Posted on 05/06/2008 8:31:40 AM PDT by seanmerc
As the Democratic presidential candidates held pre-primary rallies yesterday in Indiana and North Carolina, and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain spoke to the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, another major-party presidential candidate continued his own quest for nomination, headlining a "Freedom Rally" on a Fort Wayne, Ind., university campus.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) told supporters in early March, through a Web video, that he knew he was no longer in the running for the presidency, and aides said his campaign would be "winding down." But it turns out Paul never stopped running for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And all that that "affiliation" means is that he took their money. Does every politician automatically take on every value of every donor that gives him money? If I ride a bus with a racist, does that make me one? If I live in the same state as a pedophile, does that make me one? Furthermore, what would stop any of those people from donating to him anonymously, or under someone else's name?
His taking of their money does not mean in any way that he is beholden to them. He has stated repeatedly that he will gladly take the money of anyone who wants to donate, and then still do with it what he was planning on doing all along, which is to promote the same liberty he always has. If you have any argument for why this is impossible beyond vague words like "affiliation", please make it.
You people? Nice.
"You people" who make this assertion. Specificity is paramount to me.
Do you believe yourself when you say it isn't an issue?
Yes. I'll believe it is when someone shows me a reason why it is. Money changes hands all the time. The values of the spender do not get passed to the buyer unless that is part of the transaction, and I don't remember Ron Paul promising anything to anyone in exchange for donations except to do the same thing he would be doing without them.
And yet they appeared in a publication bearing his name. So, either he agrees with what was published, or he's too stupid to keep a handle on what is being published under his name.
Your "stupid" is far more judgmental than my "You people".
Pick anyone famous, preferably an entertainment celebrity of some sort. Now do a Google search on them. In many cases you'll find web sites, forums, mailing list ... newsletters ... all sorts of things done and said "in their name". Is it really that hard to imagine that someone says something that is loosely tied to you that you didn't notice until long after the fact, and only then when other people noticed it and made a big deal of it?
The worse that he can be accused of in this matter is oversight, and even then, the level of that is nearly impossible to determine now because it's nearly impossible to know how much anyone, Paul or otherwise, knew about it in the first place. Oversight, nothing more. So he's human. Wow, what a burning scandal!
And yet you don't want to hold Ronnie responsible for who he takes donations from or for controlling what is published under his name.
No, I hold him responsible for that choice no less than any other. I'm simply waiting for a rational reason to be bothered by that choice.
Yep, real convincing to call it 'lazy thinking' when someone doesn't agree with you.
I don't call it lazy thinking because I disagree with it. I call it lazy thinking because it is. I'll repeat: if I take money at a store from a racist, do I become one because of our "affiliation"? What if I go to class with him? Live in the same apartment building? Share a common friend? Share a middle name? Have the same eye color? Have the same hair style? What precisely does the word "affiliation" mean? "Lazy thinking" general refers to a lack of being sufficiently discriminatory in evaluating ideas; referring to anything you can grab at as "affiliation" because it bolsters your view is exactly that.
I'll repeat, for the third time: if you are going to call Paul a liar and a racist, do it. Be clear in your meaning. That's certainly my goal.
He certainly had the opportunity to publish something else immediately after those articles appeared distancing himself from those comments. He didn't. He only denied them when it came out publicly, and he realized they weren't going over well.
Do you actually know this, that that was his motivation? More to the point, do you have any proof that he even knew those statements existed before they came out publicly?
No, not any more than we can know Obama's motivation for staying in that hate-filled church for 20 years. But a person's actions give a clue about their motives, and in the case I was discussing, his motives were very unlikely to have been pure (just as Obama's are unlikely to be pure).
More to the point, do you have any proof that he even knew those statements existed before they came out publicly?
Either he knew and didn't react until forced to publicly, or he doesn't bother to have a clue what comes out in the newsletter bearing his name. Either way, it doesn't speak well of him.
To me that means he agrees with their positions, or at the very least, does not find them distasteful. If Ronnie thinks the 'truthers' are not distasteful enough to return their money, that says something to me about his character.
If I live in the same state as a pedophile, does that make me one?
:::rolls eyes::: That's like comparing a Volkswagon to an orange. Talk about bad analogies.
