[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because I'm sure they included "Stormfront poster" in their donation.

[/ QUOTE ]
You and I both know that the argument "it is too hard" is rubbish.

Just refund those that have been brought to your attention. It's not hard. It's not difficult.


And if it is too hard for Ron Paul to reject the support of neo-Nazis, I can only shudder how he will navigate the role of President of the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing: I AGREE that it would be a [censored] PR move to NOT return a donation from a known white supremist if it is brought to your attention.

But what you are doing is insinuating that if Paul makes a different decision (even a bad one) then he must automatically be a Nazi, or his positions must be closely aligned with Nazis, or most closely aligned with Nazis of the candidates standing, or however you want to put it. Which is obviously bull [censored], no matter you how try to spin it.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I paraphrased.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't enclose it in quotation marks.

Quotation marks are marks to denote quotations. It's not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I retract the quotes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not attribute what was in the quotes directly to you;

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you did. You responded to me, and used the word "you" (to refer to me directly) three times in that one sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that I paraphrased. Meaning that however incorrectly I used the quotes I did not mean them to be a literal quote, simply an accurate paraphrasing of what you are insinuating.

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of the internet is that people can say stuff and seemingly always have a straight face.

[ QUOTE ]
It is representative of what you said, as your cosmetic FYP in bold indicates.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a pretty big difference between saying someone is most closely aligned with the Nazis, and not saying someone is most closely aligned with the Nazis.

[ QUOTE ]
What is trollish is continuing to insinuate that Ron Paul's positions "must most closely represent those of Nazis of the candidates standing" because he refuses to give money to Nazis.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I respect your sophistry to reverse the issue at hand (from 'refusing support from Nazis' to 'funding Nazis') it's actually not credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's perfectly credible. Who is in possession of the funds? The Paul campaign. Who would you like to see receive the funds? White supremists.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, the logical next step from your point of view appears to me to suggest that candidates should more actively fundraise from amongst the Nazi community - failing to take their money is functionally equivalent to giving them money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the slightest. Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "ownership"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine. You think he should give money back to unidentifiable anonymous donors.

[/ QUOTE ]
You create the straw man repeatedly, in quite a clear contravention of the post that you quoted - when I specificly said that this was absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't absurd. From what I can tell, there seems to be possibly a single identifiable donor. Personally, I think the campaign should give the money back, purely for PR reasons. But if the campaign doesn't, that doesn't make Paul a white supremist as you are insinuating.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it. Perhaps you think its a bad PR move to do otherwise. You probably have an argument there. But to continue to repeatedly insinuate that if he sticks to his previous statement and principled position,

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not principled to take money from anyone and everyone. That's quite the opposite of principled - it is very unprincipled.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was donated anonymously over the internet, buried among tens of thousands of donations from complete strangers who have never met Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul never met these people, and did not "accept their support" (oh noes; scare quotes!). They made a credit card donation on a website.

In fact, I will *explicitly* say that philosophically it makes absolutely zero difference if some moron wants to give his money away to someone who fundamentally disagrees with him. No, strike that. It is clearly morally worse to return the funds to the hands of the white supremist. The *only* reason to give the money back is pure PR, and that is not your reasoning. Your insinuation is that not giving the money back makes one a white supremist, which is absurd

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't my fault that you want money to be channeled to members of white supremist groups instead of to someone working for peace, liberty and limited government. That is what *you* are *literally* calling for.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not literally calling for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know what the word "literally" means? Because, yes, you are.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See how your principled position can be portrayed as evil and nazi-supporting? Annoying, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
While your linguistic gymnastics are quite impressive from a purely technical viewpoint, they're not the least bit impressive in any substantial way - because my view is not Nazi supporting.

[/ QUOTE ]

And neither are any of Ron Paul's views. But you would know that, if you bothered to learn anything about the guy before you spent your entire day smearing him.

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that the rejection of Nazi-support is in itself Nazi-supporting is self-evidently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly.

If you had just said, "Boy, it would be pretty [censored] stupid to keep that neo-nazi money", I would have said, "Yep." But you just had to end every [censored] post with something like "Unless of course he agrees with the neo-nazis, then by all means keep it."

In the middle of the Ron Paul [censored] video thread, filled with rabid, slathering Ron Paul supporters. And this is supposed to NOT be trolling? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, come on.