What IS Ron smoking now? The univision debate...

[geronimotwo]

Sigh.  You must be a Paul supporter. 

well, i'm not a card carrying member....yet, but i haven't seen anyone else with any backbone. unfortunatly for him, this was just unleashed by the media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_po/ron_paul_white_supremacist

Paul keeps white supremacist donation By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 27 minutes ago
 


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"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.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

probably a guilliani setup.

if not, do you think it's okay to accept money from ANY/ALL americans? (or only the pc one's?)

[wooderson]

Really deserves its own thread - but no, it's not acceptable.

If you really think that the guy running a neo-Nazi site falls under "just a bit un-PC," you've got bigger issues...

[geronimotwo]

Really deserves its own thread - but no, it's not acceptable.

If you really think that the guy running a neo-Nazi site falls under "just a bit un-PC," you've got bigger issues...

i am not a supremicist, or one who condones elitism of any sort. but for me to say that my viewpoint is more important than anyone elses would be exactly that. wouldn't it?

[wooderson]

No.

[Finch]

Ron Paul explains perfectly in this video why he has not returned the money from Don Black. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPhrqllHzY

[wooderson]

Less than convincing, as Paul could have sent it along to any number of worthy causes and made it known that the white supremacist/separatist vote was not welcome in his campaign.

Noting that a white supremacist sent you money because he 'agreed with [some of, presumably] my viewpoints' - ooooookay. Not the response I would have gone with there.

[Finch]

Noting that a white supremacist sent you money because he 'agreed with [some of, presumably] my viewpoints' - ooooookay. Not the response I would have gone with there.

Yeah, you're right. I guess Ron Paul is giving the American people too much credit to know what he was talking about. Not exactly the smartest people around. I mean, him having never espoused any kind of support for a white supremacists doctrine and publicly acknowledge that he is vehemently opposed to white supremacist's beliefs, it would be far to much to ask you to put 2+2 together and realize he was referring to his belief's on personal liberty, responsibility, and limited government. 

[Perd Hapley]

Finch, et al.

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause. 

[wooderson]

Yeah, you're right. I guess Ron Paul is giving the American people too much credit to know what he was talking about.

What he's talking about is fairly clear - elements of his platform are, indeed, shared with some white supremacists. And white supremacists have interpreted his stance as being in agreement with their views.

This doesn't make Paul a racist. This doesn't even mean that the white supremacists' interpretation is correct.

But it still looks remarkably stupid to point their interpretation out. And that's what I said. This isn't like the original scenario where he's speaking an unpopular 'truth' - this just makes him look like a buffoon.

I mean, him having never espoused any kind of support for a white supremacists doctrine

A questionable assertion at best.

and publicly acknowledge that he is vehemently opposed to white supremacist's beliefs

And this is utterly irrelevant - anyone can say he is opposed to anything. I think John Kerry tried to characterize himself as pro-gun, in fact.

realize he was referring to his belief's on personal liberty, responsibility, and limited government.

You think neo-nazi sympathizers are drawn to Paul's beliefs on "personal liberty" and "limited government"? Cuz I don't remember those really being fascist strong points...

[Finch]

elements of his platform are, indeed, shared with some white supremacists.

Please, enlighten me as to what elements of his platform are unique only to Ron Paul and white supremacists.

A questionable assertion at best.

Not, it's not. Please, prove me wrong.

anyone can say he is opposed to anything. I think John Kerry tried to characterize himself as pro-gun, in fact.

And how did we know that John Kerry was FOS. Because he had a history of anti-gun behavior, so of course we would be alarmed when he said he is pro-gun. Sure, anyone can say they support/oppose anything. But with 30 years in public service, your true colors show. Would anybody believe Ted Kennedy if he came out and said he's been sober for 20 years?

But it still looks remarkably stupid to point their interpretation out.

I think you're just not used to a politician giving it to you straight. Any lesser of a man would have danced around the issue, blowing smoke up your ass.

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause.

Only by those too dense to know better.

[Perd Hapley]

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause.

Only by those too dense to know better. 

Who are these enlightened people who don't care about the sources of campaign cash? 

[Finch]

Who are these enlightened people who don't care about the sources of campaign cash? 

I sure don't. Being a Ron Paul supporter, I could care less if Don Black gave him money. Why should I? I'm smart enough to know that Ron Paul does not share any of Don Blacks racists view points. So in my eyes, that is just $500 more towards the Paul campaign and $500 out of the pocket of a scum bag racist.

[wooderson]

Please, enlighten me as to what elements of his platform are unique only to Ron Paul and white supremacists.

