Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(08-05-2012 09:59 AM)jackashflash Wrote:  
(08-05-2012 08:48 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Here's some more of that economic policy you love so much.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/...e-bailout/
Fuck fox news, get some real sources you dumb shit.
Why would anyone with 2 brain cells firing even click on that shit?
Are you afraid it might prove you to be the dumb shit? Sounds like it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 12:07 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(08-05-2012 09:59 AM)jackashflash Wrote:  
(08-05-2012 08:48 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Here's some more of that economic policy you love so much.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/...e-bailout/
Fuck fox news, get some real sources you dumb shit.
Why would anyone with 2 brain cells firing even click on that shit?
He keeps using Fox news as a "source" to back up his arguments. - GermanyT, show me any other news group who got out of a lible lawsuit by admitting to the judge that they arent really a "news show" but are merely "entertainment"...show me one other news group other than Fox who has clearly and openly in a court of law admit that they dont give a fuck about facts and are an entertainment only show....until then, expect every single SERIOUSLY link to Fox to be met with gufaws and outright mocking.

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 12:12 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(07-05-2012 06:14 PM)jackashflash Wrote:  I know far more than a climate change cultist.

I seriously doubt you have the level of brain power required to know more about something than anyone.

You could debate and discuss, but instead you attack and call names. Its really childish.

Grow the fuck up.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 12:15 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_co...orm_public
Fox news argues it is their first amendment right to lie and deceive people under the guise of "news" (me).:
--->Coincidentally, all mainstream news organizations missed a piece of information that basically changed journalism as we knew it.
Fark.com had to bring this one to our attention. On Friday, they linked to the blog page of CeaseSPIN.org, a website “dedicated to uniting voices in support of a return to more objective, truthful, fair, balanced, relevant and representative news reporting.”
The CeaseSPIN headline gets right to the point: “Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling.”
Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.
In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”
So, Fox and the other gladiatorical cable news channels were given the okay to legally lie right around the time of the Iraq War’s birth – when media lies coincidentally hit a peak in both frequency and severity.
I did a Google search related to this story. Here’s what I came up with.
A Google search involving the words “Court of appeals + Fox News + Jane Akre” came up with 1,050 results. The first ten results spoke of this specific story, but of those results, not one was a mainstream media organization. The results included FoxBGHsuit.com, InjuryBoard,com, ThirdWorldTraveler.org, CeaseSPIN.org, Purefood.com, Relfe.com, SourceWatch.org, OrganicConsumers.org, TheCorporation.com, and DailyKos.com.
A Google search involving the words “Fox News + Jane Akre” brings up almost the same results, the only difference being a Wikipedia page for Jane Akre. On the “External Links” section on Jane’s Wikipedia page, we find an InjuryBoard.com article, as Jane is now editor-in-chief of the website. We also find an interview with Jane and her husband, from a documentary titled “The Corporation,” in which they detail what happened during the ordeal.
A Google News search brings up one article – written by Akre for InjuryBoard.com.
The closest hit to a mainstream media news site is a Baltimore Sun reader/commenter named “gonzoliberal” who has copy-and-pasted the CeaseSPIN.org article into a comment thread. Huffington Post has mentioned the case as well in a series of articles about tainted milk.
No mainstream news organizations – not even Fox television competitors – have reported on Jane Akre’s case for suspected reasons, which won’t be elaborated on.
Putting aside the fact that studies linked the hormone to cancer, the case is likely one of many just like it – especially since Akre and her husband, according to their own accounts, were initially offered a bribe to go away and never speak of the case again.
Sort of depressing, right?<---

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 02:07 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(08-05-2012 12:07 PM)reverendjeremiah Wrote:  
(08-05-2012 09:59 AM)jackashflash Wrote:  Fuck fox news, get some real sources you dumb shit.
Why would anyone with 2 brain cells firing even click on that shit?
He keeps using Fox news as a "source" to back up his arguments. - GermanyT, show me any other news group who got out of a lible lawsuit by admitting to the judge that they arent really a "news show" but are merely "entertainment"...show me one other news group other than Fox who has clearly and openly in a court of law admit that they dont give a fuck about facts and are an entertainment only show....until then, expect every single SERIOUSLY link to Fox to be met with gufaws and outright mocking.
Take your pick from any number of websites reporting the same story.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ch...CE+BAILOUT



