Ron Paul for President - Part III

I don't agree that there's a valid debate over whether the NAACP is on par or anywhere near the same as neo-nazis. If you'd like to advance that point, be my guest.

Similarly, if it's a neo-nazi organization, why isn't "violent" established? If you dispute that, please advocate why.

Finally, I thoroughly object to the idea that open racism needs violence to be reprehensible. If you believe openly racist views are okay so long as there's no violence to a pro-segregation platform, please explain why.

 

This must be National ******** With John Kevin's Head Week.

 

YOU said racist. YOU did not specify degree.

It seems to me that violence is a provable thing. If you say they are violent it is on you to prove it.

Whether I think it needs violence to be reprehensible or not is a strawman. No one here has said that and you know it.
You need to define okay. Do I think they have the right to say what they think. Yes. Do I agree with what I have heard they advocate. No.

 

"Technically, 'not racist at all' is a degree of racism, so once again, I have triumphed!"

EDIT - wait, we're seriously wondering whether Stormfront is a violent organization? For reals? This is definitely ******** With My Head Week.

 

No I don't. Stay on topic. "Okay" means a group from whom Ron Paul shoudd be accecpting campaign contributions.
As to the rest, I incorporate JKWD's response.

 

They are only not the same because you believe so. I think it is downright laughable that you would refuse to learn about an organization that you are condemning. If you weren't the type to enjoy basking in ignorance, you would know that Stormfront is not Neo-Nazi, they are white nationalist. They have been accused of being neo-nazi, but then again, probably by the same people that accuse Bush of being satan himself. They have no violent ties, and rarely have ever encouraged violent action against other colors. It is an organization for the advancement of whites.

And yes, it is excellently compared to the NAACP.

 

And you have repeatedly declined to provide where the line is. This is th closest you have come.

Have they committed violent acts? I do not know. That is why I asked. If you'd get off your high horse for a moment, you will see that this has been a question all along. If they have, no candidate in their right mind should accept their donation.
As for JKWD, you are a better poster than to reference him.

 

Ho. Lee. Shit.

 

Dannytoone, get the ******** off my Internet

 

Holy Shit! Indeed!

 

Your Avartar?

 

Neither the fact that Stormfront donated $500 to Ron Paul's campaign, nor the campaign's failure to return that donation, has any serious relevance to the issues in this campaign. A multitude of people and organizations, of varied perspectives, backgrounds and interests, regularly donate to various campaigns. To the extent such donations do not give rise to a situation where a candidates judgment can be affected, the viewpoints of those donating to a candidate should be irrelevant. Otherwise, you set up a precedent were most of the debate surrounding various campaigns will be not about the views of the candidates themselves but those who have donated to them, even when those donations are essentially de minimus. That would not be a good precedent, especially, since it would actually increase the power of certain powerful special interest groups to vet candidates by muddying them up based on the views of those who donated even de minimus sums to them. That kind of practice would also have a chilling effect on candidates receiving funds from unknown small donars, and would further restrict the ability of individual Americans and groups to have their say in the political process.

 

Reminds me of an old lawyer joke.

A man walks into a bar, orders a drink and downs it in one swallow. He then looks around the room and says "Lawyers are asholes!!!" A man on the other side says, "Hey! I reslent that!" The first man walks over and says, "Are you a Effing Lawyer?" They guy says, "No. I'm an ashole."

 

I've been saying the same thing about AIPAC for years.

 

What? He didn't say "dirty, dirty Jews." Where are you getting "dirty, filthy, money-grubbing Jews" from? I didn't see that in his post.

 

How many members of the NAACP are former members of the Black Panthers?

 

Yep, the NAACP really does suck that bad.

EDIT: I don't really think the NAACP is that bad...I just like to exaggerate a bit every once in a while. I like seeing you all get your panties in a wad. Anyway carry on...

And just to inject some anti-pc humor into the discussion, how about this:
[youtube]Te1McevLjew[/youtube]

 

1. It is absolutely none of your business how I spend my money. If I want to spend my money on Klan hookers, that's my prerogative.
2. What hard earned money? I wasn't hired because no one need hire me, do business with me or sell me anything if they don't want to. Congratulations, this policy institutionalizes racism and discrimination. Want to go to Harvard? Too bad - we don't like Jews. You want to work at JP Morgan? Too bad, we don't like Jews. Want to stay at the Waldorf? We don't like Jews. Want to buy this house? Too bad - local council says we don't have to sell to you.

 

Byrd resigned form the Klan decades earlier, and has apologized on several occasions. This has been pointed out to you before. You had no response then, I assume you have no response now.

If Black were to resign and apologize as well, then you'd have a case.