Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."

In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.

More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")

The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Hitchslapped!
>> ^aurens:

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.

Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?

>> ^aurens:

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Could you kindly describe the specific way in which a Neo-Nazi's $500 donation would exert an influence over a candidate like Ron Paul? It seems like an absurd generalization to me. (Besides, Don Black—the Neo-Nazi in question—has said publicly that his support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with endorsing white supremacy: "Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. 'We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice,' Black said.")

On a tangential note, you seem to be taking an odd stance with your comment about "murders" and "child rapists." Are you suggesting that certain criminals ought not be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns? If so, where would you draw the line?>> ^longde:

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.
Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?
>> ^aurens:
Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

I can't describe the psychological mechanisms of social obligation and guanxi. In my experience, even relatively small favors can create bonds between people, especially between politicians and their constituents.

The guy stating his reasons for giving the money changes things for me.

On your tangential question, I think any us citizen, even convicted felons should have both the right to vote, and the right to give money. However, I also think that to avoid the appearance of shadyness, a smart politician will refuse support from certain constituents, justified or no.

Moving this video to aurens's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.