Who is waiting patiently for a Ron paul run?

[RyanPaulShaffer]

You mean get out of the middle east and let them self destruct on their own?

No, that part is fine. Ron Paul basically says that the only reason the ME hates us is because we are meddling in there. Obviously, it is a factor in their dislike towards us, but the sole, solitary reason? That's madness.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Did you ever notice how much the Grand Nagus on STDS9 looked like Ross Perot?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If Ron Paul were elected, what would he do to improve the economy and to help the American people?

Would he end the problem of foreign outsourcing that has cost Americans millions of middle class jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Would he end the H-1B andL-1 visa programs that displace Americans from often college-education-requiring, knowledge-based jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Will he end mass legal immigration and illegal immigration, both of which lead to population explosion and Malthusian problems? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist. Who is the government to say who should and who should not be able to legally enter the country?

Will Ron Paul enact real socialized medicine which as been proven to be more economically efficient in other nations? (The U.S. spends about 17% its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year and while having businesses and the economy burdened by insurance costs and concerns.) He probably supports the current system because he is a free market dogmatist.


So what will Ron Paul do for America? Read us Atlas Shrugged fairy tales every evening?

 

[hal2kilo]

So what will Ron Paul do for America? Read us Atlas Shrugged fairy tales every evening?

Chortle

 

[Soundmanred]

He's still alive?
Kudos for that, Ron.

 

[daniel49]

In case you don't recognize my name I was once Perry404 on these forums. I don't spend much time in the PR section these days.
I have shed all but my love for the honesty and truth that is Ron Paul.
I know there are many free thinkers awaiting the run by Alan Grayson, Rand Paul and others but know this, the only man that stands a chance against the majority is Ron Paul.
So I must ask...how many of you, after all that we have been through, are ready and willing to vote for Ron Paul?
In my passion to keep things interesting I must disclose something else.
A vision for the future of America, The country that God loved.
Yeah our breadbaskets have been full. Gods love however extends not only to the Jews and not only to the Americans but to the world.
Therefor he will shed his grace upon the world. What does this mean for the number crunching American? In small words It is global economy.
Inflation is good for the Chinese and the Indian. Prices in America will rise until the Chinese worker is paid the same price that the American slaves for. Have you seen that Chinese market? Within seven years you will be plucking feathers from your chickens at safeway in order to save your families money. Your insurance will be 24% of your families income. Do not curse into the air... because of this the Chinese man will be able to feed his family. Instead thank God almighty for your blessings.
Thank God almighty that your children are fed and thank God almighty that you may cuddle with them beneath a roof.

Once all is said and done they will finally understand that the the real question was...


Where will the money come from?

Yes, for that and the next elvis sighting also.

 

[daniel49]

Well, truth be told, I am waiting for Joe Smoe from Kokomo to run. Other truth be told, ole Joe Smoe will probably get as many votes as Ron Paul.

But having said that, of course Ron Paul will run again, what human can resist the temptation to have another bite at 15 minutes of fame, and be the lucky recipient of all those checks that say pay to the order of Ron Paul.

As a grass roots movements, Ron Paul is simply like dandelions that sprout in spring, lots of showy color, not good for much, and by in large gone by summer.

feel the need to quote you since Its so seldom you say anything that makes sense to me.
good job

 

[BoberFett]

If Ron Paul were elected, what would he do to improve the economy and to help the American people?

Would he end the problem of foreign outsourcing that has cost Americans millions of middle class jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Would he end the H-1B andL-1 visa programs that displace Americans from often college-education-requiring, knowledge-based jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Will he end mass legal immigration and illegal immigration, both of which lead to population explosion and Malthusian problems? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist. Who is the government to say who should and who should not be able to legally enter the country?

Will Ron Paul enact real socialized medicine which as been proven to be more economically efficient in other nations? (The U.S. spends about 17% its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year and while having businesses and the economy burdened by insurance costs and concerns.) He probably supports the current system because he is a free market dogmatist.

Are Democrats and Republicans able to fix any of those problems?

Didn't think so.

 

[drebo]

No, that part is fine. Ron Paul basically says that the only reason the ME hates us is because we are meddling in there. Obviously, it is a factor in their dislike towards us, but the sole, solitary reason? That's madness.

The former director of the CIA seems to believe the same thing. As does the guy who was responsible for reasearching that for the government.

While it is certainly not the only issue for their dislike of us, it certainly IS the only issue that caused them to attack us. The difference between Bin Laden and the Ayatolah is that the Ayatolah tried to incite violence against us for purely religious/societal differences and no one bought it or cared. Bil Laden played on their fear of us coming in and wiping out their society entirely, and everyone was jumping to strap on some dynamite and blow themselves up.

