Yes..he knows NOW who he is...and so do you...does that mean you support his views?

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-I-dont-want-white-supremacists-support>> ^pukwudgie:

But we know that Ron Paul knows who is Don Black the founder of Stormfront. The last time around Ron Paul refused to disavow Don Black or to return the Stormfront money supporting Paul's previous election campaign. Ron Paul has made his name pandering to the far-right racist fringe demographic. And then there are all those many racist newsletters. Which he claims he didn't write. But a politician would never lie. Especially not while he is trying to get elected.

>> ^pukwudgie:

But we know that Ron Paul knows who is Don Black the founder of Stormfront. The last time around Ron Paul refused to disavow Don Black or to return the Stormfront money supporting Paul's previous election campaign. Ron Paul has made his name pandering to the far-right racist fringe demographic. And then there are all those many racist newsletters. Which he claims he didn't write. But a politician would never lie. Especially not while he is trying to get elected.


I'll be honest, i'm a fence sitter. All i have to go off is the stuff i see here. Bearing this in mind but also the amount of bullshit spread about by both media and people parrotting the media, i want to know two things;

a) The post i quoted reads like a list of opinions without any proof. In this day and age, where the media finds it so easy to entirely fabricate some bullshit and have it stick to someone - let alone true things - why have i only seen opinion and no proof about these things (and other things) that you (and others) accuse ron paul of?

b) Facts rule. The picture you linked shows that the two people were once within 5 feet of each other and your opinions hold no sway with me. If you made a big sift talk post for example, with a step by step breakdown of how you can prove ron paul is a racist or anything else you like, you might change some minds.

But we know that Ron Paul knows who is Don Black the founder of Stormfront. The last time around Ron Paul refused to disavow Don Black or to return the Stormfront money supporting Paul's previous election campaign. Ron Paul has made his name pandering to the far-right racist fringe demographic. And then there are all those many racist newsletters. Which he claims he didn't write. But a politician would never lie. Especially not while he is trying to get elected.

You probably don't care...but that picture only proves that Don Black supports Ron Paul. It does not prove that Ron Paul knew who that person was or what their personal agenda is.>> ^pukwudgie:

Is this the same Ron Paul who did not write all those racist newsletters who is standing here smiling with the founder of Stormfront racist Don Black? [image]

Could you kindly describe the specific way in which a Neo-Nazi's $500 donation would exert an influence over a candidate like Ron Paul? It seems like an absurd generalization to me. (Besides, Don Black—the Neo-Nazi in question—has said publicly that his support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with endorsing white supremacy: "Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. 'We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice,' Black said.")

On a tangential note, you seem to be taking an odd stance with your comment about "murders" and "child rapists." Are you suggesting that certain criminals ought not be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns? If so, where would you draw the line?>> ^longde:

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.
Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?
>> ^aurens:
Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Has VideoSift turned into the unoficial video headquarters for the Ron Paul campaign? Every day I see another sifted video about this dude. There's still about 20 other presidential candidates out there, but you wouldn't know that from VideoSift. Sorry, but I gotta downvote this. Personally I'm a Chris Dodd man, and his candidacy has about as much of a chance as Ron Paul's, but what does that got to do with the price of tomatoes?

BTW, has Ron Paul returned any of the campaign contributions from white nationalists including NEO-NAZI Don Black, founder of Stormfront? Hey, I understand that campaigns can't control where their contributions come from, but if they're going to mull over returning his money when any other candidate with common sense would know better simply speaks volumes to me.

I correctly stated that Ron Paul accepted money from the notorious neo-Nazi Don Black. That is a serious charge in itself. But nowhere did I claim, as you accuse, that Ron Paul is himself a neo-Nazi. I strongly suspect though -- with evidence -- that Ron Paul is a racist.

Thanks for joining us. Stay in school, kid.

yep... $500

Many of us think he should give it back, others of us that don't like Don Black think he should keep the money anyway and put it to good use. Ron Paul, like any other candidate takes in many donations from all walks of life. Ron Paul does not endorse Don Black's views nor any other donator. Ron Paul needs money. Period.. The other candidates have up to ten times the amount of money that Ron Paul has.

I think he should keep the money so as to not bend to the will of cheap slander tactics such as this. It doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul is fighting for the founders original intent and protection of the Constitution.

Rong Paul recently has been caught accepting money from neo-Nazi Don Black.

God, may as well rip the bandaid off quickly.

*dons black armband, goes to check my music videos*