Was it that obvious?


I have no respect for anyone who knowingly accepts money from racists. Even if I could get past his batshіt-insane foreign policy.

Any respect I had for him evaporated when he accepted that money. The kicker is that it wasn't even that much money...he would never have missed it.



From my perspective, he is the greater of two evils. If it was a choice between him and Hillary, I'd vote for Hillary. Because even though Hillary's foreign policy is almost as ridiculously naive as Ron Paul's, at least I know she would never compromise her morals by accepting money from racists.


Been there. Done that. Yes, I agree with a lot of what he has to say, including his fiscal conservatism. But not on the issues that matter most....so the rest of it is irrelevant. There is no issue more important than Defense. Period.

His foreign policy alone is a deal breaker for me. But even if it wasn't, his acceptance of support from people I despise would be.



It is a matter of principle...something Conservatives are supposed to care about. If Ron Paul accepted money from NAMBLA would you ignore that too? What organization would be vile enough to make you think "hmmm...maybe he's gone too far this time"?


Oh the irony.



Actually, so do I. Because that means more support for my party by people who will never represent a majority of the party. I am very happy to take their votes. But I'll never support their candidate.



I would argue that racial equality is a principle that conservatives support.

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

Stormfront.

A little bedtime reading - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ -

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

BINGO! Granted, if I were him I would likely say "no thanks" even though I have no problem with taking the money. It makes him look bad to some and it is an election. But the larger point is that the rank and file Republicrats are taking money (bribes) from those who actually cause harm. And that is a FAR larger problem then some wussy little racist group giving a candidate money. Which is why, of course, we focus on the donations that matter least.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

That makes sense coming from you though Stekim...you are an admitted pragmatist.

An idealist would not compromise on a moral issue like that.

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

A good idealist needs to be a good pragmatist. If the World Wildlife Fund has a stated goal (protection of wildlife) it would be fine for them to take a donation from a racist. Doing so does not logically imply they are racist or supportive of racists. Pragmatism tells them taking the money is better than not taking it because their ideology puts the environment first. Not taking the money wouldn't support their ideology.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

There are some things that should not be compromised on. That is the entire point of idealism. We have morals.

Accepting money from NAMBLA would be immoral. Accepting money from the Nazi Stormfront is also immoral. If you accept money from them while claiming to oppose their ideology, it makes you a hypocrite as well as being immoral.


From a pragmatic view, Ron Paul did not need the money anyway. So that argument is stupid.

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

It would of contradicted Ron Paul's platform and ideas to give the money back. Why give the money back? Doesn't everyone have the freedom to give money to whomever they wish?

Because it is coming from people who are evil and immoral.


Who is making the argument that Ron Paul should not be allowed to accept the money? Or that the Nazi Stormfront should not be allowed to give it to him? Your question is a non-sequitur.

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

And those "some things" are determined individually. I determine what I will compromise on. That is not your decision.

What if you used the money to fight NAMBLA? Is it still immoral? And once NAMBLA's money is thrown into the money pit, how do you identify the money as being their's when you spend it on your cause? Does the benefit you gain somehow go away because there was $20 from a racist in the pool of money used to provide medical treatment to a dying kid?

No, it still holds. He was running for office. He needs money to do that the last time I checked.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

So what? When did I make the claim that I should be able to make decisions for you? Another non-sequitur.


Its still immoral to accept donations from them either way.



How much negative press did this $50 generate for Ron Paul? Was it really worth being labelled as a racist for an extra $50 to spend in your pragmatic view?

How much extra advertising time did that $50 buy?


Um...then why would you not take it if it is pragmatic to do so?

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