Hm. Likely, there was a reason. These things happen when 'objectionable' riders get attached to bills that are little more than pork. So, it's likely that his decision isn't based upon the bill's genetic content.

I don't believe anything that's reported before reading into the issue. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's chances, if they ever existed, have been destroyed. All the media has to do is say something and the public will instantly believe it.

This sounds bad to most people, but I'm not willing to simply read this and make up their mind. What were the reasons Paul gave for voting against it? Of course, no one would report that. Report both sides of the issue? Take a neutral point of view? What?

my mind*

"These things happen when 'objectionable' riders get attached to bills that are little more than pork. So, it's likely that his decision isn't based upon the bill's genetic content."

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the first sentence, but to the second, ya, I'm not wholly convinced he's a neo-nazi; most likely it doesn't have to do with the genetic content and has to do with his objectivism. But his decades of experience as a doctor, "saving lives" has been trumpeted by his disciples, presumably to show his compassion and care for Americans. And then he votes to screw over his patients.

It would end up being that those most likely to need to use their health insurance for life-saving treatments will be the least able to afford it—not only because their health care premiums would be so high, but also because they would have a hard time finding employers so they possibly wouldn't be able to get a health plan through work either.

"I don't believe anything that's reported before reading into the issue. "

hahah, are you saying you don't believe he voted against this?

"What were the reasons Paul gave for voting against it? Of course, no one would report that. Report both sides of the issue? Take a neutral point of view? What?"

Well I saw him interviewed on CNN a few days ago so I think that's a tinge paranoid.

He frequently depicts himself as the only Republican politician sticking to Republican principles, and I don't think it's hard to figure out that the one at play here is freedom of corporations and lack of governmental interference and regulation of them. Government shouldn't enforce fairness, free market, blah blah blah.

But does the reason why he voted like that really matter? I mean the fact of the matter is, regardless of reasons, that's a really, really bad vote. Either he's incredibly short-sighted, not thinking through the implications of his radical beliefs, or his perception of the world and his vision of America is radical and not one that most Americans would want to live in. Which explains his popular support.

hahah, are you saying you don't believe he voted against this?

No, I'm saying I don't automatically assume the stance of the reporter. That he voted for it is a fact, but I won't believe it's some terrible thing until I hear the reason why he voted against it. Either way, I don't see it as a big deal. I don't agree with Paul on a lot of things, but I agree with him on more things than I agree with any other candidate on.

He frequently depicts himself as the only Republican politician sticking to Republican principles

I don't know original republican principles, but things change, and he needs to recognize that. Regarding modern republican principles, he's nothing like them, and he should be running libertarian. He had no chance to win in a primary of a party that he was the complete opposite of in many ways.

But does the reason why he voted like that really matter?

Yes, it matters. A lot.

Let's use an example. Say they're voting on whether or not the KKK should be able to speak about their views publicly. Let's say he said yes. If he said yes because he believes in freedom of speech, no matter what, that would be a good thing. If he said yes because he agrees with the KKK...?

Regarding the last part, yes, he has a lot of radical beliefs. But he wouldn't have the power to put most of them into effect, so I don't care. I only care about the things he has the power to do.

" Either way, I don't see it as a big deal. I don't agree with Paul on a lot of things, but I agree with him on more things than I agree with any other candidate on."

But you can just count em up. Some views are way too out there to sustain support. His lack of will to restrain corporations and insurers even when the case is so clear-cut that no-one else opposes (cmon, genetic discrimination has been the basis of a number of movie and video game dystopias—their defining feature in fact) does not bode well for what he'd do if he had more power. What would it take for him to step in and say 'no' to corporations and insurance companies if the sick and vulnerable with their lives at stake don't move him?

"Yes, it matters. A lot. Let's use an example."

No, let's not, because I'm talking about this specific case. Obviously, the reason matters in some situations. I'm asking why it matters in this one. It's not the motivations at question, and you're attempting to shift the debate, portraying it as if that is so.

The point is the consequences of his convictions, if they were realised. And those consequences would be that people would get discriminated against based on their genes, by employers and insurance companies. This strikes most as a terrible thing.

But the consequences in your example aren't bad in themselves. Only the motivation in that case lends the air of distastefulness.

"But you can just count em up."

*but you CANNOT just count em up.

Sorry, trying to write an essay at the same time.

I assume he just didn't want the government to interfere with businesses.

Even if you're just talking about this specific case, the reasons matter to me in every single instance. Just because they don't matter to you does not mean they aren't important. They are important to me. They are the basis on which I decide my opinion of Paul himself.

As I said before, some of his views are out there, but he does not have the power to enforce these views. I disagree with him on some things. A long time ago I made a list of things I agree and disagree on with all the candidates, and he was the only candidate I had more "agrees" than "disagrees" with. Or pros thans cons. Yeah, I think I used pros and cons. Whatever.

