[marginalia_nu]

I can see this is an argument made in bad faith, as I simply don't see any other way a statement made in the context of not looking too closely at the politics of donors has turned into the accusations you are making now.

But still, I happen to quite enjoy pointless sophistry and I am no stranger to hyperbolic comparisons, so: Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your line of argument be that criminals and reprehensible individuals should be tax exempt, in order to avoid making the government evil by association?

[ErroneousBosh]

It's not an advert made in bad faith. It's a simple question.

Where do you draw the line? Whose money would you *not* take?