Furthermore, what would stop any of those people from donating to him anonymously, or under someone else's name?
Even if they had, it was later brought to his attention, and he still didn't return the money. Maybe that's okay with you. . .it's not okay with me.
If you have any argument for why this is impossible beyond vague words like "affiliation", please make it.
I hold Ronnie to the same standard I hold any politician. Do not take donations from nutballs, jerks or criminals. While I realize they don't know where every single donation comes from, I expect them to react when it is brought to their attention. If you don't, that's up to you.
I'll believe it is when someone shows me a reason why it is.
Unlikely, since you are a Ron Paul fan. But I hope you realize that just because YOU don't see something as an issue doesn't mean it isn't a valid issue for others.
Your "stupid" is far more judgmental than my "You people".
Oh, honey, I didn't call you stupid. Re-read the line you copied and pasted.
Pick anyone famous, preferably an entertainment celebrity of some sort.
You're comparing Ronnie to a Hollyweird celebrity? Um, okay. When I disagree with the affiliations of a Hollyweird celebrity, I can choose not to go to that person's movies. In the same way, when I disagree with the affiliations of a politican, I can choose not to vote for him or to support him in any way.
No, I hold him responsible for that choice no less than any other. I'm simply waiting for a rational reason to be bothered by that choice.
So you think the 'Truthers' and Code Pink are organizations that stand for things you don't find horrendously distasteful? Um, okay.
I call it lazy thinking because it is.
No, you call it lazy thinking because you don't agree with it.
if I take money at a store from a racist, do I become one because of our "affiliation"?
So you are equating a politician who can control the direction of this country with a guy working behind the counter at a 7-11? Wow, your analogies really stink.
I'll repeat, for the third time: if you are going to call Paul a liar and a racist, do it.
I would think you would have already gleened the following from my posts, but let me state it as clearly as I can. Either Ronnie is a liar and a racist, or he is stupid and lacks the ability to manage even his own newsletters and campaign money. Either way, he's not someone I would vote for or support.
%gt;No
OK, then, we've established then that this issue is based on conjecture and nothing more, and there is no direct evidence that this was anything more than oversight of a degree that at this point we cannot be sure of. Next.
>To me that means he agrees with their positions...
I've highlighted the relevant words. "To me", your wearing red one day could mean you're a member of the Cripps. I can invent whatever meanings I want to based on your actions. That doesn't make them true.
I send Ron Paul $100. A "truther" sends Ron Paul $100. Give me one, solitary, rational reason why the $100 he sent him spends any differently than the $100 I sent. One. What, does his $100 jump out of Ron's hands and run over to the Klan or something? Does it burn in flames when he tries to purchase a billboard for liberty? Does Ben Franklin stare at him from it and whisper racist psyops in his ear?
That's like comparing a Volkswagon to an orange. Talk about bad analogies.
No, it's using nothing more than your logic taken to its conclusion. You could say the same things about me. "Well, you knew he was living there, you had it pointed out to you, and you refused to move or make him move." I'm trying to find out where the line between relevant "affiliation" for you begins and ends.
Do not take donations from nutballs, jerks or criminals.
Why? Aside from the unclear nature of such terms (I got a parking ticket last month. Am I a "criminal"? And how many people today aren't "nutballs" or "jerks" to someone else?), why? As Ron Paul correctly said, every dollar that someone gives me is one less dollar that they have to promote their agenda, and one more that I have to promote mine. Don't you understand that's the whole concept behind the "boycott"? If you don't agree with someone's agenda, you stop sending them money, because you know that if you do, you are supporting their values, not yours.
If you still disagree, try this mental exercise. Loudly send money to a Democrat, and make sure that Democrat knows where the money is coming from. See if they turn Republican.
Unlikely, since you are a Ron Paul fan.
Lazy thinking, ahoy. No, like you, I hold all politicians to the same standards. I wish there were more people taking the sane stand on this kind of thing that Ron is. The reason I'm a fan of him is that, as best as I can tell, he's the only one: you've got your cause and effect backwards.
And you might take Ron's solitary opposition to this kind of meaningless show as some "sign", but given that solitary opposition is often the role that he has to play in D.C., that's just one more bit of evidence to me reinforcing the high quality of character I see in him. He's being real. Everyone else is being political.
