I have enough reasons to not vote for Ron Paul

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
The president is there to do his job while preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution, that‘s the oath he takes anyway.


exactly, and reform doesn't fall into that category.




if we gave everyone a tax credit because their children weren't in the school, we wouldn't be able to fund the schools without a ridiculous increase in the taxation of the families who do.
...and it's not like they're paying the equivalent of a tuition at a private school


Your giving them the tax credit so they can afford a competitive education.


that's their CHOICE. you shouldn't get tax credits on choices.




You shouldn’t want to smoke it because it’s crack, not because it’s illegal


true, but there are always the curious people that don't understand that.



But we don’t, most young people don’t have the same respect for drug laws as your curious friend. The one’s that don’t smoke crack, usually just don’t want to be crack heads.


true, but we need to address the root causes of crack addiction instead of saying "F it" and legalizing it all



It’s the governments job to make sure we know it’s poison through advertising regulations and warnings. If you drink bleach, it‘s not a legal issue unless it’s advertised as juice.


it's the government's job to stop inherently poisonous products from entering the market...



It’s a matter of an individual’s rights and personal responsibility, Uncle Sam‘s not a babysitter. Everyone knows that if you want cancer, you should smoke.


yet Uncle Sam doesn't seem to put warning labels on them. in europe you get large warning labels that take up half the box without obscuring the logo...



People are less inclined to become junkies then they are to risk having lung cancer in 30 years, you can maintain your dignity while being addicted to cigarettes.


...if you call standing out in the snow just to grab a smoke dignity.




I don’t want it to flourish and go ignored due to illegalization.


...it'd be 10x worse when it's legal. remember the "tonic" industry?
that stuff had to be stopped because it became a harmful addiction industry.



I’d like to see people who are going to get high be able to buy cleaner, safer drugs for cheap, instead of crack and meth.


but crack and meth will still be cheap to make. any corporation that wanted to get into the magically legalized drug game would end up realizing just how profitable they are.



These aren’t attractive drugs, the money faceless people make off them is attractive and they get you high for cheap.


and the faceless corporations will be even more attracted to that money.




posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I don’t want the government regulating me, I want to see all the options and information relating to them, and choose from them myself. We seem to have a fundamental difference in how to solve things, and I think it will keep us from solving this.


...the budgeting problem comes when contractors, thriving on opportunism, purposefully mislead the government and then ask for a budget that's 2-10x as big as what they originally said they could pull the job off with.
competition starts with a pointless bidding war here and ends up hurting the taxpayer.


And because they're tax funded, and don't care about money in their line of work, they pay. It’s not comparable to a corporations competing for the limited funds of consumers.


especially the massive war that would break out in korea. does ron paul have a plan that would make sure that blood doesn't get on his hands?
and it's the amassing of troops on the southern border thing...that's kind of an act of war.


We're not starting a war in Korea, if they start a war that is blood on their hands, it's not our job to keep the peace in their country, it's theirs. I don't know why you think it takes a mass of troops to patrol our borders, you just need enough to do it effectively.


and we also have to completely rehash our outright racist immigration quota system. northern and western european countries get a disproportionate amount of slots for immigration.
example: southern europe is preferred over eastern europe
malta: population 400,000. 2 slots
lithuania: population 3,500,000. 2 slots


Sounds good to me, but I’m not aware of any candidate’s views on it. They usually group things together in bills, and illegal immigration is the issue that they all seem to argue about.


the system is broken and quite the hassle for any potential immigrant.
i've repeatedly heard calls about how all of these illegals should just go through the proper procedure, but the system won't let them through and is insanely difficult to begin with.


We should fix that too, I don't know about anyone's specific plans to do that either though. They milk them with lawyer fees and it takes forever.


why would any business lower prices when they're selling something you literally can't live without?


Because in a well informed, free-market, someone will want to either make money or save lives with lower prices. Screwing a well informed market on a life saving drug isn’t very good marketing. You need to make sure there is the opportunity to compete and no one has a monopoly on it, including politicians.


...what regulations?
i'm very wary of those who seek to deregulate without providing specific references


I don’t know either, that’s why I’m not the one trying to fix it. If there is a federal regulation hurting competition and giving big insurance companies free reign to keep prices up, fixing it sounds good to me. I’m more wary of those who seek to regulate without providing specific references. Like you said, our philosophies on privatization differ, and don‘t seem to be coming together.

Here‘s a reference on a lot of things he‘s written regarding healthcare:

www.ronpaul2008.com...


yes, because doctors are really going to compromise a system that makes them millionaires...


Cutting down the insurance they pay, would cut down their charges.


or maybe we could just ask the french to help us set up a system like their own


Didn’t you say allowing tax cuts on medical bills was socialized healthcare? Maybe we are looking at all of our options and trying to form a solution that will work for our situation.


