) someone who knowingly accepts money from, or knowingly has anything to do with people like this lack integrity.

Then again if you had read what I wrote you would have understood this because I addressed it in my first post.
 
This kinda' makes you wonder who the obvious members of the Smearbund we see in this thread are getting their talking points from, doesn't it?

Ron Paul vs. the Smearbund
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 04:23 PM

Apparently Mordor sent out the memo to libel Ron Paul. This is a man whose transparent honesty, decency, learning, and devotion to principle make him unique in politics--and hated by the warfare-welfare-police statists.

For decades, extreme groups have been infiltrated and at least partially controlled by federal and private intelligence agencies. Some have been actual creations.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has been devoted to freedom, tolerance, and peace his entire life. So if someone whose ideology is the opposite of that endorses Ron, wonder: how much was he paid? Who paid him? Who gave the order?

When Ross Perot was leading in the polls, ahead of both Clinton and Bush, the New Republic ran a cover story comparing him to Hitler. Why? Because he was unowned by the power elite.

So, we can expect the anti-Ron smears to increase in number and intensity--there are trillions to steal, thousands to torture, and whole regions to massacre, after all. But they will fail, if we do our job of spreading the truth.

Each time the Orcs strike, we must work harder. So be of good heart, and roll up your sleeves!
Attribution
Click to expand...
 
Ideally everyone would ignore him and his money wouldnt be good anywhere of consequence.
Click to expand...

"...anywhere of consequence" sounds like what someone would say if they believed that political contributions DO buy access, favors, and support.

FWIW, I believe that small-dollar, unsolicited political contributions are inconsequential.
 
Without taking or tasking either side, I will simply note that the thread has become increasingly shrill.

Any signal has been lost to the noise, and for that reason alone -

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top