Was Fox News being "Fair and Balanced" when they reported that Ron Paul received more donations from military personnel and veterans than any other Republican candidate in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007.
http://www.militaryforpaul.com/donations.html
2007-09-29 17:29:03 · 17 answers · asked by Eric Inri 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The word unethical in this question makes a huge difference in how one might answer.
According to military personnel in our meetup group OFFICERS CANNOT participate in promoting candidates however the enlisted personnel have no such restrictions.
Therefor your question must be revised for more specific definitions of personnel.
The members in question suppor t Dr.RonPual for president.
2007-09-29 20:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by anyusmoon1 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What is even more unethical is the way Dr Paul has been censored from mainstream media. If people want to hear his views and would consider voting for him then he is just as viable a candidate as any other person running for office. If his views are so bad then it will cost him votes so why do they fear him so ? Could it be he actually has a valid platform that could threaten the very powers that want him silenced ? The voters deserve to hear all candidates and form their own opinions. What is unethical is when some extremist that has been bought by special interest gets exponentially more coverage than other candidates. I think servicemen and veterans have already proven without question their patriotism and their views shouldnt be taken lightly. That said, it is still their view, and not everyones.
2007-09-30 00:58:25 · answer #2 · answered by John S 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Active duty military personal "Cannot - Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause."
I think this would cover setting up a Ron Paul website so it would be illegal. Veterans can do whatever civilians can do. Remember the Swift boaters.
2007-09-30 16:31:17 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Military personnel must be hands off on promoting Ron Paul for President because they are barred according to election laws.
2007-09-30 00:34:49 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Opposing the Iraq War, such as by supporting an anti-war candidate, is probably the *most* ethical thing that service members can do.
Also consider groups like Appeal for Redress, active-duty military who oppose the Iraq War (http://www.appealforredress.org/index.php ), Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.org/ ), Veterans Against the Iraq War (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php ), and Veterans for Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ ).
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
2007-10-01 01:32:36 · answer #5 · answered by clore333 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are there more than the 12 on y/a?
2007-09-30 00:33:07 · answer #6 · answered by Dr.NO 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is not Ethics at question, it is integrity.
In uniform, we cannot make a peep about any body. Out of Uniform, we are civilians, never forget.
In civies, we have the option to lean any direction and yes, it is a huge difference. We have seen and make informed decisions.
2007-09-30 12:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by Mephisto 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Active duty military have a right to support whom they choose but do have some limitations on soliciting votes for a specific candidate.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics_2.htm
2007-09-30 00:58:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think it's irresponsible for anybody to promote Ron Paul,a man who has no chance of winning,and who's main contribution appears to be an inspiration to political conspiracy theorists of all kinds..from the 9/11"Truthers" to the "Bill Clinton Killed All The Witnesses" idiots.
2007-09-30 00:35:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, it is not unethical in the least. Conservatives love free speech. Liberals claim to love free speech as well (except for prayer in schools and restrictions on filthy pornography).
2007-09-30 00:47:02 · answer #10 · answered by reaganite27 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