...or maybe we could actually look at the systems that ARE the envy of the world and get some advice from them.


The more ideas the better, I’m sure the competition of their success would push to improve the free market system, and vise-versa.


it seems that the data on this one is a bit inaccurate.
H.R. 2717: Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005
a bill which he isn't a cosponsor of.
hmm...either this is a simple typo or an outright lie
let's hope it's the first.




H.R. 2717: Access to Medical Treatment Act
Sponsor: Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]

Cosponsors [as of 2008-01-27]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]

Last Action: Jun 14, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health

www.govtrack.us...


I don’t know how they manage those tittles, but it exists.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



i find his lack of examples...disturbing
and the FDA has been protecting us from quite a bit. he acts as if they do nothing...


It was a brief definition of his stance. Refer to the link I posted for more explanations on health issues. Here’s something out of his proposal of the Health Freedom Protection Act about the FDA:


FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.

Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.

The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

www.ronpaul2008.com...



wow, seems like the good doctor doesn't have any knowledge of epidemiology
how else are we to prevent an epidemic?


If there is a problem and we need shots, tell us where to go. If you don’t get one, I guess you’ll get sick. Luckily your smart neighbor got one, so you wont get him sick.


until it's a true monopoly that can crush competition before it starts.


You can’t stop people from competing with you, only the market or government regulations can do that. Someone will offer what your not.


hooray, we're going to cure cancer by learning about erections!
...no, seriously. it's not beneficial in the same way that curing life threatening disease is. this isn't a point of view issue, it's a simple objective issue.


You don’t know what they’ll come by when they’re researching anything, research is good. It’s a big market, there’s room for both because there’s demand for both. Profit driven research covers many fields and yields unexpected discoveries.


...it doesn't matter how informed we are. a company isn't going to put out a product that isn't profitable.


If we know about a life saving, but non profitable drug, someone will raise funds and produce it.


exactly, and reform doesn't fall into that category.


Reform is a joint effort, that‘s why the president has veto power.


that's their CHOICE. you shouldn't get tax credits on choices.


I don’t think money should make you privy to a better education, they should get credits so everyone can afford a competitive education.


true, but we need to address the root causes of crack addiction instead of saying "F it" and legalizing it all


I see making it illegal without stopping importation as the “F it” attitude. The root cause is social and medical, not legal.


yet Uncle Sam doesn't seem to put warning labels on them. in europe you get large warning labels that take up half the box without obscuring the logo...


So that stuff about lung cancer, heart disease, Emphysema, and complicated pregnancies on every pack of cigarettes in America is from their marketing department?


but crack and meth will still be cheap to make. any corporation that wanted to get into the magically legalized drug game would end up realizing just how profitable they are.


You will have cheap alternatives.


and the faceless corporations will be even more attracted to that money.


Corporations aren’t faceless, they can even be sued. Activists would know exactly who was dealing drugs. Drug dealers live off of the darkness we provide them.


[edit on 25-2-2008 by captainplanet]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


ok, i'm just posting to ensure that i remember to post a reply at a later date. i'm just too busy and exhausted to provide the proper rebuttal you deserve.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
I don’t want the government regulating me, I want to see all the options and information relating to them, and choose from them myself. We seem to have a fundamental difference in how to solve things, and I think it will keep us from solving this.


yes, you seem to believe that everyone is capable of being properly educated when we live in a country where 18% of the population still seems to believe that the sun orbits the earth.




And because they're tax funded, and don't care about money in their line of work, they pay. It’s not comparable to a corporations competing for the limited funds of consumers.


the military still has limited funds to use....the problem is that we give it such a high limit

since we're on the subject of military, how is ron paul going to pay for his proposed worldwide pullout?



We're not starting a war in Korea, if they start a war that is blood on their hands, it's not our job to keep the peace in their country, it's theirs.


um...we're actually entitled by diplomatic agreements to help them out.
here's some reasoning:
our troop presence is stopping 2 of the world's largest militaries from going to war
if a we withdraw them and follow ron paul's policies regarding international relations, a war is incredibly likely to start
therefore, we should keep the troops there to prevent the war from happening until a proper peace can be established between north and south korea



I don't know why you think it takes a mass of troops to patrol our borders, you just need enough to do it effectively.


ok, and what are we going to do with the rest of our soldiers? where are we going to keep the 1.4 million active military personnel?



