The American Politics thread

[Fusion]

I think you all need to create a Climate Change thread and have this conversation there.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Sept. 14, 2001 H J Res 64 Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution Passed - House
(420 - 1) Yea

Key Votes - Ron Paul - Project Vote Smart

He was fine with going after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not responsible for the attacks. He was against the war.

I should probably have been more clear: he's against the unconstitutional wars America is currently in. Ron Paul is fine with a defined war that gets congressional approval.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Any proof of 'most of the time'? I've had personal experience with FEMA and they've been great. I'm sure others experience might have been different but I'd want to see some data for you to say 'most of the time'.

There have been many, many documented failures of FEMA. I ask you to heed your own advise and Google. I should probably retract the statement 'most of the time" as I am not intimiate with every single issue it has faced but enough so to know that it is a joke of a bureaucracy.

The fact that there was no federal assistance and the city pretty much died as a hub of activity after the hurricane? And the fact was, they did in fact beg the federal government for help: The Day - Google News Archive Search.

Er what? Galveston is in a naturally dangerous area where natural disasters have repeatedly caused their seawall damage. The last time it was rebuilt AFAIK was in 2008. Your point is nonsense; neither the states nor the federal government can mandate against natural disasters. The point of all this is cost and efficiency. When Paul talked about Galveston in1900 he is referring to the scheme at the time that was responsible for building the wall in the first place.

Yes, I know, and it's stupid that we don't have more central power - which is of course a matter of opinion.

Yes, if you believe that central power is good, then you are more for a vested power in one body - which is more dangerous and susceptible to abuse. That's not really much of an opinion, just how Federalism works and is a mechanism to limit that abuse as much as possible.

Regardless, it was the intention of the framers and is a constitutional reading to want certain issues at the State level. I am not about to write you an essay on Federalism (ironically, I just wrote an essay in Constitional Law on Federalism). I can understand someone who doesn't mind the inherent risks of a central power, but to call for the division of this power to safeguard against individual rights abuses "bat**** crazy" is stupid.

Wait...what? The free market insurance results in people not getting healthcare while medicare covers everyone over 65...

Rising medical costs are occurring in both private health insurance and medicare, so I am not sure what the point there is. Before Medicare switched to the PPS model in 1983, the cost of medicine was spiraling even more out of control than it is now.

In any case, the ubsubsidized care is rising at similar or greater pace than the subsidized so your point doesn't make sense in this context.

No, it doesn't. Let's not refer to the US which is not a truly free market. The free market will only insure those illnesses which can justify enough of the funds pooled in insurance funds. It really doesn't matter in the sense that concerns you that govt. pay for these illnesses; because if it does it will endanger its own program if not bankrupt it.

The unsubsidised care raises prices on the current model in the US. It is not truly free. This is akin to first creating a system of medical care through which lack of competition has caused high prices and then complaining that further subsidisation will only raise prices.

Actually they did. Until the civil rights legislation, the stores and businesses did last. The Holy Free Market does not cure a problem if the local community is racist like it was. That's why you need government intervention.

They can only last if people pay into them. Which means other racists funding these places. It doesn't matter, for in a free market where there there is a competing business and such a business has an advantage due to the populous of it's consumers. It'll undoubtedly grow larger and gain economic advantages making it more affordable and attractive.

If the racists want to continue, they can do so. Who cares? But it does not harm the other businesses allowing all people; they are at a competitive advantage. Moreover, I doubt people are willing to pay higher prices just to be racist, but if they want to then "have at it hoss".

And no, it's not 'your property' in the sense that it's a house. A businesses are subject to things like licencing and other rules that do not apply to home ownership (e.g you are required to maintain certain standards of safety, etc). So the government does have more leeway to regulate what you can do in a business than what you can do in your home.

You're mixing up issues and different areas of laws. Laws that govern standards of care or the dwelling are with regards to Tort/contract issues. Laws dictating what a person may do on their own land, provided it doesn't cause injury to another, is another matter altogether. Paul is referring to ownership, which legally bestows the owner the right to exclude or include people.

I never said he wasn't consistent in his beliefs or that I disagreed with everything he did. But most of the policies that he has, I do consider absolutely bat**** compared to the mainstream.

