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.

you know what i would do with it.


i would donate it to a college fund for african americans

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.

The donor who slipped Ron Paul the money has not, to my knowledge, done anything that would merit his loss of freedom of speech or of association. He simply made a donation to a candidate he favors, and there isn't anything in the world wrong with that.

I think you misunderstood the criticism. Nobody is criticising the Neonazi for giving money to someone he supports. People are criticising Ron Paul for accepting it.

Yes, the money only means that the Neonazi supports Paul. But the fact that Neonazis support him plus that he accepts their money is enough reason for me to think of him as a scumbag.

I agree with Danielost. He should simply forward such money to causes the Nazis absolutely do not support. That would make it clear to us and the Nazis that while he has some positions Nazis support, he has others that make his platform totally incompatible with the Nazis' wishes. But a fund for African Americans is not good enough. (Some white supremacists are really in favour of segregation of funds.) Let him send the money to Israel as a private donation as opposed to government help (which he apparently opposes).

He can do it.

But he won't.

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.

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.

Do you chastise Hillary for taking money from corporations that buy products made from child labor? Or for being the biggest recipient of health care corporate funding when she is advancing the idea of universal health care? There are plenty of "seedy" people who donate to EVERY candidate's political campaign; it is EXTREMELY irresponsible and hypocritical to claim that Ron Paul is any worse than any other candidate out there.



So what you are saying is that you don't really vote for the person? Because if a white supremacist votes for them, that automatically negates your vote? I think that's pretty shallow, frankly, because a politician cannot choose who votes for them and who doesn't.

Ron Paul does not support white supremacy. He has never, to my knowledge, spoken to an assemblage of white supremacists. He has never endorsed segregation, or any other causes espoused by white supremacists, so why assume that a campaign contribution from a white supremacist ties him to the movement any more than a campaign contribution from a practicing Satanist would tie a candidate to Satanism? This is the ultimate in cheap smear campaigns, and the reason not one candidate has used it against Ron Paul in a debate is because Paul could open up their books and find a few thousand equally abhorrent contributors in every one of their war chests!



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.

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.

because a politician cannot choose who votes for them and who doesn't.

Of course he can.

Do you think the white supremacists would vote for him if he took their money and forwarded it to Israel? It's his decision whether he accepts their support or not. Just realise that his decisions are what makes people support him or not. He obviously made decisions that make Neonazis support him while others don't. It's up to him to decide whom he wants to represent.

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.

while i agree with gid that paul isn't responsible for unsolicited contributions, i gotta point out that nazis--neo or not--are essentially totalitarians whose appeals to rights of any type are crafted to deceive the unwary and make racism seem reasonably respectable.

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).

I'll be more succinct, Leauki. While I may disagree with anyone's views, I WILL defend to my death their right to say them. Even views as repugnant and abhorrent as white supremacist viewpoints.

Freedom of speech cannot exist if we put ANY filter on it.



Agreed. The nazis -- neo or not -- certainly would not defend my viewpoint, and would probably shoot me where I stand if they have the power. However, I cannot allow their mentality to affect my firm conviction that the rights our founding fathers espoused ARE God given and inalienable.

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?

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

Again, just because you DISAGREE with the individual right they believe in doesn't mean that THEY do not believe in individual rights. Socialists believe in individual rights, just not the same ones you believe in.

I'll be more succinct, Leauki. While I may disagree with anyone's views, I WILL defend to my death their right to say them. Even views as repugnant and abhorrent as white supremacist viewpoints.

What does that have to do with it? Turn down the drama. Nobody said anything about not allowing them to voice their opinions. Why does it always have to be a holy war about free speech with you???

You seem to have a real problem with my opinion of Ron Paul. You don't even see the irony that while I made no statements whatsoever regarding the Nazis' or Ron Paul's right to say whatever they want you see anything I say against them or him as an attack on free speech. What's the matter with you? Do I not have the same right to be against Ron Paul as the Nazis have to be for him?

I cannot allow their mentality to affect my firm conviction that the rights our founding fathers espoused ARE God given and inalienable.

Blablablablabla. Nobody said anything about taking rights away. I simply _disagree_ with the Nazis and Ron Paul. No reason for a free speech jihad. Calm down.

Yes. Politics makes many strange bed fellows. DO you think the Anti-War movement and the White Supremacist movement are one in the same?

Well, I don't think they would vote for him if he sent their money to Israel. And I do think that the "anti-war" movement's and the white supremacists' ideologies overlap in aspects that are important to me. For example they both believe that race matters. With the white supremacists whites are better than others, for the anti-war people non-Jews are always less guilty than Jews. You can call one of them Nazis and the other communists, but that aspect remains the same, even if they use it differently.

The "anti-war" movement has never protested a war against Israel. Their ideology has nothing to do with pacifism. They oppose only some wars, namely those that liberate the wrong people.

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?