N-Syte said:
loadedstatement said:
damkira said:
@loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great. "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added. Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue. |
I completely agree. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.
|
I kind of prefer the Giuliani approach. If a Saudi Prince is going to give you a donation for $10 million dollars while claiming the US had 911 coming, let him keep his money. Better to take the moral high ground than validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Besides, that line of reasoning could be used to justify the acceptance of any donation no matter how dirty. Or maybe that's your point? To drop the saccharine romanticism and get down to brass tax. And yes, my screws could use a little tightening. |
10 million is so much different than $500. It was ONLY $500. Not by a Saudi prince. By a man who lives an average life in an average town who just happens to be a racist. And you are not validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Do you expect these campaigns to do background checks on all of their donors? No. And they won't. Tons of money gets donated by people who may not have the best morals. It really depends on your definition of morals though. His donation accounts for 0.000027% of all the money Ron Paul has raised this quarter so far. I cannot even believe this got air on the news. It really shows how ridiculous the news is.