What the mainstream believes itself can be bat**** crazy. Like, you do know most people are religious? On your own definition of bat**** crazy, you are bat**** crazy for being an atheist.

The point of Paul's position is to safeguard against abuses in government positions. The government simply was not intended to, and should not have, a say in how people want to use their property rights. What would happen if the next government initiative was to ban pornography stores? Do you recall the ruckus re the Mosque at ground zero. Should the govt. dictate that they cannot build the centre there because others object? Further, should they reject certain types of people because their neighbours reject? The property rights Paul is defending is just as important as the freedom of speech rights. To defend one and not the other, merely because you agree with the prohibited act, is a double standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxJSYgOCljs

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by Ikki

He was fine with going after those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not responsible for the attacks. He was against the war.

I should probably have been more clear: against the unconstitutional wars America is currently in. Ron Paul is fine with a defined war that gets congressional approval.

Except American is not under any unconstitutional wars currently. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President must get congressional approval for military action. If the President wants an official declaration of war, then Congress must approve that. However as Commander in Chief, the President has wide authority to engage American troops in combat without getting an official declaration of war. Besides, the funding for the troops and military action is still controlled by Congress. Therefore, the checks and balances still prevail even without the declaration.

That’s not even the real issue here though. The problem with Paul is his strict isolationism. If he were President, the US would not get involved militarily in any conflict unless directly attacked. That might be sound and just policy in certain cases (like Iraq), but could also be dangerous and immoral in other cases where American (and World) intervention is needed to prevent genocide or to prevent a clearly hostile regime from gaining power and nuclear weapons.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Sanz

While Herman Cain is simply ignorant, Ron Paul's views are flat out dangerous for a civil society.

On Health Care :- Tea Party Fanatics Cheer 'Let Him Die' - YouTube
I watched the debate live and I don't think I have heard a more hypocritical response to health care debate.

Sensationalism. A few idiots said let him die. Paul certainly wouldn't have. Paul was a doctor that treated patients for free.

His point is: in a society where one is bestowed the right to choose, then they must live with the benefits and problems that choice entails.

On Abortion - Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research - YouTube

Abortion is an act of violence ? Really ? And I don't understand this Federal Vs. State Govt. right, so it is okay if the state government allows abortion but not if Federal Govt. does ? To me it is just passing the buck to the states. He continues to justify his stance by citing extreme examples.

Paul is a Libertarian and sees individual rights. The right of a person to life > the right of a woman to abort. Paul thinks IIRC the third trimester is when a baby becomes a person. He is also right re criminal laws and those being responsible for death if in certain circumstances they cause an unborn child to die. He talks about the doctor's own liability.

Still, the beauty of Paul is that he believes in the division of powers and the Federal system. He believes it is not upto the Federal government to decide but the States. Each state can decide for itself.

Education :- Ron Paul: 'Education Isn't A Right' - YouTube

Education isn't a right, Really ?? May not be a constitutional right (which is a a joke anyway). So you want to protect the right of the unborn but do not want to have anything to make sure that he.she gets an equal opportunity to get educated.

He's right, it isn't in the sense that it has to be Federally funded. LOL @ the constitution being a joke. Well, it's no wonder you're at odds with his philosophies. You don't care about the most important legal document in your country.

Originally Posted by Spark

I have a great deal of respect the Ayn Rand philosophical school of libertarianism, but only as a philosophy. What a lot of people have done with that philosophy - Ron Paul included and in many ways at the heart and centre - is truly despicable.

Libertarianism was originally supposed to be about limited government intervention with a social conscience.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten the second bit.

Ron Paul does not subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy, he has said that his ideology (Libertarianism) is at odds with hers explicitly.

I am not sure how you can define Libertarianism to involve all its beliefs/meanings; but even if we hold the above; then that also goes for Paul. Paul has more of a social conscience than any candidate for he believes that the inherent problems with central planning in government lead to dire results. That freedom is the ultimate safeguard for that.