Insofar as I'm neither a Paul support, nor a white supremacist - god only knows.

What I do know is that a) Paul appeals to some white supremacists enough for them to donate to his campaign and b) he states that this is because they, apparently, share some of his beliefs.

What those beliefs are, or whether one or more parties is incorrect - god only knows.

All I know is how to follow the money... and listen to what the candidate himself says.

Not, it's not. Please, prove me wrong.

Paul has had racist statements published under his name. Paul has given speeches before white supremacist audiences. Whether you buy into the "I didn't know nuttin'" defense or not (and I do, actually) or the "takin' the truth to 'em" defense or not (I don't) - this renders any statement claiming Paul is clean as a whistle to be, as I said, "questionable at best."

And how did we know that John Kerry was FOS. Because he had a history of anti-gun behavior, so of course we would be alarmed when he said he is pro-gun.

So you mean actions are the relevant criterion by which we judge?

Well, yeah, that's what I said.

What you said is that Ron Paul states that he is utterly opposed to white supremacy and nationalism - and this should be treated as fact. Why? Because he said so.

[wooderson]

I'm smart enough to know that Ron Paul does not share any of Don Blacks racists view points.

Circular logic.

[Perd Hapley]

Paul has had racist statements published under his name. Paul has given speeches before white supremacist audiences.

Really?  Such as?

[wooderson]

His personal newsletter history has long been known - Washington DC African-Americans are all criminals or might as well be, young black teenagers are mighty fleet of foot when they rob you, etc., the only "decent" black folks were the wingnut libertarians and they were greatly outnumbered. He blamed it most of it on the publication staff. Other comments were of the "Zionist Occupied Gubmint" sort (see also: 9/11 truthers), don't know if he took the blame for them or also laid it on the staff.

He's also regularly published in the "American Free Press" - under the control of Holocaust denier Willis Carto.

The most recent speech he gave with white nationalist connections was the Robert Taft Club in VA. There was a controversy right as his campaign kicked in about a militia conference in Colorado or something, I can't remember the name of the group but the head man was a supremacist. (between the Stormfront debacle and the legions of Paulistas defending their hero, quick fact-finding is difficult) And, of course, his cozy relationship with the Patriot Movement/militia nuts of the '80s and '90s is well-documented.

Now, again, I don't think Paul himself is a racist, necessarily. He's just nuts and keeps bad company.

[Perd Hapley]

He's just nuts and keeps bad company. 

You make him sound like an APS member.   

[LAK]

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause.

And Prescott Bush, George's grandad, moved money for the Third Reich while we were at war with them in the 1941 - Brown Brothers Harriman and the Union Bank Corporation. The Bush family fortune is not so clean; funny Clinton did not bring that one up when he was running for pres against G H W Bush. Nor Gore, nor anyone else. Or perhaps not. The Clintons, like the Bush family, go back with the Harrimans a very long way.

The current Bush administration has done business with and all but paved the way into superpower status for one of the most currently brutal regimes on earth.

Who was bellowing about that during the last two election?

And another, "so what".

------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[geronimotwo]

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause.

And Prescott Bush, George's grandad, moved money for the Third Reich while we were at war with them in the 1941 - Brown Brothers Harriman and the Union Bank Corporation. The Bush family fortune is not so clean; funny Clinton did not bring that one up when he was running for pres against G H W Bush. Nor Gore, nor anyone else. Or perhaps not. The Clintons, like the Bush family, go back with the Harrimans a very long way.

------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

is there a link to a credible source of info for this?

His personal newsletter history has long been known - Washington DC African-Americans are all criminals or might as well be, young black teenagers are mighty fleet of foot when they rob you, etc., the only "decent" black folks were the wingnut libertarians and they were greatly outnumbered. He blamed it most of it on the publication staff. Other comments were of the "Zionist Occupied Gubmint" sort (see also: 9/11 truthers), don't know if he took the blame for them or also laid it on the staff.

He's also regularly published in the "American Free Press" - under the control of Holocaust denier Willis Carto.

The most recent speech he gave with white nationalist connections was the Robert Taft Club in VA. There was a controversy right as his campaign kicked in about a militia conference in Colorado or something, I can't remember the name of the group but the head man was a supremacist. (between the Stormfront debacle and the legions of Paulistas defending their hero, quick fact-finding is difficult) And, of course, his cozy relationship with the Patriot Movement/militia nuts of the '80s and '90s is well-documented.

Now, again, I don't think Paul himself is a racist, necessarily. He's just nuts and keeps bad company.

also here?