Sounds good to me, but I’m not aware of any candidate’s views on it.


it's good to find some common ground



They usually group things together in bills, and illegal immigration is the issue that they all seem to argue about.


yes, they never seem to address the root causes



Because in a well informed, free-market, someone will want to either make money or save lives with lower prices. Screwing a well informed market on a life saving drug isn’t very good marketing. You need to make sure there is the opportunity to compete and no one has a monopoly on it, including politicians.


but that's the thing about the drug industry...they're selling something that only they make that you can't live without. great demand + one supplier = prices as high as the consumers are willing to pay for their lives



I don’t know either, that’s why I’m not the one trying to fix it. If there is a federal regulation hurting competition and giving big insurance companies free reign to keep prices up, fixing it sounds good to me.


but again, i need a specific instance before i can argue this one



I’m more wary of those who seek to regulate without providing specific references. Like you said, our philosophies on privatization differ, and don‘t seem to be coming together.


very true. but at least we can find some stuff we can agree on, and we're discussing this like mature citizens instead of the typical internet discussions you see on politics.



Here‘s a reference on a lot of things he‘s written regarding healthcare:

www.ronpaul2008.com...


i'll take my time to read it over after replying to the rest.



Cutting down the insurance they pay, would cut down their charges.


or they could maintain their charges, seeing that people are willing to pay them, and keep the money for themselves



Didn’t you say allowing tax cuts on medical bills was socialized healthcare?


did i?
i may have, but if i said it i said it to point out that we might just want to make a full system of it



Maybe we are looking at all of our options and trying to form a solution that will work for our situation.


but we seem to not be going to the experts. if i were a candidate i would actively say that we are going to have talks with nations that have superior systems to see how they can help.



The more ideas the better, I’m sure the competition of their success would push to improve the free market system, and vise-versa.


or maybe we just need to abandon the free market system on this one.

one solution doesn't fit every problem.


it seems that the data on this one is a bit inaccurate.
H.R. 2717: Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005
a bill which he isn't a cosponsor of.
hmm...either this is a simple typo or an outright lie
let's hope it's the first.




H.R. 2717: Access to Medical Treatment Act
Sponsor: Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]

Cosponsors [as of 2008-01-27]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]

Last Action: Jun 14, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health

www.govtrack.us...


I don’t know how they manage those tittles, but it exists.

huh...
odd


Originally posted by captainplanet
It was a brief definition of his stance. Refer to the link I posted for more explanations on health issues. Here’s something out of his proposal of the Health Freedom Protection Act about the FDA:
(snip)


ok, i didn't want to repost that entire thing, but i just want to say...he's not putting forth a case for removing power from the FDA, just putting forth one for why we should reform it



If there is a problem and we need shots, tell us where to go. If you don’t get one, I guess you’ll get sick. Luckily your smart neighbor got one, so you wont get him sick.


but again, you're expecting people to make rational decisions on their own. sometimes people need to be told to do things for their own good



You can’t stop people from competing with you, only the market or government regulations can do that. Someone will offer what your not.


until the larger company buys out the smaller one...



You don’t know what they’ll come by when they’re researching anything, research is good.


but it's a very minimal overlap



It’s a big market, there’s room for both because there’s demand for both. Profit driven research covers many fields and yields unexpected discoveries.


but those discoveries are only applied if they will yield a profit and are protected so that they will only be used at the profit of the company that found them.

but that's another problem
here's a simple capitalist view of cancer: letting people live with cancer for an extended period of time is far more profitable than curing it, so we won't develop a cure.

clearly capitalism applied to the health market is disastrous



If we know about a life saving, but non profitable drug, someone will raise funds and produce it.


it took a damn long time with penicillin




Reform is a joint effort, that‘s why the president has veto power.


no, the president has a veto power to preserve the balance of power and uphold the constitution.




I don’t think money should make you privy to a better education, they should get credits so everyone can afford a competitive education.


i don't think money should make you privy to a safer car, they should get credits so everyone can afford a car that will protect you

i don't think money should make you privy to living in a bigger home, they should get credits so everyone can live in a house that's spacious enough for their family

i can extend this argument to a number of other topics, but you wouldn't support those instances.



I see making it illegal without stopping importation as the “F it” attitude. The root cause is social and medical, not legal.


but legalizing it does absolutely nothing to stop



So that stuff about lung cancer, heart disease, Emphysema, and complicated pregnancies on every pack of cigarettes in America is from their marketing department?


it's very small
here's a demonstration:
American Pack
British Pack

the warnings have been crudely circled by me using paint.

see the difference?



You will have cheap alternatives.


but the crack and meth will still be insanely cheaper. if the price of coc aine goes down by 2/3, the price of crack will go down by just about the same fraction



Corporations aren’t faceless, they can even be sued. Activists would know exactly who was dealing drugs. Drug dealers live off of the darkness we provide them.


and how do you sue people for making a legal product? they'd have to put warning labels on them..hm..well, i already pointed out how the tobacco industry's labels are a joke...
corporations live off of the money we provide them. give them enough money, they can chug along.
mcdonald's gets sued for $2 billion, so what?
multibillion dollar drug company gets sued for the products it makes, so what? it will find a way around it and keep making them



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



yes, you seem to believe that everyone is capable of being properly educated when we live in a country where 18% of the population still seems to believe that the sun orbits the earth.