Oh, honey, I didn't call you stupid.
I know you didn't, just like I didn't call you "honey". That doesn't make it any less judgmental.
You're comparing Ronnie to a Hollyweird celebrity?
I'm comparing like phenomena, a practice I'm trying to impress upon you. When you are famous, no matter the reason, it's quite possible to have all sorts of things done "in your name" that you are only marginally aware of, if at all. Until you know for certain just how well this "newsletter" was even known to anyone, much less Ron Paul, this is an equation with two unknowns.
So you think the 'Truthers' and Code Pink are organizations that stand for things you don't find horrendously distasteful?
Your logic is getting worse and worse. I didn't say a word about what I thought about what I thought of those organizations. I simply stated that it doesn't matter. If they give Ron money, it gets spent on Ron's values, not theirs.
No, you call it lazy thinking because you don't agree with it.
No, I call it lazy thinking because it is, and the more I see of your responses, the more I stand by that assessment. You throw out the word "affiliation" like it has some hard, damning meaning that should be clear to everyone. I then take your own logic, move it to other areas, and your only response is "You compare X and Y? Wow, you're weird." You lump together what you want, keep separate what you don't want, and fail to apply any consistent logic to what falls into each category outside of, apparently, what most supports your conclusions.
That, is lazy thinking.
So you are equating a politician who can control the direction of this country with a guy working behind the counter at a 7-11?
And it gets lazier. The only distinction you are making here is scale. Is that what your principle is based upon? So, a councilman of a 100 person town can take money from racists and it's OK, but somewhere along the line between that and "control[ing] the direction of this country" it's not? And what about the other end of the analogy? Is it OK for, say, Microsoft to partner with Stormfront to do activst work? Or is this another case where it's OK on a small level, but not on a large one, and somewhere in between is the fuzzy line between the two?
Or do you just want to admit that you don't actually have a clear, consistent principle to apply across the board, in all situations?
Ron Paul does. It is this: if someone freely gives me money to promote my message, I am not beholden to them in any way except to be good to my word and promote said message in exactly the way I said I would. That is a clear, unambiguous principle. It doesn't rely on vague terms, shifting lines, what-if scenarios, or any of the unreality that typically makes politics so disgusting.
Either Ronnie is a liar and a racist, or he is stupid and lacks the ability to manage even his own newsletters and campaign money.
Well, I'm glad you finally gathered the gumption to say what you meant, even if I had to pull teeth to get you to say it.
Let's go backwards and start with the second half. He has the "ability to manage his own money". He just does it under different principles than the ones you currently believe in. And we have established that there is no evidence to have call the newsletter "his own newsletter": it was a newsletter with his name on it, but like I said, I could make a newsletter with someone's name on it right now if I wanted to. We established in the other reply in this thread that the evidence about this is too lacking to draw any hard conclusions from.
Now the first half. Liar and racist. Go over his whole career outside of these highly disputed incidents. Do you see a lifelong pattern of this? I don't.
On the other hand, what I do see today is people calling each other "liars" and "racists" left and right (literally) because that is a convenient way to write them off. So they purposely scour their lives for the worst evidence, finding any little chink in the armor they can exploit, and hold it up like that tiny blemish is the whole person. Yes, I do so a pattern in this incident. But it doesn't come from Paul.
I came to my position on him because I did look at his whole life, not just one or two convenient items, the same as I do for everyone. The pattern I saw was a life of integrity (almost flawless voting record), morality (50-year marriage), values (all of his views are consistent with one another), and yes, honesty (simply from the lack of usual political BS that we get from everyone in office). And though I didn't know him as well then as I do now, I felt this way about him years before he ran for president.
Sorry. I can see that I'm not convincing you, but given that I think I'm making a simple proposition that you have no response to except, "Well, I disagree", I don't feel any shame for this. On the other hand, all I'm asking from you is a simple, clear rule that is equally applicable in all situations, doesn't rely on undefined terms, and doesn't lead to contradictions. If you can do that, as the last maverick I voted for one said, I'm all ears.
You certainly can. We all form opinions of people based on things they have done or haven't done.
