I'm voting for RP in the primaries but...

[Starks]

I'm not sure about the general elections.

He's by far the best the Republican for the job and making sure that he gets the nomination will help create a win-win situation for independents like myself who'd rather not see scumbags like Giuliani even have a shot at the WH.

I'd rather see RP vs Obama/Hillary than see Giuliani vs Obama/Hillary...

[UCFGavin]

who would you vote for in the general elections?

[DjLoTi]

Hey, if you vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, I truly believe everything'll work out on it's own.. thank you.

[FreedomLover]

Well, i appreciate you voting for him in the primaries, but I think by the time the general election comes around, assuming RP wins the primaries, he'll have plenty of chances to specify and build on his viewpoints to inform the voters, and I think you'll come around. :cool:

[Starks]

who would you vote for in the general elections?

It's a toss up between RP, Hillary, and Obama...

My deciding factor will be how things in Iraq are by November 2008.

[nullvalu]

It's a toss up between RP, Hillary, and Obama...

Hillary & Obama both are socialists.. They'd destroy what we have left of our health care system..

Is the war the only issue you're voting on?

[Starks]

Hillary & Obama both are socialists.. They'd destroy what we have left of our health care system..

Is the war the only issue you're voting on?

You could say that.

RP is the only Republican (or Democrat for that matter) with a sane foreign policy stance.

I don't care much for RP's other views.

[njandrewg]

It's a toss up between RP, Hillary, and Obama...

My deciding factor will be how things in Iraq are by November 2008.
then you'll def be voting for Ron Paul.

lets see: vote for someone who was against the war from the beginning or

Dem 1: vote for someone who was for the war, then once it turned sour continued to be for the war, and once it became a 70% against issue, became against it. And still says pull out will take a few years, and there needs to be a residual force of 50,000 troops there to keep peace

Dem 2: when the war began supposedly held a rally where he denounced the war. Then once he got into senate in the last 2 years, voted EXACTLY the same way as Clinton(saw it on MSNBC, so not 100% sure thats correct)

Honestly out of the 3, Ron Paul is the only one I trust to get the job done

[UCFGavin]

then you'll def be voting for Ron Paul.

lets see: vote for someone who was against the war from the beginning or

Dem 1: vote for someone who was for the war, then once it turned sour continued to be for the war, and once it became a 70% against issue, became against it. And still says pull out will take a few years, and there needs to be a residual force of 50,000 troops there to keep peace

Dem 2: when the war began supposedly held a rally where he denounced the war. Then once he got into senate in the last 2 years, voted EXACTLY the same way as Clinton(saw it on MSNBC, so not 100% sure thats correct)

Honestly out of the 3, Ron Paul is the only one I trust to get the job done

its true. the iraq situation is my number one concern right now, and thats the reason why my next candidates after paul are kucinich and gravel, and i barely agree with them about anything.

[BuddyRey]

Guys, you're not gonna win many Progressives/Democrats if you berate them for their choices and call their candidates socialists! :D

Remember....you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

[BLS]

I don't care much for RP's other views.

Care to elaborate?

[BarryDonegan]

its obvious ron paul would win the general election with the money of the republican party. he has the better voting record, a pristine personal and community record, and he made the right votes on the iraq war, the patriot act, and other key issues that define the american people's current needs from President. these are the mainstream needs, not the more "ron paul" type ones.

[Starks]

its obvious ron paul would win the general election with the money of the republican party. he has the better voting record, a pristine personal and community record, and he made the right votes on the iraq war, the patriot act, and other key issues that define the american people's current needs from President. these are the mainstream needs, not the more "ron paul" type ones.

Isn't most of the "Republican money" tainted with the blood of children, angels, and special interest groups? I thought RP was gonna be grassroots to the very end...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Isn't most of the "Republican money" tainted with the blood of children, angels, and special interest groups? I thought RP was gonna be grassroots to the very end...

There is no "Republican money" in all actuality, I know that you're mostly a social conservative, and a fiscal liberal, your "Great Society" liberal reforms failed under President Johnson, it actually led to the rise of the neo con coup of the GOP.

Fiscal liberal reforms were tried and have failed, yet they just keep trying to push for it anyway, why? Either they don't understand economics, or they want the votes from the general population that don't understand how economics works.

[Lord Xar]

You could say that.

RP is the only Republican (or Democrat for that matter) with a sane foreign policy stance.

I don't care much for RP's other views.

Wow!!

You don't care about the NAU, SPP or Americas sovereignty????

You don't understand... The Global Agenda IS its foreign policy. Both Hillary and Obama are part of the CFR... they will pull out of Iraq and go right into Iran... they will give Amnesty (as shown in their latest La Raza speeches...) and move forward with the NAU Agenda..

I am very surprised at you.

[Starks]

Care to elaborate?

I'm cool with his ideas to reduce the scope of govt, lower taxes, legalize marijuana, and be non-interventionist but disagree with him on health care and 2A rights.

[Lord Xar]

Isn't most of the "Republican money" tainted with the blood of children, angels, and special interest groups? I thought RP was gonna be grassroots to the very end...

uhmmmm.. I am finding it very hard to not get personal. I would advise you to look at the donors for your beloved hillary and obama.. believe it or not THEIR money is the SAME big money supporting Ghouliani and Romney, McCain...

Hillary, Obama, Ghouliani, Romney and McCain... ARE THE SAME CANDIDATES.. the final agenda is the same.... NAU, big government... less liberties..

[LibertyEagle]

Hell, for right now, I'm just glad he's going to vote for Ron in the primaries.

[glts]

People! Don't you realize by now that all of the other annointed candidates are handpicked by the shadow government? It makes no different which one you vote for whether it be Clinton, McCain, Obama, or Edwards, etc. The New World Order will keep on carrying out their agenda. I will NEVER in my life again vote thinking I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is a myth! I will vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write his name in. I believe in the words of John Quincy Adams when he said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

[FreedomLover]

Isn't most of the "Republican money" tainted with the blood of children, angels, and special interest groups? I thought RP was gonna be grassroots to the very end...

??? Why would you think a guy running under the banner of a major party would deny the fundraising help of republican voters or supporters ? Leave that to the third parties.

You know, The Republican party up until recently had been the party to bring about the end to wars, bring back fiscal responsibility, and restrain big government.

Im not sure what point your making with the sarcasm in that post.

[nullvalu]

Guys, you're not gonna win many Progressives/Democrats if you berate them for their choices and call their candidates socialists!

Understood. But they are socialists.

Most Clinton fans don't even realize that she wants war with Iran!

[sleeper]

Can you vote in both? Primaries and the main in all states?

[Lord Xar]

I'm cool with his ideas to reduce the scope of govt, lower taxes, legalize marijuana, and be non-interventionist but disagree with him on health care and 2A rights.

well,, you make no sense.. How can you agree with him on taxes YET support hillary/obama healthcare??? That is complete opposites working in opposition of each other...

Also, EVER SINGLE PERSON I HAVE TALKED to who is in a country with socialized healthcare - they hate it......

Also, this "socialized" healthcare that the candidates are supporting will MAINLY affect illegal immigrants.. not american citizens......... so, in essence more of your taxes will be paying for non-citizens, again.

I am not sure where the Democrats took a turn...... but they are socialists now.
They are creating an atmosphere of 'hand-outs' and 'take care of us' mentality....

[LibertyEagle]

Starks,

Xar is right. All the front-runners on both sides of the aisle, are sold out to international big business and big Pharma. In other words, they are on the same team. It matters little anymore whether they have an R or a D appended to their names.

I also recommend you do some research on NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. and find out that these are not the free trade agreements they keep calling them. But are instead, big government managed trade agreements that are driving small and medium businesses OUT of business altogether. Dr. Paul has several speeches on the subject and you can find a wealth of information about these on www.mises.org

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You're not going to win over many pro choice liberals if you keep saying Dr. Paul is a staunch pro lifer, he voted against a federal ban.

[BLS]

I'm cool with his ideas to reduce the scope of govt, lower taxes, legalize marijuana, and be non-interventionist but disagree with him on health care and 2A rights.

Well, let me first say that it takes guts to come here of all places and voice your opinions against Ron Pauls stance on 2A and Healthcare, and for that I applaude you.

That being said, I will try to be cordial with you.

May I ask you some questions?
1. You don't believe that people have the right to own guns?
2. Do you believe that the Federal Government should provide Health Care for everyone?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Hey Stark,

Did you hear of people not receiving health care in the 50's? Before this fascist system?

[Kuldebar]

Starks:

You can't say you support smaller, less intrusive government and lower taxes and then advocate that government should provide universal health care.

Those two things are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

If you disagree, explain to me how you think you can get both?

