thecoldmidwest Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should I go to the Obama thread and point out how a large part of his supporters are douchebags, because the main reason he's receiving their support is because he's half black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Go right ahead. It's been implied many times there already. By the way, douchebags is probably a little harsh, I don't think you guys are douchebags. A little fanboy-ish annoying, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Go right ahead. It's been implied many times there already. By the way, douchebags is probably a little harsh, I don't think you guys are douchebags. A little fanboy-ish annoying, maybe. maybe it's a little annoying, but ron paul started conversations at dinner tables about politics, he started young people reading about things like the federal reserve and guns rights, he accomplished something none of the other candidates could because they are much too busy bickering about being lawyers for wal-mart and representing slum lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I know that there are many people who genuinely like Obama because he wants government run health care, or whatever other positions he takes that appeal to his supporters. I just think that you shouldn't base your opinion of any candidate on his supporters is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 maybe it's a little annoying, but ron paul started conversations at dinner tables about politics, he started young people reading about things like the federal reserve and guns rights, he accomplished something none of the other candidates could because they are much too busy bickering about being lawyers for wal-mart and representing slum lords. Seriously man. I'm going to try to use a quote that AOD usually uses. Mother fuckers are worried about a leaky faucet when the whole house is coming down. I mean yeah I guess the reason to ignore the one candidate that could lead us out of this mess is because some of his supporters are so passionate about him you find them annoying. Yeah....I guess it's me who thinks ass backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10sicz.chick Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I know that there are many people who genuinely like Obama because he wants government run health care Obama: "and for my next trick I am going to pull billions of dollars out of my ass to pay for my government paid for healthcare and when my ass runs dry....well I'll just print the money out of thin air" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 We already pay more per person from taxes to not have universal healthcare than Euro countries with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 We already pay more per person from taxes to not have universal healthcare than Euro countries with it. Denmark The total tax wedge is 44.2% for the average wage earner Germany The total tax wedge is 50.7% for the average wage earner France The total tax wedge is 48.3% for the average wage earner US The total tax wedge is 30.0% for the average wage earner -Googled from various sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 edit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10sicz.chick Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Denmark The total tax wedge is 44.2% for the average wage earner Germany The total tax wedge is 50.7% for the average wage earner France The total tax wedge is 48.3% for the average wage earner US The total tax wedge is 30.0% for the average wage earner -Googled from various sites Although these are undoubtedly true statistics, they say nothing about how much each country spends on healthcare. Let me help you... Refer to this article for a detailed description why: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Just an update on the delegate count: John McCain 721 Mitt Romney 278 Mike Huckabee 195 Ron Paul 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hope isn't over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country" soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. in that order. i think we are somewhere between the jury box and the cartridge box and have thought so for a long time. but no one cares about the jury box and the people are too indoctrinated to nullify anything because of what the judge tells them. as one of my favorite authors said....(im paraphrasing a little bit) 'america is at a unique crossroads. its to late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Although these are undoubtedly true statistics, they say nothing about how much each country spends on healthcare. Let me help you... Refer to this article for a detailed description why: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10 For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. -Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 hope isn't over There still is hope.. We shouldn't brush aside a candidate like Paul. This may be America's last opportunity to reverse at least some of the damage done. Regardless of what happens, I'm writing his name in on the ballot in November... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10sicz.chick Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country" soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. in that order. i think we are somewhere between the jury box and the cartridge box and have thought so for a long time. but no one cares about the jury box and the people are too indoctrinated to nullify anything because of what the judge tells them. as one of my favorite authors said....(im paraphrasing a little bit) 'america is at a unique crossroads. its to late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.' brilliant ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 speech at CPAC http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-394482822561610486&q=cpac+ron+paul+duration%3Amedium&total=22&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 part1, two and three are listed beside it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. -Ron Paul http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html Paul's statement is not a good answer to the figures I posted, since there are not actual facts sited, just conventional wisdom, which is often wrong, and anecdotes. I don't want to hijack this thread off topic, so I will stick to Ron Paulisms here by stating that his statement illustrates the biggest problem with many of his philosophies and policy recommendations, in that they are based on what was, rather than what is. The spiraling cost of health care may be due to HMO's and government interference to a certain extent, but they are also due to the price of new medical advancements, one of which has made my life livable. In other words, what was worked then, but we have to think about what is and work from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 dr. paul reads more books in a month than you do in a year. i think he knows what he's talking about.... see his CPAC speech for further illustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 After the Iowa primary, me and the.crooked were talking about the concept of corporations entering into social contracts with the populace. We never continued the conversation, but I'd be interested in what the neo-libertarians have to say about that. Like it or not, corporations are causing a lot of the problems in the US by way of lobbyists. You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government? I'm not being a devil's advocate...well, okay, maybe I am. But it's a legitimate question, and one that I'm posing from a third point of view to the Ron Paul supporters and to the.crooked. Crooked, I like the idea of social contracts, but I feel that I'd like it a lot more if we could discuss