| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
No surprise
Although I'm very pro-environment, and do have some issues with Paul on that subject, I don't vote for the Green party because they should be called the watermelon party -- green on the outside, red on the inside. They are socialists. Paul is as far from being a socialist as you can get. So of course the Green party attacks him.
GRANGER
Vote RON PAUL 2008
____________
(you said -- not that you need to be reminded)
it's going to program us to what government decides is best,
__________
What makes you honestly think that's not already what's happening? K-Street Lobbyist -- big business interest paying those $$ to Congress now for matters to swing in their direction -- no real true sense of competition (think Halliburton for example -- what competition has there been in that example? None).
And you honestly believe that government the way it is being run as business as usual (runaway medical care cost and high insurance premiums and tax breaks we really don't get) is the best way to go? How about a revamp where we take corruption out of the equation -- that might be a great place to start.
What shape it takes from thereon -- gotta be better than what we have that many are defending [as is]. I know I pay entirely way too much now as is -- and I'm considered 'lucky' because I've got health and dental care. My high premiums never offset the real cost I am charged and trying to write off the difference come tax time is a joke on top of a joke that I find I'm not laughing about. And again I'm one of the 'lucky' in this country. How about the others that can't even afford the high cost of premiums? How in the hell is that a good system?
Other countries pay little out of pocket and seem to be dealing with a government system not as corrupt as the one we find we are willing to go to war and die for. The other countries in this world look at us as complete idiots, and medical care is one of those things that gets us quickly separated, and the hell of it is they might be right thinking of us this way if we support things as they are in our country. Things are generally screwed up and the ones supporting business as usual may very well have an agenda. Usually that agenda boils down to $$ in their own pockets. And it has to come from somewhere -- and that's from our pockets.
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Jerry
I apologise if I led you to believe I have any appreication for our current healthcare system, set up to embrace the proposed federal UH. I agree with your opinion. That said, I would prefer where we are to what Universal Healthcare (being Ron Paul's healthcare proposal is getting no traction) is proposing, for while we may indeed be looking at coffin with nails, UH promises to hammer those nails in. Please YouTube UN Agenda 21 and Codex and tell me how I'm wrong. Thank you Jerry.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
My problem with Universal Healthcare
Universal Healthcare is like organized religion, it's going to program us to what government decides is best, and if it's not..oh well. Government says everyone needs a vaccination, then everyone gets a vaccination, if that vaccination kills 70%, there is no recourse. Universal Healthcare enslaves Americans to UN Agenda21, Codex. Both UN programs are available on YouTube.
My body is my temple, one which I care for with a program that has little use for "modern/western" medicine. I'm not knocking western medicine, in that if all else fails it's a last resort, but universal, as in telling me what I can and can not consume and possibly chipping me...NO WAY!
Finally, after observing our government fruit with 9-11, Katrina and Iraq vets at Walter Reed, one has to be dreaming to think Univereal healthcare is about your health.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Who doesn't attack Ron Paul?
I've never seen such injustices served up for a man of Ron Paul's integrity and character. The GOP is going to get thrashed if McCain leads the ticket.........and I'm going smile a little smirk as I pull the lever for "whoever is running against" him.
alan laney
Here is a thought! Third Parites Unite!
There should be one web portal third parties can organize. We all have our own unique ideas but we can unite to promote third parties. Dems and Republican parties are totally corrupted. Leave them out.
Goals:
1. 100% transparency in every precinct on election day
every vote is on paper and counted in one room in front of everyone being checked by two people or more from every party
2. Promote only third parties, Libertarians, Constitutional, green, etc.
(God knows that the Republican and Dems get enough free publicity)
3. Promote alternative news sources and make the public aware of MSM
These are just three simple goals that if we unite can change american politics. I believe if any third party candidate gets to be president they will change america in a huge way for the people. We must warn them though that they might be taken over by the "neo" movement if they don't be careful.
Somebody Got On A Rant Earlier
Vote RON PAUL 2008
__________
About socialist wanting to spend your $$ for you (I personally see that happening now, been happening, will continue to happen until such time as we get some awareness about the subject and put the brakes on this wacko spending) -- blaming it on a socialist mentality is low brained in my way of seeing this. Not talking communist mentality, talking socialized medicine and nothing but that.
As is -- IRS, Federal Reserve, big business, this big business that big business (trying to keep this focused on the pill and health care industry only here -- but it certainly leaks into other areas also) some folks among us are getting rich by the second while some among us don't have a pot to piss in (can't even afford basic health care, can't even afford basic first-aid type health care in this glorious country of ours). Take a look around the world and see who else is handling business the way we do -- who? It sounds like crickets it's so quiet -- that's because there is no one else. Just us allowing the rich to get richer [off us] while some among us cry ''socialist" -- I think it all boils down to you just liking the sound of the word and that's about it. What else can it be?
Why not take a little bit of the good from the over all? Why not replace a little bit of the bad with a little bit of the good -- why not? Why think it's perfectly okay to keep dumping BILLIONS & BILLIONS of $$ on the health care industry // oh that's right because they know how to spend money better than government ever could, that's why. Well, that's a broken crock -- you're just mouthing thoughts from big business who wants to keep the $$ flowing in their direction.
I would much rather know that everyone in this country (every citizen, don't allow your lame brained thinking to involve non-citizens -- just US who have a legal right to call this land we love our home) if those citizens had FREE medical care -- Free in the sense that the $$ didn't go to big business // Free in the sense that someone controlled it and paid for it from the $$ that we send to the government now as it is anyway. Maybe it just might be better spent right here in our country rather than lining the pockets of the already rich and getting richer by the second, and/or better spent here in this country for building hospitals etc., and not for other facilities in other lands.
You probably don't understand a thing I'm talking about do you. Take a look at this clip (trailer) from MICHAEL MOORE -- A documentary he calls 'Sicko' :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDAUKSh9CQ
-- Now go watch the entire documentary and learn something important.
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Wow. I can understand young
Wow. I can understand young socialist leanings. But it becomes ridiculous when there is socialism in other countries, where you can see the results with your very own eyes....and still be in favor of it. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter if a rich man robs you or a beggar. You are still out some $.
"You probably don't understand a thing I'm talking about do you."
No. We understand quite well. We aren't sheeple. That's the problem.
:)
Hahahahaha!
So the idea here is that the problem with health care is insufficient government involvement?
Wrong.
The problem with health care is that decades of government involvement, subsidizing demand and impeding supply, have driven prices through the roof. And MORE government involvement will only make it worse.
But this is really all academic because you CAN'T add any more government to health care. Know why? Because the government doesn't have any money. They don't have a single unencumbered penny. They have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain existing programs. The LAST great experiment in socialized medicine, Medicare, is about to deliver a $50 trillion bill to the government that no conceivable level of growth or taxation can pay for. The lenders who have already loaned us $9 trillion are balking at loaning us any more. And the bond rating services are talking about lowering the government's bond rating. The bank is canceling our credit card.
American socialism has always been bankrupt intellectually. Now it is bankrupt financially. Several times over. So the question is not "should we have more government intervention in medicine?" The question is "can we arrange an orderly withdrawal from the mess the government has already created in medicine or are we going to have a thundering collapse?" Those are the only two options.
Ron Paul has a plan for an orderly withdrawal. A vote for anyone else is a vote to ride the train right out onto the collapsed bridge and into empty space, for the terrifying plunge to the bottom.
I Must Admit, I Like Your Last Few Sentences -- Very Artistic
Vote RON PAUL 2008
___________
But go watch the video (Sicko). Not you -- the video.
Kinda hard to be 'pursuing happiness' if that toothache can't be pulled unless you've got sufficient Dental insurance to cover it, and then you most likely still get stuck with paying additional charges on top of the insurance premium you've already paid. Yeah, that makes sense, doesn't it // No it does not.
Kinda hard to be justifying anything in this regard when we know that the pharmaceutical industry is pumping up prices for the exact same drugs you can get in places like Canada at far less the cost. But that's entirely okay because our big gasoline bill on top of it all that you must pay to get yourself to the druggist and/or dentist is the best in the world. Of course they continue to get away with this treatment because government gangsters allow it -- and we think it's grand them doing that -- i.e., them billing us (and not government paying the bills). But our government has our best interest at heart don't they so they are regulating and watching our for us, don't they. I think I'm gonna throw up saying that.
Again, no it's not. Better yet -- make that -- no -- it's snot.
Vote RON PAUL 2008
About Dental Insurance...
Every dentist I've visited in the past five years has turned up their nose at my dental insurance and demanded CASH for service, then they will help you get repaid by submitting a claim.
So, you pay into the insurance and then, you need to pay CASH for treatment. What good is that?
I'm sure they'll love having to wait for the government to get around to paying for our care!
Now, I skip paying for insurance and just save up to pay for my own services. It saves money and frustration. Most doctors have no good health solutions, anyway - just drugs and surgeries.
Ron Paul 2008: The most important vote of your life
Restore the Republic 2012!
Not defending the status quo
I'm not defending the status quo. It is a mess. But it is a mess BECAUSE of government. Government is not the cure, it is the disease.
Forty years ago, medical and dental costs were just paid out of pocket as part of normal living expenses. A prudent person might have catastrophic coverage for those rare cases that required lengthy treatment, but by and large, people just paid their own medical expenses. Doctors and hospitals provided free or low-cost care to the truly indigent out of a sense of charity.
Then government got involved. Prices went sky high, quality of care declined, and any notion of charity evaporated. Now every treatment is billed to the hilt. Prices in the medical field have been climbing faster than almost any other part of the economy ever since government got involved.
Corporate America LOVES to have the Government involved in their business. Guess who was lobbying hard for the prescription drug bill? The drug companies of course! Do you think they will like Universal Health Care? You bet!!!! Prices will continue to go up, service will go down, and if government tries to hold prices down, shortages will develop - just like in Canada.
By the way, when Sicko aired at Cannes, a bunch of Canadian journalists approached Moore to tell him that his portrayal of the Canadian system was not accurate and he basically told them to F%^& off! He isn't interested in the truth. He is biased.
Thanks For The FLAG
Vote RON PAUL 2008
___________
And it certainly wasn't the US FLAG was it. Not the Stars and Stripes forever kind of flag you just gave me. But that's okay, no big deal.
Wiki isn't the best resource but in this case -- It says it pretty well: THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY INDUSTRALIZED NATION NOT TO HAVE A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. The only one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Now is that true? Sure seems like it -- That's what the documentary Sicko was telling us // a lot more than just a few Canadians pissed off because of some distorted portrayal given Canada by Michael Moore, as you say.
I suspect (and granted, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer) that our government doesn't want us to be like every other nation in this regard because our government is in bed with big business and big business is billing US (the people) and not our government. Why would they (our government) want to change business as normal for us -- we keep shelling out the BIG $$, it's not government doing that. Maybe they'd be a bit more concerned about it all IF those same big business enterprises were billing them instead of us worthless no accounts that they feel inclined.to send off to war to fight and die for furthering their causes -- it certainly is stretching it to say it's all for our best interest in any shape or form.
Regulating $$ (the input) so government can monitor and pay for health care for everyone seems workable everywhere else -- the only reason I can even imagine this hasn't been tried here is because those that want to line their pockets (the greedy) would be losing out on the $$ themselves. If it works everywhere else in the world MAYBE we might give it a fair chance here as well -- since we all breathe the same air.
***wiki extract***
United States
Whether a government mandated system of universal health care should be implemented in the U.S. remains a hotly debated political topic. Those in favor of universal health care, such as the non-partisan Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, which has called for the U.S. to implement universal health care by 2010, argue that the current rate of uninsurance creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.[48] Americans have a lower average life expectancy than those in other industrialized nations with universal health care, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.[49] Infant mortality rates also remain higher in the U.S., despite declines in recent decades, and are higher than the average of the European Union.[50][51]
Critics of this argument note that there is very little correlation between life expectancy and infant mortality with the quality of health care, due to such factors as alternate causality and variations in the way countries collect their statistical data.[52] In fact, the U.S. led the world in life expectancy twenty years ago with virtually the same health system. Rather, many analysts attribute the lower life expectancy to the astronomical surge in obesity rates.[53][54][55]
Opponents of government mandates or programs for universal health care, including libertarian think tanks such as The Cato Institute, argue that people should be free to opt out of health insurance[56] and that government programs would require higher taxes, increase utilization, and reduce health care quality. Opponents also claim that the absence of a market mechanism may slow innovation in treatment and research, and lead to rationing of care through waiting lists.[57] Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care provided to them by their government.[
Vote RON PAUL 2008
I didn't flag you, Bro
I only flag trolls who are deliberately trying to undermine the campaign. I don't think you fall into that category. But you are dead wrong about health care.
1. The US government has no Constitutional authority to manage health care. The story ends there is you support the rule of law.
2. The US government screws up everything it DOES try to manage. Cite any contrary examples.
3. If you want to see what Universal Health care looks like in the US, take a trip down to the VA hospital. And then imagine that bureaucracy multiplied by a hunder thousand. No thanks.
4. Nobody has a "right" to health care. Let me explain why.
When we talk about a right to free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, we are talking about people being left alone to do as they wish without interference from government. Rights exist without government - they derive from the concept of self-ownership - you own your mind, body and property and should be left alone to do with them (and with any consenting adult) what you wish. When we talk about rights, as in the Bill of Rights, we are simply talking about an itemized expression of the concept of individual sovereignty or self-ownership and listing the ways in which government shall not interfere with self-ownership. You have the right to free speech because you own your mind and your mouth or your printing press. You have the right to have a gun and carry it because it is your property. Nobody is required to PROVIDE you with a printing press or a gun. But the government cannot stand in your way of acquiring and using those things, so long as you don't interfere by force or fraud with the equal right of others to thier self-ownership.
