Sematary
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 6,428
In one of the most sad, cynical, and disgusting moments of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Associated Press is reporting that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has refused to return a campaign contribution from Don Black, who runs a vicious White Supremacist website.
Rep. Paul's spokesman's pathetic excuse for keeping the money was that "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," and that "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
The spokesman, Jesse Benton also, pitifully noted, "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does." Even if Ron Paul had not recently set fundraising records, this excuse would still be an insult to the intelligence of voters. Given his fundraising prowess, the excuse is doubly insulting.
If Rep. Paul refuses to stand up to hate-mongers like Don Black, it is fair to ask whether he is tacitly welcoming their support in a desperate attempt to gain traction in the Republican primary. And, if the other Republican candidates do not condemn him for this, it will send a similar message as did their refusal to condemn Ann Coulter.
Rep. Paul, it should be noted, has a terrible record on Israel and has called the Israeli government "evil." In October, the Republican Jewish Coalition barred him from their policy forum due to his libertarian stance against providing foreign aid to Israel. The New Republic reports that GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul wrote that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing may have been carried out by the Mossad:
http://www.pjvoice.com:80/v32/32104paul.aspx
My response:
The author of this article http://www.pjvoice.com:80/v32/32104paul.aspx is upset because the Ron Paul campaign won't return a $500 donation and because he doesn't agree with giving away the taxpayer's money to the nation of Israel. I note that the author of this article fails to mention the other side of the coin, which is that he also wants to stop subsidizing the efforts of the muslim nations to be able to attack Israel. No mention of the fact that the United States government UNCONSTITUTIONALLY distributes these funds to not only Israel but to her enemies as well. No mention at all that Dr. Paul would not only like to stop giving money to Israel but to every other nation on the planet as well. Does the author not understand that Israel would be MORE secure, not less, if it was not ceding it's soveriegnty to the United States due to the massive amounts of money that it receives from the generous taxpayers of the United States? Does the author also not understand that since a similar move would be made against the muslim nations that they would have less funds to finance their ambitions against Israel?
As to the donations by Don Black. That's just petty on the author's part. Who cares where the money comes from as long as the money is obtained legally? The author of this piece obviously does not understand the implications of our foreign policy or how it makes Israel less secure in the long run. The author also seems to have a petty, nitpicky, hatred of Dr. Paul due to his lack of understanding of foreign policy and his obvious bias towards Israel.
Rep. Paul's spokesman's pathetic excuse for keeping the money was that "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," and that "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
The spokesman, Jesse Benton also, pitifully noted, "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does." Even if Ron Paul had not recently set fundraising records, this excuse would still be an insult to the intelligence of voters. Given his fundraising prowess, the excuse is doubly insulting.
If Rep. Paul refuses to stand up to hate-mongers like Don Black, it is fair to ask whether he is tacitly welcoming their support in a desperate attempt to gain traction in the Republican primary. And, if the other Republican candidates do not condemn him for this, it will send a similar message as did their refusal to condemn Ann Coulter.
Rep. Paul, it should be noted, has a terrible record on Israel and has called the Israeli government "evil." In October, the Republican Jewish Coalition barred him from their policy forum due to his libertarian stance against providing foreign aid to Israel. The New Republic reports that GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul wrote that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing may have been carried out by the Mossad:
http://www.pjvoice.com:80/v32/32104paul.aspx
My response:
The author of this article http://www.pjvoice.com:80/v32/32104paul.aspx is upset because the Ron Paul campaign won't return a $500 donation and because he doesn't agree with giving away the taxpayer's money to the nation of Israel. I note that the author of this article fails to mention the other side of the coin, which is that he also wants to stop subsidizing the efforts of the muslim nations to be able to attack Israel. No mention of the fact that the United States government UNCONSTITUTIONALLY distributes these funds to not only Israel but to her enemies as well. No mention at all that Dr. Paul would not only like to stop giving money to Israel but to every other nation on the planet as well. Does the author not understand that Israel would be MORE secure, not less, if it was not ceding it's soveriegnty to the United States due to the massive amounts of money that it receives from the generous taxpayers of the United States? Does the author also not understand that since a similar move would be made against the muslim nations that they would have less funds to finance their ambitions against Israel?
As to the donations by Don Black. That's just petty on the author's part. Who cares where the money comes from as long as the money is obtained legally? The author of this piece obviously does not understand the implications of our foreign policy or how it makes Israel less secure in the long run. The author also seems to have a petty, nitpicky, hatred of Dr. Paul due to his lack of understanding of foreign policy and his obvious bias towards Israel.
There are bound to be a few unsavory characters on every list of donations. Maybe their names just aren't as easily recognized.
