Should Ron Paul Accept Money From "White Supremacists" ?? - Page 13 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

sumyd · #**181** (**permalink**) 11-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I agree, since Ron Paul is very principled and has the only record that no one can attack, people have to drum up this stuff.

He is not principled since its unprincipled to state one thing and then turn around legitamize the opposite.

mkultra · #**182** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The hypocrisy is thick. All these people who voted for Bush gleefully overlook the fact that plenty of bad people gave him money. What? Do you think just because he claims a hold on moral values that that's the only kind of supporter he ever got? Gimme a break.

now that Bush is almost out of office I guess republicans are gonna start valuing law and ethics again?

mkultra · #**183** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumyd

If a Nazi group gave money to Bush or any republican - it would above the fold news in all the papers and headline news on CBS, NBC, CNN etc. - unless you can prove that nazi like groups have donated to republican candidates - your argument is baseless.

well unlike the people who contributed to Bush at least theyre not demanding Ron Paul to start any wars for us

mawg · #**184** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

Ron Paul should accept the fact that he will never be president and move on.

sumyd · #**185** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkultra

well unlike the people who contributed to Bush at least theyre not demanding Ron Paul to start any wars for us

well now thats what I call proof....NOT.

Slon · #**186** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumyd

actually, I totally agree with the Geek:

but if you insist on being stupid, vote for Ron Paul.

Accepting money from someone in no way automatically changes your beliefs to their's. If you think that is the case, show how it is the scientific or logical necessity of accepting money.

There could be at least two other reasons that I could think of other than "Ron Paul supports white supremacy!"

1. He isn't a very good politician, meaning he doesn't know how to manipulate retards into voting for him (something at which Bush's campaign was obviously very good).

2. He realizes that the argument posted by the likes of you is completely irrational, and Paul wants to make a point by not pandering to the retarded and irrational group of people who hold this stupid "PC" position.

Neither of the above two reasons make Paul any worse of a candidate, and one actually appears to make him a better one.

mkultra · #**187** (**permalink**) 11-23-2007

the bottom line is Ron Paul is a threat to the neocons so that automatically makes him the superior choice by default

sumyd · #**188** (**permalink**) 11-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Why are you reposting the same retarded argument? Accepting money from someone in no way automatically changes your beliefs to their's. If you think that is the case, show how it is the scientific or logical necessity of accepting money.

There could be at least two other reasons that I could think of other than "Ron Paul supports white supremacy!"

1. He isn't a very good politician, meaning he doesn't know how to manipulate retards into voting for him (something at which Bush's campaign was obviously very good).

2. He realizes that the argument posted by the likes of you is completely irrational, and Paul wants to make a point by not pandering to the retarded and irrational group of people who hold this stupid "PC" position.

Neither of the above two reasons make Paul any worse of a candidate, and one actually appears to make him a better one.

Your lack of evidence is overwhelming.

If you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that claims to love freedom and then hypocrytically legitamizes groups that do not, vote for Ron Paul...its really rather simple.

mkultra · #**189** (**permalink**) 11-24-2007

ironic that your talking about some hypothetical cases of some group advocating stealing freedoms when we have an Admin in power now whose been doing nothing BUT that under the false guize of "terrorist fighting" and consolidating so much power in the executive branch that we're almost living in a pseudo-monarchy

Slon · #**190** (**permalink**) 11-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumyd

Your lack of evidence is overwhelming.

If you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that claims to love freedom and then hypocrytically legitamizes groups that do not, vote for Ron Paul...its really rather simple.

Where did Ron Paul legitimize all of their views? Seriously, you need to stop pushing that irrational point of view unless YOU can show some evidence.

sumyd · #**191** (**permalink**) 11-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Where did Ron Paul legitimize all of their views? ....

where did I state that Ron Paul legitamize all of their views? there you go twisting again. I really do get sick of your bullshit antics Slon, you constantly fabricate arguements instead of responding with facts.....I said your facts were underwhelming and your comeback is to add words to my statement to formulate a new arguement.
Just plain bullshit.

Slon · #**192** (**permalink**) 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumyd

where did I state that Ron Paul legitamize all of their views? there you go twisting again. I really do get sick of yoru bullshit antics Slon, you constantly fabricate arguements instead of responding with facts.....I said your facts were underwhelming and your comeback is to add words to my statement to formulate a new arguement. Just plain bullshit.

Fine. We are in agreement, then, that Ron Paul legitimized only certain views, if any, and that it does not mean he in any way supports white supremacy. Perhaps he only legitimizes the white supremacists view that government should be small? Is that what you were trying to say?

sumyd · #**193** (**permalink**) 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Fine. We are in agreement, then, that Ron Paul legitimized only certain views, if any, and that it does not mean he in any way supports white supremacy. Perhaps he only legitimizes the white supremacists view that government should be small? Is that what you were trying to say?

I have said nothing in this arguement other than:

Quote:

Ron Paul is supported by Nazi like influences, if that doesn't bother you - then go ahead and vote for him.

and

Quote:

If you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that claims to love freedom and then hypocrytically legitamizes groups that do not, vote for Ron Paul...its really rather simple

In my opnion - Pauls accepting money from white supremecists adds power to their block - since Paul is now "their man" it has solidified the WS position to have him accept their campaign donations and now allows Paul to be supported on the WS website and blogs.

Claiming he loves freedom and then allowing a group that downright denies freedoms to claim he is their man is hypocrytical.
If that doesn't bother you - then go ahead - vote for the guy.

Slon · #**194** (**permalink**) 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumyd

I have said nothing in this arguement other than:

and

In my opnion - Pauls accepting money from white supremecists adds power to their block

Actually, it takes money away from those groups. And that's a fact.

Quote:

- since Paul is now "their man" it has solidified the WS position to have him accept their campaign donations and now allows Paul to be supported on the WS website and blogs.

Again, you've shown no direct or indirect effect that posting positive comments about RP on one's blog would have on his policies.

Quote:

Claiming he loves freedom and then allowing a group that downright denies freedoms to claim he is their man is hypocrytical.

Uh, the group doesn't need RP's permission to claim anything along those lines. It's called freedom of speech.

Quote:

If that doesn't bother you - then go ahead - vote for the guy.

And your position is totally retarded, irrational and nonsensical.

sumyd · #**195** (**permalink**) 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Actually, it takes money away from those groups.

Mr twister, I did not say it adds money to those groups. I said Pauls accepting money from them adds power to their block.

Quote:

And that's a fact.Again, you've shown no direct or indirect effect that posting positive comments about RP on one's blog would have on his policies.Uh, the group doesn't need RP's permission to claim anything along those lines. It's called freedom of speech.
And your position is totally retarded, irrational and nonsensical.

No need to get personal by calling my postion retarded.

You are right on all the above accounts, so if you want to vote for Ron Paul, I wish you would go ahead and campaign for him.

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