Congressman Ron Paul

[Swift]

I like Ron Paul a lot more than Fred Thompson. Fred's a blowhard. In the first five minutes of that first video, he claims America has the best medical care system in the world. Ha! It's not even in the top 20. What we do have is the most expensive. We're twice expensive as most other countries that have BETTER medical care systems. He claims we're going medically bankrupt. At our prices; at out costs? Bull crap. http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

He's talking about the government funded medical programs. They ARE going broke. A lot due to illegal immigration. Obviously the actual healthcare system itself is not going bankrupt.

Plus, his opinion on foreign policy is terrible. Ron Paul has a much better idea of foreign policy than he. Our foreign policies have gotten us in a lot of trouble over the past 10 years. That's what Ron Paul was hinting at in the debate. No, I don't think it was the 100% reason why 'they' want to bomb us, but it is a major reason. Giuliani failed on that part. I guess he forgot to read the 911 Commission Report. Gee, you think of all the candidates running, he'd be the one to have read it front to back.

Fred just rants on about, "The times are different," "The challenges are different," "We need to fit man to the times." Blah, blah, blah. Typical political blowhard fodder.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our foreign policy hasn't been perfect. But at the same time we're certainly in a no win situation with the radical Islamic terrorists. If we don't do anything, they come and bomb us. If we go after them, the bomb their OWN people.

However, do agree that we need to watch out for the "Next Iraq." Ron Paul has a different opinion on how to deal with the next Iraq, that I'll be honest, kind of scares me. However, that can be changed.

I don't think Ron Paul is perfect, but he's better than Fred.

I think Fred's better the Ron, but since Fred hasn't announced he's running yet....

 

[Solid Lifters]

He's talking about the government funded medical programs. They ARE going broke. A lot due to illegal immigration. Obviously the actual healthcare system itself is not going bankrupt.

He didn't make it clear he was referring to our Government medical care system, since we made the blanket, 'Our medical care system is the best in the world' line right before saying 'it's going bankrupt.'

Sounds like to me he was referring to the private sector.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our foreign policy hasn't been perfect. But at the same time we're certainly in a no win situation with the radical Islamic terrorists. If we don't do anything, they come and bomb us. If we go after them, the bomb their OWN people.

And our military personnel. Those are our people, don't forget.

 

[Swift]

He didn't make it clear he was referring to our Government medical care system, since we made the blanket, 'Our medical care system is the best in the world' line right before saying 'it's going bankrupt.'

Sounds like to me he was referring to the private sector.

Now, I'm not here to put words in the man's mouth. But how is it possible for the private healthcare system of this country to go bankrupt? Seriously? I mean unless we let 20 million people have instant access to medical care that can't pay for it.

And our military personnel. Those are our people, don't forget.

Yes of course. Why would you think you need to bring that up? But when you look at the death tolls in Iraq. There are thousands of Iraqi citizens killed for every few soldiers. It's really pretty sick and twisted.

But even before Iraq when we did nothing we STILL got hit. How about the world trade center bombing or the USS Cole or the Marines in Lebanon. So like I said, no win situation. Well, at least you can't win without some sacrifice.

 

[YSSMAN]

Question: If he is the only one you know is being honest, because he doesn't always say the popular thing, how do you know anyone else matches what you want?

Point taken. I'm not sure...

I just clicked around on his website, and there are some pretty different ideas that I like, and indeed some that I don't.

He gets the "Gold Star" on immigration reform there, as it pretty much echoes what most 'sane' Americans want. We need to tighten it down, remove all of the enticing things for these illegals here in the US, and furthermore, end what I call the "baby drop" situation here in the US... Although, changing that part of the Constitution would be extremely difficult.

His ideas for keeping the US apart from EU, WTO, and UN influences is a good one, but I'm unsure of how much it would benefit us all directly. What he is calling for sounds almost like what a Democrat would want, halting the Globalization process here in the US. I'd admit that many of those agreements do have too much of an influence on American life, particularly NAFTA, but it is part of the Globalization process...

...But, his idea of foreign policy doesn't go over too well for me. Sure, we technically should be declaring war on our enemies when actually fighting a war, but the problem is that those terms do not fit the model of war in which we are fighting. America needs to be ready a moments notice to address any threat to our national security, as well as any modern, peace-loving nation's security as well. Sure, we can't fight everybody's wars, but given that we're the only nation left on this Earth with the capacity to do so, someone has to address the terrorist threat(s)...