And the fact that Fox was the first to be exposed of this means nothing. Now other networks just know that it's not against the law and aren't charged with it. Do you think I'm not aware of bias at Fox? I'm also aware of the bias of the talk radio I listen to and a dozen other news sites I read like MSNBC or Media Matters. The point is that it doesn't change the accuracy of the links that I post. I read them thoroughly and review the comments sections. I often search for the same information elsewhere. However, dozens of links that I've posted can't be found anywhere else. Do you know why? Because left leaning news organizations don't cover them. If January rolls around and Romney is the president I'll be looking to those sites for more accurate info on him.

Listen man, I have a pretty well rounded grasp on things. I want to clear up what you think you know about my points of view. I am not a Foxbot, not a Paulbot, not a Republican, not a Democrat, and not brainwashed. I know you probably think that I've been brainwashed by right wing media but it's simply not the case. You, and others insult my political position seemingly because you think I'm someone blinded by Fox or any number of conservative news outlets. I'm happy to debate the issues and sometimes debate can get heated but I ask is that instead of being afraid of what you might read, just click the article and read it for yourself. Just because it's from Fox doesn't mean it's not accurate. Same with Huffpost or MSNBC. Is all of their info perfect or unbaised? Of course not, but if you are avoiding the site because of they used the 'easy way out' in a court case in 2009 then I think you're missing out. There is more to life and politics than just atheism and liberalism.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
08-05-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Quote: You only dont' see the problem with a mandate becasue you view healthcare as a fundamental right.
That would actually have nothing to do with its constitutionality. Don't know what you mean by fundamental, but it should be a right to all within a society, especially one with the resources of the USA. That is still besides the point however. The mandate is just a regulatory measure (a Republican idea), for a free market universal health care solution.

I'd love government ran health care, but given that you disagree with my point of view, I'll forgo begging the question.
Quote: Let's use broccoli as an example. Let's say the federal government
decides that broccoli is getting too expensive and not enough people can
afford to buy it now.
If you're going to be an idiot, at least be an original idiot.

Quote: As for this particular law, it will cripple the economy by costing jobs,
lowering the quality of health care, increasing insurance costs, and by
costing hundreds of billions or even trillions more than it was
supposed to.
Great rhetoric!

Quote: Think about it, how stupid is it that the federal government can order a insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions?
Are you being serious?

Quote: What happens when the federal government decides life insurance is a right and everyone should have it?
Do you seriously think we would?

Quote: also insure people post accident
Post accident. Because all pre-existing covered conditions are those acquired by accident.

Quote: I just can't take someone seriously when they view 14T in debt like it's
no big deal or call legitimate concerns about the size and reach of the
federal government 'Fox scare tactics"
Do you know what country we live in? Even with that debt people our buy up our debt left and right. Hell after the Republicans got our credit downgraded we saw even more action. Like I said look at our GDP, were a powerful nation that, when the middle class becomes prominent and prosperous again, wouldn't have any problem paying down that debt.

Also, you can't talk about size of government, like the government is some giant living the the mountains and comes down to pillage the village people. We are the damn government, this is a democracy last time I check. Taking care of you own people responsibly and collectively isn't scary unless you're an idiot.

Like I said, right now, we need to, and given that we have the ability, should spend. Any economist would tell you that you know nothing, if you disagreed. Now isn't the time to worry about debt and austerity, it's the time to worry about jobs, the economy, and the middle class. Austerity and economic development do not go together.

Quote: I hear a lot of liberals say to stop watching/reading Fox. Perhaps is
those same people that should stop agreeing with things just because it
disagrees with Fox or conservatism.
There is disagreeing, and then there is ignorance, lack of intelligence, and void of integrity. There are respectable conservatives; Fox as an organization, however, is not a respectable one, not even close.

Also, it's not like I consider MSNBC more respectable just because I agree more often with them; if anything I view MSNBC as a less respectable organization, given that they should know better than to stoop that low.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 03:29 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(08-05-2012 02:49 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
Quote: You only dont' see the problem with a mandate becasue you view healthcare as a fundamental right.
That would actually have nothing to do with its constitutionality. Don't know what you mean by fundamental, but it should be a right to all within a society, especially one with the resources of the USA. That is still besides the point however. The mandate is just a regulatory measure (a Republican idea), for a free market universal health care solution.

I'd love government ran health care, but given that you disagree with my point of view, I'll forgo begging the question.
Quote: Let's use broccoli as an example. Let's say the federal government
decides that broccoli is getting too expensive and not enough people can
afford to buy it now.
If you're going to be an idiot, at least be an original idiot.

Quote: As for this particular law, it will cripple the economy by costing jobs,
lowering the quality of health care, increasing insurance costs, and by
costing hundreds of billions or even trillions more than it was
supposed to.
Great rhetoric!

Quote: Think about it, how stupid is it that the federal government can order a insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions?
Are you being serious?

Quote: What happens when the federal government decides life insurance is a right and everyone should have it?
Do you seriously think we would?

Quote: also insure people post accident
Post accident. Because all pre-existing covered conditions are those acquired by accident.

Quote: I just can't take someone seriously when they view 14T in debt like it's
no big deal or call legitimate concerns about the size and reach of the
federal government 'Fox scare tactics"
Do you know what country we live in? Even with that debt people our buy up our debt left and right. Hell after the Republicans got our credit downgraded we saw even more action. Like I said look at our GDP, were a powerful nation that, when the middle class becomes prominent and prosperous again, wouldn't have any problem paying down that debt.

Also, you can't talk about size of government, like the government is some giant living the the mountains and comes down to pillage the village people. We are the damn government, this is a democracy last time I check. Taking care of you own people responsibly and collectively isn't scary unless you're an idiot.

Like I said, right now, we need to, and given that we have the ability, should spend. Any economist would tell you that you know nothing, if you disagreed. Now isn't the time to worry about debt and austerity, it's the time to worry about jobs, the economy, and the middle class. Austerity and economic development do not go together.

Quote: I hear a lot of liberals say to stop watching/reading Fox. Perhaps is
those same people that should stop agreeing with things just because it
disagrees with Fox or conservatism.
There is disagreeing, and then there is ignorance, lack of intelligence, and void of integrity. There are respectable conservatives; Fox as an organization, however, is not a respectable one, not even close.

Also, it's not like I consider MSNBC more respectable just because I agree more often with them; if anything I view MSNBC as a less respectable organization, given that they should know better than to stoop that low.
I hate addressing multi quotes.


First, I'm not opposed to full blown universal health care. I don't like it but it's a better idea than forcing people to buy private products from private companies against their will.

The broccoli situation is a legit one. Governement wants to bring down the price of broccoli (you can pretend it's gas or some other product that you might not find so idiotic) so they force people to pool their money into buying brocolli so that those that need brocolli can afford it. It's the same thing and it's ridiculous.

It's not rhetoric. Being forced to cover pre-existing conditions is retarded. How is a person who never paid a penny in premiums before deserving of coverage from a private company? You can't wreck your car and then buy a policy and file a claim. Obviously that is not in the interest of the insurance company. It'll decimate the health insurance industry and costs tens of thousands of jobs. And the CBO http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...yrs/425831 is who is calculating the costs of this program. It will wind up just like Amtrack or the Post Office (reported today to be receiving 30+ billion in bailouts). Once the financial incentive to become a doctor or create new drugs is gone it will be noticed in the quality of the care you receive.

Yes, I think mandating life insurance is totally within the thoughts of some in politics. I've learned that too many liberals will justify anything in the name of fairness.


I've lost track of the rest of your points. You would feel a lot differently if you worked for or ran a health insurance comapny.

