Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   The Podium (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/)
-   -   GOP/Tea Party Debate (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/gop-tea-party-debate-21069.html)

Claudius 09-12-2011 08:57 PM

GOP/Tea Party Debate
 
Anyone watching this right now? I'm kinda waiting for someone to say something of some worth. A whole lot of double speak going on.

bladeofBG 09-13-2011 01:14 AM

I posted in here my admiration for Ron Paul: http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/mo...tml#post565423

Seriously, there's never been an American politician, present or in the past or in history, who makes me wanna get outta my seat & raise my fists w/nothing but good vibes coursing through me - except Ron Paul right here.


This is what he said after Obama's Job's Act speech last week on 9/8/11:


Some ppl at today's debate decided to mock him, when he was tryna tell the truth of the matter. I was tempted to condemn & ridicule them, but then I reckoned that they're poor souls that are still believing the status quo, mainly out of fear that's been ingrained in them by the mainstream media the past 10yrs, and perhaps even of what they've lost (ie sons & daughters in the two wars).


But the fact remains that Ron Paul knows what he's been talking about, and has remained consistent and level-headed, in situations that most people do not.



This was the discourse between him & Rick Perry in today's debate:


I'm not alone in that I believe Rick is juss as slimy as Obama & Romney, and that they're all cut of the same cloth. Here's Ron challenging him last week. Keep in mind, Ron's a doctor:

Ron Paul on Rick Perry's record MSNBC Republican Debate 9/7/2011 - YouTube


I was lookin for a youtube link for the video in the link after this paragraph, but it's not up yet. However, there are clips of it already in the youtube link that Imma close this post with.
Paul's long-held policies converge with Tea Party's - CNN.com

I've truly never been so excited about American politics as I am now, and it's all b/c of Ron Paul's character, consistency (over 30+ yrs!), and that folk are catching on! We can finally REALLY change the way America is being run!!!!!


Scully 09-13-2011 12:00 PM

I think the fear with Ron Paul is that he is an isolationist he feels no obligation to the ever shrinking world, only America and Americans. Not exactly the international tone you want to be projecting in a world economic crisis brought on by your own country's inability to rationalize debt. Not only that but I don't think this kind of honesty will translate into smiles and hand shakes, when America has to face the reality that they will have to stifle there thirst for materialism for economic stability.

'trane 09-13-2011 12:05 PM

lunatics, the lot of 'em.

jeffb 09-13-2011 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 571028)
lunatics, the lot of 'em.

hehe

LX 09-13-2011 12:31 PM

I loved how Newt had a one-liner about Obama scaring people everyday, which brought on raucous cheers, and then he was compelled to explain the comment in terms of policy, while you could tell that everyone in the room was just wanting to wanting to jump up and shout for anyone willing to legitimize fears of a black, Muslim, commie president.

6cubed 09-13-2011 12:50 PM

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have different views but are the most honest and consistent politicians in the US Congress. I'd support them on their integrity more than their policies. Ron Paul being a libertarian is awesome though and best alligns with my views. Of course he has some quarks but he would be the best candidate imo.

"Isolationist" is not the right word to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy. Paul wants to advance free trade, diplomatic talks and so forth but he just doesn't want to interfere with government's internal affairs (i.e. have the CIA do something sketchy if there's a potential anti-US govt emerging), give out aid for the purposes of buying American weapons (e.g. Israel and Egypt) take sides during wars or start unnecessary wars. I agree with this policy. He fears the industrial-military complex which is a corrupt group in the US imo (i.e. blow up a bridge in Iraq and then have a defense contractor rebuild that bridge = transfer of wealth from taxpayer to industrial-military complex).

I agree with him on many economic policies such as lowering taxes, decreasing the role of gov't, dismantling welfare for the undeserved, etc. I disagree about bringing back the gold-standard and I do believe the govt should create a healthcare institution that competes against private companies. That doesn't mean it should be just subsidize everyone and cost $1 Trillion... it should be run as a business with as little loss as possible.

