Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Politics and Religion Forum (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Why not Ron Paul? (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=60815)

HomelessJoe 09-13-2011 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-o (Post 1738063)
The crowd cheering the "let them die" question was right up there with the cheering the death penalty bit. ROFL

LOL

moderator: "should we just let this man die?"

someone in crowd: "YES!!!!"

BradyLady12 09-13-2011 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1738040)
Ron Paul got booed for trying to explain why we got attacked. Our constant bombing of the middle east and military bases all over thier land... Warmonger Santorum says it's because of our 'American exceptionalism' and differences of culture, basically....I can't believe people still believe that line of BS.

Yeah, it's an irresponsibil pov. I mean really they committed mass murder because they're jealous of us? If they want that then they would have terrorized their own leaders and govt. But they don't even want that over there, they want theocracy. The ME is known as getting an eye for an eye and having vendettas where killing people who harm you is justice. This goes on between tribes even.

Baron Samedi 09-13-2011 01:29 PM

Maybe people should go back and look to see who called it...

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DQCrIbTmitk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BradyLady12 09-13-2011 01:40 PM

Highlights from Last Night's debate:
 
Ron did much better at speaking I thought. He must have worked on his delivery.


<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z6n51UEt1F4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BradyLady12 09-14-2011 01:28 PM

Can Paul win this time?
 
According to this Republican strategist he could be the sleeper in this race.

He could use a better suit he says. I have to agree. He should gain a bit of weight too.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1Vh_qkIdA4A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

tehmackdaddy 09-14-2011 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyLady12 (Post 1738466)
Ron did much better at speaking I thought.

I thought he was awful again on Monday. I'll expound later if I have time.

Brady's Bunch 09-14-2011 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1739848)
I thought he was awful again on Monday. I'll expound later if I have time.

Let us know who your candidate is too please

Steve-o 09-14-2011 02:44 PM

Huntsman should win, if for no other reason than that Kurt Cobain joke. :coffee:

tehmackdaddy 09-14-2011 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch (Post 1739873)
Let us know who your candidate is too please

Out of the 8 on stage Paul by a long shot.

Baron Samedi 09-15-2011 07:57 AM

Ron Paul stands tall at GOP debate


Despite what the mainstream media reports, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul is closing in on the Republican frontrunners as his odds of coming out on top for the GOP nomination becomes more and more likely.
In a new poll conducted by CNN, the congressman from Texas placed only six percentage points behind second place candidate Mitt Romney, with 12 percent of over 1,000 American adults surveyed saying they are most likely to vote for Rep. Paul. In that study, pollsters asked Americans to consider a race where former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be included in the race. While Palin remains a favorite among Tea Partiers, she has not formally announced her candidacy.
The latest poll from CNN, conducted in the few days leading up to September 11, 2011, shows that Paul has managed to double his support since the last survey conducted by the cables news network only two weeks earlier. His success still puts him behind frontrunner and Texas Governor Rick Perry, but comes as a surprise to the many in the mainstream that have played Rep. Paul off as a fringe candidate seemingly unlikely to secure the Republican nomination.
In a race where Palin is not a possible candidate, the 1,038 adults polled put Paul as the third-most likely choice for president, behind Perry and Romney, but with nearly double the support of what was awarded to Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich.
At Monday night’s GOP debate, Paul managed to get the attention of the Tea Party crowd with quite a few ideas of his — some more popular with the audience than the others.
When quizzed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on his take on defense spending, Paul pushed his plan to reconsider America’s foreign policy and said that he believes that the military could be posed with spending cuts, but that defense should not. “You could slash the military spending,” said Paul. “We don’t need to be building airplanes that were used in World War 2. We’re always fighting the last war.”
Paul added that America’s problem with military spending lies in the fact that the USA has placed itself on far too many war fronts. “We're under great threat because we occupy so many countries,” he said. “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We are going broke!”
While Paul’s responses garnered applause throughout the debate, his chastising of American foreign policy in relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks caused an uproar of jeers from the crowd at one point. When challenged by Rick Santorum for being “irresponsible” in saying that the actions of the US government served as catalyst for 9/11, Paul defended himself by condemning again America’s military actions abroad.
Paul attempted a response by retorting, “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit and they wrote and said that ‘We attacked America because you had bases in our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment,’” though the congressman’s explanation was cut short by boos from the pals of Perry, who attests that the 9/11 attacks resulted because the American way of life is “antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.”
Paul responded by telling the crowd, “We have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed then there is some problem.”
The congressman also added that as long as Americans believe that terror attacks are assaults on the freedoms of America, “we’re going to be under a lot of danger.”
Investigative journalist Gareth Porter tells RT that Santorum received such strong backing for his scrutinizing of Congressman Paul because “what Santorum said is the official line of not just the US government but more concretely the national security part of the government.”
“Unless you take the position that the threat of terrorism — including 9/11 —has nothing to do with US military presence in the Middle East or wars that the US fights on the soil of Islamic countries, then you’re going to have a problem justifying the policy,” adds Porter.


http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-debate-gop-483/

tehmackdaddy 09-15-2011 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy (Post 1739848)
I thought he was awful again on Monday. I'll expound later if I have time.

Here's a quick example of what I mean.

With regards to the question about the 30 year old with no insurance, I thought Paul had a fantastic opportunity to explain his point of view and drastically failed. His entire argument was backwards and his demeanor was just odd (at several points I was unsure if Paul was actually going to answer a question or begin asking his own, such as "where am I?").

What (I remember) of what Ron Paul said:

Quote:

Moderator (who had oddly red lips): "What do you do? Treat him or let him die?"

Paul: stuttering out of the gate "Under the current system the young man has grown up in he expects himself to be taken care of. That's the problem...the system. And that's what we have to change. This mentality that everybody else is going to take care of you."

---then he goes on for awhile with a few interruptions and finally comes to---

"When I was a young doctor just out of medical school, we treated people all the time that couldn't pay."
Unfortunately he had already lost everyone with his explanation. How he should have answered is:

Quote:

Paul: "That's a great question and something many people misunderstand about my position. You know, when I was a young doctor just out of medical school I practiced medicine at a city hospital. We treated people all the time that didn't have insurance or couldn't pay. We worked with them on payment terms, the hospital had donations it could use towards that care...there were countless ways to make up for lack of insurance, but I can assure you no one was ever turned away.

Somehow this notion that the government has to provide everything to everyone at all times has worked itself into our thinking that many people can't even imagine how the world would operate without government intervention. Do we really think that people wouldn't give to charities that would help pay for this young man's care? Of course not! In fact, with less government there is less waste and more money for people to donate to charities. Let alone the fact that less government intrusion would lead to lower health care costs, in general, and thus the bill for this young man would be lower.

Do we really think communities wouldn't come together and help each other out without government intervention? Of course they would! They still do and, in fact, very recently the people of a horrific tornado disaster in Joplin, MO turned down government assistance because they wanted to get back on their feet on their own - without government assistance! What a concept!

So to answer your question: no, the young man would not be denied treatment. To think the lack of an insurance card would turn doctors into heartless human beings is preposterous. It hasn't happened in the past and won't happen again in the future.

That is, unless, we burden them with so much regulation, so much red tape, so many one size fits all guidelines that they are legally unable to properly treat patients. That doesn't sound at all like what I advocate. It sounds more like the President's plan."
Something like that.

BradyLady12 09-15-2011 09:19 AM

I thought he stuttered much less and for shorter periods.

LVent* 09-15-2011 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 1740321)
Ron Paul stands tall at GOP debate


