Posted on 05/06/2008 8:31:40 AM PDT by seanmerc
I'm not saying that you're wrong that you consider it evidence. I can go a supermarket, hand them a five dollar bill, and say, "Well, I consider this to be a hudnred! Don't tell me I'm wrong, you arrogant jerk!", but, to say the least, it probably won't net me $100 worth of groceries.
You can consider and one and one to add up to fifty. You can consider whatever you feel like. But whether you consider something as such and whether objective reality agrees with you are two different matters.
And as such, I see no objective reality that says that your "evidence" is anything more than flimsy, and self-chosen to match your desired ends. I showed you alternate explanations for both items. I showed you that the rest of Paul's life is consistent with those explanations. And I gave you the opportunity to prove otherwise, to show me, for example, his long racist voting history. And those requests have been repeatedly ignored.
Only an arrogant jerk thinks they have the right to control the thoughts of others
You're really flying off the deep end if you think I'm trying to control your thoughts. You can conjure up whatever fantasies you desire. Have yourself a blast. I'm just going to make it clear to everyone reading this that that is exactly what you're doing.
And what is the 'objective reality' that proves your 'evidence' is any better?
No, you haven't. You've tried to refocus the discussion on points that have nothing to do with my concerns or the points I've been making such as the claim the all money spends the same. (Of course it does, but that has nothing to do with the issues I have with taking money from unsavory groups.)
You've left mine dangling one after another.
Hogwash.
When you can actually address my concerns with 'objective reality' as you call it, let me know. Your efforts to try to misrepresent what I've said and reframe the argument to something silly like all money spends the same do nothing to sway anyone to your point of view - they only make you look ridiculous.
A twenty year voting record of defending individual freedom, just for starters. See the other post for a reminder (yet again) why this is important.
What you continually fail to see is that this is not a "refocusing", but a rebuttal. I'll take this as slow as I can for you, because you are simply not getting it.
You state over and over that if someone takes money from a group that they must agree with the views of that group. I said, no, I can prove that is wrong by showing you that there is another reason why someone might take money from a group with unsavory views. That reason is that the money they take can be used to support their (the acceptor's) cause, regardless of the views of who gave it to them.
That is the point of showing you how the money spends. By showing this to you, I present to you an alternate explanation for your hypothesis. Then I showed you that, given Paul's long history of fighting for individual freedom, and lack of history of proven racism, that this explanation is far more likely.
Therefore, it is related. It is related because it is the real explanation for why he takes this money (because it spends the same, and therefore supports his causes) that replaces the false one (because he agrees with them).
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
>>You've left mine dangling one after another.
>Hogwash
I can compile a list if you like. But maybe if you can actually comprehend the above this time, I won't need to.
I see. So I say "It is immoral for presidential candidates to accept contributions from unsavory organizations" and your rebuttal is "all money spends the same." So from your perspective, it would be perfectly okay to take money from organized crime, from NAMBLA, from anyone, because hey. . .it all spends the same.
Obviously, our perspectives as so far apart, we'll never agree. And obviously, since that seems to be Ron Paul's view of the issue as well, I could never support him.
Have a nice day.
In order to apply this to the discussion at hand, you'll have to prove that none of Ron's votes was ever swayed by a campaign contribution. Can you do that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.