---

I'm just a bit uneasy on Ron Paul. I think the more I learn about him, the more I'll like him, but I'm sticking with Rudy. Ron and McCain are probably tied now, but I'd say both make good VP candidates for this round.

...Either way, I'm likely to support any Republican candidate as long as it isn't Mit Romney or Sam Brownback. One is just unlikeable, and the other is a bit too close to the religious right to make me comfortable.

Huckabee is an interesting choice though. Its a shame he isn't getting more attention.

---

Good ticket combos these days:

Rudy/McCain

Rudy/Paul

Paul/Rudy

Paul/McCain

...Paul/Rudy would likely bring in a good sized chunk of the middle-stance voters (GOP or not), and actually may be one of the best hopes for Republicans to maintain control of the White House.

 

[Omnis]

Huckabee is an interesting choice though. Its a shame he isn't getting more attention.

---

Good ticket combos these days:

Rudy/McCain

Rudy/Paul

Paul/Rudy

Paul/McCain

...Paul/Rudy would likely bring in a good sized chunk of the middle-stance voters (GOP or not), and actually may be one of the best hopes for Republicans to maintain control of the White House.

At this point, I'm not very sure Paul and Giuliani would get along vert well. Huckabee is also quite close to his religious beliefs, though I still like him. He supports the FairTax Act too.

My main hangup on Paul is that people think that with his policy, he will subject the States into danger. I wish people would get passed paranoia and realize that no rational man would do something that would knowingly put his people in danger. I don't think Paul's change to foreign policy will be a cut loose and GTFO ordeal. He's even said that himself. Ron Paul is all for doing what can be done to eliminate terrorism. He just believes that War in Iraq was not a step we needed to take to achieve that goal. Some people may not agree with him, and that's okay, but, to think that he is ignorant to the threat posed by these jihadists and terrorist radicals is just, in the words of Rudy, absurd.

 

[FoolKiller]

I like Ron Paul a lot more than Fred Thompson. Fred's a blowhard. In the first five minutes of that first video, he claims America has the best medical care system in the world. Ha! It's not even in the top 20. What we do have is the most expensive. We're twice expensive as most other countries that have BETTER medical care systems. He claims we're going medically bankrupt. At our prices; at out costs? Bull crap. http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

Thsi si really one of my pet issues, but focusing on it directly woudl be taking a thread about Ron Paul (and morphed into general candidate discussions) a bit farther off-topic than I would prefer. If you would like to discuss the healthcare topic more in depth I would invite you to join teh Health Care for Everyone thread where just last week I laid out what the lowest estimated tax increase cost would be to me (lower-middle class) compared to what I pay now. And as P.J O'Rourke said, "If you think healthcare is expensive now wait until its free." I also address the issue mentioned by the WHO and why I think that they are more junk science than anything.

I would love to hear your opinions on my thoughts, as no one in opposition has weighed in since I made that post, but in here I think we would get too far off-topic because it is such a huge issue to discuss.

Now, I'm not here to put words in the man's mouth. But how is it possible for the private healthcare system of this country to go bankrupt? Seriously? I mean unless we let 20 million people have instant access to medical care that can't pay for it.

Seriously? Lawyers. Not only do we have privatized healthcare, but we also have a very litigious society and so malpractice insurance rates are just as expensive as healthcare costs. I've heard of numbers of small practice doctors having to retire or move to regions where their insurance costs are cheaper. And for topic-sake I won't even get into technology costs. I'll just say that I know the newest machines aren't commonly used because they can't be afforded.

He gets the "Gold Star" on immigration reform there, as it pretty much echoes what most 'sane' Americans want. We need to tighten it down, remove all of the enticing things for these illegals here in the US, and furthermore, end what I call the "baby drop" situation here in the US... Although, changing that part of the Constitution would be extremely difficult.

Part of me wonders though, since when that was written America was 13 colonies that had come together, leaving a much smaller border to be concernbed about. And what border there was went up against what is now the midwest American states, which have plenty of resources. So, illegal immigration of any sort from an impoverished country probably wasn't a major concern.

His ideas for keeping the US apart from EU, WTO, and UN influences is a good one, but I'm unsure of how much it would benefit us all directly. What he is calling for sounds almost like what a Democrat would want, halting the Globalization process here in the US. I'd admit that many of those agreements do have too much of an influence on American life, particularly NAFTA, but it is part of the Globalization process...

