Ron Paul (6 of 12) - opposes Stem Cell funding

[bvnjb1]

lol this video kind of made me horny

[HiddenFacedMatt]

... I agree that the approach of either prohibiting something or subsidizing it is wasteful, but how is that an argument against public funding for embryonic stem cell research in itself? We have public funding for fire departments to save lives, why not have public funding for embryonic stem cell research to save lives?

To be fair, though, at least this isn't as ridiculous as when people insist that an embryo counts as a "human life"; in a fire, would they save a child or a tray of embryos?

[paleolithicera]

And Ron Paul is right to oppose stem cell subsidization. If a company wants to do stem cell research they should procure funding themselves and not be given the option to lobby for government handouts that came from my pockets.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"And Ron Paul is right to oppose stem cell subsidization. If a company wants to do stem cell research. . ." - paleolithicera

What if a NON-company (as in, a public medical science centre or a public university) wants to do it? I don't even like the idea of having companies control such crucial research, unless they would be in some special deal with the government that they wouldn't be allowed to charge too much... to be honest, I don't know very much about the speific subsidization issues...

[gearzone2611]

what is stem cell?

[bronsonus]

They are cells that have easily manipulated genomes that have the potential to develop into many different cell types that could be beneficial to sick people fighting deseases and whatnot. VOTE RON PAUL!!!!

[1f3rn]

Of course. I support stem cell research but not federal expansion of it. Politics is not subject to subjective morals at the expense of the constitution.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Politics is not subject to subjective morals at the expense of the constitution." - 1f3rn

You say that as if the constitution itself is not subjective. o.o

Why should we have to accept one document written by a bunch of dead politicians from hundreds of years ago? Maybe we don't. I think social principles should be looked at on their own merits, rather than on what one document saysabout them, and we don't have to bend over backwards to fit what was written just because it was written.

[1f3rn]

But much of suppression (mainly by the government or with some aid from it) of the social progress that you would claim to be of merit would not exist if we follow the constitution strictly. In fact, our society would be less decedant and the studies coninue to confirm this.

[1f3rn]

Also, you claim that the constitution is irrelevant, that is the same rationale for the government's expanding of the warrantless wiretapping and search and seizure and detaining of citizens without any issuing of a warrant based on probable cause which is part of the constitution. We need a plan a government in order to ensure that our society does not become subjected to an already bloated government monopoly that inevitably leads to dissent amongst the public.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Also, you claim that the constitution is irrelevant" - 1f3rn

No I don't, I'm saying we don't need to dogmatically accept all of it.

As for the part about wiretapping, searching, and detaining without probable cause, those don't need to be condemned by the constitution to be argued to be wrong. The rights they violate should be argued on their own merits rather than on what one document says about them. You say we need a plan of government, I say we need a mentality of independant thought.

[1f3rn]

If we do not accept it, then you would be in favor of the government's ability to reduce what is said to be our natural rights. Hence, the constitution becomes irrelevant since enabling us to ignore what it claims we can not do will grant the government unlimited power to enact any type of rule that they deem deserving of merit with the proper promotion of it by use of the media and from their campaigns for office. Thus, you set in motion the potential for a despotic government.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"If we do not accept it, then you would be in favor of the government's ability to reduce what is said to be our natural rights." - 1f3rn

"Natural" rights? Nature is a neverending bloodbath of survival of the fittest so to say "natural rights" sounds like a paradox to me.

As for the rest of your comment, that sounds like quite a slippery slope argument to me. For it to get that bad there'd have to be a lot more problems along the way, and deviating from one document isn't the main problem.

[1f3rn]

How is independent thought superior to the stipulations of the Bill of Rights and our plan for government?

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"How is independent thought superior to the stipulations of the Bill of Rights and our plan for government?" - 1f3rn

How is the latter superior to the former? If we think critically about different parts of the constitution, looking at these ideas on their own merits, rather than where they came from, we can distinguish the good from the bad and have something better than it. I'm not saying not to consider the constitution, (and let's not forget Canada's :P) but not to rule out disobeying it.

[1f3rn]

But that is exactly what we do. Some things do require that we amendmend the constitution but not at the expense of our rights or what the purpose of our government is there for.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"But much of suppression (mainly by the government or with some aid from it) of the social progress that you would claim to be of merit would not exist if we follow the constitution strictly." - 1f3rn

I might misinterpret what you're saying, but I take it you're saying if we followed the constitution strictly we'd have more freedom; but this doesn't mean that NOT following it strictly is what CAUSES the lack of freedom; there's other ways to achieve the end of freedom than the means of dogma.