If that’s accurate, then they reserve their right to be backwards, just to do it if they want. If they have access to the same information as everyone else, that’s all you can do. Don’t run around chasing them, you just put them on the defensive and keep them from absorbing rational ideas.


since we're on the subject of military, how is ron paul going to pay for his proposed worldwide pullout?


Probably with the money from Iraq. You only have to fund pulling out once, if you stay in you pay indefinitely.


um...we're actually entitled by diplomatic agreements to help them out.
here's some reasoning:
our troop presence is stopping 2 of the world's largest militaries from going to war
if a we withdraw them and follow ron paul's policies regarding international relations, a war is incredibly likely to start
therefore, we should keep the troops there to prevent the war from happening until a proper peace can be established between north and south korea


You would likely have issues leaving many places, but you need to be dedicated to removal. Realistically, I don’t think that would happen as quick as a departure from Iraq, because no one is dieing.


ok, and what are we going to do with the rest of our soldiers? where are we going to keep the 1.4 million active military personnel?


I don't know what they'll do with them, but that's no reason to keep them in another country.


but that's the thing about the drug industry...they're selling something that only they make that you can't live without. great demand + one supplier = prices as high as the consumers are willing to pay for their lives


We've only been held hostage for a life saving drug before in movies as far as I know. Drug companies make a lot of money, I don't see why one would destroy the future of their business by making a life saving drug unaffordable for the sake of profits. It almost sounds like a terroristic hostage situation. But since we could write off our medical expenses, all they would do is piss us off.


very true. but at least we can find some stuff we can agree on, and we're discussing this like mature citizens instead of the typical internet discussions you see on politics.


Also true.


or they could maintain their charges, seeing that people are willing to pay them, and keep the money for themselves


If their prices are just ‘marked up’ and people can choose any doctor, they will start lowering prices to compete with each other. Not all doctors are money grubbing, it’s mostly the insurance companies. Here’s an example of the kind of care they can provide without them:



by Ron Paul, Dr. May 3, 2004

Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.

Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.

www.ronpaul2008.com...


It continues if you want to read all of it.


but we seem to not be going to the experts. if i were a candidate i would actively say that we are going to have talks with nations that have superior systems to see how they can help.


We can look at their systems and how they work, it‘s not classified information. I like when my candidate says more then, “I don‘t know, we‘ll ask France“. Ron Paul’s been working on making healthcare affordable here for a long time, and I don’t see why his plan is bad.


or maybe we just need to abandon the free market system on this one.


No one else talks about any steps, they just say “Healthcare now“, that‘s nice and all but how are they going to get prices down and help promote good health beyond that? Ron Paul could just say that too, based on making medical expenses tax write offs, but he tries to identify, create awareness, and address the root of the problems instead.


ok, i didn't want to repost that entire thing, but i just want to say...he's not putting forth a case for removing power from the FDA, just putting forth one for why we should reform it


It wasn’t the bill, it was an argument he made for it. You wanted some examples about the FDA, here’s a link to the text of the actual bill if you want that:

www.govtrack.us...



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



but again, you're expecting people to make rational decisions on their own. sometimes people need to be told to do things for their own good


I just don’t agree with that, especially not in the case of forced vaccination. They wouldn‘t be hurting anyone but themselves, and the epidemic would be prevented. You have a right to live however you want in this country if you’re not imposing on someone else’s rights. If you’re paranoid and afraid of vaccinations, you’re obviously willing to take that risk. Forcing them to take it when they don’t want to creates a psychological problem of distrust in the population that is unnecessary in preventing a epidemic.


until the larger company buys out the smaller one...


It’s a never ending war of emerging and disappearing companies. You just need to make sure there’s nothing preventing someone from starting a business. There was never a case of a successful corporate monopoly before the anti-trust laws that were made to prevent them. It was a preventative measure and now big corporations with good lawyers just use them against their competitors when things get too competitive.


but those discoveries are only applied if they will yield a profit and are protected so that they will only be used at the profit of the company that found them.


Humans have made more progress in knowledge with free market, profit driven research then we’ve made in all of our history with institutionally controlled progress. We already have a charity dedicated to just about every disease there is. I’m sure they’d love to direct their funds towards the production of a cure if private research yielded a break through.


but that's another problem
here's a simple capitalist view of cancer: letting people live with cancer for an extended period of time is far more profitable than curing it, so we won't develop a cure.


I doubt any private companies are hiding a cure for cancer from us, and I’ve certainly never seen proof of it. Someone who knew about it and wasn’t getting as rich as he would like would steal the information and sell it if there was. There are far too many organization working hard on finding one for them to know nothing about that. But as long as we’re being paranoid, I imagine the world governments are pretty concerned about over population, so I don’t want them too control it either. We need to set it up so that we control it.


it took a damn long time with penicillin


I don’t know anything about that, so I read about it on wiki.


The discovery of penicillin is usually attributed to Scottish scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 and the development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel Laureate Howard Walter Florey.

...He expressed initial optimism that penicillin would be a useful disinfectant, being highly potent with minimal toxicity compared to antiseptics of the day, but, in particular, noted its laboratory value in the isolation of "Bacillus influenzae" (now Haemophilus influenzae).[3] After further experiments, Fleming was convinced that penicillin could not last long enough in the human body to kill pathogenic bacteria, and stopped studying penicillin after 1931, but restarted some clinical trials in 1934 and continued to try to get someone to purify it until 1940.

In 1930 Cecil George Paine, a pathologist at the Royal Infirmary in Sheffield, attempted to treat sycosis - eruptions in beard follicles - but was unsuccessful, probably because the drug did not get deep enough. Moving onto opthalmia neonatorum - a gonococcal infection in babies - he achieved the first cure on 25th November 1930. He cured four patients, one adult the others babies, of eye infections although a fifth patient was not so lucky.[5]

In 1939, Australian scientist Howard Florey (later Baron Florey) and a team of researchers (Ernst Boris Chain, A. D. Gardner, Norman Heatley, M. Jennings, J. Orr-Ewing and G. Sanders) at the Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford made significant progress in showing the in vivo bactericidal action of penicillin. Their attempts to treat humans failed due to insufficient volumes of penicillin (the first patient treated was Reserve Constable Albert Alexander), but they proved its harmlessness and effect on mice.

Some of the pioneering trials of penicillin took place at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford. On 1942-03-14, John Bumstead and Orvan Hess became the first in the world to successfully treat a patient using penicillin.[7][8]

en.wikipedia.org...


...and then it took off with the war. Fleming had a hard time selling it because it wasn’t even proven to work and be safe on mice until 1939, then people just before the war. People have a lot of good sounding ideas, we can’t fund all of them, we make mistakes and are then liable if a better alternative gets suppressed as a result. They can request funding directly from the well informed people.

Someone tried to inform us about penicillin before 1928:



several others had earlier noted the antibacterial effects of Penicillium such as Ernest Duchesne, who documented it in his 1897 paper; however it was not accepted by the Institut Pasteur because of his young age.

en.wikipedia.org...


It would have had a 30 year head start if we didn’t suppress any truthful health claims.


no, the president has a veto power to preserve the balance of power and uphold the constitution.


That works.


i don't think money should make you privy to a safer car, they should get credits so everyone can afford a car that will protect you


Get a bike, use public transportation. We don’t currently fund automobiles, but you could push for that in your state. You have a right to a good education here, so that you can buy a car. There are good home, public, and private schools. Everyone should have equal access to them if we are going to erase financial class lines where they matter most.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



i don't think money should make you privy to living in a bigger home, they should get credits so everyone can live in a house that's spacious enough for their family


We don’t currently promote the right to a six bedroom house, but we operate under the assumption that we have equal opportunity in education.


but legalizing it does absolutely nothing to stop


Requiring that we as a society take responsibility for ourselves and are free to take our own risks, however dumb, without legal impairment would do more to change the harm drugs do to our society then mismanaging a war against a personal choice. We‘ve proven we can‘t solve it this way, no drug problem has ever been solved this way.


see the difference?


Organizations heavily advertise against the dangers of smoking and the facts are on the box. Everyone has been warned of the dangers of smoking, and states have the right to disallow you to smoke on public property so you don’t endanger anyone else.


but the crack and meth will still be insanely cheaper. if the price of coc aine goes down by 2/3, the price of crack will go down by just about the same fraction


Then I guess we as a society will have too push it out by coming down on the stores that sell it in our communities, it‘s safer then going after armed neighbors. Perhaps they can be proven too dangerous to sell for their intended use, without having a wasteful federal drug war.


and how do you sue people for making a legal product?


Coffee is legal, just not when its hot I guess. You never know what you can get away with, especially in something as sympathetic to a jury as a drug dealing corporation.


mcdonald's gets sued for $2 billion, so what?
multibillion dollar drug company gets sued for the products it makes, so what? it will find a way around it and keep making them


It’s a lot better then what victims get now, it would put more money in the hands of the effort against them if a victim’s family won a lawsuit. But it wasn’t meant to be that strong a point, just one example of why its better to shine a public light on the underworld.


