The case against Dr. Paul

Oliver said:
So?
Click to expand...

It shows you were wrong.

Or are you referring to Paul's religious stance - that he doesn't
want to push - and never pushed in the past according to his
records?
Click to expand...

How does this affect his stance that he gives the power
to the States to determine those questions?
Click to expand...

You see, there is waws this thing called the Civil War. Afterwards, we passed the 14th Amendment. We learned we couldn't trust States to protect our rights.

And he certainly didn't limit the determination of what constitutes a "person" to the states.

Did I say that I agree with his religious stance - being rather
am Atheist? Did everyone else raised this point so far?
Click to expand...

No, you said he wouldn't impose his views on the rest of us. This is clearly wrong, as seen by his own bills.

So you completely agree with his economic stance but rather
whine about his religion? Are you that distracted from the
world around you?

So what's your stance about the economy?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I am a centrist when it comes to the economy. I care more about civil rights than monetary policy.
 
Richard Masters said:
What lies? Wildcat's assertion that Ron Paul endorses quackery along with other half-truths.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul sponsored legislation that would allow quackery to flourish unchecked by any government agency. Thus:
Ron Paul said:
The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul states that he doesn't even care if supplements and drugs work or are safe. This is why homeopaths and other quacks love Ron Paul and his legislation.

Here's legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that gives free rein to quacks making any claim they want about their quackery, free from Department of Health and Human Services regulations. It's specifically targeted at homeopaths by amending this statute.

How many times does this have to be spelled out for you Richard?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
You see, there is waws this thing called the Civil War. Afterwards, we passed the 14th Amendment. We learned we couldn't trust States to protect our rights.

And he certainly didn't limit the determination of what constitutes a "person" to the states.
Click to expand...

You should examine what the 14th actually did.


No, you said he wouldn't impose his views on the rest of us. This is clearly wrong, as seen by his own bills.
Click to expand...

His bills prevent the federal government from imposing views on individuals. This is hard to see when you agree with the views that the federal government is trying to impose. I would be happy to talk with you about this if you present a particular bill that you have questions about.


Frankly, I am a centrist when it comes to the economy. I care more about civil rights than monetary policy.
Click to expand...

What does centrist on the economy mean?
 
WildCat said:
Ron Paul sponsored legislation that would allow quackery to flourish unchecked by any government agency. Thus:

Ron Paul states that he doesn't even care if supplements and drugs work or are safe. This is why homeopaths and other quacks love Ron Paul and his legislation.

Here's legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that gives free rein to quacks making any claim they want about their quackery, free from Department of Health and Human Services regulations. It's specifically targeted at homeopaths by amending this statute.

How many times does this have to be spelled out for you Richard?
Click to expand...



Why do you need to government to tell you that homeopath is bunk?

What harm does it do if some moron wants to think he is better because of water diluted by water?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No. Not because I can't, but because your demeanor is odious.
Click to expand...

I figured as much and I don't believe you could anyway based on historical precident. Vis-a-vis the argumentum ad novitatem fallacy the burden of proof is on you since Paul's proposals are not only a break from, but antithetical to the status quo.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why do you need to government to tell you that homeopath is bunk?

What harm does it do if some moron wants to think he is better because of water diluted by water?
Click to expand...
Because that "moron" may well be someone you love who has fallen victim to the false hopes and claims stated by quacks, and dies as a result.

Quacks are little different from con men. Maybe Ron Paul also supports con men?
 
Pardalis said:
It doesn't matter, that's not what you asked. People have answered your OP, and again you're trying to change the subject because you don't like contradictory opinions.
Click to expand...


To what extend did they answer the OP?

So far they're pointing to news-letters not even
written by Paul - or scans of supposed Paul-letters
without any backing evidence.

That's like saying that this photography clearly
shows that Bush is Condi Rice's slave:

http://skaroff.com/blog/img/bush_pee_note_enlarge.jpg

That isn't what would convince me as a Skeptic,
would you be convinced by that?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You should examine what the 14th actually did.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that I am wrong, show it.

Fourteenth Amendment said:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

His bills prevent the federal government from imposing views on individuals. This is hard to see when you agree with the views that the federal government is trying to impose. I would be happy to talk with you about this if you present a particular bill that you have questions about.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul said:
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
Click to expand...