[1f3rn]

No. The restrictions would not exist if we adhere to our plan of government. Example: It is our second amendment right to own firearms. There exists an increasing amount of political movements and activists seeking to ban firearms. However studies have shown that states that posses a looser gun control policy have less crime rates than states that have a tighter policy. The problem is that while these movements claim that it will reduce crime, it is producing the opposite result.

[1f3rn]

There exist testimonies from convicted felons stating that they will not go after an armed person. Another example is the ongoing claim from "political correctness" movements that restricting this ability is of merit yet there is an inceasing number of dissent that claims infringement of our first amendment.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"There exists an increasing amount of political movements and activists seeking to ban firearms." - 1f3rn

And rather than pointing to one document as your rebutall to them, focus on their reasons for wanting such and address them. If they won't listen to reason, what makes you think they'll listen to an approach based on refuting their concerns with a document?

Same for political correctness; and ironically I personally find politically-correct dogma similar to constitution-centric dogma.

[1f3rn]

I never used the second amendment as a means of rebutal. I used gun control and political correctness as examples of how rejecting stipulations in the constitution can be counterproductive to reducing crime rates.

But the purpose of having our bicameral legislature is for deliberation of political issues.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"I never used the second amendment as a means of rebutal." - 1f3rn

I never said you did. I was pointing out why the constitution-centric approach is a bad one.

"I used gun control and political correctness as examples of how rejecting stipulations in the constitution can be counterproductive to reducing crime rates." - 1f3rn

And the point you seem to keep ignoring is that just because following the constitution might prevent these problems doesn't mean rejecting it is to blame for them.

[1f3rn]

I am not ignoring your point. I do not think your are correct in saying that rejecting the stipulations in the constitution is to blame for the corruption in congress. I have yet to see any proof that our corrupt government is not the product of adhering to these stipulations.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"I do not think your are correct in saying that rejecting the stipulations in the constitution is to blame for the corruption in congress." - 1f3rn

What the... what? Where and when did I ever say that rejecting the stipulations in the constitution is to blame for congress corruption?

[1f3rn]

*That it is not the case that rejecting the stipulations in the constitution is to blame for the corruption in congress.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"The restrictions would not exist if we adhere to our plan of government." - 1f3rn

Did I ever say they would? I was simply pointing out that just because adhering to the plan of government might prevent these restrictions, doesn't mean that NOT adhering to that plan of government is to BLAME for these restrictions; just because one particular solution might solve a problem, doesn't mean that the abscence of that particular solution is at fault for that problem...

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"It is our second amendment right to own firearms." - 1f3rn

And there's PLENTY of justification outside of the constitution for the right to firearms, from historical patterns of tyrants that disarm the public to simple reasoning like "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"; but about state powers... in grade 10 history my teacher mentioned something about how the US "give the separate state governments more power" approach might have contributed to the development of the civil war.

[1f3rn]

Okay, I am aware of these justifications. The second amendment is a compromise between federalists and antifederalists stances on the risk of ochlocracy and a centralized government oppressing the people by force respectively. The amendment is based on these justifiction. To reject them would imply rejecting the grounds that they are created, which thus implies one being in favor of either an ochlocracy or a central government oppressing its population by force.

[1f3rn]

Clearly, we are heading in the direction of the latter, a police state, and an efficent way to ensure a police state exists is by disarming the people. So this reasoning must be used in order to aid in the corruption that is taking place in our government which we know is leading towards a police state. Now, what is the other cause of the expansion of the police state in the US by the disarming of the citizens if it is not the rejection of its constitution?

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Now, what is the other cause of the expansion of the police state in the US by the disarming of the citizens if it is not the rejection of its constitution?" - 1f3rn

Again, that's quite a constitution-centric approach. People shouldn't depend on 1 single document from hundreds of years ago for their legal principles; if anything, people focusing on the "gun control violates the 2nd amendment" argument makes them focus less on the other arguments, which would if anything be counterproductive.

[1f3rn]

Then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant and would be in favor of stripping citizens of their rights.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant and would be in favor of stripping citizens of their rights." - 1f3rn

That depends on which rights, and under which circumstances, but in any case, not holding the constitution to be relevant (and I wasn't dismissing it as completely irrelevant) doesn't immediately lead to stripping citizens of their rights; as I already said, if the constitution is the only thing that's stopping us, that's a problem itself to begin with.