I don't expect him to win the election because the public doesn't agree with me on most things and the public doesn't agree with him on most things, most of the time the public bases their vote on idiotic things (i.e. I'm voting for Hilary because she's a woman (I remember some drama or something in World and I think it was because people were saying you supported Hilary because of that, I'm not accusing you of that, so don't freak out, but I really have known a lot of girls that have said those exact words)), and Paul doesn't have enough media support, and generally the media owns this country. But I support him. And I will continue to support him. It's not often I find a candidate I can support, and he is one I can.

"Just because they don't matter to you does not mean they aren't important. They are important to me. They are the basis on which I decide my opinion of Paul himself."

So let's say it is as Agis and I say: only because he doesn't agree with governmental interference with business. And he is so fervently opposed to it that he would allow genoism as a legitimate basis of determining employment and insurance rates. Does that make this unproblematic to you? You take no issue with it in that case? 'Oh, the reason he would allow discrimination and suffering is because he believes in a free market, oh, okay, well that's different.'

"As I said before, some of his views are out there, but he does not have the power to enforce these views."

But those who support him for president presumably wish he did. Which raises the question of why.

"I agree and disagree on with all the candidates, and he was the only candidate I had more "agrees" than "disagrees" with. Or pros thans cons."

Well hey, you know I did the same with Hitler and according to your method, I should have voted for him. Hey, we both have an appreciation for art. He agrees that it's wrong to kill animals for food (we're both vegetarians!) He cared very much about reaching out to those less fortunate (he established a national charity that helped many German children.) He believed in providing good funding to the military (I hate how the Liberals have brought our Canadian military to its knees!) And we both have an absolute adoration of Beethoven.

Only one in the 'con' column: he was rather uncomfortable with jews/blacks/gays. He's got my vote!!!

Why does every reply have to be so long? ;_;

I believe that employers should be able to hire whoever they want. It's their business, and the government should have no say in their choices. But before you take that sentence and quote it and tear it apart, let me say that I believe government laws regulating it are still necessary. I believe employers should be able to hire whoever they want, but that's in an ideal world where prejudice doesn't exist. It does exist, and we have to deal with that by making the regulations. So I'll accept them. At the same time, I definitely don't think the executive branch has the power to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Let's imagine Paul is the president. This bill was passed unanimously except for him. Even if he vetoed it, they would have overriden him.

But those who support him for president presumably wish he did. Which raises the question of why.

But I am not one of those supporters, and he doesn't have that power, nor does he seek it, so I don't care.

As for the Hitler thing, I don't think Paul wants a mass genocide of any race of people. Naturally I weigh in how important things are, too. None of his cons were very big. And on the "appreciation for art and beethoven" and whatever else, I don't care about personal interests or a candidate's life outside politics. My favorite band is Thursday. If McCain's favorite band was also Thursday, I'd still hate him.

If Paul had any radical racist views or anything else that huge, I wouldn't support him. But he doesn't.

"Let's imagine Paul is the president. This bill was passed unanimously except for him. Even if he vetoed it, they would have overriden him."

It's very dangerous to rely on others to do something about a problem, happily supporting him with the assumption that anything that he believes that is too 'out there' will never make it to law. It's like when someone is stabbed in the middle of the street and no-one does a thing about it—that mentality that someone else will surely do something, so no-one does anything.

This has far greater implications than this one vote. It indicates that he will always be fervently pro-corporation, anti-regulation across the board, regardless of the severe consequences of doing so. And in that, it indicates a more general lack of judgment that would come into play in things not requiring votes...

"I definitely don't think the executive branch has the power to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT."

Then who does? Doesn't the federal government ban hiring discrimination on the basis of gender and race?

"As for the Hitler thing, I don't think Paul wants a mass genocide of any race of people."

I wasn't making a comparison on those grounds. But the consequences of his convictions would, when realised, be a eugenics-focused society.

"Naturally I weigh in how important things are, too. None of his cons were very big. And on the "appreciation for art and beethoven" and whatever else, I don't care about personal interests or a candidate's life outside politics."

Financial support of the arts is very important, to me at least. It is important that the arts are promoted by the government and that stimulus for growth in the creative sector is provided. What is society without the arts? Advanced, but brutish!

"If Paul had any radical racist views or anything else that huge, I wouldn't support him."

Why?!

Qwey

He was interviewed on CNN about what...?

Using this apparent misfortune (objecting to PORK via a nay vote, which is my suspicion) to justify saying that he's screwing patients ignores his life's publicly oft-mentioned achievements. I suspect that if selfishness or ignorance or, somehow, self-righteousness is the message you're receiving then something either got lost in the translation or has simply not yet been made clear enough to each of us. Pending sufficient info I have no reason to pass judgment no matter the loss or gain in this instance. And, one person's radical is another's conservative. To most idiots an intelligent, measured approach IS radical. Anyway, the only 'power' he needed to be granted was to inform, and since the Paul-hating media would have a difficult time muzzling a president, well, you ought to know the rest.