I sympathize with some of the concerns with Tea Partiers (Taxed Enough Already) although they also have some radical views. I don't like the role religion plays for them. Rick Perry wants to organize prayers in football stadiums to pray for the economy to become better and rid other woes for America lol. I also support gun rights as its in the Constitution. I think the media sensationalizes them by just showing the Palin or Bachman nuts. At the end of the day they're just people who want less government in their lives. They don't need all this govt support and want less taxes. Giving money to the gov't justifies it spending on pork projects, advancing the military, etc. Individuals can better allocate tax dollars than the government can. There's nothing crazy about the core "taxed enough already" message. Lower taxes, cut spending... look at the US debt, we can't afford to pay for what we are doing at the moment.

Many Republicans dislike Paul because a lot of them are essentially representatives for big corporations, the military sector, radical evangelicals, etc. A lot of them are not truly conservative... Bush spent more than Clinton in real terms. Ron Paul is a threat because he is the closest candidate to Reagan minus the Ronald's horrible foreign policy. If Romney gets the nod I think he's the lesser evil when measured to Obama. America is unfortunately moving towards a more socialist and planned economy state. Redistribution of wealth is increasing, therefore punishing the people who are advancing society and subsidizing those that aren't contributing as much. Of course there are anomalies and some rich people are greedy pigs and some deserving people are poor because of bad luck. It averages out in the end. Half of Americans don't pay any income taxes and this is a crunch on the middle-class.

jeffb 09-13-2011 01:28 PM


'trane 09-13-2011 02:49 PM

hoodwinked by the fantasy of individual 'freedom'.

Benzo 09-13-2011 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffb (Post 571049)

Jeff, what does he say right after that when the camera cuts off?

6cubed 09-13-2011 03:17 PM

^ starts at 1:05


On another note I read before that when Ron Paul was a doctor he used to help deliver babies for free if the parents couldn't afford it.

BTW Jeff, thanks for posting something that according to a Google search describes "commentary on political events from a politically left perspective" (TPM)

Ligeia 09-13-2011 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 571061)
hoodwinked by the fantasy of individual 'freedom'.

It is my personal experience that many who are pro-Tea Party are not, actually, very libertarian. Instead, their libertarianism is constrained to particular questions that are personally relevant or play some significant role in their identity.


http://contexts.org/articles/spring-...the-tea-party/

Based on a limited sample, the study authors claim that the Tea Party could be summed up in a few different ideological views, including authoritarianism and nativism, which don't seem very libertarian to me.

The study aligns with my personal experience, so I'm willing to cut it more slack for not having a sufficiently representative sample.

'trane 09-13-2011 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6cubed (Post 571065)
^ starts at 1:05

Ron Paul on healthcare CNN Tampa Tea Party Debate 9/12/2011 - YouTube

On another note I read before that when Ron Paul was a doctor he used to help deliver babies for free if the parents couldn't afford it.

BTW Jeff, thanks for posting something that according to a Google search describes "commentary on political events from a politically left perspective" (TPM)


what does he mean that churches and families will take care of them? what happens if you don't have a church or a family? the whole basis of that assumes that people are part of a community, or that they have supports, when the reality is that this is not true for a huge number of people.

that's possibly the emptiest answer i have ever heard to that kind of question. unless he means that hospitals will never turn anyone away and won't ask to be paid if the person or family cannot afford it, i don't see how that answer has any meaning at all.

jeffb 09-13-2011 03:27 PM

So socialised medicine cowtows to the insurance companies? Hmmmm

Why are americans so afraid to of universal healthcare. I remember when the whole discussion about healthcare was going on a couple years ago, the country was pretty split on universal healthcare. If i'm not mistaken most polls were saying that 55% of Americans wanted universal healthcare. I've never understood how a lot of these politicians can constantly lie about universal healthcare and how awful it is in ever country that has it with a straight face, when the leading cause for bankcrptcy in their country is escalating medical bills.

Ligeia 09-13-2011 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6cubed (Post 571065)
^ starts at 1:05

Ron Paul on healthcare CNN Tampa Tea Party Debate 9/12/2011 - YouTube

On another note I read before that when Ron Paul was a doctor he used to help deliver babies for free if the parents couldn't afford it.

It was their personal choice to have a baby when they didn't have the money for it, so it's their responsibility. That's what Ron Paul's freedom is all about. The fact that he violates that particular ideal in one context is not a saving grace for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6cubed (Post 571065)
BTW Jeff, thanks for posting something that according to a Google search describes "commentary on political events from a politically left perspective" (TPM)

Genetic fallacy much?