To have a social conscience =/= be in favour of socialised programs. Really though, I'd argue you are offbase. Libertarianism is much more concerned with the individual, not groups.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Fusion

Except American is not under any unconstitutional wars currently. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President must get congressional approval for military action. If the President wants an official declaration of war, then Congress must approve that. However as Commander in Chief, the President has wide authority to engage American troops in combat without getting an official declaration of war. Besides, the funding for the troops and military action is still controlled by Congress. Therefore, the checks and balances still prevail even without the declaration.

There was and is. Afghanistan is an illegal war in International law.

Maybe I have to read a bit more, but I am fairly sure the powers which give the President power to go to war without congressional approval are for matters of emergency. Even then, there are strict rules on that and it is limited. Libya can also be classed an illegal war on these terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

That’s not even the real issue here though. The problem with Paul is his strict isolationism. If he were President, the US would not get involved militarily in any conflict unless directly attacked. That might be sound and just policy in certain cases (like Iraq), but could also be dangerous and immoral in other cases where American (and World) intervention is needed to prevent genocide or to prevent a clearly hostile regime from gaining power and nuclear weapons.

You're wrong; Paul has stated many times he is for War if the congress/people express its wish to do so. If a certain conflict arises he will heed the wishes of the people. The definitive statement on this I'd make about Paul is that he'd never initiate any act of aggression.

Furthermore, strict isolationism refers to no trade or communication with other nations. No anything with anyone. On the contrary Paul wants to trade with other nations (free trade, no less) and be diplomatic. He is non-interventionist, not an isolationist. If you do not know his positions how can you properly gauge him?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

There have been many, many documented failures of FEMA. I ask you to heed your own advise and Google. I should probably retract the statement 'most of the time" as I am not intimiate with every single issue it has faced but enough so to know that it is a joke of a bureaucracy.

Well I'll just disagree with you on that. You put incompetent people in charge, you get an incompetent outcome, as we saw with Katrina.

Originally Posted by Ikki

Yes, if you believe that central power is good, then you are more for a vested power in one body - which is more dangerous and susceptible to abuse. That's not really much of an opinion, just how Federalism works and is a mechanism to limit that abuse as much as possible.

In US history, most of the really ****ty things that were done, were done by local or state governments. There is less of a spotlight on them, and the local boards and governments try to get away with doing a lot of very shady things because of the often bigoted or insular nature of those smaller communities. Federal Government in the US history has almost always been the one that steps in and corrects local injustices.

Originally Posted by Ikki

Regardless, it was the intention of the framers and is a constitutional reading to want certain issues at the State level. I am not about to write you an essay on Federalism (ironically, I just wrote an essay in Constitional Law on Federalism). I can understand someone who doesn't mind the inherent risks of a central power, but to call for the division of this power to safeguard against individual rights abuses "bat**** crazy" is stupid.

The Articles of Confederation didn't work because it was too decentralized. Constitution was supposed to be more centralized but you are correct in that their vision of the scope of government was very different to what is needed in a modern world. He is bat **** crazy because most of the positions would take us back a hundred years, and most of us (on both sides), like most of those changes.

Originally Posted by Ikki

The unsubsidised care raises prices on the current model in the US. It is not truly free. This is akin to first creating a system of medical care through which lack of competition has caused high prices and then complaining that further subsidisation will only raise prices.

Let's stick to facts, shall we? The fact is, most people who HAVE government medical care, think it's good care and like it. The second fact is, if we were to insure everyone (including the currently 50 million uninsured) using medicare, it would cost less than the 18% of GDP it costs us now. Those are simple arithmatic numbers - so I don't understand how A) It's not good, or B) We can't afford it, comes into play, when comparing with another system.

The speculation about a 'true free market' where there are theoretically unlimited amount of doctors being allowed to practice (e.g state doesn't require them to get a licence so anyone can offer services, etc) is a scenario that I don't think anyone will legitimately believe will ever happen - not even Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Ikki

They can only last if people pay into them. Which means other racists funding these places. It doesn't matter, for in a free market where there there is a competing business and such a business has an advantage due to the populous of it's consumers. It'll undoubtedly grow larger and gain economic advantages making it more affordable and attractive.