Give me one, solitary, rational reason why the $100 he sent him spends any differently than the $100 I sent.
:::sigh::: You know perfectly well it has nothing to do with how the money 'spends'. It has to do with the reflection on the character of the person accepting the money once they know who they are accepting it from, particularly when the recipient of the donation wants to be put into a position to impact the direction of this country.
No, it's using nothing more than your logic taken to its conclusion.
Hardly. I've already pointed out to you why your analogy is flawed. See above. A man working a counter in a store is vastly different from someone wanting to be president (or even congress-critter).I'm trying to find out where the line between relevant "affiliation" for you begins and ends.
Already stated twice in this post alone, and at least once in my last one. (I'm not going to go back and count.) But just in case you still don't get it, let me say it one more time. There is a vast difference between some guy living in your neighborhood and someone who wants to be president or a congress-critter so they can directly impact the direction this nation is going.
Why?
Already answered, but let me state it again. Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation. I'd have a real problem with a presidential candidate taking donations from organized crime. Apparently, that would be fine with you, as long as that politician verbally promised not to be swayed to provide any help or support to them.
Aside from the unclear nature of such terms. . .
Sure it is unclear. . .because it is a subjective term. Everyone bases who they vote for and which candidates they support on subjective criteria. . .even you.
As Ron Paul correctly said, every dollar that someone gives me is one less dollar that they have to promote their agenda, and one more that I have to promote mine.
Soros has a whole lot of dollars. ;)
If you don't agree with someone's agenda, you stop sending them money, because you know that if you do, you are supporting their values, not yours.
You DO realize this statement supports my case, right? Why would the 'truthers' and 'Code Pink' send money to Ronnie if they didn't think his agenda was somewhat consistent with theirs? Hint: They wouldn't.
No, like you, I hold all politicians to the same standards.
If Hillary Clinton were to accept money from organized crime, you'd not have a problem with that? Okay. I would.
No, I call it lazy thinking. .
When you can manage to pull together some real analogies and not compare volkswagons to oranges, then you'll have some room to talk about the lazy thinking of others.
The only distinction you are making here is scale.
If by scale you mean the size of the impact on the nation as a whole, yes. A person standing behind a counter in a store doesn't have the impact as the President or a Congress-critter.
So, a councilman of a 100 person town can take money from racists and it's OK
If it were my town, and he knew the money was coming from a publicly avowed racist, I'd be completely against him. But you didn't use that example - you used the example of a guy working in a store taking money from a racist. Two different things.
Is it OK for, say, Microsoft to partner with Stormfront to do activst work?
They can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean I wouldn't scream about it, and/or refuse to buy their products. Since Microsoft isn't running for office, I can't withhold my vote from them. (You know that, right?)
Ron Paul does.
Oh, he probably does. Doesn't mean he is being honest about it with the public. (And by the way, hopefully you've finally grasped the principle of what I have been saying. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but you pretending not to 'get it' won't change my position.
I never said it was anything than my judgment based on his actions. We all make judgments, even you, in believing that it was okay that he didn't have any control over what was published in the newsletter bearing his name.
Yes, I can. But if you are trying to be responsible in your evaluations then at some point you have to examine the rules under which you operate to see if they actually map to reality accurately.
You know perfectly well it has nothing to do with how the money 'spends'.
No, it has everything to do with how it spends.
Ron Paul acquires money from donations. That money is then spent on a campaign that would allow him to implement through legal mechanisms the policies that he believes in. The more money he acquires, the more likely he can do this. If he wins, he implements said policies to the best of his ability, and the law changes.
When the law changes, our legal status as citizens also changes. We can do things we couldn't do before without fear of prosecution. We can pay less in taxes. We can fill our fewer forms. We can start business we couldn't have. We can eat more of what we want, speak more of what we want. Or, if the wrong person gets elected, less.
Everything I've listed above are real, specific consequences of his getting $100, consequences that come down to you and me in the form of tangible, measureable differences. Meanwhile, you talk vaugely of "reflections" and "character" and "affiliation", but you have yet to come up with one real-world example of how any of this supposed import makes it down to me and you in terms of specific differences that we can see in our lives.