[LAK]

geronimotwo,

Depends what you call credible; I have read a number of articles and did go to the national archives to view the references there to the seizure of Union Bank Corporations assets under the Trading with the Enemy act several years ago. There were no indictments - not surprizing.

This is one article; I think it is inaccurate in that the seizure of assets took place in 1941 (but that could be correct). The rest is pretty consistant with what I have read elsewhere ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Prescott Bush was a President (I think) at Harriman Bank, which was founded by one of Prescott's ancestors (his father, I think).  Harriman Bank eventually merged into Brown Brothers Harriman.  Prescott was a board member after the merger.

Brown Brothers Harriman used to be the investment bank on wall street.  If it involved financing or investment or banking (and I mean banking on a massive scale, not just your average savings account) anywhere in the world, BBH or one of its affiliates had a part in the transaction one way or another.  Brown Brothers Harriman moved money for EVERYONE.  Obviously BBH had ties and business relationships with all of the banking interests in Europe, and obviously some of European banking interest were used by the Nazis.  But those ties were severed within days of declaring war, when it was made illegal to trade with enemies. 

To say that Prescott Bush somehow worked with or helped the Nazis while we were at war is more than a little misleading.

[TwitchALot]

Yeah, you're right. I guess Ron Paul is giving the American people too much credit to know what he was talking about.

What he's talking about is fairly clear - elements of his platform are, indeed, shared with some white supremacists. And white supremacists have interpreted his stance as being in agreement with their views.

This doesn't make Paul a racist. This doesn't even mean that the white supremacists' interpretation is correct.

But it still looks remarkably stupid to point their interpretation out. And that's what I said. This isn't like the original scenario where he's speaking an unpopular 'truth' - this just makes him look like a buffoon.

I mean, him having never espoused any kind of support for a white supremacists doctrine

A questionable assertion at best.

and publicly acknowledge that he is vehemently opposed to white supremacist's beliefs

And this is utterly irrelevant - anyone can say he is opposed to anything. I think John Kerry tried to characterize himself as pro-gun, in fact.

realize he was referring to his belief's on personal liberty, responsibility, and limited government.

You think neo-nazi sympathizers are drawn to Paul's beliefs on "personal liberty" and "limited government"? Cuz I don't remember those really being fascist strong points...

I think neo-nazi sympathizers are drawn to Paul's beliefs because Paul will defend your freedoms even if he disagrees with them. You know, the, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it," kind of thing. Or should only the people you agree with have rights? 

What those beliefs are, or whether one or more parties is incorrect - god only knows.

Not really. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. That's the great thing about Ron Paul- if you understand the Constitution worth squat, you can determine his position on an issue consistently and accurately. Everyone has rights no matter what they believe, contrary to popular belief. Well, everyone is supposed to under our Constitution, anyway....

Frankly, I find this donation issue to be... well, a non issue. People made a big deal about it (some still do, apparently), but I have to ask: Who is the white supremacist- the one that takes money from a white supremacist to promote the message of freedom, or the one who GIVES money to a white supremacist so he can use it to promote the message of racism?

Hmm... sounds like the people who made this into a big deal are the white supremacists to me. 

[MattC]

If not giving Black's contribution back implies that Paul is a racist, how does that reconcile with all of the non-supremacists whose donations Paul is also keeping?

While Paul could have spoken a bit more convincingly, he does point out the logical fallacy of people assuming that he supports Black's white supremacist ideology simply because Black sent him a campaign contribution.

[Perd Hapley]

While Paul could have spoken a bit more convincingly, he does point out the logical fallacy of people assuming that he supports Black's white supremacist ideology simply because Black sent him a campaign contribution.

But no one said that. 

Accepting donations from an advocate of a particular cause is usually seen as tacit approval of that cause.

And Prescott Bush, George's grandad, moved money for the Third Reich while we were at war with them in the 1941 - Brown Brothers Harriman and the Union Bank Corporation. The Bush family fortune is not so clean; funny Clinton did not bring that one up when he was running for pres against G H W Bush. Nor Gore, nor anyone else. Or perhaps not. The Clintons, like the Bush family, go back with the Harrimans a very long way.

The current Bush administration has done business with and all but paved the way into superpower status for one of the most currently brutal regimes on earth.

Who was bellowing about that during the last two election?

And another, "so what". 

So do you agree with my above quotation, or not? 

[Firethorn]

If not giving Black's contribution back implies that Paul is a racist, how does that reconcile with all of the non-supremacists whose donations Paul is also keeping?

That's why I tend to prefer the 'donate it to an appropriate charity' option.

You don't want to give them back their money, likely to go towards even more racist causes.