If the racists want to continue, they can do so. Who cares? But it does not harm the other businesses allowing all people; they are at a competitive advantage. Moreover, I doubt people are willing to pay higher prices just to be racist, but if they want to then "have at it hoss".

Actually, it does. And it did. Because of the nature of the culture, those that allowed everyone to come in actually suffered because then the white people didn't go to them. I don't know how you can hold on to this line of view when you can literally google the situation as it existed in 1950. That wasn't all that long ago.....the fact is that the businesses were doing fine by marginalizing a bunch of people and not only that, it was expected by the community that they do so and if they didn't, they were called some ugly names and branded 'communists', and things of that nature. That's basic history, that's what actually happened.

Originally Posted by Ikki

What the mainstream believes itself can be bat**** crazy. Like, you do know most people are religious? On your own definition of bat**** crazy, you are bat**** crazy for being an atheist.

Well...no duh. I am not objectively diagnosing him with a medical condition...I thought that was obvious. I am only saying in reference to the fact that his positions are so far out of the mainstream and also dangerous (obviously in my opinion) that I find them absolutely insane.

Originally Posted by Ikki

The point of Paul's position is to safeguard against abuses in government positions. The government simply was not intended to, and should not have, a say in how people want to use their property rights.

I'll say again, home property rights are different to public facing businesses and are subject to different laws.

Originally Posted by Ikki

What would happen if the next government initiative was to ban pornography stores? Do you recall the ruckus re the Mosque at ground zero. Should the govt. dictate that they cannot build the centre there because others object? Further, should they reject certain types of people because their neighbours reject? The property rights Paul is defending is just as important as the freedom of speech rights. To defend one and not the other, merely because you agree with the prohibited act, is a double standard.

Places of worship are specially protected by the constitution, so that doesn't count. As for pornography, I don't think the laws are very clear on that and while I personally oppose censorship like that, I think it depends on how you define free speech.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Sensationalism. A few idiots said let him die. Paul certainly wouldn't have. Paul was a doctor that treated patients for free.

His point is: in a society where one is bestowed the right to choose, then they must live with the benefits and problems that choice entails.

Oh wow, he treated patients for free. Sucks for the 50 million uninsured who don't have Ron Paul as a neighbor. If we had universal insurance, he wouldn't have had to.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Well I'll just disagree with you on that. You put incompetent people in charge, you get an incompetent outcome, as we saw with Katrina.

Regardless whether you agree or not; the kind of system that is dependant on the person in charge being "the right person" is the inherent problem of the program. It’s also a very convenient excuse to disregard its wastage. It ignores that a single entity moving state to state to provide relief is inherently going to cause a lot of waste. Katrina is filled with examples.

In US history, most of the really ****ty things that were done, were done by local or state governments. There is less of a spotlight on them, and the local boards and governments try to get away with doing a lot of very shady things because of the often bigoted or insular nature of those smaller communities. Federal Government in the US history has almost always been the one that steps in and corrects local injustices.

That's preposterous, care to explain; with a view on comparison?

The worst offences are on a national scale, because they affect everybody and addressing issues unique to populations is difficult on such a stage. That is the inherent safeguard to the division; if it is bad, then it is bad for a few and stemmed there. If it is good, then eventually the program will expand to other states.

This whole ideology can be summarised in a case in the 1970s re regulations. In the 1970s it was mandated that all producers of children's sleepware use TRIS as a flame retardant. So, every producer did so. After a few years, this decision had to be overturned since it was discovered that TRIS had carcinogenic elements. If such a mandate was for a fewer number of producers, fewer number of people would have gotten cancer.

I'm sorry to be dismissive but I don't think anyone really argues that in a legal sense Federalism is more harmful to people re their rights. The arguments usually surround elements of efficiency and duplication of efforts in certain instances.

The Articles of Confederation didn't work because it was too decentralized. Constitution was supposed to be more centralized but you are correct in that their vision of the scope of government was very different to what is needed in a modern world. He is bat **** crazy because most of the positions would take us back a hundred years, and most of us (on both sides), like most of those changes.

Excuse me? Care to elaborate on that first sentence? You are making claims I don't think you appreciate.

Many enactments, like the income tax and the fed, were pushed upon people through emergencies; kept wrongly. What is unfortunate is that people these days do not have a true appreciation of the liberties they once possessed and have been raised indoctrinated in the belief that the government was intended to provide for all. Which is, I think you even admit, incorrect. The huge size of the government and your current deficit predicament is a testament to how untenable such an ideology is. It almost always leads to waste and inefficiency.

A recent example of such legislation being the Patriot Act – enacted in a time of emergency. Your argument would be that it should exist because people like it that way. Hah. I choose to see the abuse in power, from those with the power, to remove certain rights of people. I don’t think they’d actually like actions like habeas corpus being suspended.

Let's stick to facts, shall we? The fact is, most people who HAVE government medical care, think it's good care and like it. The second fact is, if we were to insure everyone (including the currently 50 million uninsured) using medicare, it would cost less than the 18% of GDP it costs us now. Those are simple arithmatic numbers - so I don't understand how A) It's not good, or B) We can't afford it, comes into play, when comparing with another system.

Ok, how about this: America is in deficit and has to print money to implement its proposed budget. One program being medical care (others have been named in this thread). Once medicine is socialised it will end up costing more as it is subsidised. This is an economic reality. By printing more money it devalues it, creating inflation, and raises prices.

Also, could you cite sources re your above stats?

The speculation about a 'true free market' where there are theoretically unlimited amount of doctors being allowed to practice (e.g state doesn't require them to get a licence so anyone can offer services, etc) is a scenario that I don't think anyone will legitimately believe will ever happen - not even Ron Paul.

I am not sure where this part relates to but I'll answer anyway because it is a good point. Not all things done by doctors require the expertise of someone with that level of education. Friedman expounds on this well. Milton Friedman - Health Care in a Free Market - YouTube - especially pay attention to question raised around 1:40.

Such a scheme would undoubtedly lower costs - more competition, lesser skills required.

Actually, it does. And it did. Because of the nature of the culture, those that allowed everyone to come in actually suffered because then the white people didn't go to them. I don't know how you can hold on to this line of view when you can literally google the situation as it existed in 1950. That wasn't all that long ago.....the fact is that the businesses were doing fine by marginalizing a bunch of people and not only that, it was expected by the community that they do so and if they didn't, they were called some ugly names and branded 'communists', and things of that nature. That's basic history, that's what actually happened.

Oh, I can agree with you that it did in those days. But you cannot overcome people's prejudices by passing a law. You are assuming that the law itself had a causal effect on people suddenly not being racist.

The irony of this discussion is that you seem to ignore the Jim Crows Laws. It shows how giving power to government to direct people's interactions can be harmful. You only look at one side of the coin. The aforementioned laws in fact demanded segregation. As I said, this right is akin to the Freedom of Speech laws. I repeatedly mention it because no one has any qualms about that right. You have, thankfully, grown up indoctrinated in the belief that such a right is imperative even if it espouses disgusting views. Now imagine a scenario where there were certain laws specifying that you could only say GOOD things - I leave the term vague for simplistic analysis, yet the point is valid all the same. People argue, well how could you ever be against GOOD things? The problem is who is using the power to even legislate at all on speech. That who can then determine the what. That is the crux of the problem. It is a necessary evil that someone may do something with their property as long as it does not injure me, that I may be left alone to do what I would like to do with my property.

Well...no duh. I am not objectively diagnosing him with a medical condition...I thought that was obvious. I am only saying in reference to the fact that his positions are so far out of the mainstream and also dangerous (obviously in my opinion) that I find them absolutely insane.

In that sense, I am ok with it. If someone can call me insane for not believing in an imaginary holy being; then I am cool with you saying Paul is bat**** crazy for believing in individual liberty. It says more about the people in the majority in these cases IMO.

I'll say again, home property rights are different to public facing businesses and are subject to different laws.

No, what you said has no relevance to the discussion - standards of care, etc. A building which is a dwelling and a building which holds a business are both properties capable of being owned. As far as business dealings are concerned, they should only deal with situations safeguarding injury and/or fraud. You refer to other regulations which I also assume he’d be against. That's kind of his whole point - the civil rights act gave the federal government power over hiring, employee relations and customer service practices. He also opposed the racial quotas of the time.