I think politicians love to talk about stopping globalization. It is great to get up there and talk about preventing jobs from going overseas and bring the ones we lost back. Way to pull for the union vote. Too bad the world is moving towards a global economy. If we opted to not participate globally the rest of the world combined could happily move on without us.

 

[Swift]

Seriously? Lawyers. Not only do we have privatized healthcare, but we also have a very litigious society and so malpractice insurance rates are just as expensive as healthcare costs. I've heard of numbers of small practice doctors having to retire or move to regions where their insurance costs are cheaper. And for topic-sake I won't even get into technology costs. I'll just say that I know the newest machines aren't commonly used because they can't be afforded.

Good points! That just shows how much we need a frivolous suite clause. Meaning that if you sue someone and lose, you pay for their fees. That would stop a lot of stupid lawsuits. Not saying there isn't medical malpractice. Just that there are a lot of cases that are doing it because that can, not because the SHOULD.

 

[FoolKiller]

Good points! That just shows how much we need a frivolous suite clause. Meaning that if you sue someone and lose, you pay for their fees. That would stop a lot of stupid lawsuits. Not saying there isn't medical malpractice. Just that there are a lot of cases that are doing it because that can, not because the SHOULD.

The issue isn't frivolous suits, it's the actual money being rewarded. The issue has more to do with lawyers than anything. Someone has a loved one die after a massive car accident. Could the doctors have done something more? Hard to say, they already looked like they took a run through a Cuisinart. Suddenly, there is pre-politician John Edwards whispering in your ear (or yammering on television) about mistakes and fallibility of doctors and how you shouldn't have to suffer for their "incompetence." He talks a good talk and the anger stage of grief settles in, not wanting to go anywhere. You file your lawsuit and one of two things happens.
1) They settle and you walk away with a huge settlement, which your lawyer then takes most of.
2) It goes to trial and a jury of sentimentalists gets an earful of your smooth talking lawyer and awards you twice what you asked for, despite the fact that you signed a form which waived all legal responsibility from the doctor. Why they even bother with a waiver is beyond me.

The legal system and the lawyers are the issue here. Sometimes it is truly malpractice due to gross negligence, drinking on the job, etc and creating anti-frivolous laws can backfire by making well-intentioned suits with merit not happen for fear of the doctor having better lawyers. To me it seems the issue should be thrown out by a judge before it ever makes it to trial. The judge should hold up the waiver and say, "You knew this could happen and were forewarned and then signed a legal document saying that the legal responsibility had been waived." Unfortunately, I have never heard of a malpractice suit where the waiver was mentioned.

 

[YSSMAN]

So I don't know if I've updated in here for a while that I've switched my backing to Ron Paul. I know that Sage is well aware of me doing so (thanks to Facebook), and I have no idea if Omnis was aware of that as well. It has been my understanding that Dr. Paul has a moderately large following here at Aquinas College with a few students (such as myself) trying to get the word out whenever possible.

...So while I was on Digg.com today (a breeding-ground for Pro-Paul Politics), I came across this video:



Excellent work to the man who put this together. The message of Ron Paul clearly is getting out there, both to Democrats and Republicans... Not to mention the all-important independent voter. Problem is, he still is not getting the coverage he deserves by the mainstream press, and therefore its up to us to get the word out.

Tell your friends. Tell your neighbors. Talk about him over dinner with your family. Mention him in class. Put a sticker on your car. Make a tee-shirt.

Do something!

If we want change in this country we must make it for ourselves, voting for the same-ol' politics with candidates like Obama and Clinton, Rudy and Romney just won't cut it.

Who is Ron Paul?

The man who will point America in the right direction...

 

[Swift]

Ron says a lot of good stuff. But he's just too far to the right for me to vote for and too far to the right to get congressional support.

 

[Azuremen]

Ron says a lot of good stuff. But he's just too far to the right for me to vote for and too far to the right to get congressional support.

Vote for him! Honestly, he is just sticking to what the Founding Fathers envisioned, instead of this big Federal Government crap we have now.

That, and your state government can still be all liberal wishy washy, or whatever the voters choose. Which is another thing I like about Ron Paul - States' Rights.

 

[Solid Fro]

Ron Paul makes the other candidates appear wise.

