[bcsco]

Any candidate for President generally accepts donations from people of all kinds, including individuals who subscribe to collective ideas. We ought consider a danger those collective ideas that would, in practice, override individual rights and responsibilities, particularly when they would be subsumed under the authority of the Federal Government.

The Clinton campaign has returned donations made through the Hsu organization. Why? Why not have kept them by your logic? Yet if her campaign was right in returning them, by inference Paul would be right in returning his questionable donations. And donations from Fascists ARE questionable.

I do not want a President who attains to the office of Theologian in Chief. Such danger does not reside in the person of Ron Paul, but it might reside in a candidate who uses his particular faith explicitly as a reason to be elected.

Neither do I want a Theologian in Chief. And while I recognize such a danger doesn't reside in Ron Paul, many other questionable beliefs do, and I thoroughly reject his candidacy. In fact, I would still reject his candidacy should he be the most honest, straightforward, conservative individual who was pro-WOT and in favor of proactive handling of that war as the Bush administration is; as long as he continues to accept donations from Fascists. THAT is despicable.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The Clinton campaign has returned donations made through the Hsu organization.

They claim as much, but I have no firm reason to believe they have done so. I also have no firm reason to believe you are operating with the proper definition of facsim, or reliable knowledge as to who is contributing to Ron Paul's campaign and why.