I didnt ask him for a dog and pony show. Observe:


Repeating myself wastes both our time. Please read it this time.



They still do. You keep bringing up the "OMG you're limiting free speech!!!1!!11!" staw man.

I have not seen a single conservative (or neocon or whatever) make the claim that anyone should be prevented from speaking freely, or accepting donations, or giving donations...to anyone.

So why do you keep implying otherwise? Are you being disingenuous on purpose?


Denying pedophiles the ability to marry children (for example) does not mean they are being denied equal opportunity.


Um...what have I said that leads you to believe that? Actually I said just the opposite.



But I didn't. So drop the straw man.

If you want to call me a liar, fine. But don't put words in my mouth please.


If the issue comes up, and he is addressed directly, yes. I expect him to refuse donations from evil people.

I didnt ask Ron Paul to personally refute every accusation made on the internet. I just expected him to return the donation. A donation he didnt even need.



And I am not required to accept that either. Free speech works both ways. Do you disagree?



You are confusing my standard with your own straw man argument again.



I agree. But the alternatives are worse.

A true fiscal conservative who is blind to defense threats is an insufficient alternative.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

That's a dog and pony show. To require our candidates to refuse support from any or every racist that supports them is a dog and pony show. Only fools, or disingenuous people like yourself make such requirements. The facts about what Paul supports and what he doesn't are available to all of you. Yet you choose to participate in the media frenzy founded on the requirement of proving a negative.
Paul's actions reflected that statement. He voiced his opposition to racist opinions but allowed that racist to voice his own opinion. That's the principle. Tell McCain to get on this forum and instruct the neocons on this topic to not vote for him. Otherwise McCain does not live up to your standards and if you have the principle you claim to, you won't vote for McCain.
Wow, I never thought you would sink to their level of comparisons. Now you're saying gays don't deserve marriage because pedophiles don't. Usually you're arguing the opposite of that.
That is exactly what you are doing. According to you if the media alleges racism because of one racist supporter, he must refuse their support. The media implies that Paul is a racist based on no facts and you jump on the bandwagon.
Then quote the next few sentences where I explain the obvious similarity:

You ask him to prove a negative. There's no evidence that he is racist. Combine that with his own stated opinions and history of legislating and there is no racism. It is exactly like making someone wear a lapel pin to prove they are patriotic. There is no basis in your racist accusations whatsoever.

The comparison is not a straw man.
Media-driven sensationalism. Conservatives stand by our ideals and conservative candidates stand by their record/policy. You legitimize a meaningless dog and pony show set up to condemn a man on no basis.

Since you only require this standard whenever the media drudges it up, it shows that you are careless about principles. Stick to your standards and get McCain to refuse the support of these republicans: New Crusades - Should Islam Be Destroyed?
Otherwise you just prefer diversions from the real issues.

You seem to accept the support of racists. You are not living up to your standards. You are not telling racist republicans even here that even if they agree with you, they should not vote like you do. Try and tell racists not vote for any given candidate, and you will likely fail.

It is not a straw man. You've even agreed that monetary support is no different than any other support. To live up to your standard, McCain must do as I've said in the quote above.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

So Ron Paul is entitled to have his own principles, but I am not...is that what you're saying?


Returning a check doesn't require a dog and pony show. Sorry.



It is a valid comparison, because I agree with the opposition that not all marriages should be recognized. I've made that clear in the past. Not sure why it is so shocking now.

Marriage is not a right. So denying marriage is not denying a right.

Marriage is not required for equal opportunity. So denying marriage is not denying equal opportunity.



That isnt what I said. It isnt what I said before either.

I am making the same double standard that the anti-homo people are making. I am simply picking different groups for each standard.


If you believe that, then you were not paying attention. I explained in the other thread why pedophiles and incestuous marriages should not be included as valid. And why gay marriage is different. I explained it explicitly.


If he shared my morals, he would.

The media is not required to participate at all. As long as he refuses the check, it doesn't matter what the media says.



If the facts showed that Ron Paul had rejected the donation, it would be irrelevant what the media's commentary was. I would not care at all.


I disagree. I explicitly stated that I was not in favor of anyone being prevented from giving/accepting donation or speaking their mind. Yet you continue to make that implication.

That is a straw man argument. You are commenting on an argument I never made.



Such as not accepting money from evil people.



I agree. But there are more things that are important to conservatives that policy. Because morals reflect the character of the individual, and how his future policy is likely to be shaped.

If you believe character doesn't matter, you will probably be a minority among conservatives on that issue.



Why? I don't agree that Islam should be destroyed.


How am I accepting their support? Saying they deserve free speech = accepting their support?



Because it is obvious how I think they should vote and why. Telling them that would be pointless.


I agree. Which is why I don't do it.


Lets find out.


You implied that I wanted to prevent Ron Paul from accepting a donation or someone from giving him a donation, despite the fact that I explicitly said the opposite.