 

[Gabkicks]

do you guys think ron paul is a racist?

 

[Joey D]

After doing more research on Ron Paul I can safely say he has my vote.

 

[FoolKiller]

First, that was a nice video, although I am unsure why the guy getting tasered was in there.

Ron says a lot of good stuff. But he's just too far to the right for me to vote for and too far to the right to get congressional support.

Mind explaining what is too far right for you? I'm curious. I'm on the fence on Ron Paul because there are a few issues I disagree with, but none of them are because he is too far right.

Right now he is the only candidate to get my attention, although I have to say I am waiting to hear more from Thompson.

do you guys think ron paul is a racist?

What? Where did that come from?

 

[Swift]

Mind explaining what is too far right for you? I'm curious. I'm on the fence on Ron Paul because there are a few issues I disagree with, but none of them are because he is too far right.

Yes. There are certain things the framers of our nation said that simply don't work now. The world economy has changed the very framework of the world. To have no alliances now is simply unwise. Back in th 1700, 1800 and even part of the 1900's, you could get away with it. With the way things are now, missiles that can go halfway around the world, Bombers that can strike almost without detection, militant religious extremist willing to kill anyone that they don't like for any reason, it simply not smart to have no alliances. Granted, it's gotten us in some entanglements that were less then desirable, but what's the alternative? Hide out and let countries that support the same way of life as us be destroyed?

Also, his "just come home" policy on Iraq is completely stupid for reasons that are very obvious.

I say hes too right for the presidency because he'll never get the vast majority of these things he wants to do through congress. Most republicans wouldn't want to go that far.

Again, he's not a moron and he does have some VERY good stuff. But he's simply not going to get my vote.

 

[Gabkicks]

First, that was a nice video, although I am unsure why the guy getting tasered was in there.


Mind explaining what is too far right for you? I'm curious. I'm on the fence on Ron Paul because there are a few issues I disagree with, but none of them are because he is too far right.

Right now he is the only candidate to get my attention, although I have to say I am waiting to hear more from Thompson.


What? Where did that come from?

I guess nobody here sees some of his past statements as questionable?

 

[FoolKiller]

I guess nobody here sees some of his past statements as questionable?

Perhaps I missed them. What would be questionably racist in his comments?

 

[YSSMAN]

I believe he is alluding to the fact that Ron Paul had suggesting repealing a portion of the 14th Amendment in which being born in the US wouldn't necessarily guarantee citizenship.

...But I suppose that makes most of Europe racist too...

 

[FoolKiller]

I believe he is alluding to the fact that Ron Paul had suggesting repealing a portion of the 14th Amendment in which being born in the US wouldn't necessarily guarantee citizenship.

I wouldn't call that racist. It's more like preventing illegal immigrants from taking advantage of the system.

 

[Omnis]

do you guys think ron paul is a racist?

No, he has condemned racism in the past as just being an ugly form of collectivism. He's an individualist.

Anyway,

I don't see Fred (or the rest of them, for that matter) as a legitimate candidate; especially after this last "debate". He had so many questions given to him and basically said nothing. He contradicted himself by saying everything is fine and dandy with the economy and then turning around and saying that we're living beyond our means and etc. What a joke.

I'm not worried about Iraq. The soonest we'll be able to leave under a Paul administration is the middle of 2009, anyway. Iraqis should be more than able to take over by then. The Iraqi liberation has turned into a blatant occupation. That has to end. The Iraqi people will never be able to go out of their homes to rebuild their towns when the occupation creates a constant lockdown and a violent police-state environment.

I don't see how people can say, "He's too right," (unless you mean correct ) when his foreign policy is pretty much the same thing Bush ran on in 2000. If the Republican party selects a pro-war candidate, it would basically mean suicide in the general election.

Swift, it's not about getting what he wants to do through Congress. It's about having the man in place who will actually stop the wacky things this wild Congress wants to do. If the people aren't happy with Congress, it is the people who will instigate change by replacing their representatives; it has nothing to do with the President.

 

[Gabkicks]

I believe he is alluding to the fact that Ron Paul had suggesting repealing a portion of the 14th Amendment in which being born in the US wouldn't necessarily guarantee citizenship.

...But I suppose that makes most of Europe racist too...

not what i was talking about.... but maybe the statements i read were taken out of context... things about black urban kids needing to be tried as addults becuase they are too big and strong and dangerous to be tried as kids?

