(September 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: No Adrian, you're moving the goal posts.Eh? I was just pointing out that I found the description of events a bit dishonest. The point was made very clearly by Blitzer that the hypothetical man was someone who could afford health insurance but had refused to buy it. This wasn't highlighted in the quote that Minimalist posted, and it makes for an entirely different reading because of it.
Quote:The issue is that the supposed audience who represent the "Tea Party" and helped sponsor the event started cheering over the obvious wrong answer to a loaded question.I'm well aware of that; I wasn't arguing in favour of the audience's response, but rather against the description used, which left out a specific (important) detail about the hypothetical man.
Additionally, this was both a Republican and Tea Party event, and was probably attended by others as well. I doubt very much that one could make the assertion that a specific group of people were the ones cheering, especially since (as others have pointed out in this thread), only a few people did so. The crowd didn't go wild; a few individuals decided to yell out.
Quote:It's not about Ron Paul.Again, I never said it was. He just happened to be answering the question, and although the description didn't say what his answer was, he did in fact answer "No".
Quote:It's about the bat shit insane people of the Tea Party.It's actually about a few individuals of unknown party affiliation that called out in the middle of a debate...but...yeah.
Quote:I wish you'd stop falling for Paul == Libertarian. Were he a Libertarian, why the hell is he catering to and competing for one of the most virulently not Libertarian political parties in history (through their actions and legislation)? The Tea Party talks Libertarian, but it's actions clearly indicate otherwise.I doubt very much the Democrats would have him; the Libertarian party have no hope of winning the race, and the Republican party is the only one left that he has any chance of winning the favour of. As I've explained time and time again here, it is less about the party you align yourself with, and more about your individual politics. Ron Paul's politics are strikingly Libertarian in nature.
Quote:He's just an opportunist. One that has never done well, and will probably never do well, especially with this lot.Doesn't mean he won't try!
(September 14, 2011 at 3:13 pm)Chuck Wrote: So should the situation arise, let's subpoena the dying man's financial records so as to perform a proper means test suitable for illuminating the all important point, which is not only material, but adjudicatable by any trust worthy talent possessing of Ron Paul wisdom. This test should no doubt be done thoroughly and painstakingly so as to ensure not only maximum accuracy, but that the dying patient has the time to be dead and thus making tny error in the process immaterial.How you can take Ron Paul's answer of "No" and think he means all this is quite beyond me. If someone doesn't have health insurance, they will be charged for any healthcare that they have.