Government shouldn't enforce fairness, free market, blah blah blah.

Yes, it should....if by free market you mean free enterprise, of course. The government(read: national and international central bank[s]) is wholly opposed to free enterprise, because free enterprise is the bane of capitalism. We can't have people running a muck without them being first forced into debt, you know. The collective proletariat MUST be fed inflatable paper.

My typing speed is horrible anyway, and there's just enough distraction around here to barely think.

Anyway, "If he said [no] because he" isn't enough for me to get started on anything in earnest.

I'm not going to use any quotes this post guys.

Um

Oh I already forgot what you said...

"He was interviewed on CNN about what...?"

About his remaining in the race. About his views on Iraq. About his views of the Democratic race. About his views of McCain. Etc.

"Using this apparent misfortune (objecting to PORK via a nay vote, which is my suspicion) to justify saying that he's screwing patients ignores his life's publicly oft-mentioned achievements."

It goes the other way around: "But his decades of experience as a doctor, "saving lives" has been trumpeted by his disciples, presumably to show his compassion and care for Americans. And then he votes to screw over his patients." I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying this is quite the contrast, considering his peers—other doctors—have been very concerned on behalf of their patients about the lack of such legislation.

"Pending sufficient info I have no reason to pass judgment no matter the loss or gain in this instance."

What info are you waiting for? I can't think of any conceivable information that would put this in a good light to me.

"To most idiots an intelligent, measured approach IS radical."

How is this an intelligent, measured approach, considering the consequences that would result if more people supported and agreed with him?

"Anyway, "If he said {no} because he" isn't enough for me to get started on anything in earnest."

And that's exactly what is NOT at issue in this thread. Interesting that the Ron Paulians keep trying to make motives an issue! I'm not implying anything sinister about it. I'm just pointing out the incredible terrible results of whatever it is he believes in and questioning whether we really want a rEVOLution.

"How can you ask why I'd be against radical racism? Are you saying the holocaust wasn't a problem?"

Who said anything about that? One can live one's entire life with a view that blacks are inferior without murdering them. Many have. So what does it matter to you then whether someone has personal views about blacks, jews, women, or gays that are racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, homophobic, etc.? You told me that you "don't care about personal interests or a candidate's life outside politics."

People can be racist against whites and sexist against men, too, you know. A lot of people are. The principal at my middle school hated white people. She expressed it openly. I had a really bad middle school. One time my teacher jumped this student in the hallway. It was really funny.

Wait that's not the issue.

Um what was the issue

Oh

Wait I forgot it again

I'm really forgetting it you know

Um

Right

If someone has really extreme views on any subject it might reflect on their political decisions. Hitler's hatred of Jews caused him to make his choice about the Holocaust. If someone had expressed views like that I wouldn't vote for them because of that danger.

Oh by the way I left the thread

I know you're going to make that bold and talk about how stupid it is but I'm going to bed now so bye

What info are you waiting for?

Hearing what, precisely, the reason is for his vote, from his own mouth, unedited. Nothing less is fair. Unless I can read someone's thoughts at will, the rest of the world will hold their breath for an unbiased filter, and then die.

"If someone has really extreme views on any subject it might reflect on their political decisions. Hitler's hatred of Jews caused him to make his choice about the Holocaust. If someone had expressed views like that I wouldn't vote for them because of that danger."

Let's imagine such a person is the president. Bills would pass unanimously except for him. Even if he vetoed it, he would be overridden, right? What danger? Such a person would not have the power to enforce their views, so it's okay to support them. I mean, if you have enough in the "pros" column, of course. ^_^

"Hearing what, precisely, the reason is for his vote, from his own mouth, unedited. Nothing less is fair. Unless I can read someone's thoughts at will, the rest of the world will hold their breath for an unbiased filter, and then die."

And what would be a motivation that would make this okay in your eyes?

You're so mean Qwey, stop making me respond

Let's imagine such a person is the president. Bills would pass unanimously except for him. Even if he vetoed it, he would be overridden, right? What danger? Such a person would not have the power to enforce their views, so it's okay to support them. I mean, if you have enough in the "pros" column, of course. ^_^

But I'd still disagree with them so strongly on that issue that I wouldn't vote for them. And I said earlier that some issues have more weight than others. The thing about the pros column was a good joke, but a good joke isn't a good column.

By the way I left the thread.

I'm really going to bed now.

um I mean a good argument.

by the way I left the thread

I'm really going to bed now

"But I'd still disagree with them so strongly on that issue that I wouldn't vote for them. And I said earlier that some issues have more weight than others."