 

[Omnis]

not what i was talking about.... but maybe the statements i read were taken out of context... things about black urban kids needing to be tried as addults becuase they are too big and strong and dangerous to be tried as kids?

What? LOL, it's funny how things get so inaccurate as they spread. You're thinking of the incident where he "said" something like "If you're robbed by a young black man, you'd be surprised at how fleet-footed they can be." Responding to that with labels of racism is like screaming hair-ism at blonde jokes.

 

[Swift]

Hey FK, no response to my explanation of RP's stance?

 

[FoolKiller]

Hey FK, no response to my explanation of RP's stance?

Sorry, some days I read stuff and just move on if I really have nothing to say. Since I honestly was just looking to see what your thoughts were and not debate I just wanted to see your explanation.

I disagree with his stance on the war and I think you have over simplified his foreign policy by saying he wants no alliances. From his own Website:

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

I have heard him repeatedly say we need to pay more attention to our foreign policy and the consequences. His examples on ihs Website are Afghanistan and Kosovo. He doesn't want us to have a completely isolationist foreign policy, but he wants us to think it through more before we act.

I agree with most of his domestic issues like:
-Securing the borders
-Enforce visa rules
-No amnesty
-No welfare for illegal aliens
-Lower taxes
-Controlled spening
-Reducing the FDA's regulatory ability
-Supporting Home Schooling
-Pro-life
-Limited Government
-Increased privacy rights
-Opposed to eminent Domain
-Opposes private property regulations
-Not taxing Social Security payments
-Social Security money cannot be used for anything else
-Making sure only those who pay for Social Security receive it
-Opposes gun control


And that is just his highlighted issues. I am sure if I quickly ran through his writinsg I could easily double or triple that list. A few of the other candidates don't agree, or don't support, a few of the listed points here and if I am stuck with having to decide between giving up on some of this list or the war I will give up on the war first. Especially, as Omnis pointed out, that it would be practically impossible to just evacuate all the troops from Iraq. It would easily be a year or two, and by that point the Iraqi government needs to, at a minimum, be able to govern themselves and prevent terrorists from taking over with violence.

We have to, at a minimum, let the Iraqi government know that we aren't playing guardian of the peace forever. This current stay the course mentality is noble and all, but how long is the course? If they can't get a stable government together 100 years from now will we still be there? Not even a Move On member will be able to just end the war immediately. I doubt it would be possible to clean up what needs to be and then get everyone out by the end of the first term if it became the next president's first act.


I am usually too Libertarian-like for most Republicans and that may be why I agree more with Ron Paul than the other candidates.

 

[Swift]

All that sounds pretty good. I'm just saying he's NOT going to win and I really don't want to throw away my vote.

 

[FoolKiller]

All that sounds pretty good. I'm just saying he's NOT going to win and I really don't want to throw away my vote.

The real question is: If you only vote for the same old everday politician and he wins, by more than one vote, is it wasted more than voting for someone who isn't likely to win, but shows that you support a change in the norm? Which is the more wasted vote?

If everyone only votes for the most electable candidate then there will never be change in our government.

 

[Joey D]

Vote for whatever candidate holds the same ideals as you do, even if they are only going to get a small part of the vote. There is no reason to settle for someone you do not agree with, that defeats the point of voting. During the Michigan governor elections last year I voted for Greg Creswell, a Libertarian who got 1% of the votes...but I agreed with what he was saying and therefore voted for him.

 

[Azuremen]

I agree with Joey on what he said. We need more people to stop voting either Rep or Dem, because we are in a bi partisan system right now effectively. And the difference between the parties is small, basically the different sides of the same coin.

I always vote third party, if just to help get some attention drawn to other candidates. We have to do something to make a change happen.

 

[Omnis]

It's not about parties or who the media hypes. It's about voicing your opinion on who your candidate is.

It doesn't matter who the Republican is that "is most likely to win" in this case. A pro-war Republican will not win the general election. Many front-men of the third parties have endorsed Ron Paul, anyway. He's the best shot at reviving what the GOP used to be about.

The only wasted vote is no vote. Don't forget to get the attention of your delegates too.

edit: By the way, Swift, he's already won your state's straw poll: http://digg.com/politics/OFFICIAL_Ron_Paul_wins_Maryland_Straw_Poll