Don't believe me? Listen to your doctor.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2...alth-woes/
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n...imply-opt/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2878047/posts
And of course, the good Dr. Paul
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/



And on top of all of that, not a single person who voted for this bill actually read the damn thing.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...hats-in-it


Rest assured that if this bill stands Barack Obama will not win reelection. Everyone opposed to it will vote Romney because he will defund it to the point of irrelevancy.


Quote:My government cannot force me to buy something.

That’s what 26 states and the 11th Circuit of the Court of Appeals believe. Twenty-six states have sued over Obamacare, and this past summer this Court of Appeals deemed the mandate unconstitutional. On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenges to the act. The court has planned for five and a half hours of oral argument (four and a half more than usual) in March, and a decision by June — right in the prime of Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

“[The mandate] exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power,” ruled Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Joel Dubina in August. Forcing a citizen to buy health care from a private company for their entire life is not included in the definition of “regulating commerce.”


Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will take up one of the most momentous cases in decades, the outcome of which could have a huge effect on American life in the remainder of the century. That would be the Obamacare case, of course.

President Obama’s far-reaching health care overhaul was passed by Congress two years ago last week. A key feature of his plan is the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance. Failure to do so would bring a substantial penalty. And that requirement is at the heart of what will play out during the extraordinary three days of oral arguments the Court has set aside for the case this week. Not only is the future of Obamacare at stake, but the Constitution’s guarantees of individual liberty and limits on governmental power.

One would think that Obama would be making his health-care “fix” the centerpiece of his re-election campaign. It remains his biggest legislative accomplishment after all. Instead, his silence has been telling. He almost never says a word about it. And why is that? Because the people didn’t want it, and now that it is here, they like it even less. And why is that?

Let’s start with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, arrogant remark that “We have to pass it so you can see what’s in it.”

Let’s talk about how it puts this country far down the path toward a European/Canadian-style socialistic health-care system. So what if you have to wait so long to get a doctor appointment or surgical date that your disease worsens in the meantime? The bureaucrats making your health-care decisions could not care less.

Let’s talk about health-care rationing: No, there is nothing in the thousands of pages of Obamacare legislation that creates anything called a “death panel” per se, but health-care bureaucrats — not your doctors — will be the ones deciding where and on whom their allotment of treatments will be doled out. Your health becomes not a life-and-death or quality-of-life decision for you and your doctor to make, but a dollars-and-sense decision made by someone you haven’t met. And sorry, there’s no appeal.

Let’s talk about how it’s being paid for — i.e., the mandate. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have just raised taxes to pay for it, but that would have been even more unpopular.

Let’s talk about the sleight of hand used to ostensibly show that it saves money — that is, using 10 years of revenues to cover six years of costs.

Let’s talk about how it isn’t doing what it was advertised to do: achieving universal health-care coverage. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said last week that Obamacare will leave 27 million Americans uninsured by 2022. And while a reported 23 million additional Americans will gain coverage under Obamacare, 17 million of them will not be covered by what most people would consider insurance. Rather, they’re just being shoved into the Medicaid system.

Let’s talk some more about its cost: a staggering $1.76 trillion by 2022. That’s trillion, not billion. And that’s the CBO’s prediction. Other studies peg the probable cost at $3 trillion. But how could it be otherwise? If you are going to expand the system to cover more people, it is of course going to cost more money. More in debt, more in taxes and more in insurance premiums. According to one of Obamacare’s architects, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, two-thirds of Americans will see their premiums go up by an average of 31 percent under Obamacare.

And let’s talk about the likelihood that up to 20 million Americans will wind up losing their employer-provided health insurance, thanks to Obamacare. Again, those are CBO figures, not from some conservative think tank.

Not only are Americans not getting much health insurance bang for the buck under Obamacare, plenty of them are going to get gouged in the process.

That’s why this week’s hearing and eventual decision by the High Court are vital, and why state Attorney General Sam Olens has joined dozens of other states seeking to have Obamacare upended.

“The issues at stake are too vital to do otherwise,” he said recently. “This case is about protecting our Constitution, which limits the powers of the federal government, and protecting Georgia taxpayers from the overwhelming costs the law would impose.”

We agree with Olens and those who argue that the federal government has no right to demand that every American purchase a product. If it can, there would be no limit on what the government could compel Americans to do. And we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will see it the same way.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal - Showdown Mandate should make Obamacare unconstitutional


Quote:In enacting the mandate, Congress relied on two related powers — those addressed in the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause.

The first allows Congress to regulate commerce "among the several States," under the rationale that we need uniform regulation for interstate industries and that we don't want states discriminating against out-of-state businesses. The necessary and proper clause, as the name suggests, allows Congress to make laws that are "necessary and proper" for executing its other powers.

Since the 1940s, courts have interpreted these clauses broadly.

The commerce clause allows Congress to regulate not only obvious things, such as products sold across state lines, but activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, even if the activities themselves are local and not commercial. The main requirement is that the local, noneconomic activity must be essential to a larger scheme regulating commerce.

The Justice Department is using this argument to defend the mandate. But it need not — health insurance is a unique animal, and the decision to go uninsured is neither purely local nor noneconomic.

Opponents of the mandate disagree. They argue that the Commerce Clause, even when paired with the necessary and proper clause, doesn't allow Congress to regulate inactivity — the choice to be left alone, to take no action if one so chooses. Moreover, the mandate is unprecedented. The federal government has never tried to require action over inaction.


And where would federal powers stop? What makes some uncomfortable about the mandate is the difficulty of identifying a limiting principle. If Congress can require us to buy health insurance, then why not make us buy Chevy trucks to keep General Motors from going bankrupt, or broccoli to boost domestic growers? The strong intuition is that the commerce clause cannot grant Congress the plenary powers reserved for states. If Congress can regulate inaction as part of interstate commerce, is there anything it couldn't regulate?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 04:00 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Quote: I hate addressing multi quotes. First, I'm not opposed to full blown universal health care.
I guess I'll just never know where you stand then. To me, not liking and idea is enough to be opposed to it. I don't know where I was misinterpreting you; it seemed as if you were making it clear that it was against your basic point of view/ideology.

Quote: The broccoli situation is a legit one.
No it's not, I 'll assume that you'll never get the point, so I'll just agree to disagree, and we can move on.

Quote: Being forced to cover pre-existing conditions is retarded. How is a
person who never paid a penny in premiums before deserving of coverage
from a private company?
Why would you want to allow companies to deny these people (not why you think they should have the right to because I already know that argument).

Quote: Once the financial incentive to become a doctor or create new drugs is
gone it will be noticed in the quality of the care you receive.
I hope that isn't really the way you think.

Quote: Yes, I think mandating life insurance is totally within the thoughts of
some in politics. I've learned that too many liberals will justify
anything in the name of fairness.
Well, there is one of the problems.

Quote: You would feel a lot differently if you worked for or ran a health insurance comapny.
No, I wouldn't. My morality doesn't change with the weather. Obviously, the types of people who own those companies might have a different view than me, as they are only in it for the money and not the people. Can't see why they would be upset though, they get to keep their companies and get customers.
Quote: And on top of all of that, not a single person who voted for this bill actually read the damn thing.
So, that's meaningless. Also, it's not set in stone, any changes that could have been made then can be made now.

Quote: Rest assured that if this bill stands Barack Obama will not win reelection.
It's a hard thing to do, but I have to bank on Americans being smarter than that.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(08-05-2012 04:00 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
Quote: I hate addressing multi quotes. First, I'm not opposed to full blown universal health care.
I guess I'll just never know where you stand then. To me, not liking and idea is enough to be opposed to it. I don't know where I was misinterpreting you; it seemed as if you were making it clear that it was against your basic point of view/ideology.

Quote: The broccoli situation is a legit one.
No it's not, I 'll assume that you'll never get the point, so I'll just agree to disagree, and we can move on.

Quote: Being forced to cover pre-existing conditions is retarded. How is a
person who never paid a penny in premiums before deserving of coverage
from a private company?
Why would you want to allow companies to deny these people (not why you think they should have the right to because I already know that argument).

Quote: Once the financial incentive to become a doctor or create new drugs is
gone it will be noticed in the quality of the care you receive.
I hope that isn't really the way you think.

Quote: Yes, I think mandating life insurance is totally within the thoughts of
some in politics. I've learned that too many liberals will justify
anything in the name of fairness.
Well, there is one of the problems.

Quote: You would feel a lot differently if you worked for or ran a health insurance comapny.
No, I wouldn't. My morality doesn't change with the weather. Obviously, the types of people who own those companies might have a different view than me, as they are only in it for the money and not the people. Can't see why they would be upset though, they get to keep their companies and get customers.
Quote: And on top of all of that, not a single person who voted for this bill actually read the damn thing.
So, that's meaningless. Also, it's not set in stone, any changes that could have been made then can be made now.

Quote: Rest assured that if this bill stands Barack Obama will not win reelection.
It's a hard thing to do, but I have to bank on Americans being smarter than that.
I don't particularly care for it but there are semi successful universal health care models out there. It's really subsituting one problem for another but, like welfare, I see the benefit. I suppose it's like abortion for me. I would never, my wife rather, would never get an abortion. But I'm still pro-choice.



I don't want people to be denied coverage but insurance is first and foremost a business and when you put laws in place that cut their profits people will lose jobs and eventually that company will go out of business.


Would I prefer that all doctors do it out of a sense of humanity? Sure. But lots, and I mean lots of people become doctors because it pays good. Once it doesn't pay as well it won't be worth the 6 figure investment in the education.


I assume then that every job you've ever had was 'for the people' and not to make money.

Terrible arguement. As if not reading the bill is no big deal. It's a huge deal and the Dem controlled Congress didn't even explore Republican ideas on tort reform and allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. It would be too capitalistic to allow competition to drive quality up and price down. It was the most back door, non-transparent, partisan thing I've seen in my life.

As a fellow elitist I won't comment on your last statement.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 05:04 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Quote: I don't want people to be denied coverage but insurance is first and
foremost a business and when you put laws in place that cut their
profits people will lose jobs and eventually that company will go out of
business.
That's the problem then isn't it. It would never be because they needed to cut jobs, it would be because they (the owners/executives) would want to to save their own incomes. The business wouldn't need go out of business, it'd be ran into the ground by people who don't know what they are doing.

I doubt that will happen though; that was the reason for the mandate.

I've seen it happen to companies, by their own faults, however; and it's one of the main problems with the economy now. Basically, I'll make a long story short, companies get started by hard working individuals with integrity and a sense of purpose, in order to make an honest living, then over time, and usually after, if not well after, the original owners are dead or out of control, the businesses get ran into the ground by greed and a false sense of entitlement. That's why people like you don't help the cause. Some people will try to convince you that people deserve what they never worked a honest day and their lives to achieve.

Quote: Would I prefer that all doctors do it out of a sense of humanity? Sure.
But lots, and I mean lots of people become doctors because it pays good.
Once it doesn't pay as well it won't be worth the 6 figure investment
in the education.
You can step over the left wing any time you'd like. Education is a different conversation, but if you want to become a doctor because it makes money, than you're becoming a doctor for the wrong reasons.

Quote: I assume then that every job you've ever had was 'for the people' and not to make money.
No, because that would be a different part of the company; I'm not an owner. But, yes, I understand the economical connection between levels of a business (edit: the importance of all levels of a business is what I meant) and the importance of consumers (not just money), unlike lots of people. When I do a job, given that I'm poor, I have to do it for the money, but if I'm conducting a service, the people in which the service is directed toward are the most important.

I had that discussion with my friend at my last job. We got paid shit, and I explained that we didn't get paid enough money to the job that they expected us to do. He then wanted to stop doing satisfactory work, and I had to then explain that we are not doing it for the company, we doing it for the people, most of which (definitely not all) worked very hard and deserve us doing a good job.

Quote: Terrible arguement.
Came from Lyndon Johnson, maybe I should have picked a better president.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: