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.
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.