6cubed 09-13-2011 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 571069)
what does he mean that churches and families will take care of them? what happens if you don't have a church or a family? the whole basis of that assumes that people are part of a community, or that they have supports, when the reality is that this is not true for a huge number of people.

that's possibly the emptiest answer i have ever heard to that kind of question. unless he means that hospitals will never turn anyone away and won't ask to be paid if the person or family cannot afford it, i don't see how that answer has any meaning at all.

Then he should've bought insurance. He took a massive risk. To rely on a free handout from the community or govt is ridiculous. Taxpayers that are insured are penalized for doing the right thing and subsidize someone who didn't deserve it.

The guy should take out a loan, possibly from a gov't created entity, to pay back for the surgeries... he doesn't deserve a free handout.

Ethics and morals are subjective. Universal healthcare is not a human right. Buy insurance and take responsibility for your own actions for crying out loud. This is particularly true for a healthy 30-something year old with a good job.

'trane 09-13-2011 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6cubed (Post 571076)
Then he should've bought insurance. He took a massive risk. To rely on a free handout from the community or govt is ridiculous. Taxpayers that are insured are penalized for doing the right thing and subsidize someone who didn't deserve it.

The guy should take out a loan, possibly from a gov't created entity, to pay back for the surgeries... he doesn't deserve a free handout.

Ethics and morals are subjective. Universal healthcare is not a human right. Buy insurance and take responsibility for your own actions for crying out loud. This is particularly true for a healthy 30-something year old with a good job.

so then you (and ron paul) do support letting him die? this is my point. he just backed away from answering the question. it was an empty response. if you have the choice to buy insurance or not, and you choose not to, you should take responsibility and die. he could have just said 'yes, i support that' instead of trying to frame it around freedom.

6cubed 09-13-2011 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 571079)
so then you (and ron paul) do support letting him die? this is my point. he just backed away from answering the question. it was an empty response. if you have the choice to buy insurance or not, and you choose not to, you should take responsibility and die. he could have just said 'yes, i support that' instead of trying to frame it around freedom.

No.

a) Get a loan and pay back the surgery.
b) Rely on family, friends, the community.
c) Negotiate costs with the doctors/hospital.

Perhaps knowing that a healthy person can die because he lacks healthcare will give him/her incentive to take out insurance. If you're young and healthy then catastrophe insurance should be affordable.

At the end of the day the individual has to take responsibility for his actions. A person that doesn't wear a seatbelt has a higher risk of dieing in a car accident. A person who smokes two packs a day has a higher risk of getting lung cancer. An obese person who continues to eat unhealthy and fails to exercise risks dieing at a younger age. Its about choices. That individual should've bought insurance. Don't punish the middle-class who pay a lot of taxpayers and pay for insurance for themselves and their entire family to subsidize some reckless, naive 30 year oblivious to the risks of not having healthcare.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop asking for gov't handouts.

Scully 09-13-2011 03:49 PM

Quote:

"Isolationist" is not the right word to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy. Paul wants to advance free trade, diplomatic talks and so forth but he just doesn't want to interfere with government's internal affairs (i.e. have the CIA do something sketchy if there's a potential anti-US govt emerging), give out aid for the purposes of buying American weapons (e.g. Israel and Egypt) take sides during wars or start unnecessary wars. I agree with this policy. He fears the industrial-military complex which is a corrupt group in the US imo (i.e. blow up a bridge in Iraq and then have a defense contractor rebuild that bridge = transfer of wealth from taxpayer to industrial-military complex).
So your saying he's policy is to abandon any responsibility that America may have historically (Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan). Yet he isn't an isolationist.

6cubed 09-13-2011 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scully (Post 571083)
So your saying he's policy is to abandon any responsibility that America may have historically (Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan). Yet he isn't an isolationist.

If you mean to stop giving massive aid to Israel and Egypt so they can then buy back weapons from the US and then point it at each other then yes.

If you mean to leave Afghanistan or Iraq, two countries that never attacked the U.S. then yes.

If you mean for the CIA to stop organizing coups and putting American puppets in power then yes.

If you mean dismantling the 737 military basis that operate in 130 different countries in the world then yes.

Google blow-back.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24