He is clearly using the federal government to impose a view.

What does centrist on the economy mean?
Click to expand...

It means I am in the middle between socialism and libertarianism.
 
Just in case Tsukasa Buddha doesn't get around to it...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
His bills prevent the federal government from imposing views on individuals.
Click to expand...

Not this one:

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A)
Click to expand...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1094


ETA: Sorry! Buddha has it well in hand.
 
Oliver said:
To what extend did they answer the OP?

So far they're pointing to news-letters not even
written by Paul - or scans of supposed Paul-letters
without any backing evidence.

That's like saying that this photography clearly
shows that Bush is Condi Rice's slave:

http://skaroff.com/blog/img/bush_pee_note_enlarge.jpg

That isn't what would convince me as a Skeptic,
would you be convinced by that?
Click to expand...

I gave you his bills!
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
It shows you were wrong.

You see, there is waws this thing called the Civil War. Afterwards, we passed the 14th Amendment. We learned we couldn't trust States to protect our rights.

And he certainly didn't limit the determination of what constitutes a "person" to the states.

No, you said he wouldn't impose his views on the rest of us. This is clearly wrong, as seen by his own bills.

Frankly, I am a centrist when it comes to the economy. I care more about civil rights than monetary policy.
Click to expand...


Wrong about what? Which of his bills is racially
based other then giving more or less rights to one
individual over another?

Feel free to point out cases that actually have a
non-equal background - so far people here failed
to point those out. A fund for a specific kind of
people isn't racial in any way since a fund is
supporting a special group - and Paul is opposed
to give more opportunities to one group over another.

This pretty much is consistent with his Libertarian
views, no matter if a Bill is about a Gay-, Blacks-
or Whites-Fund. A Fund itself is preferring one
Group over another.

This may sound harsh in the first place - but it makes
sense if you think about it, and it's in no way
racism or even contradicting Paul's view.

Or is it? - And if so, how so?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You should examine what the 14th actually did.
Click to expand...


Translation: It's enough for you to know that I contradict you. You needn't be bothered with the content of that contradiction or with any attempt to rebut it.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Ron Paul sponsored legislation that would allow quackery to flourish unchecked by any government agency. Thus:

Ron Paul states that he doesn't even care if supplements and drugs work or are safe. This is why homeopaths and other quacks love Ron Paul and his legislation.

Here's
legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that gives free rein to quacks making any claim they want about their quackery, free from Department of Health and Human Services regulations. It's specifically targeted at homeopaths by amending this statute.

How many times does this have to be spelled out for you Richard?
Click to expand...

Your whole argument is a strawman!

The way it system is now individuals already have the final say of what kind of treatments, supplements, drugs they want. The question is whether your HCP will cover it?

Allowing people to have more treatment options made available seems like a logical progression to me.

The FDA has made plenty of bad calls on the drugs they push. Big Pharma already has plenty of drugs that claim to do this and that and actually do not help or have more side effects worse than the actual (if any) benefit claimed.

Big Pharma, who spends more on advertising than research and these drugs that are rubber-stamped by the FDA.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Now we are arguing if government should be able to define what human life is?

I prefer an expansive definition.

Some would prefer a definition that excludes retards and infirmed.

Think about the totality of what these words encompass. (tautology alert)
Click to expand...

Think about the fact that Ron Paul explicitly wants the federal government to define what human life is and then think about how that fact affects your claim:

Jerome said:
His bills prevent the federal government from imposing views on individuals.
Click to expand...
 
HereticHulk said:
Your whole argument is a strawman!

The way it system is now individuals already have the final say of what kind of treatments, supplements, drugs they want.
Click to expand...
The question is the false claims presented by quacks, whose right to make false claims is 100% supported by Ron Paul.

The FDA has made plenty of bad calls on the drugs they push. Big Pharma already has plenty of drugs that claim to do this and that and actually do not help or have more side effects worse than the actual (if any) benefit claimed.
Click to expand...
And you only know this because the FDA requires them to back up and document their claims. Ron Paul's legislation would make it unlikely that their false claims would ever get noticed. You just proved my point!

Big Pharma, who spends more on advertising than research and these drugs that are rubber-stamped by the FDA.
Click to expand...
Ah, the FDA is holding back drug companies with their regulations, while at the same time rubber-stampinbg them? You just can't make this stuff up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom