Republican 2012 Candidates

[FreakyLocz14]

If its not the governments job then why are you allowing government funded health care for the military and government employee's? Seems to me that your saying 'Its not the government's job unless the person does this this this this this or this.'

That's because there are legally binding contracts in place. It's the same as anybody who gets health care from their employer. America also owes a debt to our veterans that no amount of benefits could even begin to satisfy.

 

[Mr. X]

Why should the contracts matter though? You don't value the agreements between countries so why should you value the agreements between a group and another group?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Why should the contracts matter though? You don't value the agreements between countries so why should you value the agreements between a group and another group?

Contract law is an essential element of a capitalist society. Contracts encourage business instead of reluctance by allowing people to know what to expect they enter into a transaction.

 

[Netto Azure]

Getting into the Healthcare debate again?

Some major points I need to point out:

1. This is not a healthcare system, it's a patchwork of various systems that attempt to dump the real costs to each other:
a. Private Insurance for Adult workers = Germany
b. Medicare for Senior Citizens = Canada
c. Native American, Veterans and Military Healthcare = Britain
d. The Uninsured = any Developing country out there.

Each of these should at least be narrowed down to 1 if we are going to start somewhere.

2. "Obamacare" is the result of "building on top" of this patchwork system that's been advocated by Republicans during the Clinton Care debate and adopted by Democrats today as the "middle course" considering the political climate of 2009.

3. I totally agree that the costs are astronomical, but that's the result of the inherent interests in the system: Hospitals, Private Insurers, Medical equipment developers, Doctors, Pharmacists etc.
The attempt to reform it means going up against some of the biggest billion dollar industries in the country. I want to see you guys try that.

4. The system I prefer, which is modelled generally on either the Single Payer system of Canada or the Heavily regulated French system still could only control costs to a certain point due to the "cutting edge in medicine"

At the end of the day we have to realize we cannot always get what we want. The latest and the best is abhorrently expensive and one must accept that unless we can cope with this fact, costs will remain above the practical rate of inflation.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I would also like to add how terrible and invasive Obamacare is.

I don't know why those who advocate single-payer defend it.
It is NOT single-payer by a long shot. The controversial public option was eliminated from the bill to win over the votes of moderate Democrats who vowed to kill the bill otherwise.

UPDATED POLL NUMBERS:

IOWA
Gingrich: 22%
Paul 21%
Romney: 16%
Bachmann: 11%
Perry: 9%
Santorum: 8%
Huntsman: 5%
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

Gingrich and Paul statistically tied for 1st in Iowa.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Romney: 35%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 16%
Huntsman: 13%
https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh

Huntsman seems to be rising in NH. Romney looking to win with Paul coming in 2nd.

 

[-ty-]

I would also like to add how terrible and invasive Obamacare is.

I don't know why those who advocate single-payer defend it.
It is NOT single-payer by a long shot. The controversial public option was eliminated from the bill to win over the votes of moderate Democrats who vowed to kill the bill otherwise.

UPDATED POLL NUMBERS:

IOWA
Gingrich: 22%
Paul 21%
Romney: 16%
Bachmann: 11%
Perry: 9%
Santorum: 8%
Huntsman: 5%
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

Gingrich and Paul statistically tied for 1st in Iowa.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Romney: 35%
Paul: 21%
Gingrich: 16%
Huntsman: 13%
https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh

Huntsman seems to be rising in NH. Romney looking to win with Paul coming in 2nd.

WOAH, I haven't checked-up on the New Hampshire Polls in a couple of weeks; I had no idea that Paul was up to 21% there! Huntsman and Johnson need to drop out so that their votes go to Ron Paul.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

WOAH, I haven't checked-up on the New Hampshire Polls in a couple of weeks; I had no idea that Paul was up to 21% there! Huntsman and Johnson need to drop out so that their votes go to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is rising!

We're working hard to win IA and come in second, or maybe even win, in NH.

SOUTH DAKOTA POLL NUMBER:
Paul 22%
Gingrich 19%
Bachmann 18%
Perry 15%
Romney 10%
https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/60056/group/homepage/

I hope I didn't offend any non-Paul supporters in SD. I don't want any trouble.

 

[-ty-]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...owa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Ron Paul is leading the GOP pack in Iowa and has the most momentum in the national polls. Gingrich fell from 30-ish % to around 14% in Iowa, while Paul went from about 10% to 24%.

Maybe Gingrich should not lobby for lucrative purposes, or suggest giving Congress the ability to get rid of federal judges because they disagree with the decision, among other things. What a nut!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

https://politicalwire.com/archives/...campaign=Feed:+PoliticalWire+(Political+Wire)

Gary Johnson is dropping out of the GOP race to run as a Libertarian.

 

[twocows]

I would eliminate all public funding of health care (save for the military and government employees) and let the private sector take over.

Why should I care about who is covered and who isn't if I was running for office? That's not the government's job.

Then I wouldn't vote for you and would publicly oppose you. The private sector can do all it wants with luxuries. When it comes to my health, I don't want people trying to screw me out of coverage because it'll save them a few bucks.

 

[Anyu]

If I were an adult, I wouldn't vote because I really don't know what their goals are.

 

[Zet]

Has it been mentioned yet Ron Paul is a racist? I would scour through all the pages here but I honestly find that to be a challenge.
source: https://thinkprogress.org/politics/...-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

 

[Mr. X]

Going to put my 2 cents into the Ron Paul hate bank.

Guess what? He's believes that pretty much everything is unconstitutional.

https://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

Edit - Willing to bet that he believes all federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as well. Specifically, the Civil Rights act.

 

[jpp8]

Ooh, mind if I dump, like, a dollar?

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.

Ron Paul copypasta cited with links.

Also, his newsletters in easy to take doses: https://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

 

[Mr. X]

You are terrible with money. Pretty sure you just dropped a lot more then a dollars worth.

Really? If he gets elected we will, essentially, be trading one extreme for another. And extremes are never good.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Going to put my 2 cents into the Ron Paul hate bank.

Guess what? He's believes that pretty much everything is unconstitutional.

https://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

Edit - Willing to bet that he believes all federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as well. Specifically, the Civil Rights act.

He does. I agree with him.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912

 

[Mr. X]

He does. I agree with him.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912

So you agree that legistlation meant to deliver equal rights, to groups who people try to deny those rights to due to being racist and/or sexist, is not something that we should have?

I'm sorry. With that view of yours your essentially supporting racism and sexism.

Edit - Just read the reasons why she endorsed him and I now beleive that she is a idiot. This is the part im referring to.

I support gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, white/black/purple/orange rights," an under-fire Clarkson continued. "I like Ron Paul because he believes in less government and letting the people (all of us) make the decisions and mold our country. That is all. Out of all of the Republican nominees, he's my favorite."

Paul wants to do away with all anti-discrimination legislation. Sorry, thats not supporting equal rights. Thats basically saying I don't give a **** about them and I'll let someone else decide and support whatever they decide to do no matter what that decision is. He doesn't care about them. Sure, he has his views on them but he refuses to act on those views because he beleives that a 235 year old peice of paper has all the answers, no matter how much the world has changed since it was created.

And for the 2nd part, yah. Need I point out how rampant racism was back in the 60's and how it changed due to the CRA? And how things would likely be the same now if discrimination wasn't made illegal on a federal level?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you agree that legistlation meant to deliver equal rights, to groups who people try to deny those rights to due to being racist and/or sexist, is not something that we should have?

I'm sorry. With that view of yours your essentially supporting racism and sexism.

Edit - Just read the reasons why she endorsed him and I now beleive that she is a idiot. This is the part im referring to.



Paul wants to do away with all anti-discrimination legislation. Sorry, thats not supporting equal rights. Thats basically saying I don't give a **** about them and I'll let someone else decide and support whatever they decide to do no matter what that decision is. He doesn't care about them. Sure, he has his views on them but he refuses to act on those views because he beleives that a 235 year old peice of paper has all the answers, no matter how much the world has changed since it was created.

And for the 2nd part, yah. Need I point out how rampant racism was back in the 60's and how it changed due to the CRA? And how things would likely be the same now if discrimination wasn't made illegal on a federal level?

This has nothing to do with "equal rights". Rights involve people's (whether individuals or groups) relationships with the government. The anti-discrimination policies that I and Ron Paul involve people's relationships with other private entities. They are not rights. They are regulations.

 

[Mr. X]

And it is the governments duty to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally.

Also, here's the USA's welcome message under Paul
Welcome to the USA. While we believe all people should be treated equal, we are letting states to discriminate against certian genders, races, and sexual orientations because our 236 year old peice of paper makes no mention of how a government should involve itself to ensure discrimination doesn't occur.

 

[jpp8]

We do not live in a post-racist or post-sexist society. White males still control all of the money and all of everything. Women and minorities are not on the same playing field as them yet. If we were, then I'd agree with him. "Do away with Affirmative Action because it's an unfair and unnecessary advantage," and all that. But statistics show that whites and males on average make substantially more than women and people of color. People who are White and/or Male have an inherent advantage over the rest of the working force. I can only imagine that removing equal rights "regulation" could only serve to exacerbate it.