MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul

[verte76]

The Libertarians aren't very realistic. We need police departments, government employees, etc, etc. They're pretty cool on the social issues but we've got to have some government.

 

[melon]

They're pretty cool on the social issues but we've got to have some government.

But that's the problem with many American libertarians. They're not cool on the social issues. They are pretty much isolationist, anarcho-capitalist social conservatives. Hence, we have the term, "paleolibertarian."

 

[MrBrau1]

I remember credit card interest was deductible.

Imagine if that was deductible today?

frightening thought.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'd say, at this distance, killing off the income tax in toto, putting up the 'for sale' sign on the IRS or whatever other thing, would not merely remove the ability of the USA to act as a global power, it would make the US unable to even function as a mere nation, comparable to Britain, or Canada, or Australia.

It's nutty and it's not going to happen, even if Ron Paul says so and even if he were elected.

What is going to happen, if it happens, will not be driven from within by any president or congress. It will be dictated by foreign creditors.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

NY Times

Corrections
Published: December 27, 2007

Editor's Note

A post in The Medium blog that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

 

[martha]

Oh man. As much as I dislike Paul, even I would defend him in this situation.

 

[verte76]

I just read in an email that Ron Paul has been endorsed by a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon who ran for mayor here in 1979. He shouldn't have accepted the endorsement.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Libertarians aren't very realistic. We need police departments, government employees, etc, etc. They're pretty cool on the social issues but we've got to have some government.

Minarchism is distinct from anarchism.

 

[Infinity]

I just read in an email that Ron Paul has been endorsed by a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon who ran for mayor here in 1979. He shouldn't have accepted the endorsement.

In an interview he was asked about this about why he accepted money from this guy. Ron Paul first said that he gets thousands and thousands of donors every week and it would be impossible to screen each and every one to see what their backgrounds are. So then he was asked that now knowing that this guy donated to Paul, will Paul return the money? And Ron Paul said absolutely not because the money will be used for the Ron Paul Campaign purposes and not for any Ku Klux Klan purposes. So why return the money to someone who might use it for some racist purposes? He went on to say that any money he gets will be used for his own campaign message and campaign purposes and will only support his own campaign views and not the views of the donor.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think Ron Paul missed the point there.

 

[Bono's shades]

In an interview he was asked about this about why he accepted money from this guy. Ron Paul first said that he gets thousands and thousands of donors every week and it would be impossible to screen each and every one to see what their backgrounds are. So then he was asked that now knowing that this guy donated to Paul, will Paul return the money? And Ron Paul said absolutely not because the money will be used for the Ron Paul Campaign purposes and not for any Ku Klux Klan purposes. So why return the money to someone who might use it for some racist purposes? He went on to say that any money he gets will be used for his own campaign message and campaign purposes and will only support his own campaign views and not the views of the donor.

Couldn't he have solved the whole dilemma by burning the money donated by the Klan guy? That way the Klan doesn't get it back and he isn't taking money from the Klan.

 

[Infinity]

Couldn't he have solved the whole dilemma by burning the money donated by the Klan guy? That way the Klan doesn't get it back and he isn't taking money from the Klan.

But for Ron Paul, the money is being used for Ron Paul purposes. It doesn't benefit the Klan. Ron Paul isn't going to support the Klan because of the money. So whats wrong with spending that money on his campaign? It would be a different story if he is taking the money in exchange for public suppport, etc. for the Klan. But he is using the money just like he is using anybody else's money, so whats the difference?

 

[phillyfan26]

I would love to here all the people who criticized Hilary Clinton's donation controversy (which ended with her giving the money back, I might add) try to defend Ron Paul here.

 

[anitram]

I would love to here all the people who criticized Hilary Clinton's donation controversy (which ended with her giving the money back, I might add) try to defend Ron Paul here.

Ron Paul isn't an uppity woman, so the defense shouldn't be too difficult for the faction you are thinking of.

 

[Bono's shades]

But for Ron Paul, the money is being used for Ron Paul purposes. It doesn't benefit the Klan. Ron Paul isn't going to support the Klan because of the money. So whats wrong with spending that money on his campaign? It would be a different story if he is taking the money in exchange for public suppport, etc. for the Klan. But he is using the money just like he is using anybody else's money, so whats the difference?

So in other words getting more money for his campaign is more important than where the money comes from? Even if it is from an organization that is villified by pretty much anyone with a shred of human decency? Just the fact that someone from the Klan wanted to donate money to his campaign in the first place raises tons of red flags. You would think strictly from a PR standpoint he might want to consider making a nice little public bonfire out of the donation, just so he can distance himself as much as humanly possible from the Klan.

 

[Infinity]

So in other words getting more money for his campaign is more important than where the money comes from? Even if it is from an organization that is villified by pretty much anyone with a shred of human decency? Just the fact that someone from the Klan wanted to donate money to his campaign in the first place raises tons of red flags. You would think strictly from a PR standpoint he might want to consider making a nice little public bonfire out of the donation, just so he can distance himself as much as humanly possible from the Klan.

Think of it like this. If there is a company doing cancer research and a member of the Klan donated to it do you think the research company shouldn't accept the money? It would be ridiculous to give the money back to the Klan member instead of using it for the research that could save millions of lives. It would also be ridiculous to "burn" the money or waste it off and not use it for research purposes. It is money, why not put it where it can have good benefits?