While our meddling isn't the only reason they hate us, our presence on the Arabian Penninsula has been positively linked as the primary reason they attacked us.

You may not like Islamics, but that doesn't mean you're going to go and kill them. How about when they start staging troups in Mexico and have a reputation (thanks, Clinton) of going to other nations and wiping out their way of lives? I think your feelings toward them would be a little bit stronger if you faced the prospect of them replacing the society you know with the society they think you should have.

Additionally, non-interventionist foreign policies are NOT isolationist, so don't even try to start with that bullshit.

 

[MotF Bane]

If Ron Paul were elected, what would he do to improve the economy and to help the American people?

Would he end the problem of foreign outsourcing that has cost Americans millions of middle class jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Would he end the H-1B andL-1 visa programs that displace Americans from often college-education-requiring, knowledge-based jobs? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist.

Will he end mass legal immigration and illegal immigration, both of which lead to population explosion and Malthusian problems? No. He probably supports it because he is a free market dogmatist. Who is the government to say who should and who should not be able to legally enter the country?

Will Ron Paul enact real socialized medicine which as been proven to be more economically efficient in other nations? (The U.S. spends about 17% its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year and while having businesses and the economy burdened by insurance costs and concerns.) He probably supports the current system because he is a free market dogmatist.


So what will Ron Paul do for America? Read us Atlas Shrugged fairy tales every evening?

Have you ever looked up his positions on anything? Read any of his works, or listened to anything he has said? No, you clearly haven't. Your ignorance is disgusting.

 

[bamacre]

Will Ron Paul enact real socialized medicine which as been proven to be more economically efficient in other nations? (The U.S. spends about 17% its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year and while having businesses and the economy burdened by insurance costs and concerns.) He probably supports the current system because he is a free market dogmatist.

That's probably the most ignorant thing I've read here in months.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Are Democrats and Republicans able to fix any of those problems?

No, but Ron Paul won't either.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Have you ever looked up his positions on anything? Read any of his works, or listened to anything he has said? No, you clearly haven't. Your ignorance is disgusting.

As far as I know he is a Libertarian-type known for advocating capitalism.

Where do you think my characterization of his positions was faulty? Do you think he would end the foreign outsourcing, the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, mass immigration, and give us real national health care?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That's probably the most ignorant thing I've read here in months.

Please elaborate for us.

Are you saying that I mischaracterized his positions on those issues? You don't think he would support the current way of doing in things in regard to the issues I mentioned? (He'd probably change the immigration laws so that anyone who wanted to become a citizen could readily do so, so I guess that isn't the same as supporting the status quo.)

 

[bamacre]

Please elaborate for us.

Just look at the part of your post that I quoted. You stated that Paul would probably support the status quo regarding our health care system because he's a "free market advocate."

Your statement doesn't make sense, unless you actually think we have some kind of "free market" health care system, and that would be absolutely hilarious.

Your entire post shows you not only are ignorant of Ron Paul, but ignorant of what "free markets" are, too.

 

[EXman]

He's right about "The Fed"

His Boy is running for office in KY and I'd vote for him but he is running against one of the only politicians I like. Damn. At least we will have someone good representing us. A race where I don't despise both candidates is rare.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Just look at the part of your post that I quoted. You stated that Paul would probably support the status quo regarding our health care system because he's a "free market advocate."

Your statement doesn't make sense, unless you actually think we have some kind of "free market" health care system, and that would be absolutely hilarious.

Your entire post shows you not only are ignorant of Ron Paul, but ignorant of what "free markets" are, too.

OK, you have a point. Under his system we would abolish Medicaid and probably Medicare and if you are poor or cannot afford health insurance, don't get sick and if you do, die quickly. If your insurance company's death panel rescinds your coverage when you get sick, you can get in line at the courthouse and hope that your illness puts itself on hold while you sue your insurance company.

 

[bamacre]

OK, you have a point. Under his system we would abolish Medicaid and probably Medicare and if you are poor or cannot afford health insurance, don't get sick and if you do, die quickly. If your insurance company's death panel rescinds your coverage when you get sick, you can get in line at the courthouse and hope that your illness puts itself on hold while you sue your insurance company.

...

Your entire post shows you not only are ignorant of Ron Paul, but ignorant of what "free markets" are, too.

 

[LegendKiller]

He's right about "The Fed"

His Boy is running for office in KY and I'd vote for him but he is running against one of the only politicians I like. Damn. At least we will have someone good representing us. A race where I don't despise both candidates is rare.

Is he right about the Fed?

AFAIK, he hasn't been "right" about one thing in his life. He might have prognosticated a few times and been more "right" than "wrong", but that doesn't mean much.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Bamacre, what do you think it would mean if someone tried to make the U.S. health care system truly capitalist, consistent with Libertarian principles?

