Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

01-27-2012 , 07:10 PM
I've read the various articles saying that Huntsman is responsible for the youtube video that was presented as made by a Ron Paul supporter and anti-Huntsman in a small-minded way.

All of them seem to be a game of "Wouldn't it make sense that that Huntsman campaign did it as a dirty trick?" with a lot of words attached that in actuality aren't compelling evidence. My eyes may have glazed over and I missed it but these two links seem to be the same thing. Beyond the initial recognition that it might make sense for Huntsman to pull the trick there is no smoking gun or anything close to it.

Personally I think it could have been the Huntsman campaign, it could have been a troll unattached to either campaign, could have been a weird Ron Paul supporter that does not represent most of his campaign, any number of things.
01-27-2012 , 07:16 PM
TexDolly Doyle Brunson
Can't make my mind up about which Republican canidate I like. Each one has things I like and dislike.#ofcourseiamatexan

TexDolly Doyle Brunson
Wow..Every response I've had, all like Ron Paul. Unreal!! Maybe he does have a chance. BTW, did you guys read the hashtag on my last tweet?

TexDolly Doyle Brunson
Off to the Aria for 6 hundred-12 hundred mixed games. Come join us.

confirmed balla
01-27-2012 , 07:21 PM
Actually fly, I'm a minority. What does that do to your theory?


Although you guys were right about there being someone important in my life whose name starts with a J

Last edited by eckstein88; 01-27-2012 at 07:42 PM. Reason: My mother....good call!
01-27-2012 , 08:52 PM
Pretty damning evidence on the China Jon vids, esp. the Twitter write up. Huntsman's daughters should publicly apologize.
01-27-2012 , 09:02 PM
I'm sure you've all had this revelation but I just find it amazing that Ron Paul, someone that 97.4% (apx) of people apparently hate and think is bat**** crazy, has 14% Republican support nationwide

that seems absolutely unreal given everything stacked against him
01-27-2012 , 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grando
I'm sure you've all had this revelation but I just find it amazing that Ron Paul, someone that 97.4% (apx) of people apparently hate and think is bat**** crazy, has 14% Republican support nationwide

that seems absolutely unreal given everything stacked against him
Why?

There are about 307M peeps, and about 55M of them are registered Republicans. So if 14% of the R's love L.Ron, that's about 8M, or 2.6%. And 97.4 + 2.6 == 100.
01-27-2012 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissileDog
Why?

There are about 307M peeps, and about 55M of them are registered Republicans. So if 14% of the R's love L.Ron, that's about 8M, or 2.6%. And 97.4 + 2.6 == 100.
So if someone does not love Ron Paul, they must hate him? And only registered Republicans love him? Your logic skills, they are not so good.

Hint: My one year old son is not a registered Republican nor does he have any opinion at all about Ron Paul.
01-27-2012 , 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grando
I'm sure you've all had this revelation but I just find it amazing that Ron Paul, someone that 97.4% (apx) of people apparently hate and think is bat**** crazy, has 14% Republican support nationwide
Does he have 14% of Republican support nationwide....or 14% amongst people likely to participate in the 2012 republican primary?
01-27-2012 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
So if someone does not love Ron Paul, they must hate him? And only registered Republicans love him? Your logic skills, they are not so good.

Hint: My one year old son is not a registered Republican nor does he have any opinion at all about Ron Paul.
Dude, I didn't make up the numbers, that was grandos. If you think his logic skills are sub-par, take it up with him.

Hint: all human beings are born thinking libertarians are crazy. Later some of the young poorly socialized middle class white males read Altas Shrugged his Fountainhead and then mutate into Ronulans.

Last edited by MissileDog; 01-27-2012 at 09:55 PM.
01-27-2012 , 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissileDog
Dude, I didn't make up the numbers, that was grandos. If you think his logic skills are sub-par, take it up with him.

Hint: all human beings are born thinking libertarians are crazy. Later some of the young poorly socialized middle class white males read Altas Shrugged his Fountainhead and then mutate into Ronulans.
Ayn Rand's books aren't libertarian.
01-27-2012 , 10:06 PM
Here's a little Q&A with Ayn Rand:


Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.


Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
01-27-2012 , 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ludacris
I'm going to take a stab that most of this board is comprised of that group. I'm going to take a stab that most of RP's supporters are comprised of that group.

Your stab wasn't much of a stab.
I'm going to take a stab and say the average black person from the inner-city would be overwhelmingly likely to not have no proplem with the RP newsletters, zero, none.
01-27-2012 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
I was unaware that an issue was "how to get funded by ******s for a while when trying influence the world for the better".
Good thing he quit that game and only gets his funding from geniuses now.
01-27-2012 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Here's a little Q&A with Ayn Rand:


Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.


Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
Anyone who's read Rand really shouldn't be surprised at this. That being said, she'd probably have worse things to say about Republicans and Democrats.
01-27-2012 , 10:24 PM
^Not Nixon from my read on the second question.
01-27-2012 , 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
^Not Nixon from my read on the second question.
Seems like its because a) She knows 3rd parties won't win so she's saying they shouldn't run (this sounds like a pretty Rand thought) and b) She hates liberals that much.
01-27-2012 , 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Good thing he quit that game and only gets his funding from geniuses now.
The only reason not to take money from ******s is because other ******s will not support someone because of other supporters.
01-27-2012 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Good thing he quit that game and only gets his funding from geniuses now.
paging suzzer. your reply good sir:

People like suzzer just don't understand economics..at all.

Medical care is a market just like any other market in a capitalist system (except that the gov prevents it from operating as such).

Let's compare it to two markets the government has not touched at all. TVs and laptops. For decades those two markets have seen the same effects. The real prices of TVs and laptops has continuously decreased from their inception. Obviously when a big and brand new technology comes out, there is a price spike (like with the invention of flat panel TVs) but that provides yet another example because once invented, the prices then continuously declined.

But that is far from the only part of the story. There is one other hugely important factor. The QUALITY continuously improves at the same time as the prices are falling. Look at a TV or a computer from 20 years ago and compare it to a TV or computer of a similar price today. It is laughable.

This is what a free market does. It leads to constant competition which leads to efficient behavior and lower prices while at the same time leading to improving quality.

Unfortunately the health care market in the US (and most of the western world) has not been subject to these market forces for a long time. But that doesn't mean there is anything at all 'special' about healthcare as a market. It would have the same forces working for it as TVs and laptops if the government was completely uninvolved, but people who don't understand economics, like suzzer, have stopped this from happening.

These days, I would venture to say the large majority of the uninsured actually own a TV that is far superior to the TVs available 20 years ago. My point being that if you let capitalism REALLY work in medicine, the price to service ratio would be so turned up on its head that it would be affordable to a very high % of people that cannot currently afford it. And not only that, the health care they would get for the much cheaper price would be far superior to what a middle class person has now. And yes, in this system there will be a Bill Gates who can afford the absolute newest and best TV, laptop, and healthcare, but the quest to make average Joe's health care = to Bill Gates leads to a race to the lowest common denominator at the highest cost rather than what we should strive for. If the wealthy are constantly pushing for innovation and a better product, then just like with flat panel TVs, as they are invented and implemented, they will become more and more affordable and suddenly the masses are getting what was exclusive to the wealthy just years prior. It snowballs and suddenly way more people can afford healthcare, and private charities could then be much better equipped to provide services for the small % that have 0 because it would cost so much less just as was the case when Paul first starting practicing medicine.
01-27-2012 , 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
The only reason not to take money from ******s is because other ******s will not support someone because of other supporters.
You missed the point.
01-27-2012 , 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by insidemanpoker
paging suzzer. your reply good sir:

People like suzzer just don't understand economics..at all.

Medical care is a market just like any other market in a capitalist system (except that the gov prevents it from operating as such).

Let's compare it to two markets the government has not touched at all. TVs and laptops. For decades those two markets have seen the same effects. The real prices of TVs and laptops has continuously decreased from their inception. Obviously when a big and brand new technology comes out, there is a price spike (like with the invention of flat panel TVs) but that provides yet another example because once invented, the prices then continuously declined.

But that is far from the only part of the story. There is one other hugely important factor. The QUALITY continuously improves at the same time as the prices are falling. Look at a TV or a computer from 20 years ago and compare it to a TV or computer of a similar price today. It is laughable.

This is what a free market does. It leads to constant competition which leads to efficient behavior and lower prices while at the same time leading to improving quality.

Unfortunately the health care market in the US (and most of the western world) has not been subject to these market forces for a long time. But that doesn't mean there is anything at all 'special' about healthcare as a market. It would have the same forces working for it as TVs and laptops if the government was completely uninvolved, but people who don't understand economics, like suzzer, have stopped this from happening.

These days, I would venture to say the large majority of the uninsured actually own a TV that is far superior to the TVs available 20 years ago. My point being that if you let capitalism REALLY work in medicine, the price to service ratio would be so turned up on its head that it would be affordable to a very high % of people that cannot currently afford it. And not only that, the health care they would get for the much cheaper price would be far superior to what a middle class person has now. And yes, in this system there will be a Bill Gates who can afford the absolute newest and best TV, laptop, and healthcare, but the quest to make average Joe's health care = to Bill Gates leads to a race to the lowest common denominator at the highest cost rather than what we should strive for. If the wealthy are constantly pushing for innovation and a better product, then just like with flat panel TVs, as they are invented and implemented, they will become more and more affordable and suddenly the masses are getting what was exclusive to the wealthy just years prior. It snowballs and suddenly way more people can afford healthcare, and private charities could then be much better equipped to provide services for the small % that have 0 because it would cost so much less just as was the case when Paul first starting practicing medicine.
This is several gigantic paragraphs of handwaving that has been answered 100s of times on this forum if you care to look. Your post not only fails to address adverse selection, inelastic pricing or the free-rider problem - it's obvious you have never even considered crucial aspects in which any free market health care system fails, badly.

If you really care to learn about why the market for TVs and laptops is not a good model for health care - start here (don't worry most of the arguments are all made and answered in the first 5-10 pages). Pay close attention to Double Eagle's posts. He is very very knowledgeable about the economics of health care.

Consider why every other advanced country on earth has decided that the free market does not work for health care. Consider what it would be like to be a senior citizen in this country trying to purchase health insurance on the open market.
01-27-2012 , 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
You missed the point.
He has a bigger audience now. That may be in part because he was able to raise enough funds to stay elected to the House. Obama ditched his idiot supporters when they were no longer needed the same way.
01-27-2012 , 11:08 PM
Suzzer, you need a history lesson. Look at insurance costs pre 1960. It was very cheap and very affordable (you could purchase insurance for under $10 a month in the 1950s). There is no reason in a free market that health care costs wouldn't have continued to become more efficient while the services were improving. You just don't get it. As for people pointing to a place like Norway and saying it is small and homogeneous, that is totally true. I don't support their public health care but because of those two factors, they are able to operate far more efficiently.

Market forces apply TO ALL markets where there are services, products, and consumers. It is that simple.

      
m