Yes, it is all about how that $100 spends. He acquires donations to achieve public office to promote liberty. Give me one, just one, real, tangible, step-by-step reason why the source of that money makes it unable for him to do so. One.
Hardly. I've already pointed out to you why your analogy is flawed.
No you haven't. You stated it was different, but you didn't state why. "Don't take money from..." was the closest you came to any specific principle, but you didn't say who that statement applied to. So who does it, and why?
Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation.
Why? Where do you get this "indication" from? From where does this rule originate? You're stating this over and over, but I have yet to see any evidence that this rule is the logical extension of any other truth and is nothing more than simply an unsupported premise that exists for its own sake.
That is why I give you the examples, because those examples prove its logical flaws, and those in turn prove the premise must be flawed. "The person accepting": is that everyone, or just politicians? "The stated positions": every last position? "The actions": every last action? Where is the line? The reason none exists is that there can never be any consistent principle in this matter. If you only accepted money from people that agreed with you 100% in every instance, you would only accept money from yourself.
It clearly doesn't work like that, and even you I doubt would agree on that meaning. So clearly, there is some flaw in your principle. And that is because the principle itself is flawed.
I'd have a real problem with a presidential candidate taking donations from organized crime. Apparently, that would be fine with you, as long as that politician verbally promised not to be swayed to provide any help or support to them.
Close, and for that much I commend you. It would be fine with me if there were enough evidence that said politician would be true to his word. Paul has 10 terms of proven voting record to say that he would be. Clinton, to say the least, does not. I believe him. Because I believe him, I don't care one whit who donates to him. That's more money for his message, not theirs.
Sure it is unclear. . .because it is a subjective term.
I'm glad that we're starting to come to some agreement. It is OK and inevitable to be subjective in judgment. Being subjective in principle is another thing. You may say whatever you want of Paul's principle in this matter, but subjective it is not.
Soros has a whole lot of dollars. ;)
Yes, he does. *shrug* But if that would matter to you, you should take a look at who Soros did fund.
If Hillary Clinton were to accept money from organized crime, you'd not have a problem with that?
I would because everything about her life story (not two small, isolated highly disputed incidents) tells me that she will happily follow their lead and let this people tell her how to act. You do remember that I answered essentially this question right at the start of the thread when you asked it about Obama, yes?
Tell me all about all of the racists organizations Ron Paul has been a part of. Tell me about his racist business dealings. Tell me about his racist voting record. Please.
All you have are two very disputed items, and when I ask you talk about the pattern it creates. When I ask you to show me where all this pattern exists in his life, you point back to these two. You are arguing in circles.
It's very simple. The donations he accepts because money he gets is money to promote liberty. The newsletter incident he has already stated he did not know about, has apologized for nonetheless, has made his own feelings on racism quite clear, and has a 20-year voting record that is consistent with his own stated philosophy. Both of these items have simple, normal, understandable explanations that don't have anything to do with racism.
Here, I'll give you another one just to prove my point. He voted against awarding a Congressional Medal to Rosa Parks. OMG! He's a racist! Well, no, actually. He voted against it for the same reason he voted against giving one to Ronald Reagan: it's taxpayer money. With each vote he offered to put up his own private money if everyone else in Congress did the same (of course no one did).
You're not seeing the patterns. You're inventing them. Like a lot of the left when it suits them, you're finding racism only because it's convenient to you, and not because it's real.
You DO realize this statement supports my case, right?
No, it doesn't. Read what I said again:
Liberals boycotted Domino's Pizza because their pro-choice dollars became pro-life dollars in the company owner's hands (or so they thought). Conservatives boycott liberal media because their conservative dollars become liberal dollars in their hands.
I don't know why this is a such a difficult concept. Let me state it clearly:
Once a dollar leaves a person's hands, unless it is a pre-arranged part of the agreement (in which case, it effectively never left that person's hands in the first place), it loses all values of the person who gave it, and takes on the values of the person who acquired it.
It loses it because that person no longer has any control over it! Once you give me a dollar, once that transaction is complete, that dollar is now mine, and falls under my rules, not yours. Do you not understand that this is the whole point of private property?
Why would the 'truthers' and 'Code Pink' send money to Ronnie if they didn't think his agenda was somewhat consistent with theirs? Hint: They wouldn't.