Sorry about the triple post response.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
If that’s accurate, then they reserve their right to be backwards, just to do it if they want. If they have access to the same information as everyone else, that’s all you can do. Don’t run around chasing them, you just put them on the defensive and keep them from absorbing rational ideas.


i never said that 18% of the population is backwards, my point is that there's an education problem. that 18% of the population probably hasn't had all the information given to them...that's the problem here, we can't educate 100% of the populace on issues.



Probably with the money from Iraq. You only have to fund pulling out once, if you stay in you pay indefinitely.


um...it's going to actually be a bit more complex than that....and it'll be a long withdrawl



You would likely have issues leaving many places, but you need to be dedicated to removal.


why? keeping our troops in other nations is actually beneficial to america and many other nations as long as we're not using them to perpetuate illegal wars.



Realistically, I don’t think that would happen as quick as a departure from Iraq, because no one is dieing.


but how long would it take?



I don't know what they'll do with them, but that's no reason to keep them in another country.


other than all those strategic benefits...
and it would really hurt a selling point the military uses for recruitment, "travel the world"



We've only been held hostage for a life saving drug before in movies as far as I know. Drug companies make a lot of money, I don't see why one would destroy the future of their business by making a life saving drug unaffordable for the sake of profits. It almost sounds like a terroristic hostage situation. But since we could write off our medical expenses, all they would do is piss us off.


ok...stop playing around with that strawman, here's what i said:



great demand + one supplier = prices as high as the consumers are willing to pay for their lives


the profit margins would be as big as the companies could realistically keep them. that's going to hurt the consumer and benefit the drug companies



If their prices are just ‘marked up’ and people can choose any doctor, they will start lowering prices to compete with each other. Not all doctors are money grubbing, it’s mostly the insurance companies.


but there are some instances where there isn't proper competition because there simply can't be. some specialists have an entire market cornered because they're that obscure.




We can look at their systems and how they work, it‘s not classified information. I like when my candidate says more then, “I don‘t know, we‘ll ask France“.


i actually like it when a candidate looks to a system that works and calls for help from the people that run it. we need consultants to help us here, this isn't the work of any politicial



Ron Paul’s been working on making healthcare affordable here for a long time, and I don’t see why his plan is bad.


because it's a band-aid on a problem that needs stitches. his "solution" involves tax credits...but that's a temporary solution
and one that i'm not sure works
and it doesn't solve the problem of people who don't have access to healthcare

one more thing i'd like to add, ron paul has repeatedly asserted that he disagrees with the concept of universal healthcare and thinks that healthcare is not an inherent right...



No one else talks about any steps, they just say “Healthcare now“, that‘s nice and all but how are they going to get prices down and help promote good health beyond that? Ron Paul could just say that too, based on making medical expenses tax write offs, but he tries to identify, create awareness, and address the root of the problems instead.


yes, but tax write offs won't help those who DON'T PAY TAXES. the impoverished won't benefit from this system at all.
he isn't creating awareness and addressing all the root causes.
in fact, he's not addressing the BIGGEST root cause of medical expenses
capitalism


Originally posted by captainplanet
I just don’t agree with that, especially not in the case of forced vaccination. They wouldn‘t be hurting anyone but themselves, and the epidemic would be prevented.


actually, they could still hurt others
if they get the disease and have some other disease within them we could get an entirely new strain that would end up hurting people who haven't been vaccinated.



You have a right to live however you want in this country if you’re not imposing on someone else’s rights.


well, in theory, but that's not the truth. homosexual marriage has yet to be shown to impose on someone else's rights, but it's illegal...

and anyway, i just demonstrated how it would impose on other people's rights




It’s a never ending war of emerging and disappearing companies.


until one of the companies gets big enough to halt the cycle



You just need to make sure there’s nothing preventing someone from starting a business.


you can't always do that. if one company has control of the entire process from supply to market, there's not a single way for a new company to emerge



There was never a case of a successful corporate monopoly before the anti-trust laws that were made to prevent them.


you're resting that entire argument on a logical fallacy. there's nothing to show that there is a causation between the creation of these laws and the emergence of a proper monopoly...



It was a preventative measure and now big corporations with good lawyers just use them against their competitors when things get too competitive.


uh huh...and where's the evidence of this?



Humans have made more progress in knowledge with free market, profit driven research then we’ve made in all of our history with institutionally controlled progress.


and we've made exponentially more progress through academia than we have through free market, profit driven research...
i guess that means we should hand it over to the academics



We already have a charity dedicated to just about every disease there is.


and it means absolutely nothing if a corporation gets ahold of the cure first.



