When I first read about this, I wondered why Ron Paul would ever accept money from such a roachburger.  I'm still not sure if I would accept money from him if I were running for office.  But as I thought about it, I decided that it's just a person making a donation, it isn't a marriage.

If we were to start judging candidates by who supports them, then it would be easy for one candidate's handlers to make donations "in the name of" one group of scumbags or another.

I'm sure most celebrities aren't bothered to find out that their movies, tv shows or other media are watched by the dregs of our society.

He is free to keep it.  It is legal.  I would return it.  But then I would return a lot of money from unethical and hate organizations, (that the left loves so they do not get the stigmatism in the press).  And in the end, I would not have a lot of money to spend. 

And that is why I cant be a politician.  My soul is worth a lot more than a public office.

Do White Supremacists Lose the Right to VOTE?

Also, this case has NOTHING to do with white supremacists losing the right to vote. It has everything to do with everybody else's right to vote.

I do not vote for the same people white supremacists vote for. That is my right. And pointing that out infringes on nobody's rights.

Do I "lose" my right to vote because white supremacists wouldn't vote for the guy I support? So how did you come up with the headline?

Do you think the only political platform of Neonazis is white supremacy, Leauki? I assure you, they have many other political issues.

I really don't care. My disagreement with their position on race and nationality is so basic, that anything else they might support or not support becomes rather meaningless. I don't care whether I live in a capitalist or socialist society in the same way as I care about by basic belief that all human beings were created as equals by G-d.

As I said, Ron Paul is free to reject those payments. Don't pretend that it is too much to ask for him to do so or that it constitutes an attack on voters' rights to make one's own vote count against politicians in the pay of Neonazis.

Ron Paul has his reasons to accept their money and I'm afraid what he _says_ about his positions doesn't count as much as whose money he accepts. If he in their pay he is not good enough for me. And I can see that many of his policies (abandoning Israel and Iraq) are just as despicable as the reasons the white supremacists have for supporting those policies.

This is not about "individual rights". I believe in "individual rights" just as much as Ron Paul (actually more, since I believe that those rights go as far as denouncing a politician for being in the pay of Nazis), I just happen to disagree with him what those rights are. And I see that the white supremacists apparently prefer his idea of what those rights are. And that is good evidence that my idea of what the rights of man are is BETTER. I do not have to make up silly theories about race or abandon G-d to believe in my theory of human rights.

Ron Paul supports individual rights, personal property rights, and that is where the appeal comes in. He supports the rights of people to do as they choose on their property, providing it involves consenting adults.

EVERY politician supports "individual rights". The disagreement is about what rights these are. The argument that he supports individual rights is bogus. It's like saying that a politician supports a "good" policy, presumably as opposed to his opponents who advertise that they support "bad" policies.

I have never seen a politican advertising that he was against a good education system or against individual rights. Hence a position of being for a good education system and for individual rights is meaningless.

Because insinuating that they have no right to contribute to the candidate of their choice, or insinuating that said candidate should be punished for their contribution, is essentially saying they have no right to the democratic process. Ergo, no right to vote.

As opposed to those who would not vote for Ron Paul, whom you criticise for making that decision? How is "no right to the democratic" for the Neonazis process when I criticise THEM and their preferred candidate but perfectly acceptable for you to criticise ME and my (possibly) preferred candidate?

I _acknowledge_ their right to vote when I say that I won't vote for the same guy they vote for. I specifically and exactly acknowledge the fact that they can vote by using the fact that they do as an argument against their preferred candidate. I acknowledge that the white supremacists are using their vote to get what they want.

But I want something else.

Actually, no, they don't. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, for instance, are VERY socialistic in nature.



Yeah, Ron Paul should deliberately piss off everyone who might vote for him. It sounds good on paper, of course, but it doesn't work in practice.

I'm afraid that if you cannot tolerate anyone who agrees with ANYTHING the white supremacists agree with, then you will have to end all discourse with me. Because, while I disagree with their basic philosophy, I agree with their right to live as they chose as long as they don't infect the public with it.

Do you think the white supremacists would vote for him if he took their money and forwarded it to Israel?

Yes. Politics makes many strange bed fellows.  DO you think the Anti-War movement and the White Supremacist movement are one in the same?  I dont think anyone would contend that.  yet they do have common goals and have been known to work in concert on those goals.

Paul should not become a liberal just because some skinhead decides he likes his immigration or anti-war policies.  Then the effect would be that the hate groups really are calling the tunes.  The simple fact is he can reject the money, but he cannot reject the vote (repudiate yes, reject no).

If I were a candidate, I would accept money from anyone willing to give it. Even my arch rival. It doesn't matter. But they would know that I don't owe them anything. That's why it's a gift. Give me as much as allowed, but I owe you nothing in return. You've heard what I stand for and if that's enough, then give.

Plus, that's $500 out of white supremecists hands. You want to put it back there?

Plus, that's $500 out of white supremacists hands. You want to put it back there?

If I were a politician and realised that Neonazis support me, I would reconsider my positions.

I cannot vote in the US, but if I were a voter, Ron Paul would have a _choice_. He can have the Neonazi vote or mine. If their support is worth more to him than mine, that's it; he can represent them.

Consider the fact that I have my own opinion a vicious attack on the Neonazis' freedom of speech if you like.

I assume Ron Paul had absolutely no idea with whom he was shaking hands here? (See pictures.)

The Neonazis also seem to have a no-outing policy: Link

I think that man is a lot more dangerous than you think. Have you considered that perhaps the Neonazis are not making him look bad as much as he is making them look more acceptable?

By the way, Leauki, did you miss previous comments by LW on this issue where she said that her ex husband would give money to candidates he didn't like just to watch them squirm?

Don't always assume everything is what it appears to be.

If you can show me that a majority of white supremacists support Paul, or show me Paul speaking at one of their conventions or a standing membership in such a convention, I will agree he might need to rethink his positions. But as long as Paul stands for smaller government, fewer taxes, and border control, don't assume that because SOME white supremacists share that view, he is one of them.