[1f3rn]

Then like I asked in my other comment, which was ignored, what would be the other cause for the expansion of an oppressive government if it did not rise to power by overturning its constitution?

[1f3rn]

No it does not depend on certain rights and under certain circumstances. History has taught us that this type of reasoning has lead to the creation of an oppressive government. We have a number of stipulations that state what we have a right to. If you say you are in favor of removing some rights under some circumstances then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant period.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"History has taught us that this type of reasoning has lead to the creation of an oppressive government." - 1f3rn

You're being a bit presumptuous there. I would've thought that history has taught us more so that blindly accepting a particular dogma and insisting that deviation from it is a slippery slope led to the creation of oppresive governments. Granted, accepting the constitution probably wouldn't mean bigger government, but oppression can still come from other sources than government...

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"If you say you are in favor of removing some rights under some circumstances then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant period." - 1f3rn

So it's all or none then? Do we associate all things in the constitution with each other? I'll use your own example about anti-gun activists; if we were to focus on the "gun control is against the 2nd amendment" argument (instead of the other arguments you mentioned about gun control) this might just create more resentment toward the constitution.

[HiddenFacedMatt]

"Then like I asked in my other comment, which was ignored, what would be the other cause for the expansion of an oppressive government if it did not rise to power by overturning its constitution?" - 1f3rn

I thought I adressed this rather than ignoring it, but in any case, I now have a better answer than whatever I previously gave. What if the oppressive government came from an invasion from some other country, one perhaps without a constitution or one whose constitution encouraged aggression?

[jasonking10001]

YES that's true but he said that STEM CELL RESEARCH CAN GO AHEAD as long as it is not federally funded, i.e. private individuals, charities or companies can go ahead and perform stem cell studies.

[JiveDadson]

I have a stem cell disease called polycythemia vera, which is currently incurable. Stem cell research could quite conceivably make my life better and maybe longer. But I have to go along with Ron Paul. I can't in good faith cherry-pick which parts of the constitution I want followed. There is nothing in the constitution that give the federal government the right to fund stem cell research. Nothing.

[jerome209]

Its real simple, follow the constitution!!! The government is not above the law... Ron Paul 08!

[kevin29chev]

Go to buddymapping Dot com /maps/ronpaul

Get on the map!

[ssavelan]

I am a biostatistician that strongly favors stem cell research. I am going to vote for Ron Paul. I think that we should all get together and research stem cells; it's not that hard; we don't need much government help.

[cowboyway]

Sollycardy98 is right. Listen to what Paul says, not Christ Matthews ignorant interpretation. For Paul, the answer is that it's none of the federal government's business, it ought to be decided by the market and the states.

In Chris Matthews demented and warped view of the world that == "no".

[sollycardy98]

He doesn't want stem cell researched baned, he simply doesn't want to pay for it with taxpayers money.

[Flohoff]

I will vote for if only for one reason. He won't vote to continue to steal from the middle class and poor for someones ideas of a good cause.

[AmexLibertarian]

Chris Matthews "That's a No"

No Chris Assface MediaShmuck Matthews...Ron Paul said he doesn't believe in SUBSIDIZES OR PROHIBITING Stem-Cell.

That means Dr. Paul believes in leaving it to private individuals to make the choice on the free market.

Bravo Dr. Paul you stand alone against these shmucks and hacks.

[silus2000]

The question was do you believe in federal funding of stem cell research. And his answer was in effect, a big NO.

[ewetubevideos]

Read his "Texas Straight Talk", on his website. Great stuff--a weekly column

A no??--he wants the STATES to choose!

[32453245x]

Ron Paul is the only candidate. He made all the others "republicans" sound like communists.

[interpauler]

Ron Paul is a 10th-term Congressman, Medical Doctor, Veteran and US Air Force Flight Surgeon. He is the ONLY Rep. presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War; The rest flip flopped.

Ron Paul wants to:

- Bring our troops home from Iraq & end the war

- Secure our borders from terrorism

- Stop illegal immigration

- Limit big government in your private affairs & lives

- Abolish the IRS for fairer taxes for the people.

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008!

[chizzuck9]

interpauler,

you might scare away migrant workers or their documented relatives from voting for Mr. Paul. Are you sure he refers to "illegals"? Disinfo...

btw, he may not "oppose stem cell funding" as the clip title suggests. He is obviously a federalist (states-rights advocate) and supports free enterprise, but did not say "I oppose it."

[danielley80]

Ron Paul is the only sensible choice for president in 2008.