 

[heyheybooboo]

This is what a Conservative has to deal with in priority order:

1) A Lib'tard Party co-opted by RP-bots, the Tea-Baggers and Glen Beck;
2) Said Baggers further co-opted by FreedomWorks;
3) further co-opted by the GOP machine in general;
4) all inter-spersed heavily with:
----- a: Fundamentalists;
----- b: NeoCons;
----- c: Whatever we come to call the Cheney/Bush People;
----- d: Idiots like Representatives Patrick McHenry - NC 10th and Virginia Foxx;
----- e: Sarah Palin; and
----- f: 'Ditto Heads';

and ...

6) Conservative and Lib'rul Democrats.




--

 

[drebo]

Bamacre, what do you think it would mean if someone tried to make the U.S. health care system truly capitalist, consistent with Libertarian principles?

I can tell you what would NOT have happened:

Medicare would not have driven up primary care rates so high that we needed medical insurance just for preventative medicine in the first place.

Edit: and before you start in with the bullshit about socialist medicine policies in Europe: They pay a HIGH cost for medicine, too. They just pay it in ridiculously high taxes. OBAMACARE doesn't address the problems which caused our healthcare to be expensive in the US, it simply adds yet another unsustainable tax burden to the middle class under the guise of a "socialist, government-run healthcare program".

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I can tell you what would NOT have happened:

Medicare would not have driven up primary care rates so high that we needed medical insurance just for preventative medicine in the first place.

And without Medicare old people would...die from treatable ailments? (What company in its right mind would want to insure elderly people?)

Edit: and before you start in with the bullshit about socialist medicine policies in Europe: They pay a HIGH cost for medicine, too. They just pay it in ridiculously high taxes. OBAMACARE doesn't address the problems which caused our healthcare to be expensive in the US, it simply adds yet another unsustainable tax burden to the middle class under the guise of a "socialist, government-run healthcare program".

So you're saying that those numbers of percentage of national GDP spent on health care are all bullhicky? If its so awful then why aren't politicians in those evil socialist countries debating and putting forward plans to adopt real capitalist health care or the current American system? I don't pay too much attention to British or French politics, but I haven't heard any reports about how the Prime Minister or the Premiere or their legislatures are arguing over a plan to scrap their national health care systems in favor of free market medicine.

I agree with you that whatever plan comes out of Congress, even a public option, won't address our real health care problems.

 

[LegendKiller]

I can tell you what would NOT have happened:

Medicare would not have driven up primary care rates so high that we needed medical insurance just for preventative medicine in the first place.

Edit: and before you start in with the bullshit about socialist medicine policies in Europe: They pay a HIGH cost for medicine, too. They just pay it in ridiculously high taxes. OBAMACARE doesn't address the problems which caused our healthcare to be expensive in the US, it simply adds yet another unsustainable tax burden to the middle class under the guise of a "socialist, government-run healthcare program".

LOL, you're blaming madicare for preventative care? What's your basis? Furthermore, the issue isn't preventative care as much as it is catastrophic care costs.

They pay a LOWER $ per person than the US and LOWER % of GDP, regardless of whether its tax, insurance premiums, or additional costs.

Furthermore, there are 0% of the people who go bankrupt over healthcare.

Yet again, austrians ignore reality and live in libertopian fantasy world.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Here is an article in Forbes that cites an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report that claims that the other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

I found this article (first hit) while doing a Google search for

health care "percentage of GDP"
​

The problem of health care spending growing faster than incomes is also a problem that plagues the private sector, which explains why total spending on health care in the economy has doubled over the last 30 years to a current level of about 16% of GDP. CBO estimates that this percentage will double again over the next 25 years to 31% of GDP.

Americans widely believe that while the our health system is expensive it is nevertheless the best in the world. However, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests otherwise.


According to the OECD, the U.S. spends 5% of GDP more on health than France, the nation with the second highest level of health spending among the 30 wealthy countries in the organization. The average for all OECD countries is 8.9% of GDP. We spend $7,290 per person on average versus $2,964 among all OECD countries. Norway, the nation with the second most expensive health system on a per capita basis, spends $4,763. (Currency conversions based on purchasing power parity.)

-----------

Even more significant is the fact that despite spending vastly more on health than any other country, the U.S. has little to show for it in terms of key measures of health resources. For example, we have fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries: 2.43 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.1. Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway all spend at least a third less of GDP on health than the U.S. yet have almost four doctors per 1,000 population.

Note that we probably have more insurance company CEOs and executives, more insurance brokers, more benefits plan managers, and more medical billing specialists per capita than any of those other nations! It's good to be first in something, I guess.