Places of worship are specially protected by the constitution, so that doesn't count. As for pornography, I don't think the laws are very clear on that and while I personally oppose censorship like that, I think it depends on how you define free speech.

You’re missing my point. The founders intended the government to safeguard people’s rights to do certain things – own property, have free speech, etc. They feared tyranny – as they had seen it from England – of a central body enacting on whimsical belief systems. For someone who so staunchly argues against religion, I am surprised that this point is even contentious for you.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Oh wow, he treated patients for free. Sucks for the 50 million uninsured who don't have Ron Paul as a neighbor. If we had universal insurance, he wouldn't have had to.

This lives in the fantasy world where prices won't rise as the government subsidises care and prints more money.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Sensationalism. A few idiots said let him die. Paul certainly wouldn't have. Paul was a doctor that treated patients for free.

Don't care about what the audience shouting, I am interested in knowing what Ron Paul actually said in his response. So how does Paul treating the patient for free makes the individual taking his/her own responsibility ?

His point is: in a society where one is bestowed the right to choose, then they must live with the benefits and problems that choice entails.

No, that is not his point, Here is the conversation I am referring to

"Congressman !! Are you saying that the society should just let him die ?"

His Answer was something like :- "No, I practiced medicine before we had medicaid in the early 1960s when I got to medical school I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio and the churches took care of them, we never turned away anybody away from the Hospital...we have given up on the whole concept...that we might take care of ourselves..we assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends our churches... "

Really that is his solution for health care ??

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Don't care about what the audience shouting, I am interested in knowing what Ron Paul actually said in his response. So how does Paul treating the patient for free makes the individual taking his/her own responsibility ?

The question Paul was asked is what should society do for the man. Ron's answer has two sides: society should only ensure that he has the right to do what he wants to do. Whether that means he buys insurance or not is upto him and if he one day falls ill that is his responsibility. Him saving money not paying for insurance did not go into the money-pool of society.

But Paul does not advocate that we should be so careless towards our fellow citizen that we should not care for them and therefore encourages private charity.

No, that is not his point, Here is the conversation I am referring to

"Congressman !! Are you saying that the society should just let him die ?"

His Answer was something like :- "No, I practiced medicine before we had medicaid in the early 1960s when I got to medical school I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio and the churches took care of them, we never turned away anybody away from the Hospital...we have given up on the whole concept...that we might take care of ourselves..we assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends our churches... "

Really that is his solution for health care ??

And I have answered based on that conversation. One must understand the context of Paul's answers because his ideology, coupled with the general public's ignorance of it, is poor for soundbites.

Paul advocates a system of government and economic policy which he understands lowers the cost of care. In his time, these conditions existed and the cost of care was far lower. Ironically, as Friedman also notes many times in his speeches, the periods in American history where there was most freedom and booms in the economy were the times where people were the most charitable.

Back then, hospitals were run by Churches and the cost of care was relatively cheap. Even private care really wasn't that expensive. When he answers, he is referring to his policies to hopefully get back to that stage.

Also, his plans on medicare/medicaid and health care in general are far more complex than that. You should really take a look at his site or other articles where his plans are delved into far greater.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Paul is a Libertarian and sees individual rights. The right of a person to life > the right of a woman to abort. Paul thinks IIRC the third trimester is when a baby becomes a person. He is also right re criminal laws and those being responsible for death if in certain circumstances they cause an unborn child to die. He talks about the doctor's own liability.

Ron Paul clearly believes that Life begins at conception, so please do not try to distort the opinion by bringing an extreme case like 3rd trimester abortion. I am not a Pro-Abortion gut but Ron Paul's stance on abortion is nothing more than mere flip flop of his position that abortion is something that should be dealt at state level than at federal level. In that case How does one explain his vote in the congress banning late term abortion ?

Still, the beauty of Paul is that he believes in the division of powers and the Federal system. He believes it is not up to the Federal government to decide but the States. Each state can decide for itself.

I still don't understand how does it change his position other than just passing the buck to the states, you may consider it the beauty of Ron Paul, I don't. Does he consider it a crime if an abortion took place in a state where it was allowed ? Wouldn't a murder (since he considers abortion as one) be a crime regardless of which state it took place ?