I’m sure they’d love to direct their funds towards the production of a cure if private research yielded a break through.


...except for the ridiculous amount of money they'd have to pay for the rights to produce said cure...




I doubt any private companies are hiding a cure for cancer from us, and I’ve certainly never seen proof of it.


i never said they are, i'm just saying that it's simply a more logical point of view. if a treatment is more profitable than a cure, then the treatment will be the emphasis of research



...and then it took off with the war. Fleming had a hard time selling it because it wasn’t even proven to work and be safe on mice until 1939, then people just before the war. People have a lot of good sounding ideas, we can’t fund all of them, we make mistakes and are then liable if a better alternative gets suppressed as a result. They can request funding directly from the well informed people.


and that's the problem...if all the money going into erectile dysfunction and hair growth was funneled into all these alternatives, we can find a way to make it happen.

Someone tried to inform us about penicillin before 1928:



It would have had a 30 year head start if we didn’t suppress any truthful health claims.


well, that was france in the 19th century...so i'm not sure that's something we can apply to now




Get a bike, use public transportation. We don’t currently fund automobiles, but you could push for that in your state.


...yes, let's try to make a commute on a bike...
and public transport doesn't work for everyone...



You have a right to a good education here, so that you can buy a car.


actually, you have a right to an education so you can be an informed person..



There are good home, public, and private schools. Everyone should have equal access to them if we are going to erase financial class lines where they matter most.


how about we simply use the money that you want to use for this purpose and put it directly into improving education?

speaking of education...
um...see my original points
your candidate denies evident scientific reality... so i'm quite sure i want to keep him away from education

speaking of which, we'd have to completely bar the use of the credits for religious schools that demand religious classes and any homeschooling that does similar things
as well as any school that denies evident scientific reality



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
We don’t currently promote the right to a six bedroom house, but we operate under the assumption that we have equal opportunity in education.


then take all that money that you would use to let people have a "more competitive education" and give it to the public schools according to which school needs it. instead of feeding more and more money into successful institutions that already have enough money to be successful, feed more money into the institutions that need improvement, institutions that probably would do better if they had the money for it.



Requiring that we as a society take responsibility for ourselves and are free to take our own risks, however dumb, without legal impairment would do more to change the harm drugs do to our society then mismanaging a war against a personal choice.


now you're simply making an assertion. there isn't any evidence to show that your solution is anything but irresponsible



We‘ve proven we can‘t solve it this way, no drug problem has ever been solved this way.


this is the second strawman..
i never said we'd continue the current course of action, i just said that your position is wrong.



Organizations heavily advertise against the dangers of smoking and the facts are on the box.


yes, because they are required to BY LAW
and i already pointed out exactly how ridiculously lame the "facts on the box" are.



Everyone has been warned of the dangers of smoking, and states have the right to disallow you to smoke on public property so you don’t endanger anyone else.


actually, not everyone has been properly warned. they know that it's dangerous, but the scope of how dangerous isn't known
i'm quite sure that most male smokers don't know that smoking can lead to impotence, so how can you say they have been warned?



Then I guess we as a society will have too push it out by coming down on the stores that sell it in our communities, it‘s safer then going after armed neighbors. Perhaps they can be proven too dangerous to sell for their intended use, without having a wasteful federal drug war.


and instead you'll have a wasteful, decades-long legal battle...



Coffee is legal, just not when its hot I guess. You never know what you can get away with, especially in something as sympathetic to a jury as a drug dealing corporation.


way to skew the facts in your favor
hot coffee has never been shown to be illegal. anywhere
it's been show to be illegal to make coffee to is so hot that it would cause severe second degree burns without putting a warning on it, but the coffee itself wasn't illegal



It’s a lot better then what victims get now, it would put more money in the hands of the effort against them if a victim’s family won a lawsuit. But it wasn’t meant to be that strong a point, just one example of why its better to shine a public light on the underworld.


but then what's to stop the underworld from becoming the mainstream?



Sorry about the triple post response.


it's not like they were short and meaningless posts, they had enough text in them to warrant such a long response.

 


i forgot one more reason i have to not vote for ron paul...
well, i may have brought it up earlier, but i don't feel like going through the thread to check

separation of church and state, ron paul doesn't believe in it.
preservation of my religious freedom is a big enough reason.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



it's odd that nobody here has decided to demonstrate why ron paul would be such a great candidate and/or why his policies would work...

can anybody provide that for me?


Not without a world of patience, sorry. It’s a good conversation, but I’m afraid that it will go on forever. Maybe some other time.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I have less on my mind again now and I’m bored, so I wanted to re-visit this briefly.



i never said that 18% of the population is backwards, my point is that there's an education problem. that 18% of the population probably hasn't had all the information given to them...that's the problem here, we can't educate 100% of the populace on issues.