Despite what the mainstream media reports, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul is closing in on the Republican frontrunners as his odds of coming out on top for the GOP nomination becomes more and more likely.
In a new poll conducted by CNN, the congressman from Texas placed only six percentage points behind second place candidate Mitt Romney, with 12 percent of over 1,000 American adults surveyed saying they are most likely to vote for Rep. Paul. In that study, pollsters asked Americans to consider a race where former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be included in the race. While Palin remains a favorite among Tea Partiers, she has not formally announced her candidacy.
The latest poll from CNN, conducted in the few days leading up to September 11, 2011, shows that Paul has managed to double his support since the last survey conducted by the cables news network only two weeks earlier. His success still puts him behind frontrunner and Texas Governor Rick Perry, but comes as a surprise to the many in the mainstream that have played Rep. Paul off as a fringe candidate seemingly unlikely to secure the Republican nomination.
In a race where Palin is not a possible candidate, the 1,038 adults polled put Paul as the third-most likely choice for president, behind Perry and Romney, but with nearly double the support of what was awarded to Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich.
At Monday night’s GOP debate, Paul managed to get the attention of the Tea Party crowd with quite a few ideas of his — some more popular with the audience than the others.
When quizzed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on his take on defense spending, Paul pushed his plan to reconsider America’s foreign policy and said that he believes that the military could be posed with spending cuts, but that defense should not. “You could slash the military spending,” said Paul. “We don’t need to be building airplanes that were used in World War 2. We’re always fighting the last war.”
Paul added that America’s problem with military spending lies in the fact that the USA has placed itself on far too many war fronts. “We're under great threat because we occupy so many countries,” he said. “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We are going broke!”
While Paul’s responses garnered applause throughout the debate, his chastising of American foreign policy in relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks caused an uproar of jeers from the crowd at one point. When challenged by Rick Santorum for being “irresponsible” in saying that the actions of the US government served as catalyst for 9/11, Paul defended himself by condemning again America’s military actions abroad.
Paul attempted a response by retorting, “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit and they wrote and said that ‘We attacked America because you had bases in our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment,’” though the congressman’s explanation was cut short by boos from the pals of Perry, who attests that the 9/11 attacks resulted because the American way of life is “antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.”
Paul responded by telling the crowd, “We have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed then there is some problem.”
The congressman also added that as long as Americans believe that terror attacks are assaults on the freedoms of America, “we’re going to be under a lot of danger.”
Investigative journalist Gareth Porter tells RT that Santorum received such strong backing for his scrutinizing of Congressman Paul because “what Santorum said is the official line of not just the US government but more concretely the national security part of the government.”
“Unless you take the position that the threat of terrorism — including 9/11 —has nothing to do with US military presence in the Middle East or wars that the US fights on the soil of Islamic countries, then you’re going to have a problem justifying the policy,” adds Porter.


http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-debate-gop-483/


Santorum is such a ****ing douche; when he was a senator here in pa he and his family lived in either viginia and maryland year round. And then when people called him out on it (his "pa house" was being rented out) he tried using his kids in radio/tv ads.

Always deflecting and trying to make other people look bad. If he would win the presidency I would move to another country

Steve-o 09-15-2011 05:33 PM

That question becomes additionally awkward:

Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured



Quote:

Should the state pay his bills? Paul responded, "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—"

He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him. So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man. So basically, yeah. He'd let him die.

As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.

According to the Wall Street Journal's 2008 story on his death, Snyder was more than just a strategic ally: He was the only reason Paul thought he ever had a shot at the presidency in the first place.

"It was Kent more than anyone else who encouraged and pushed Ron to run for president," said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul. "Ron would not have run for the presidency if it had not been for Kent. Ron was really hesitant, but Kent drove him forward."

And so, what started in February 2007 with one laptop in Snyder's Arlington, Va., apartment, quickly grew into a $35 million campaign employing 250 people. In the fourth quarter of that year, Snyder raised a stunning $19.5 million for Paul — more than any other Republican candidate had raised at the time.

After Snyder's death, Paul posted a message to the website for his Campaign for Liberty — a pre-Tea Party organization which served Paul as both presidential marketing tool and platform to promote his non-interventionist, free market ideals.

He wrote:

"Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of liberty. Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family."

And that, friends, is what freedom is really all about.

*The Kansas City Star quoted his sister at the time as saying that a "a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive."

Steve-o 09-15-2011 06:02 PM

And apparently the charity fundraiser approach raised only $35k (yes, this is an opinion piece):

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...close-to-home/

Quote:

However, Snyder did not have health insurance. According to his mother, he had a pre-existing condition that made it financially impossible to buy it on his own. (Interestingly, Snyder is credited with raising $19.5 million for the Paul campaign in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone, but none of that money was apparently used to buy insurance for campaign staffers.)

Because we treat health care as a de facto right in this country, Snyder did get at least some health care, racking up $400,000 in unpaid medical bills before he died. A fundraising effort after his death — the charity approach advocated by Paul — produced only $35,000 toward paying off those bills.

That’s not an unusual story. I’m aware of at least three similar instances among my extended circle of neighbors and friends, two involving cancer and one involving a major heart attack. In all three cases medical care was provided despite the fact that the victims didn’t have insurance, and in all three cases that treatment has been successful to date.

The patients involved didn’t come close to having the resources to pay off their bills. But somebody paid them. You did, and I did, and we paid Kent Snyder’s bill as well. It’s a convoluted, extremely irrational, unnecessarily expensive and inefficient system, and the only two approaches that show any promise of rationalizing it are the individual mandate or single-payer.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.