“..,.Paul is a child with hopelessly stunted, self-centered ethics. The only chance of King Paul ‘granting’ the peasants relief from Obamacare is if someone can convince him it’s in his own best interests to do so. And that’s unlikely.”
I get it. You are convinced that supporting this compromise GOP-care bill now is the best strategy for ending the disaster of ACA. Many would agree with you.
But saying that since Rand Paul doesn’t agree with you, he must therefore be an immature child with hopelessly stunted, self-centered ethics, no empathy, and “not give a flying fruitcake” about the pain and suffering caused by ACA - is quite a stretch.
Please tell me you see the gaping holes and wild assumptions in your fallacy ridden argument.
In any negotiation there’s a time for compromise and a time for standing firm. You can disagree all you want with Rand Paul’s strategy - but argue it on the merits - not by impugning his character, doubting his motives and ethics - and all these ad hominem attacks - they are beneath you - leave those tactics to the leftists.
Perhaps you have been fortunate enough never to have known an empathy-less person up close and personal. I can’t say the same. Once you’ve known one, you recognize the signs. It hit me like a ton of bricks, when I was thinking about why Paul creeps me out to the core. It’s his lack of empathy. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
The stunted ethics follow like thunder follows lightning. If you are your sole focus, your ethics will remain childish. It’s only by considering others that maturity and complexity enter into the ethical equation.
Btw, you are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to Paul. You are completely ignoring the case I laid out for adult ethical actions re Obamacare. Argue against the case I made, please, or let it drop.