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Ikki

The question Paul was asked is what should society do for the man. Ron's answer has two sides: society should only ensure that he has the right to do what he wants to do. Whether that means he buys insurance or not is upto him and if he one day falls ill that is his responsibility. Him saving money not paying for insurance did not go into the money-pool of society.

But Paul does not advocate that we should be so careless towards our fellow citizen that we should not care for them and therefore encourages private charity.

No, once again that is a distortion of the question asked. The question asked was "Should the society just let him die" ? While the question is very simple the context of the question is exactly what many of us have in mind and want to know from Mr. Paul what his solution is.

His Solution is "Churches took care of them, I used to work for a hospital and we never turned away anyone..we should take responsibility for our neighbors Health care etc...".

That is not a good enough answer for me. I do not care about what fancy name he gives to his philosophy, If this is what he stands for then I want no part of him anywhere close to the US presidency.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Ron Paul clearly believes that Life begins at conception, so please do not try to distort the opinion by bringing an extreme case like 3rd trimester abortion. I am not a Pro-Abortion gut but Ron Paul's stance on abortion is nothing more than mere flip flop of his position that abortion is something that should be dealt at state level than at federal level. In that case How does one explain his vote in the congress banning late term abortion ?

Does he? It makes no difference to my point.

He is someone who may have a belief but doesn't think it should be mandated for on a level which doesn't have the required constitutional power.

Re the partial-abortion act: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban by Rep. Ron Paul. He clearly disapproves of the ban in many sections but thinks it improves the current law as it stands. It's pretty safe to say that if he had power Roe v Wade would simply lose its force.

I still don't understand how does it change his position other than just passing the buck to the states, you may consider it the beauty of Ron Paul, I don't. Does he consider it a crime if an abortion took place in a state where it was allowed ? Wouldn't a murder (since he considers abortion as one) be a crime regardless of which state it took place ?

No mate, things like murder and abortion are legal terms which depend on the definitions they are given. Moreover, his view that the states should have it is not about a philosophical question re it existing regardless where it happens. In Paul's mind, he'd agree that regardless where it occurs it may be the killing of a foetus; but it doesn't mean it has criminal ramifications. It is upto the people of each state to decide that.

This is his backing of the Federal model. It encourages diversity so that if people in a populous decide that in their area it is legal, it can be so. In another, the opposite could occur. And people could choose to live in different states depending on the importance they place on the legality of abortion. Whereas if you left it to the fed govt it would put everyone under one law. In the Federal way, you keep far more people happy. You don't have to leave the country, merely another state if a certain law affects you centrally.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Sanz

I still don't understand how does it change his position other than just passing the buck to the states.

Even if that is the case, i don't see what is wrong with it?

Each state and it's people can decide for itself, which means more localized power to the people on this issue which can possibly be divisive.
And possibly, it could also mean as per the guidelines worked out, one can go and have a abortion in another state if they have too.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Sanz

No, once again that is a distortion of the question asked. The question asked was "Should the society just let him die" ? While the question is very simple the context of the question is exactly what many of us have in mind and want to know from Mr. Paul what his solution is.

Yes, but 'society' can mean more than one thing - a group with legal power or a group without legal power. He'll argue against that it should be mandated by law for people to do something; even though he would promote the act of it being done voluntarily.

You might tell someone it is good to diet for their health; but you might consider it outside the bounds of legal responsibility to mandate that they have to eat help.

The mandate restricts the liberty of the individual, the voluntary act doesn't.

His Solution is "Churches took care of them, I used to work for a hospital and we never turned away anyone..we should take responsibility for our neighbors Health care etc...".

That is not a good enough answer for me. I do not care about what fancy name he gives to his philosophy, If this is what he stands for then I want no part of him anywhere close to the US presidency.

You can vote for who you want, although I don't think you understand his position well. When people question what used to happen when medical care was less regulated/subsidised, he is drawing on what happened in the past. If you want universal health-care then you shouldn't vote for Paul.

For me though, such a social program is bound to fail and go bankrupt as well as bankrupt the country.