Now i'm not saying Ron Paul's campaign or presidency is going to save millions of lives (perhaps it will by pulling out of Iraq), but the bottom line is that if Ron Paul is using the money towards a good purpose, why give it back to someone who may use it for a bad purpose, or why just burn it away for wasteful purposes.

And by the way, he did distance himself from the donor. On a television interview when he was asked about this he made it clear that a) he had no idea a Klan member had donated, b) this does not in any way, shape or form mean that the Paul campaign will take any positive stance on the Klan, c) the money will be used for trying to give back liberties to the American people (which is his campaign message), d) he does not know or does not care to know the Klan member.

 

[BVS]

Pretty bad analogy.

And I wouldn't exactly agree that Ron Paul is using it for a good purpose. He's using it for HIS purpose. It just shows Ron can get caught up in money like every other politician, even though he tries to act like he doesn't.

I don't agree he should have given it back, I think the best thing in instances like this is to give it to a charity. He should have given it to a civil rights charity.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yeah, a campaign is not equivalent to cancer research.

 

[Infinity]

^I tried to make that point clear when I said that "Now i'm not saying that Ron Pau's campaign is going to save millions of lives."

And in your eyes and BonoVox's eyes it is not for a good purpose. For those who support him, they think it is for a good purpose. We think that Ron Paul's campaign is for the good purpose of ending the War in Iraq, stopping America's policing of the world, lowering taxes for all people, etc. We do think that is a good purpose, you may or may not agree.

 

[phillyfan26]

So, the only difference is that everyone agrees cancer research is good, and only some people think Ron Paul's campaign is good?

I don't think you seem to understand the point.

 

[financeguy]

Dec. 23rd interview with Tim Russert:


REP. PAUL: ...I think this country, a movement in the last 100 years, is moving toward fascism. Fascism today, the softer term, because people have different definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show, when the--in the name of security pay--pass the Patriot Act. You don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America. If you don't support the troops and you don't support--if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. It's that kind of antagonism. But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff coming has a fascist tone to it. And the country's moving in that direction. That's what I'm thinking about. This was not personalized. I never even used my opponents names if you, if you notice.

MR. RUSSERT: So you think we're close to fascism?

REP. PAUL: I think we're approaching it very close. One--there's one, there's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called "Freedom to Fascism." And we're moving in that direction. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.

 

[Bono's shades]

And by the way, he did distance himself from the donor. On a television interview when he was asked about this he made it clear that a) he had no idea a Klan member had donated, b) this does not in any way, shape or form mean that the Paul campaign will take any positive stance on the Klan, c) the money will be used for trying to give back liberties to the American people (which is his campaign message), d) he does not know or does not care to know the Klan member.

But those are just words. Saying something is easy. Doing something like giving the money to a civil rights organization, like BVS suggested, is a lot more meaningful than a bunch of empty words that make it look like he wants to have his cake and eat it too (getting a little extra $ for his campaign while trying to avoid the stigma of where that money came from).

 

[Infinity]

But those are just words. Saying something is easy. Doing something like giving the money to a civil rights organization, like BVS suggested, is a lot more meaningful than a bunch of empty words that make it look like he wants to have his cake and eat it too (getting a little extra $ for his campaign while trying to avoid the stigma of where that money came from).

Well it was only $500, first of all. So I think it is MUCH easier to donate that $500 out of the $19,000,000 he has raised this quarter to a civil rights organization than it is to defend himself for keeping the money. Ron Paul is merely sticking up for himself and his campaign for keeping the money. I'm sure he knew that if he had just returned the money or donated it somewhere else people would be off his back. And that $500 is really peanuts compared to what he has raised. But I think the point he is trying to make is that it is completely okay for him to spend the money on his campaign which is to become President so he can protect the liberties of Americans and not get involved in foreign wars.

Honestly, if this Klan member had donated to any other campaign and the person running in that campaign actually kept the money and defended himself for doing so I would respect it. This is not just because I support Ron Paul that I think his decision is right to keep it.

There is something seriously wrong with taking money from people as a bribe in exchange for power or other political gains and Ron Paul himself has always been against this. He hates the idea of big business controlling Washington through money. But the difference here is that the Klan member is not controlling one bit anything about the Paul campaign through his donation, and Ron Paul has made that clear.

 

[verte76]

I like some of the things Ron Paul says, like about Iraq and the Patriot Act. But I could never vote for the guy.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ron Paul blimp video

http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=1357341099&GT1=10733

 

[watergate]

I don't support Ron Paul but I agree with some of his views on the issues. One thing that I do like about him is that people that would sit out the election and the democratic process are getting active. America needs more active citizens. Happy New Year! Tonight I'm going to a friend of mine that is a Republican and I'm a Democrat. One thing we all have in common is that we love our country.

 

[martha]

One thing that I do like about him is that people that would sit out the election and the democratic process are getting active. America needs more active citizens.

I agree. Anything that gets people up and participating is good.

 

[Infinity]

Fuck FoxNews! Fuck Rupert Murdoch!

Ron Paul was not invited to Sunday night's N.H. debate.

Fuck Fox News!!! Fuck Rupert!!!

 

[BVS]

Fair and balanced my ass...

 

[Diemen]

Fuck FoxNews! Fuck Rupert Murdoch!

Ron Paul was not invited to Sunday night's N.H. debate.

Fuck Fox News!!! Fuck Rupert!!!

But tell us how you really feel.





I have to wonder - is it actually the corporation hosting the event that "invites" the candidates? Shouldn't it be mandatory for all candidates to attend (who are able to)? Or do we not even pretend to play fair anymore when it comes to election(eering)s?