Rand Paul raises nearly $650,000 in fourth quarter!

[daenku32]

"Career politicians of all stripes and all persuasions have sold us down the river..."

Career politicians? Like his father?

 

[Alt+F4]

Career politicians? Like his father?

Yup. 20 years and counting.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Career politicians? Like his father?

Ouch - nice one

 

[GreyICE]

It doesn't matter if Stormfront donated only two cents to him, the criticizism is on Paul not speaking against hate groups that openly raise funds for his campaign.

As for the rest of the Paul platform, again who cares? It's just a bunch of libertartian nonsense, little to none of which could ever be implimented even if Paul is elected.

Thinking that discussing Paul's position on say homeschooling is more important than his position on hate groups....well that's stupid.

Uh yeah, I expect most politicians to not be regular visitors to Stormfront, and not be up on what they're doing. And how the hell would they know? The donations don't come from 'Stormfront.' It's '$150 donated by John Smith' which informs you of, um... perfectly nothing.

Lets face it, you made a stupid criticism, and now you're defending it, which isn't helping your case. If you truly find the actions of Stormfront worthy of immense scrutiny and worry, you really overrate them.

As I said, the fact that the worst criticism you have is that he didn't condemn Stormfront, you make him more credible by default. It's a stupid argument, used by boring and unimaginative hacks.

 

[Galileo]

I agree.

However, Paul recently had a staffer resign (meaning fired) over racist statements and photos on the staffer's myspace page.

In his statement on the matter, Rand Paul talked about how racism is vile and would not be tolerated in his campaign, etc. I don't think it's a far stretch to think that he should return campaign contributions to known racist organizations like the KKK or Stormfront (if contributions have been made by such organizations).

Only a racist would give money to Stormfront. You are advocating racism, something which the Paul family rejects.

 

[GreyICE]

Only a racist would give money to Stormfront. You are advocating racism, something which the Paul family rejects.

That is... the most bizarre statement since Alt+F4 started this stupid tangent.

 

[Alt+F4]

Only a racist would give money to Stormfront. You are advocating racism, something which the Paul family rejects.

Only a racist would take money from the founder of Stormfront, which Ron Paul did in 2007.

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.

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."

The Pauls should actively start soliciting money from the KKK, Nambla, the Latin Kings, al-Qaeda, and Jew Watch so they can "spread the message of freedom".

Linky:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/

 

[Galileo]

Only a racist would take money from the founder of Stormfront, which Ron Paul did in 2007.



The Pauls should actively start soliciting money from the KKK, Nambla, the Latin Kings, al-Qaeda, and Jew Watch so they can "spread the message of freedom".

Linky:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/

That would be good to soak those racists dry of their cash. You favor giving money to the racists.

 

[Alt+F4]

That would be good to soak those racists dry of their cash. You favor giving money to the racists.

Hey the money belonged to the racists to begin with. When Ron Paul accepted the Stormfront donation wouldn't it been a good idea (or at least good political spin) to donate it to say the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Holocaust Museum? But no, he kept it for himself.

Stories like this turn mainstream voters off. If it cost him even one hundred votes, was the $500 worth it? No wonder Libertarianism is a political ideology practiced nowhere on planet Earth.

 

[dudalb]

That would be good to soak those racists dry of their cash. You favor giving money to the racists.

Lamest excuse ever.

 

[GreyICE]

Hey the money belonged to the racists to begin with. When Ron Paul accepted the Stormfront donation wouldn't it been a good idea (or at least good political spin) to donate it to say the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Holocaust Museum? But no, he kept it for himself.

Stories like this turn mainstream voters off. If it cost him even one hundred votes, was the $500 worth it? No wonder Libertarianism is a political ideology practiced nowhere on planet Earth.

Once again, there was no donation coming from 'Stormfront.' You seem confused on this point, so let me reiterate: there was no 'Stormfront' donation.

It is an entity that does not exist. I don't know why you're referring to make-believe events, but its tiresome in the extreme.

 

[Alt+F4]

Once again, there was no donation coming from 'Stormfront.' You seem confused on this point, so let me reiterate: there was no 'Stormfront' donation.

Read carefully now:
1. In 2007 Ron Paul accepted a $500 donation from Don Black, the leader of Stormfront. It is a fact, deal with it.
2. The operators of Stormfront and many of it's posters support Rand Paul for Senate, including soliciting for his campaign. It is a fact, deal with it.

It is an entity that does not exist. I don't know why you're referring to make-believe events, but its tiresome in the extreme.

Since you can't deal with the reality of my posts you should just use the ignore button.

 

[Cynic]

I suppose one could draw the distinction between the leaders of Stormfront and posters within Stormfront and Stormfront itself. It's a small point, probably, but a point. I have no idea what Randi has sent money in support of, but I doubt anyone could make a strong case that it means that the JREF itself supports it, whatever it is.

 

[GreyICE]

Read carefully now:
1. In 2007 Ron Paul accepted a $500 donation from Don Black, the leader of Stormfront. It is a fact, deal with it.
2. The operators of Stormfront and many of it's posters support Rand Paul for Senate, including soliciting for his campaign. It is a fact, deal with it.

Honey, let me let you in on something. Tens of thousands of people donated to Ron Paul. If not hundreds of thousands. Wikipedia has three people famous enough to make the page named 'Don Black.' God knows how many hundreds of people in this country are named 'Don Black.'

It gets even funnier. The name the donation would have been under would be Stephen D. Black, or Stephen Black.

Oh noes, the Paul campaign did not put together a $500 donation from Stephen Black with Stormfront, and certainly did not care enough to pander to the internet idiot demographic by returning it.

