I understand the drift of your question, and it is being used as a distraction away from the point.
Paulites simply can't deal with any of Paul's flaws, so they try to take any criticism and focus it on other candidates, try to minimize the issue by suggesting that everyone is bad, or that others are worse.
Typical.
This is the same M.O. we saw when we found with the neocons and Bush supporters when Bush was found to be authorizing torture and his other practices that on their own don't reflect anything but a "The end justifies the means" thinking. Suddenly in the name of "fighting terrorism" anything is okay to do. The comments from the Bush supporters immediately went to "But they cut off heads, our actions were like a frat house initiation in comparison" or "Ya, but what if you had someone who knew where an atomic bomb was hidden in New York wouldn't you torture them?" style rhetoric.
Look if Paul wants to be a whore and take money from any John, and if you view that as integrity, that's you deal.
This is not about any other politician, it is about what Paul did, and the thinking behind accepting money from any source as long as it advances their own personal political agenda.
That you may be a Paulite explains why you can so easily gloss over the inherent lack of integrity in Paul's actions.
I am also guessing that in the same way most people don't care much that if politicians are drunks or have DUI's on their record because they themselves are drinkers, or that they don't really care that much when politicians lie because they themselves are liars, or if they cheat on their spouses because they themselves are cheaters...Paulites don't seem to care much care what Paul does in the money raising arena as long as it advances their own personal political agenda of seeing Paul elected.
I have seen so much rationalizing the means to an end thinking here at ET as to be epidemic in proportion, which is why it is so easy for people to defend this "principle" in their favored candidates because they practice it so much in their own lives.
Paulites simply can't deal with any of Paul's flaws, so they try to take any criticism and focus it on other candidates, try to minimize the issue by suggesting that everyone is bad, or that others are worse.
Typical.
This is the same M.O. we saw when we found with the neocons and Bush supporters when Bush was found to be authorizing torture and his other practices that on their own don't reflect anything but a "The end justifies the means" thinking. Suddenly in the name of "fighting terrorism" anything is okay to do. The comments from the Bush supporters immediately went to "But they cut off heads, our actions were like a frat house initiation in comparison" or "Ya, but what if you had someone who knew where an atomic bomb was hidden in New York wouldn't you torture them?" style rhetoric.
Look if Paul wants to be a whore and take money from any John, and if you view that as integrity, that's you deal.
This is not about any other politician, it is about what Paul did, and the thinking behind accepting money from any source as long as it advances their own personal political agenda.
That you may be a Paulite explains why you can so easily gloss over the inherent lack of integrity in Paul's actions.
I am also guessing that in the same way most people don't care much that if politicians are drunks or have DUI's on their record because they themselves are drinkers, or that they don't really care that much when politicians lie because they themselves are liars, or if they cheat on their spouses because they themselves are cheaters...Paulites don't seem to care much care what Paul does in the money raising arena as long as it advances their own personal political agenda of seeing Paul elected.
I have seen so much rationalizing the means to an end thinking here at ET as to be epidemic in proportion, which is why it is so easy for people to defend this "principle" in their favored candidates because they practice it so much in their own lives.