the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 dr. paul reads more books in a month than you do in a year. i think he knows what he's talking about.... see his CPAC speech for further illustration. With all due respect to the guy, I read more books in a month than probably anyone you know. I'm a college proff, it's kind of my job. But that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It doesn't matter how many books one reads, but rather the soundness of their arguments. So if you want to debate the merits of my statements, please do, but leave me as a person out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 With all due respect to the guy, I read more books in a month than probably anyone you know. I'm a college proff, it's kind of my job. But that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It doesn't matter how many books one reads, but rather the soundness of their arguments. So if you want to debate the merits of my statements, please do, but leave me as a person out of it. i thought you were a chemist? or is that browner? no matter. you're right about books, in a way. his job is to know what's up, too. so it is somewhat relevant. what that CPAC video, you might find it pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I would probably relate better to something written, videos are too difficult to skim through to get the main points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I would probably relate better to something written, videos are too difficult to skim through to get the main points. only about 25 minutes. eat a hot pocket and watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 "You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government?" well, i'll submit that some corporations have 'excessive' power because of government monopoly privilege, welfare, contracts, etc etc. but perhaps you could elaborate more on this line of thought. the main difference between a government and a corporation is its coercive power. governments exist for coercion. you must follow their rules to live in the US or under the governments jurisdiction. if you dont pay taxes, and you resist arrest for not paying said taxes, you go to jail or you are killed. governments force you to do various other things besides taxation. they regulate you, control your life in various ways, control what you can consume, how to raise your kids, and send you to foreign wars. if you try to stop any of this coercion, it will essentially mean your death if you forcibly resist. but any voluntary institution is a totally different critter. churches exist for people of faith. they cannot force you to come to the church, and if they do, they should be penalized for exercising coercion over you. but think about it. stopping or halting a voluntary institution is much easier, relatively, than trying to resist the state. the above church goes belly up when people lose interest in religion. the private university goes under when people lost interest in education. the walmart goes under when people dont want to buy their goods. companies that make profit, do so off by pleasing customers. companies would not be in business if the voluntary choice of individuals in a free market place didnt buy their product or service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Church doesn't provide clean water, Walmart doesn't come when your house is on fire, and the private University isn't building any highways to rural communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 your right, because governments as a rule have monopoly over that. but private industry can do it much better and they should be able to have the opportunity too. but your argument is pretty bad if that is the only reason you have for not favoring laissez faire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Paul's statement is not a good answer to the figures I posted, since there are not actual facts sited, just conventional wisdom, which is often wrong, and anecdotes. I don't want to hijack this thread off topic, so I will stick to Ron Paulisms here by stating that his statement illustrates the biggest problem with many of his philosophies and policy recommendations, in that they are based on what was, rather than what is. The spiraling cost of health care may be due to HMO's and government interference to a certain extent, but they are also due to the price of new medical advancements, one of which has made my life livable. In other words, what was worked then, but we have to think about what is and work from there. And what was happens to be alot better than what is, and what is my become much worse when the government takes total control.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I don't know if I've ever explained my past with Libertarians in this thread, but I think I will just for the sake of being the "guy who's been there and done that and has a t-shirt to show for it." In my view, most of the people who advocate smaller government are proposing Minarchism. Here's a wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism It's based on the theory of a minimalist government that simply maintains infrastructure and law and order, but does not interfere with the lives of the individuals or with the affairs of sovereign nations. This is something that I advocate, as well. To a point. What I am trying to explain to the majority of people who are head over heels in love with Ron Paul is that, in a sense, what he's advocating is borderline anarchy. You take away the DOT (Department of Transportation), you're pretty much putting the roads in the hands of Bechtel or Halliburton. You scale back the military, something like Blackwater is going to take its place. Would you want Nabisco to decide what is safe and healthy for you to eat? Or for Glaxo to decided that 3% of test subject mortality for its new pill it spent billions developing is an acceptable risk for a return on its investment? Or for Dow to decide that if n-amount of dioxin from smokestacks isn't killing people THAT QUICK, then maybe a little more won't hurt? This is where I have a serious problem with people who want to take away federal oversight and put it in the hands of the free market. As I have said before, I was raised in a pretty orthodox Libertarian enviroment. It definitely had an effect on who I am today. I spent a good portion of my life as a anarcho-collectivist, partially as a reaction to and in homage of certain aspects of my upbringing. I believe in individualism and personal responsibility, but I also have a very strong sense of altruism that guides me, as well. What I fear is when people see what I consider to be the Neo-Libertarian movement to be a panacea, they don't realize that it presents as many questions as it answers. When I hear people say, "Oh, don't worry...the free market is going to step in and take care of that..." I always shudder. Some good examples of deregulation would be...the S&L crisis, subprime housing loans, Enron, PG&E, Worldcom...also, stop to consider that oil production hasn't gone down, but prices have gone up by close to three hundred percent in the last ten years. Why? Why is that? Would the world be a better place for laissez faire? Or would it be leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse? I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate to be a jerk...I just want you guys to come down off the high a little bit and see what the free market will do if it's left to its own devices. It's not a pretty picture. You guys can go ahead and yell at me all you want. I have no better system to offer you (Minarchism?), but just because this guy wants to end the war and decriminalize pot doesn't mean he shouldn't be held up to some very serious scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.