Hell, you may have just found one thing I respect him for - not pandering to idiots who think that's an issue.

Since you can't deal with the reality of my posts you should just use the ignore button.

Would this be the reality where vaccines give you autism and sugar pills cure cancer? I get a lot of that flavor on this board, I don't use the ignore button on all of them.

Regardless, a request is a request, and you did ask... well... impolitely. More bootlicking next time.

 

[Praktik]

Well, I think there's something to Alt-F4's thoughts.

I read Dave Neiwart regularly and he compiled a lot of evidence on his blog here, here,, here , here and here.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, I think there's something to Alt-F4's thoughts.

I read Dave Neiwart regularly and he compiled a lot of evidence on his blog here, here,, here , here and here.

It's evidence that requires one to squint very hard, and generally make things up.

Lets look at the first link:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

He quotes RP as saying this. Kooky? Hells yes. Who are we dealing with here? Supporting Racism? I don't see it. Then we move on...

This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the "new racism" -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking.

Um, okay. So RP wasn't actually denouncing racism, he was denouncing multiculturalism, which means that he actually wants the dominance of the white race and white culture, and is cleverly disguising it?

I think there's plenty of documentation he's a kook, but a racist kook? I don't buy it.

As I said, it's pathetic that Alt+F4 or anybody else thinks THAT is the ONE THING that you can criticize RP about. Not even anything he said or did. But 'Stephen Brown' donated $500 to him.

I'll end with a question: Why must I support stupidity because I oppose Ron Paul? That's what you and her are asking me to do.

Show me the money. Show me the articles. Show me the evidence. Not a blogger, not DK, not a $500 individual donation.

Or is this the sort of racism we must infer, much like how the right has inferred Obama's racism?

 

[Praktik]

This is the gist of their argument:

[T]his isn't "guilt by association" -- first, the argument isn't that Paul is a racist per se, but that he is an extremist who shares a belief system held not just by racists but other anti-government zealots as well. Paul is identified with their causes not simply because he speaks to them, but because he elucidates ideas and positions -- especially regarding the IRS, the UN, the gold standard, and education -- identical to theirs. This is why he has their rabid support. There is an underlying reason, after all, that Paul attracts backers like David Duke and the Stormfront gang: he talks like them.

Second and perhaps most importantly, there are legitimate reasons for anyone to raise objections to Paul's associations, speaking before the Patriot Network, the CofCC, and similar groups -- he's a public official, and he is lending the power of his public office to legitimizing radical-right organizations like this. Think of why it would be wrong to appear before the Klan, or the CofCC, as Trent Lott and Hayley Barbour have done in the latter case.

It's not merely what it implies about your own beliefs and standards -- it's that you've lent the power of your public office to empowering and raising the stature of racists and extremists. You of course have the right to do so -- but the public has every right to criticize you for it as well, as it should. After all, what this comes down to is not so much beliefs and values but judgment. One expects, after all, a congressman to display better judgment than to appear before a group of nutcases. Ron Paul didn't, and hasn't, for a simple reason -- he's one of them.

And just as his associations with far-right extremists have empowered those groups -- a favor now being returned in the form of their avid support for him even as he attempts to strategically distance himself from them -- his recent stunning successes mean the further empowerment of these groups. And that is why, over the long term, we ought take much greater pause in considering the value of his success.​

 

[GreyICE]

Wait, what success. What success? Ron Paul was successful? Where? Is he President? VP? Defeated Republican Candidate perhaps? Ooh, close contender, held in the race right to the end?

WHAT. SUCCESS?!?

 

[Praktik]

Wait, what success. What success? Ron Paul was successful? Where? Why?

Dude his public stature is pretty big. Sure, he never capture the Republican nomination but over the past 5 years he's become something of a celeb politician.

Regular appearances on late night talk shows, etc etc...

And he had some impressive fundraising success in 2008 - and had a presence at CPAC and other conservative events far and above the presence he had even a few years before.

His success is more about his presence in the public mind, than about tangible political success over and above being a senator.

His army of Paulites is pretty dedicated.

 

[Cynic]

Um, okay. So RP wasn't actually denouncing racism, he was denouncing multiculturalism, which means that he actually wants the dominance of the white race and white culture, and is cleverly disguising it?

I think there's plenty of documentation he's a kook, but a racist kook? I don't buy it.

Segregationists weren't racists either, they just denounced multiculturalism. Anyone was allowed to ride the bus if they wanted. Step to the rear, please!

As I said, it's pathetic that Alt+F4 or anybody else thinks THAT is the ONE THING that you can criticize RP about.

I'll end with a question: Why must I support stupidity because I oppose Ron Paul? That's what you and her are asking me to do.

Of course that isn't the one reason. But it might be a reason, yes? Why must we ignore this just because there are other reasons? I completely understand what you're saying about not accepting bad reasoning just because it happens to favor your position. This is a skeptics board, after all. Skepticism without honesty isn't skepticism at all.

But there are reasons to consider the possibility that Ron Paul might be a racist by some definition. Racism is a complicated thing, complicated enough that one viewpoint isn't sufficient. Let's have a discussion about it, rather than reflexively declaring that since Alt+F4's association isn't proof in and of itself by your own viewpoint, that it's dead wrong.


Here, I'll start. My immediate inlaws are, mostly, libertarians. I don't consider them racists in the conventional sense, and I know them well-enough to have picked up on it by now. But they knowingly support policies that suggest that companies should have the option to blatantly discriminate -- to hire or serve based on a criterion of race, religion, or orientation. They actively support this kind of liberty.

Is that racism? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's kind of a gray area, isn't it? If you knowingly support a policy that will lead to discrimination, doesn't it follow that you're supporting discrimination?