I did not make that argument. Therefore it is a straw man. By definition.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

He was a hope!

No, I'm simply stating why your standard is inferior.

Yes it is. It only caters to your irrational fears of alleged racism, while ignoring the fact that neither he nor his policies are racist.

And when confronted with the comparison you usually point out that such a comparison is not relevant. The fact that you resorted to that comparison in defending the anti-homo people is what is shocking.

Never said it was. Just said that it is discrimination.

It is unequal opportunity at obtaining a license, based only on bigotry combined with religious beliefs. Those are not a justifiable basis on denying such an opportunity.

Exactly. That is the basis they often use to justify amending the constitution.


Of course, criminals don't get such opportunity. That right is taken away from them. And that is why I don't understand that on this thread you are making such a comparison:
"Denying pedophiles the ability to marry children (for example) does not mean they are being denied equal opportunity"

Pedophilia is a crime and homosexuality is not. In this country criminals do not get equal oppurtunity.

Since monetary support is no different than other support, your standards would force McCain to instruct outspoken racists not to vote for him. Better get him on this forum, quick!

Has McCain instructed all racists and bigots who intend to vote for him not to?

The comparison still stands and both arguments are equally ridiculous.

Someone that requires a lapel pin to prove patriotism alleges that a candidate without one is unpatriotic without any basis.

Someone that requires a donation be returned to a racist allegest that a candidate is racist without any basis.

How about we judge candidates on their policies and their political record?
Your standard is that certain person's donations cannot be accepted.

I disagree. It is conservative to be a pragmatist and liberal to be an emotionalist.

The policy and record of the candidate reflect his morals. There's nothing indicating that his future policy would reflect the racist views of that supporter.

I respect the character of someone who allows people with differing opinions to support him.
People that support your candidate do, and according to you that should be a deal breaker when voting.

Your candidate has not rejected their support. You gonna vote for him?


This is no different than Paul's stance on accepting the support of a racist. Monetary support is no different than any other type of support.

Wrong, I have not implied that. Read the first quote from me above. According to you Paul must refuse support to please you but McCain isn't required to refuse support from racists.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Please post your evidence that John McCain is not allowed to reject checks without notifying the media.

As far as I know, there is no bank that has such a policy.


I do not accept your premise that monetary support is no different from other support.

Monetary support requires his consent. Other forms of support do not.


I am not asking him to wear a pin.


I never made the claim he was racist. Just the opposite actually.



I do that too.


No, my standard is that certain person's donations should not be accepted.

Does your argument not work unless you can put words in my mouth?



I've already said I am not a pragmatist. If that was meant as a veiled insult, it failed horribly, heh heh

Liberals are pragmatists...they compromise their morals all the time. That why we are still in Iraq, despite the fact that liberals are in power.


So what? I have no control over what people support my candidate. All I care about is who my candidate accepts money from. Who he officially accepts support from.

If McCain accepted a donation from a group he knew wanted the annihilation of all muslims, yeah, it would cost him points with me too.



Can you post a link to evidence that he has accepted money from an organization he knew to have racist goals?

I fault Ron Paul for his actions because he knew. If he had been ignorant about it, I would not have held it against him. But he deliberately and knowingly accepted the money. It wasn't an oversight or an accident.


Unless you can provide the evidence I requested, yeah.



If I find out he knowingly accepted money from racists and he refuses to return it, yeah, I will hold McCain to that exact same standard.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

It's still a a dog and pony show. Bank policy does not change that.

Well it took you a few pages to finally say that.

It doesn't require his consent to accept monetary support. Candidates don't go to the bank and make a deposit themselves and if funds are directly deposited via credit they surely don't have much power of consent. Staffers make deposits. It was only brought to your attention after the media researched the donor. No candidates give consent based on the donor's opinions.

It's the same stupid reasoning.

hah, you compared him to somebody that attends kkk rallies.

Oh wow, a minor misnomer. Your standard is that he cannot accept the donation of a certain person and earn your vote.
It wasn't. Still it is liberal of you to participate in such race baiting.

Yeah, you just care about non-issues if the media drags them up.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Simply rejecting a check is not a dog and pony show IMO.



I actually said it a few pages back. Several times. It just took you a few pages to finally get it.


Here, let me help you out:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy


Consent is implicit by default. But if you reject a donation, then it is not a donation.


If he had been unaware of the donor, I would not have cared. Read my previous posts.



I disagree that expecting him to reject a donation from a known racist group is the same as asking him to wear a pin.


There is more required to earn my vote than that.



Then it must not be liberal, since I wasnt participating in any race baiting.


It isnt a non-issue to me...or to most people. If it was, it would hurt Ron Paul at all.

You may not care if Ron Paul accepts money from evil people, but you're in the minority. Even among Conservatives.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?