Or maybe they don't understand his policies well enough, and are reading things into the man that aren't there based on a few tiny pieces of data. Much like you are doing. Here's a question to ask you in turn: why do professional lobbyists (ie, people with likely vastly more political experience than some random Stormfront ranter behind his monitor) not even bother with Paul?
Answer: he'll take their money, and keep doing what he's doing anyway. They expect to control him, but can't, so they just slip by him. Why do they keep giving Paul money? (Assuming they do, of course: how much hard data in terms of dollars on this do you actually have?) Who knows? I hope you're not going to afford proud racists with an abundance of intelligence or political insight.
We don't know why they do, if even they do. What we do know is Paul's voting record. There is no ambiguity there.
When you can manage to pull together some real analogies and not compare volkswagons to oranges, then you'll have some room to talk about the lazy thinking of others.
When you can show how this is Volkswagons and oranges in terms of some consistent principle than you'll have room for said admonishment.
If by scale you mean the size of the impact on the nation as a whole, yes.
So then, right and wrong for you is not based on the nature of the action but the scale of it. Do I have you correct?
If it were my town, and he knew the money was coming from a publicly avowed racist, I'd be completely against him.
OK, then if I have you right, this rule than applies to all elected officials, no matter the size of their jurisdiction. Do I have you correct? If so we can work from that, but I'll tell you right now, I don't think you'll like where the questions lead from there.
They can do whatever they want. Doesn't mean I wouldn't scream about it, and/or refuse to buy their products. Since Microsoft isn't running for office, I can't withhold my vote from them. (You know that, right?)
Wow, gee, never thought of that. Oh wait, yes I did! But irrelevant, because you never said anything about someone being in office. You simply said, "Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation." Let's kindly not distract ourselves with focuses on the word "donation", m'kay? A donation can become a purchase and a purchase a doniation with trivial effort.
So then, does a company agree with every stated position and/or action of the individual giving them money? Yes or no? Or is this another case where it does only dependent on the scale?
Oooh, I got a better one: politicians often own companies themselves. Should those companies stop dealing with racists since that money will go towards the politician eventually, making them as rich as, oh, I don't know, Mitt Romney? Or for that matter, George Bush? Every last person with any questionable motives whatsoever?
I could keep asking questions like this all day, because your principle is not consistent. Paul's is. You can attack it all day, but all you have is disagreement with the principle, not any proof that the principle isn't consistent. You have only two very vague, disputed incidents to point to, and despite the fact that I've given clear, rational explanations for both of them, you continue to hold onto racism as the only explanation, and for no other reason than some rule about "affiliation" that you seem to just take as true for it's own sake, despite the fact that it a) isn't based on any other truth, and seems to exist for its own sake, and b) unlike Paul's approach, creates horrible clashes of consistency if we try to apply it to the real-world.
But OK, so we disagree on the meaning of these two items. Let's use the rest of Paul's life as a guide to help us understand them. Hmmm... how's it looking?
Paul's philosophy is simple, clear, consistent, and doesn't lend itself to grey areas. Yours is not: it is based on undefined terms, logical extensions that lead to clearly false conclusions, and inconsistency with the simple reality of how money works. All of this could either be out of choice or error, I don't know. But until you can show me how your philosophy applies in every situation, I see no reason why I should take your calls of Paul's "racism" any more seriously than the typical calls of the same from the left. And as someone who has been accused of it countless in my life, I know what that false accusation feels like through vast, personal experience.
Try all you want, though unless you provide a good, rational response, don't be surprised if I stop responding soon, since I don't think our respective views at this point are unclear to anyone watching. And these days, even on forgotten threads like this one, a lot of people are.
And mine do, in my view.
No, it has everything to do with how it spends.
So you are so arrogant as to tell me that you think you know better than I do what my point is? Good heavens, you are so hopelessly stuck in defending your little hero, you can't even have a reasonable discussion.
Have a nice day.
No. I am only telling you that the evidence disproves your point in every way.
Have a nice day.
You as well.
Here is your statement:
Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation.