If 18% of the population thought the sun revolved around the Earth, technically, they'd be backwards. You don’t need to educate people on 100% of the issues, people know about what’s important to them and they learn and act accordingly if the information is there.


why? keeping our troops in other nations is actually beneficial to america and many other nations as long as we're not using them to perpetuate illegal wars.


Because making the whole world strategically beneficial to America makes other nations defensive.


and it would really hurt a selling point the military uses for recruitment, "travel the world"


That’s just not a good enough reason for me, let them increase the monetary benefits if they have trouble recruiting, or try non-interventionism and you wont need so many.


the profit margins would be as big as the companies could realistically keep them. that's going to hurt the consumer and benefit the drug companies


It’s business, they will make as much money as they can. We were talking before about how the military gets ripped off because they need the products and have near endless funding, the same thing could happen with medicine.


but there are some instances where there isn't proper competition because there simply can't be. some specialists have an entire market cornered because they're that obscure.


Where can’t there be competition due to obscurity?


one more thing i'd like to add, ron paul has repeatedly asserted that he disagrees with the concept of universal healthcare and thinks that healthcare is not an inherent right...


That’s because he doesn’t want pharmaceutical companies to rip off the government.


he isn't creating awareness and addressing all the root causes.


No, but he’s only one person and he’s doing what he can.



actually, they could still hurt others
if they get the disease and have some other disease within them we could get an entirely new strain that would end up hurting people who haven't been vaccinated.


If you allow the government to force one kind of vaccination, it’s then in the books as an acceptable thing to do.


well, in theory, but that's not the truth. homosexual marriage has yet to be shown to impose on someone else's rights, but it's illegal...


It shouldn’t be, but if you just change the laws where people are still hatful, they will never change because they’ll feel imposed upon. It needs to happen locally so it can happen as it becomes accepted and not create more hate towards gay people.


until one of the companies gets big enough to halt the cycle


Unless they are appealing to every want a person could have in their market, they will have competition.


you can't always do that. if one company has control of the entire process from supply to market, there's not a single way for a new company to emerge


I don’t understand how they will do that, or if they can, why they haven’t.


and we've made exponentially more progress through academia than we have through free market, profit driven research...
i guess that means we should hand it over to the academics


Free market academia, sure. Not controlled academia. When an institution gets to decide what is allowed and what is not, good ideas get set back.


i never said they are, i'm just saying that it's simply a more logical point of view. if a treatment is more profitable than a cure, then the treatment will be the emphasis of research


That’s how you find a cure, find a treatment that works permanently. If no one has a monopoly on the research, a cure could never be suppressed for profit.


and that's the problem...if all the money going into erectile dysfunction and hair growth was funneled into all these alternatives, we can find a way to make it happen.


That money belongs to people who provide a service that people apparently want, if they weren’t selling ED pills and hair growth, there wouldn’t be any money there.


well, that was france in the 19th century...so i'm not sure that's something we can apply to now


I think the lesson learned is universal.


how about we simply use the money that you want to use for this purpose and put it directly into improving education?


That’s what I’m implying we should do, allow people to choose the education that best fits their needs while at the same time blurring the line between who gets to enroll in good private schools or home schools.


now you're simply making an assertion. there isn't any evidence to show that your solution is anything but irresponsible


But there is evidence to show that the current system doesn‘t work, and to not try a new method in the face of that evidence is irresponsible. People don’t act as stupid when they’re not fearful.


i never said we'd continue the current course of action, i just said that your position is wrong


You don’t stop a non violent personal choice through force. The answer is not legal.


but then what's to stop the underworld from becoming the mainstream?


The real problems drugs cause instead of manufactured legal problems.


separation of church and state, ron paul doesn't believe in it.
preservation of my religious freedom is a big enough reason.


You’d have to tell me what you’re talking about before I could begin address it. He appears to understand and believe in separation of church and state to me.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


wow, it's been ages since i've been on abovepolitics because i thought you and i were done with this thread

the healthcare and illegal drug issues we're going to have to just agree to disagree on, because i don't really see how we're going to find a middle ground there

however, ron paul has actively stated that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state

here's something from a 2003 article he wrote entitled "Christmas in Secular America"


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
he doesn't believe in evolution


Saying that 'it's just a theory' (which it is) isn't saying that you don't believe evolution is real. It's just saying that it hasn't been proven (and it hasn't been).

Natural selection - yes proven.
Evolution - not proven.

Nothing wrong with that.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


um...actually, evolution is proven
repeatedly

over and over and over

there are many things that are "just a theory"

germ THEORY
it's not "germ fact"
because that's how science works
it doesn't deal in absolutes
it works in THEORIES





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join