Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[FlyWf]

AlexM- Don't you also think that Lawrence v. Texas was a bad decision because it imposed federal authority on the states?

I'm pretty sure sterling has me on ignore, but this is just LOL:

This is a good example where RP is much more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian, though I have to say I don't agree with his interpretation of "pursuit of happiness" if consensual sex between adults isn't included in that.

"Pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the grounds that sodomy laws violate the Constitutional right to privacy, a right which RON PAUL DOESN'T BELIEVE EXISTS.

[LirvA]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Assuming this is true, what does that mean for the states? Even if every state's criminal code is tied to the Schedules, I don't think they'll just go "Oh well I guess crack is legal now".

No, they won't go I guess crack is legal now, but states like California who have passed medical marijuana laws wouldn't have to worry about the federal government, and states could even legalize it for recreational uses if they wanted to.


also

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Also if the Ron Paul administration started doing stuff like that he'd likely be impeached.

lololololol imo

[FlyWf]

LirvA aren't you gay? And live in Oklahoma?

[LirvA]

Oh yes, being roped into a conversation with FlyWf I want nothing to do with sounds like great fun!


Fly, aren't you an American citizen, and live in America?


(I'm gonna rope him into a conversation about the NDAA and Ron Paul's opposition to the detainment provisions muahaha!)

[FlyWf]

I'm never gonna be indefinitely detained, though.

Homosexual sodomy was against the law in your state in 2003, before a Supreme Court decision that Ron Paul strongly disagrees with and tried to legislatively overturn made it legal.

[locknopair]

Originally Posted by Jerok

Is anyone else pissed that Romney has won Maine with only 83% of the voters, and the state officials have said the rest of the votes (cancelled b/c of the snowstorm) won't count?

from what i have been able to gather by looking into this earlier today, the "snowstorm" amounted to only a dusting, and the gop official who canceled the caucuses (in a pro-paul county) was a romney supporter.

according to google, there was a 194 vote difference, which makes me wonder.... if paul had the 2,190 votes and romney had the 1,996- with ~17% of the electorate unaccounted for.... would the gop have declared paul the winner?

[LirvA]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

I'm never gonna be indefinitely detained, though.

How the **** do you know?

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Homosexual sodomy was against the law in your state in 2003, before a Supreme Court decision that Ron Paul strongly disagrees with and tried to legislatively overturn made it legal.

I don't care for you line here Fly.


Say Fly, don't you have a diaper fetish? Let me tell you something relevant to you and you can discuss it with me!

[LirvA]

To appease you, even though you've taken a really douche bag line, I think the supreme court declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional is a good thing, and I wouldn't support reversing that, Ben.

[FlyWf]

I don't care for you line here Fly.

You don't care that Ron Paul believes Oklahoma has the right to criminalize private sexual conduct? That seems a little odd for someone in Oklahoma who practices the sort of sexual conduct that would be criminalized!

Like, I know you and Ron Paul both seem to hate the federal government, but I think you need to consider the possibility that you hate it for different reasons. For example, he hates it because it keeps telling decent God-fearing states to be nice to ****.

[LirvA]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

You don't care that Ron Paul believes Oklahoma has the right to criminalize private sexual conduct? That seems a little odd for someone in Oklahoma who practices the sort of sexual conduct that would be criminalized!

You're making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions, and you're pissing me the **** off.

Yes Fly, I'm a ******. No fly, I don't have ****** sex with other ******s, I suck at getting laid I guess :/

Would you like to discuss my preferences for shaved or unshaved balls? How about top or bottom?

*******

[FlyWf]

Are you angry at me or are you angry at Ron Paul?

[insidemanpoker]

Originally Posted by LirvA

Yeah that's ****ing ridiculous.


Apparently there was some bull**** in Nevada also.
https://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-...fraud-official

hmmm

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by twofingerted

Yeah I talked to an elderly German who compared it to Hitler running over countries in Europe in the mid to late 30's. If you really think about it, it is hard to say it is WILDLY different. Do I agree with him totally, no, but it is comprable.

People hate us and our unchecked and unwarranted agression.

To paraphrase Ron Paul, you do realise that Ron Paul wont be president forever, right?

Him wanting to pull America out of the UN is the best example of how America could have unchecked and unwarranted aggression. He wants to create a system where America doesnt have to listen to any international laws or groups.

That same UN, fwiw, was created precisely to stop things such as Hitler running over countries.

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by Plancer

That's technically true, but is it important enough to dominate your decision making, let alone to make it in on your "top 5" list? It is reasonable to group "Iran / Afghanistan" as one element, then to list civil rights issues 3 times? Is the decision to not defend parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so important that is is equivalent to BOTH Iran AND Afghanistan? Most non-experts were actually unaware that the executive branch had this specific right until this administration. If we had to list Obama's 100 most important decisions, I don't know if this makes the cut.

IMO foreign policy and veto power should dominate your evaluation of a presidential candidate.

Yes, Ron Paul has Gay Rights problems. If you're a single issue gay's rights voter, you shouldn't vote for him (or for any other Republican Candidate). Please note that Obama has problems here too! (even if he's superior to the Republicans). If you're really a single-issue voter, you should vote 3rd party or write in someone who supports gay marriage rather than vote mainstream, unless you live in a state where your vote could matter (Ohio / Florida). (And, if you actually care about this, you probably leave in California so your vote is irrelevant =])

However, the question is "how important are his gay rights problem(s) compared to his unorthodox views on foreign policy, the drug war, and government expenditures?" I realize that you (and most people) probably consider Paul's views in each of those fields as a net negative - however, those topics are vastly more important and they should dominate the discussion of this forum.

Even on Civil Rights, it isn't obvious whether Paul's stances cause a net negative to society - as I've mentioned previously when discussing with Suzzer, literally MILLIONS of people have been disenfranchised by the drug war. This problem is of such a great magnitude that we need to seriously consider whether the drug war is the single greatest civil rights issue today. IMO, the other civil rights issues (gay marriage, voter ID cards) are irrelevant compared to the drug war.

Let me pose this question: if you had choose one, which would you choose?
1) End drug war and allow Paul to appoint 1-2 justices and appoint a "paleoconservative" Attorney General.
2) Not end the drug war.

Maybe it's a false dilemma, and I have underestimated the cost to gays in choice #1.
Regardless, it isn't obvious whether Paul is significantly worse than Obama on Civil Rights. After all, Paul would liberate millions of people from prison and give millions back their right to vote. Even if he is significantly worse (in aggregate), it isn't reasonable to evaluate that alone - you also need to examine his foreign policy / economic views. Obviously, you don't like those views either, but they are VASTLY more worthy of discussion.

The problem with this post is that its a false dichotomy born out of the fact that Ron Paul cant do much to end the drug war if he was President as it would still happen at a state level and then in 4 years after people realise this libertarianism isnt all its cracked up to be whoever takes over will just restart the drug war at the federal level.

He can however directly effect gay rights just in terms of defending DOMA for example. Plus if he won it would mean the Republicans hold both the House and Senate (he cant win and not win both houses as there needs to be a huge leap to the right in the electorate demographics in that cycle) then he could pass a whole bunch of bills that gunk up the works including his We The People Act.

You make the argument that he can pardon tens of thousands of drug offenders - he can, but that is a fast track way to get impeached and generally get a good kicking by the electorate with near zero performance evaluations so he could only do it at the end of his last term (be that first and voted out or second).

I mean there are libertarians who like the idea of Paul appointing 2 SCOTUS judges (maybe as many as 3) and a whole load of lower court justices but to try and create an overarching base of support amongst left leaning "Democrat" voters its impossible to say they want him to be doing that. This would be his legacy and its one that could theoretically effect all constitutional challenges on a LOT of subjects for decades.

No left leaning voter should ever consider ending the federal drug war for a couple years worth trading these judicial appointments that will set back the progressive movement for a long time. The very prospect of who he would appoint should seriously frighten anyone who voted Obama and leans left but doesnt like Obama for whatever reason and is considering Paul an imperfect replacement worth supporting.

In terms of who is better for civil rights, Obama or Paul, i guess you could argue Paul but only if you realise a lot of what he would offer is a temporary fix and if you consider federal led civil rights to be important (vs states rights led) then Obama definitely wins. Pretty much everything Paul could do to forward civil rights would be pushed down to the state level and that is just civil rights within America's borders, when you consider the civil rights of foreigners Obama completely 100% crushes Paul in defending civil rights around the world if Paul achieves even a fraction of what he wants in foreign policy.

[Let's Do This!]

Originally Posted by insidemanpoker

The main reason we aren't on a totally different page is I swear I used to have the exact same trail of logic you are putting forward. I have plenty of respect for you (if I didn't I would be self loathing!) but I honestly believe it just hasn't 'clicked' yet for you. Please don't take that as obnoxious as I honestly don't mean to sound patronizing even if it does..

The profit motive does lead to insurance companies not covering or raising the prices on those that are more costly. Obviously they will not take on a 'customer' if it is just going to lose money. But what you are missing is that the profit motive does not just help efficiency, it is ESSENTIAL to create a system with the least amount of waste. I know the knee jerk reaction is "well yea, the profit motive is what makes them drop sick people!" but that is a distraction. The profit motive exists in all the insurance companies decisions. This means the company should be constantly searching for any waste or inefficiencies on every level of the service, from administration to doctors. If a doctor is overcharging, it will be their profit motive that seeks a more economical alternative and the list goes on with every aspect of care. It is the profit motive that leads to the most efficient possible service and the most efficient service would lead to much much much lower costs for health care and even an increase in quality to boot. It is also the profit motive that leads to the BEST services because if your competitor is offering amazing health coverage and your services are crap, you will lose customers. So the profit motive forces the incentive to lower costs but it also forces the incentive to create higher quality as you are trying to out do your competition both on cost and service. In all markets, the person who is known to be offering the best service at the best price (it is up to the people and the consumer how the ratio between quality and cost should be determined) is the one who is going to dominate the market and grow market share. When they do grow and dominate, there will always be someone else trying to take what they can learn from what that company is doing well and try to one up them.

The reason we DO NOT have this today and that the insurance companies can act so poorly is that the GOVERNMENT (both state and federal) have carved out so many different monopolies for them that they don't have any free market competition for services. One of the big issues you seem to have is when insurance companies drop a current customer in their time of need. Guess what? I agree, its often quite disgusting. But it is the lack of a free market that is the cause of this. When the consumers can't say "hey go F yourself I am taking my business to a company I can trust to be there for me when I need it" then the unsavory insurance company can continue to act scummy. Right now, if I read in the news that my personal insurance company is not to be trusted when I get sick, well then guess what, I am SOL and I can't go find a better service that I can trust to be there for me thanks to the government.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that a single payer system might be better than the current corporatist system where the insurance companies own the goverment and write rules and regulations to make sure they mantain their monopoly, but I am incredibly confident that a real free market solution (something that hasn't existed in over 30 years in the US) would lead to the best care for the largest amount of people at the cheapest price. And the beautiful thing is, if insurance quality goes up and cost goes down dramatically, waaaaay less people would be unable to afford insurance. The remaining small % of people who can't afford it would have an easier time getting charitable care as the cost would be so much lower. The huge problem with the single payer system is that when you remove that profit motive, you suddenly remove the HUGE incentive for improvements both in quality and price.

The profit motive and capitalism, purely selfish in nature, is the most charitable system that exists because it is competition that is constantly keeping those that make a profit honest (yes, haha, a lot of scumbags do sacrifice long term profits to make a dishonest decision for the short term but the market spits that person out very fast as the more savory continue to rise). If someone is overcharging or providing a crappy service for their cost then there is always a gaping hole for a new person, with a profit motive, to slide in and offer a better service at a lower cost to take away the profits the other person is making. It constantly drives improvement because if you aren't offering better services for better costs than your competition, you ain't gonna profit for long because you will have no customers...

As an aside, the psychology of opinions on issues like these is fascinating. I don't mean to claim some righteous higher ground on this argument just because I used to think like you and now I think differently but there is at least something small to be said for that just because I so strongly used to believe what you believe and if I was confronted with my current arguments four years ago I would have resisted at every corner.

You say the profit-motive encourages the companies to search and eliminate any waste or inefficiencies in their service. The only service they provide is footing the bill for medical services, including drugs. Most of their gross income comes from the premiums from their clients. Besides administrative costs and marketing fees, their expenses come from paying for those medical services. After they clean up the inefficiencies within their company to minimize their administrative costs and marketing fees, they will look to their clients' medical expenses to see what they can get away with not paying for. This is what the profit-motive does within insurance companies. How the profit-motive affects activity within the hospitals is a different thing.

The profit-motive driving more efficient services within the hospitals isn't due to competition between the health insurance companies but to the competition between the hospitals and physicians. Hospitals, like insurance companies, are private companies who operate in a free market. If a hospital or doctor is doing a poor job, we'd seek medical attention with a different doctor or hospital. When a health insurance company tells a doctor what it can or cannot due, it's because of money not necessarily the health care of the patient. The reason is because the health insurance companies aren't medical experts. Their expertise lies within business. The availability of money dictates what a doctor can do with his patients. The insurance companies dictate where the money goes. Thus, the insurance companies are the ones making decisions regarding medical care instead of the medical experts.

Now, you also say competition keeps the price of the premiums low and that's true. However, if insurance companies drop you or deny you certain medical services when you need them, it's not that big of a deal that your premiums were lowered due to competition because in those cases you paid for nothing.

You can say that if the health insurance company does not provide a good service (not dropping people, not denying payment for certain medical expenses, not denying coverage altogether), then we can go to another insurance company. However, the profit-motive is what encourage these companies to give this kind of service. Insurance companies will go as far as possible to cut expenses without making themselves look bad, thus driving away customers. As long as they can give a reason that sounds valid they won't have much risk in losing money. Realistically, the vast majority of insurance companies will do this so what happens when most, if not all, of the private insurance companies provide this kind of unreliable service because they are focused on maximizing profit? Call for the government to regulate?

You can't just say the service will get better due to competition because the service of an insurance company isn't consistent across their entire base of clients. Some clients will pay their premiums and they either won't get sick or if they get sick, it will be something easily curable. Insurance companies will gladly pay for those clients expenses and give them a top-notch service. On the other hand, if you're a person who has a specific condition or develop an illness that isn't easily curable, you are more at risk of being dropped, denied the payment for medical procedures or being denied from the get-go. That's discrimination based on health which isn't good because we can't always control what happens throughout our life. This inconsistency in service, which will happen in every private company, will make it difficult to gauge how good or bad the service in general.

With the government, on the other hand, there won't be any discrimination based on health. The doctors and hospitals will be the ones making the medical decisions seeing as they don't have to worry about the money being there to pay for the operation. Furthermore, I prefer the actual medical experts making medical decisions than corporate bureaucrats who focus more on maximizing profits than the welfare of the client. Even with competition, they will still focus on maximizing profits over their clients' welfare.

Now, even after my post, I doubt I convinced you of my side. If you have so much faith in the free market, we should have the public option put into place. The way I'd want it to work is that everyone will automatically be covered by the government in the fashion of a single-payer system. However, you can opt out of public insurance in favor of private insurance at any time. The private companies will receive 0 government funds and will have to compete with the government. We now have the best of both worlds:

-Everyone is covered
-Competition exists to lower costs
-Everyone has the choice to what type of coverage they want