Times Retracts Lies and Smears

[Damocles]

I take you as you present you. I'm waiting for you to say, "I haven't any problem with RP's stances or those that back him. I think he's honorable and always has been so.

RP presents ideas I like to see on that stage, other than that he is a small fry in a big box of larger fries.

Like Tancredo, who put forward ideas that I believe needed to be heard but never expected to win. There are positions that Tancredo takes that I don't support, that doesn't change that I liked having the message out there and actually seeing the effect on the other candidates as they realized that those ideas were larger than they thought.

I hope some of RP's ideas will go there too. Regardless of positions that I disagree with or his foolishness with how he wouldn't give back the money of this avowed racist, I think that those ideas are that large and should be out there.

 

[Timshel]

Now, excuses like "giving the money back would be an endorsement of all the other people who give him money" is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. The implication is that if he accepts their money he endorses their views. Therefore that would be true of all the money he accpets.

He has repudiated the views of these racists, but of course even though the socialist hatemongers once claimed that would satisfy them in some way it has not. And neither would returning the money satisfy them. They are just using this to smear. So what really is the point?

I understand why people want him to look as good as possible, because such distractions detract from the message. I won't make such excuses, when you find out a declared racist is giving you money you give it back and politely inform him that such support is not solicited or wanted.

I am sure some people would be offended by the donation from Starchild (gay stripper). Should he give that money back?

 

[Damocles]

It's not ridiculous. The implication is that if he accepts their money he endorses their views. Therefore that would be true of all the money he accpets.

He has repudiated the views of these racists, but of course even though the socialist hatemongers once claimed that would satisfy them in some way it has not. And neither would returning the money satisfy them. They are just using this to smear. So what really is the point?



I am sure some people would be offended by the donation from Starchild (gay stripper). Should he give that money back?

Except it has no basis in experience. When HillBillary gave back the Felon's cash it didn't endorse the rest, it just made it clear that she preferred cash from sources without the capability to end her run. Like accepting money from a racist would for any other candidates.

And no, he shouldn't give money back from the gay stripper, unless he believed that the person had no right to be such. Racism is absolutely against what RP propounds, to accept the money is taking an endorsement from that person. If you do not believe in what those who endorse you are preaching you should give their money back.

Hence the Religious Right candidates constant rejection of donations from the Log Cabin republicans. Now RP shouldn't refuse their cash, but those who are courting the Uber-Religious vote should.

Such a foolish move tells me that RP has no intention of even trying to win this thing.

 

[Damocles]

Seriously, his campaign manager should have advised him to give the money back, especially considering the already rampant rumors of racism dogging him because of those newsletters. Had he done so quickly and directly this distraction would have had the legs of an anorexic in Ethiopia. Instead it has the legs of Hulk Hogan just before a 'roid rage incident.

 

[Timshel]

Except it has no basis in experience. When HillBillary gave back the Felon's cash it didn't endorse the rest, it just made it clear that she preferred cash from sources without the capability to end her run. Like accepting money from a racist would for any other candidates.

Yes, I understand the illogical politics of it.

And no, he shouldn't give money back from the gay stripper, unless he believed that the person had no right to be such.

So he should claim Black has no right to be a racist?

Racism is absolutely against what RP propounds, to accept the money is taking an endorsement from that person. If you do not believe in what those who endorse you are preaching you should give their money back.

Exactly, what I am saying. If he gives the money it validates the stupid ass idea that he accepts the views of all his donors. I doubt he would agree with everything I argue.

Hence the Religious Right candidates constant rejection of donations from the Log Cabin republicans. Now RP shouldn't refuse their cash, but those who are courting the Uber-Religious vote should.

Such a foolish move tells me that RP has no intention of even trying to win this thing.

I am sure he did not think he had a chance. I doubt he believes he has one now. But this stuff is nonsense for idiot, freedom hating socialist, like White. I think he should focus on some realistic policy psoitions (so far he has just talked philosophy, which is great but he will need a real plans to win) to show his seriousness.

This is a silly issue, one that has been repeated for months and failed to stick and I doubt it will now. It only works on those who have already made up their minds.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, I understand the illogical politics of it.



So he should claim Black has no right to be a racist?



Exactly, what I am saying. If he gives the money it validates the stupid ass idea that he accepts the views of all his donors. I doubt he would agree with everything I argue.



I am sure he did not think he had a chance. I doubt he believes he has one now. But this stuff is nonsense for idiot, freedom hating socialist, like White. I think he should focus on some realistic policy psoitions (so far he has just talked philosophy, which is great but he will need a real plans to win) to show his seriousness.

This is a silly issue, one that has been repeated for months and failed to stick and I doubt it will now. It only works on those who have already made up their minds.

He should claim that Black has no consideration in his campaign and show it by returning his money. Accepting Black's endorsement is a mistake and it shows here, where we have spent much time speaking on the subject.

I don't think RP is a racist. However, such distractions certainly don't help him especially when considering things like the newsletters. This follows him wherever he goes, there is no need to just hand your detractors the ammunition.

 

[Timshel]

That acknowledges the silly idea that he is "accepting" an endorsement from every donor.

Another point... you have compared this to criminals, but there is no proof that Black came by his money illegally.

 

[Damocles]

That acknowledges the silly idea that he is "accepting" an endorsement from every donor.

Another point... you have compared this to criminals, but there is no proof that Black came by his money illegally.

No, I compared it with other donations that were returned. I chose that one because it was well-known and I wouldn't have to retrieve links for it.

The idea is to give back the money of those who can derail your campaign, quickly and with little argument. Otherwise it will gain momentum and people will spend days speaking about it on message boards as story after story is read and the impression it leaves solidifies in the populace who get their news in sound bytes and pay less attention than most will here.

Taking donations without consideration of the source is a mistake in politics because you are associated with those who endorse you in this manner.

There is also a difference between the head of such an organization giving him the money and you or I giving him the money.

 

[tinfoil]

so what if a racist wants a certain candidate to win and sends them a donation. What does that have to do with the candidate? By accepting a donation, the candidate is endorsing every thought and action the donor ever had or will have? It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Damocles]

so what if a racist wants a certain candidate to win and sends them a donation. What does that have to do with the candidate? By accepting a donation, the candidate is endorsing every thought and action the donor ever had or will have? It's utterly ridiculous.

The difference is in the knowing. When such donations come out in the news it brings a distraction to your campaign. You will wind up talking about this issue without regard to the reason you are running. In order to keep on message you give the money back quickly, without fanfare and move on to the real reason you are running. Otherwise, the rest of your campaign will be spent saying, "I don't endorse those ideas!" rather than, "I believe we need smaller government that stays within constitutional limits!"

 

[Timshel]

No, I compared it with other donations that were returned. I chose that one because it was well-known and I wouldn't have to retrieve links for it.

The idea is to give back the money of those who can derail your campaign, quickly and with little argument. Otherwise it will gain momentum and people will spend days speaking about it on message boards as story after story is read and the impression it leaves solidifies in the populace who get their news in sound bytes and pay less attention than most will here.

Taking donations without consideration of the source is a mistake in politics because you are associated with those who endorse you in this manner.

There is also a difference between the head of such an organization giving him the money and you or I giving him the money.

Consideration of every donor as a source is virtually impossible. What you are arguing for here leads to only taking money from large donors, special interest or having your own money to spend.

 

[Damocles]

Consideration of every donor as a source is virtually impossible. What you are arguing for here leads to only taking money from large donors, special interest or having your own money to spend.

Hence you do it with those that are brought to your direct attention. If nobody had written a story about the felon previously mentioned, the money would not have been returned. That same type of consideration should be used in any political campaign for the reasons I have expounded on ad nauseam.

What I argue for here is simply returning the money that is going to become a distraction from your campaign, such as this one.

 

[Timshel]

The difference is in the knowing. When such donations come out in the news it brings a distraction to your campaign. You will wind up talking about this issue without regard to the reason you are running. In order to keep on message you give the money back quickly, without fanfare and move on to the real reason you are running. Otherwise, the rest of your campaign will be spent saying, "I don't endorse those ideas!" rather than, "I believe we need smaller government that stays within constitutional limits!"

Until they come up with some other person you are supposed to return money to. Damo, you are under the impression that this is somehow an honest criticism. It is not.

 

[Timshel]

Alex Jones has given the limit to Paul. If Paul does not return his money it proves he is a truther and endorses all Jones' idiotic views.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?txtName=jones,+alex&NumOfThou=0&txt2008=Y

 

[Damocles]

Until they come up with some other person you are supposed to return money to. Damo, you are under the impression that this is somehow an honest criticism. It is not.

I am under no such impression. You are paying too much time and energy trying to defend this, and it is an example of exactly what I am saying.

Dealing with little things like this is what campaign managers are for, a quick response makes it have tiny legs rather than a continuous and constant distraction as this is obviously becoming.

It should be particularly attended to in areas of weakness, such as the rumors that have dogged his campaign from the beginning stemming from those newsletters. Whether or not it is "honest" does not matter, getting your message out does. While we speak on this issue none of the real message gets out.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Damocles]

Alex Jones has given the limit to Paul. If Paul does not return his money it proves he is a truther and endorses all Jones' idiotic views.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?txtName=jones,+alex&NumOfThou=0&txt2008=Y

Being a "truther" is not a rumor that has dogged RP from the beginning of his campaign. Now you are becoming disingenuous in a desperate attempt to keep $500.

Seriously, this is far more of a distraction than Paul needs. I'd like him to be speaking on smaller government, not denying claims of racism.

 

[Timshel]

Wow here is what Black says in a AP article...

Paul keeps donation from white supremacist
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."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

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 Wednesday. "We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

Iraq War, no amnesty and secure borders (I doubt he really understand Paul on immigration). Aren't many leftist in agreement with these positions? And we have them swearing by White. Obviously, they are all White supremacists.

 

[Damocles]

Wow here is what Black says in a AP article...



Iraq War, no amnesty and secure borders (I doubt he really understand Paul on immigration). Aren't many leftist in agreement with these positions? And we have them swearing by White. Obviously, they are all White supremacists.

The vast majority of people would read the headline, and only the headline. This is what creates what I am speaking of, the distraction.

Again, how much time do you think we would have spent on this had RP's campaign given the money back without fanfare? Do you think time spent denying claims of racism gives his campaign good momentum or bad?

It is not preposterous to consider how such a thing can effect your campaign and act accordingly.

 

[Timshel]

I am under no such impression. You are paying too much time and energy trying to defend this, and it is an example of exactly what I am saying.

Not really. These silly discussions have not encouraged me to spend any more time here than normal. And they are easy.

Dealing with little things like this is what campaign managers are for, a quick response makes it have tiny legs rather than a continuous and constant distraction as this is obviously becoming.

It should be particularly attended to in areas of weakness, such as the rumors that have dogged his campaign from the beginning stemming from those newsletters. Whether or not it is "honest" does not matter, getting your message out does. While we speak on this issue none of the real message gets out.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

They are going to find ways to smear Paul. Either people will wise up or they will lose out. Nothing is going to change that. We should be asking the folks on board with the smear why they are in league with neocon warmongers, the MSM propaganda machine and the white supremacist, like White.

 

[Damocles]

It isn't just the board that the impression has been seated upon.