POLITICAL issues. You specifically stipulated that personal opinions don't matter. Now you're trying to tell me they do matter because there is "the danger" that those views "might reflect on their political decisions". That's not very consistent.

But the issue is bigger than that, since I agree with you that they should matter and cause one to not vote for such a person, regardless of speculation over whether or not they'll be capable of enforcing their ideas. And similarly, there's the danger that Paul's poor judgment and radically pro-corporation stance may reflect on his other political decisions, and regardless of speculation over whether or not he's capable of getting legislation reflecting those views through, this alone should cause one to not vote for him.

In fact, I can now construct a response to your biggest defenses in response to me from your own words:

Defense: "I don't agree with Paul on a lot of things, but I agree with him on more things than I agree with any other candidate on."

Response: "And I said earlier that some issues have more weight than others."

Defense: "yes, he has a lot of radical beliefs. But he wouldn't have the power to put most of them into effect, so I don't care. I only care about the things he has the power to do."

Response: "But I'd still disagree with them so strongly on that issue that I wouldn't vote for them." "If someone has really extreme views on any subject it might reflect on their political decisions. Hitler's hatred of Jews caused him to make his choice about the Holocaust. If someone had expressed views like that I wouldn't vote for them because of that danger."

The other objection you brought up was: "Naturally I weigh in how important things are, too. None of his cons were very big." So naturally, I must ask, why? How come this con isn't too big for you, now that you yourself have dispatched with your two main defenses against my conclusions?

Respond tomorrow. Gnight.

Okay, your responses are using extremely complicated and petty observations now, and I'm getting tired of arguing. So I'm just going to say you win as far as debates go, but everything I said still stands as far as I go and you aren't going to change my mind by pointing out things like that.

By the way, I left the topic.

I'm going to go to bed now.

hah, you don't understand, do you? My point is that your points cannot stand because you contradict it.

And debating isn't about winning. I'm asking you a question. I'm not trying to 'win'. I'm trying to question your beliefs to see if they can stand up to your own criticism.

Wow, you can argue against anything, can't you?

For the record, I don't agree with anything you said, and from my point of view I'm not contradicting myself. From your point of view I may be. But I see your argument as petty, and something like that isn't going to change my mind.

Either way, you win, you proved that I contradicted myself, whatever you have to tell yourself to make you feel better.

By the way, I left the topic.

I have insomnia.

How is it petty? I'm reiterating your words. Are your words petty?

No, I found your observations insignificant.

Explain, please.

I don't need to.

See, this debate is like playing a video game as far as I'm concerned. I could keep playing. I still have a lot I could say and I could explain. But I got bored of the game and set the controller down.

Now I'm walking out of the room. Turn the console off when you're done, please.

"At the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse.

"Never believe that he is completely unaware of the absurdity of his replies. He knows that his remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But he is amusing himself, for it is his adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. He has the RIGHT to play. He even likes to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, he discredits the seriousness of his interlocutors. He delights in acting in bad faith, since he seeks not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

"If you press him too closely, he will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past {aka. "Good day"}. It is not that he is afraid of being convinced. He fears only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by his embarrassment his hope of winning over some third person to his side. If then, as we have been able to observe, he is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious."

(Je n-Paul Satre's description of the prototypical anti-semite.)

Well that's pretty accurate, but I don't hate jewish people. I just hate celebrities.

I am not calling you an anti-Semite or meaning to insult you by the association. You have admitted the description is accurate. This is because the sentiments, attitude, and approach to 'opinions' and ideas you have are similar to the anti-Semite's. The same illogic, distrust of reasoning, non-committal to debate, and belief that all 'opinions' are equal and not to be debated is present in both you and the anti-Semite.

This, I think, should frighten you, because it is precisely your attitudes that are the ones that can lead a person to justify the illogic of hatred of Jews. I am not saying you will slip into this; I am just saying that if you disagree with the anti-Semite, you should discard your current attitudes that you share with him, because they are the very grounds upon which he can stand there and say to you that his opinions are beyond debate, but no matter, his opinions are still valid.

You seem to have a lot in common with the kind of person you wouldn't vote for.

That was a brilliant argument, Qwey.

good job I didn't then. You self-diagnosed by recognising yourself in Sartre's description.

I don't care who you are or what kind of person you are. I am pointing out the contradictions in your beliefs. And that fact that, if you were to hypothetically get into a debate with such an anti-semite, you would have no grounds upon which to refute him because you would have already accepted the things which make his stance possible. Not that you would get into a debate like that, but that the beliefs you hold make it impossible for you to assert, establish, and defend other beliefs you hold (against anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination because of the danger of it leading to things like the Holocaust) should prompt you to take a closer look at your beliefs.

You're hilarious.

This is exactly the reason I don't bother arguing with people.

Anyway, I'm leaving this post (really this time) so continue to make all the delusional conclusions about me that you want. You're right, you win, etc, have fun.