You state this over and over again with no proof. OK. Then by the rules of logic, this is what is known as a "premise", a statement you take as true for it's own sake. Premises are a valid logical tactic. However, once they are made, they must be tested.
So let us. If what you say is true, then there should be a long history of words and actions outside of this item that back up this conclusion, a life lived under the obvious love of racism.
*looks*
Wow. I see one other item that is at best disputed, and at worst invalid.
So we have a problem. The evidence doesn't support your conclusion. But that's only half of the battle. Now we ask whether or not there is another reason that would explain his actions other than agreement with those he is taking money from.
Well look at that, there is. He states that if someone sends him a donation, he'll simply use it for his agenda not theirs. That's certainly a valid response: there's nothing impossible about that scenario, at least not that I can see (can you?). That was the point in showing you how the $100 spends. To prove that the alternate explanation to replace your premise of racism was consistent. And as you had no objections to it, it was.
But that still is incomplete. This may be a valid explanation, but to believe it, we have to also see the evidence that he is not just saying this. For that, then, we would have to see a life of word and action that is consistent with this claim. Let's see...
*looks at Ron Paul's voting record, and a history of his own written and spoken word*
Well, what do you know. It is. Our exercise is now complete. In logic, if a single fact contradicts a premise of unknown truth, that premise is false. That has happened here. Your statement...
Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation.
...has been proven by the counter-example that Ron Paul has taken their money, but clearly, does not agree with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation. We have done so by showing that the evidence for this agreement is all but non-existent, whereas the evidence for an alternate reason, including the mechanics of how it works, is existent, and without contradiction.
It's not that I didn't understand your point. I do. It's that through the mechanisms I've shown you, your point is proven wrong. QED.
Now, have a nice day.
:::sigh:::: I've provided what I consider proof in other posts. If you don't think it's enough proof, that's up to you. It is enough for me.
Golly, you’re an arrogant jerk. But hey, look who you’re supporting. . .not a surprise.
No you didn't. You have two items. The second one (newsletter) we have already established is inconclusive, at best. And the first item (donations) is the point in question. Using a fact as its own proof is called circular logic. Here, let me take it out of context to show you:
"You bought a red car: you're a member of the Cripps!"
"Uhh... no I'm not"
"Well that's what that means! Red means Cripps!"
"No, it could mean a lot of other things, like maybe, I just like this car."
"Well, that's just what I think, and the evidence proves it."
"What evidence? I've never even known a gang member in my life! What is all of this evidence?
"Well... you bought a red car! That's enough proof for me!"
Circular reasoning is no proof.
I repeat, show me his racist voting record.
Show me his lifelong affiliations with racist organizations.
Show me his long, uninterrupted history of racist statements, statements that we know came from him.
Show me his long history of racist actions.
Show me his long history of racism, in any way.
I don't think you can. But I can show you his long history of fighting for individual freedom, which is exactly the reason he said he took said donations. Fess up. You've got nothing.
Taking money from a group does not mean agreeing with that groups goals, and this example proves it, because Paul has taken their money, and is clearly not a racist. Unless you have clear, undisputed items that disprove the second half of that statement, your point is proven wrong.
Golly, you’re an arrogant jerk.
You've got name-calling and personal attacks.
I have plenty to back up my opinion. You misrepresent what I say, and then try to project your made-up criteria on what I've said in order to try to justify your disagreement. Obviously, you know your position is weak, or you'd have dealt with my posts honestly.
As I said, you're an arrogant jerk.
LOL Again, you show your arrogance by telling me I'm wrong when I say I've presented what I consider evidence. Sweetheart, if you don't want to consider it evidence, that's fine. But really, you make yourself look quite silly by trying to tell me I can't consider it in forming my views.
Only an arrogant jerk thinks they have the right to control the thoughts of others.
I have. I have addressed every objection of yours. You've left mine dangling one after another.
I have plenty to back up my opinion.
Maybe one of these days you'll list it all. So far, you've listed two items (let me repeat: two items), both of which are highly disputed, both of which have perfectly valid, reasonable, and consistent alternate explanations. Did I mention there were only two of them?
You can thump all day that they're valid because you say so, but I don't think that rationale will impress too many people.
Perhaps that's why you resort to name-calling. That usually is the last refuge for those who have run out of arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.