The "right" to health care or housing or food is actually NOT a right because it is not based on self-ownership. Rather, such "rights" are based on forcing other people to provide you with goods or services and are thus based on the invasion of self-ownership. The "right" to healthcare is nothing more or less than the use of force (by government agents) to make other people provide you with health care. This is the basis of all socialism - the use of force to invade one person's right to life, liberty and property for the benefit of another. So the "right" to health care is really a license to enslave other people for your benefit. As such, it is not a right, but a form of theft. Calling it a "right" is just a semantic twist to try and hide it's true immoral nature.
More power to them!
Bring 'em in the ring! Nader got some pretty unfair and unjust treatment in his run in 2000. Ron Paul would probably argue to have Nader in the debates, where he could pick him apart too. I'm all for any strategy that could bust down our two party system that this country is so intrenched in! You would see many many more quality, un-bought people running for offices.
Keep throwing wrenches in the gears!
two prong attack...
communists on one side...fascists on the other...
how is it that in 67 years uS citizens have forgotten what these forms of government do?
Ron Paul ought to preach at the other candidates from the dictionary. to refresh their memories of what the definition of "Republic" is...that the "Republican" party derives it's name...
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic
A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is composed of a number of self-governing states united by a federal government. In a federation, unlike in a unitary state, the self-governing status of autonomous regions is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be revoked by an unilateral decision of the central government. The states in a federation also maintain all political sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation. Usage of the term republic is inconsistent but, as a minimum, it means a state or federation of states that does not have a monarch as head of state."
for when we say the "Pledge of Allegience..."...it does not say..."to the Democracy for which it stands"...it says "to the Republic for which it stands..."
this above definition also brings light to why Thomas Jefferson was a Federalist...it means that the Federation/Federal Government...does not control or have authority over the States...
Ron Paul should ask each candidate to prove that they are "Federalists"...for they are always trying to blackmail the States with highway money...
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Music to my ears
Music to my ears
The green party is full of socialists.
They are farther to the left than the democrats. Nader is a true socialist. They believe that the economy is theirs. They should run your lives. You don't know how to run your life. Your money is theirs to distribute the way they see fit. Why would they want you to own gold or silver? It would not be liquid enough for them to tax.
Screw the green party!
www.ronpaul2008.com
There is life at the end of the tunnel my friends!
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$
You know what they say about the Green Party
It's the Watermelon Party: Green on the outside and PINK on the inside.
Protecting the environment can be handled quite well by a libertarian conception of property ownership.
For an example of how big government manages our environment, look at what the Forest Service has done in managing our national forests. Turned them into "tree museums" and left them to burn, then wasting money on fires suppression. They were supposed to be a working asset for the people of our country.
Ron Paul 2008: The most important vote of your life
Restore the Republic 2012!
So what?
The commies came out against RP, too. It's not like any greens were going to vote for RP in the first place.
-jcr
"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel
Don't worry!
The American Monetary Institute is afraid of Victor Aguilar just as much as the Mises Institute is - maybe even more so.
www.axiomaticeconomics.com/zarlenga.php
It actualy is a positive ..
Are people actualy now going to be willing to discuss fundamental issues like monetary policy out in the open? Do you know what a breakthrough that would be? Let the (actual) debates began!
Yes, but...
Discussing fundamental issues like monetary policy out in the open is a breakthrough only if you actually have a rebuttal.
If you don't have a rebuttal, wouldn't that be more like - um - a negative?
Are you telling me I have to actually read the article ..
I will admit I only read the first sentence from the provided links but having some familiarity with the Greens I am certain that the rebutal to them is fairly straight foreward ...
What was their point? Is there a way to get to it in less than 50 pages or did they actualy even have a point? Probably not but if it goes anything like the typical green argument by the time they got to actually not making a point, no one was awake enough to notice :)
But the TOPIC I still like .....
of course they attack ron
of course they attack ron paul. They are socialists. Who would you think they would attack? The democrats? The rest of the republicans? Of course not.
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine Godfather of the American Revolution)
yes, of course
Great! Now that we've established that they are attacking Ron, can we try to think of a defense?
The best defense against
The best defense against green party attacks is to find fellow Ron Paul supporters, sneak off to some secret place and high-five each other!
=P
yes, of course
Great! Now that we've established that they are attacking Ron, can we try to think of a defense?
Actually I am a little surprised
In Augusta Maine former Green Party VP Pat LaMarche was the to see Ron Paul. It was an odd sight seeing her and my ultra conservative republican father in law chatting it up and cheering for Paul.
Well
They can also prove that our current monetary model works perfectly, in theory. That is all very well and good, but I don't live in a theoretical world. The REAL world has shown that our current model doesn't work...lol
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~