[BuddyRey]

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and say that I agree with Starks on the healthcare thing. Capitalist systems are great in business and commerce, but not when they can toy with human life and put a cost on health. We don't have to institute FEDERAL universal healthcare, but a system managed by state or local governments might be a novel approach that just might work.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and say that I agree with Starks on the healthcare thing. Capitalist systems are great in business and commerce, but not when they can toy with human life and put a cost on health. We don't have to institute FEDERAL universal healthcare, but a system managed by state or local governments might be a novel approach that just might work.

Thats' because you have never seen a true free market health care system, you are calling the system we have now..."capitalist" lol this is NOT a free market, socialized medicine is better than this, but not as good as free market health care.

[Starks]

Well, let me first say that it takes guts to come here of all places and voice your opinions against Ron Pauls stance on 2A and Healthcare, and for that I applaude you.

That being said, I will try to be cordial with you.

May I ask you some questions?
1. You don't believe that people have the right to own guns?
2. Do you believe that the Federal Government should provide Health Care for everyone?

1. Yes. But the right should not be absolute.
2. It would be nice if it could be done without raising taxes. I believe that our health care system will not "correct" itself with time and govt cutbacks. Futhermore, 40 million uninsured is inexcusable, especially those that are children.

[BLS]

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and say that I agree with Starks on the healthcare thing. Capitalist systems are great in business and commerce, but not when they can toy with human life and put a cost on health. We don't have to institute FEDERAL universal healthcare, but a system managed by state or local governments might be a novel approach that just might work.

I think there's a misconception here about Federal Government.
In a TRUE free market society, you would have a ton of choices for health care, and different hospitals. The cost wouldn't be insane like it is now, but too many politicians are lobbied by the big HMO's and Pharms and that is where the cost is coming from. HMO's and Pharms are making a ton of $$ off of this bureacracy.

[nullvalu]

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and say that I agree with Starks on the healthcare thing. Capitalist systems are great in business and commerce, but not when they can toy with human life and put a cost on health. We don't have to institute FEDERAL universal healthcare, but a system managed by state or local governments might be a novel approach that just might work.

I think the government should get out of the picture completely and leave it to free markets. Heathcare IS a business! One of the largest in the world.

[Kuldebar]

I'm going to put myself out on a limb here and say that I agree with Starks on the healthcare thing. Capitalist systems are great in business and commerce, but not when they can toy with human life and put a cost on health. We don't have to institute FEDERAL universal healthcare, but a system managed by state or local governments might be a novel approach that just might work.

Mix politics into health care and you better hold onto to your wallet. We have 30 years of government intrusions into the medical field, and look where we are...

[BLS]

1. Yes. But the right should not be absolute.
2. It would be nice if it could be done without raising taxes. I believe that our health care system will not "correct" itself with time and govt cutbacks. Futhermore, 40 million uninsured is inexcusable, especially those that are children.

By absolute, what do you mean? Can you elaborate or give me an example.

I fully agree that it's inexcusable. But I don't believe the government can 'run' a federally funded health care system. Time has shown the government is not good at this sort of thing, and government run Health Care systems in other countries are abysmal. Look at Canada, Great Britain, etc, or our VA hospitals for Veterans. It's appauling.

[DAZ]

Interesting argument BuddyRey. I agree that individual state programs would be better than a blanket federal program. If we must have gov. healthcare, I would pick state government to be in charge. However, I don't see any of the Dems fighting for gov-care and then relinquishing control to the states.

[Kuldebar]

1. Yes. But the right should not be absolute.


Then it isn't a right at all, only a privilege granted to you by the state with no guarantees.

[nullvalu]

Heathcare IS a business! One of the largest in the world.

According to the BLS, "[Healthcare is] the largest industry in 2004, health care provided 13.5 million jobs—13.1 million jobs for wage and salary workers and about 411,000 jobs for the self-employed."

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm

I can't think of a better example of an industry that would flurish under free markets.

[BuddyRey]

Heathcare IS a business! One of the largest in the world.

In my opinion, that's the very nature of the problem. We've turned healthcare into a business, when it should be about people. I hate to sound like Michael Moore here, but $60,000 to have a severed finger reattached is bloody predatory and completely heartless.

[Nash]

1. Yes. But the right should not be absolute.
2. It would be nice if it could be done without raising taxes. I believe that our health care system will not "correct" itself with time and govt cutbacks. Futhermore, 40 million uninsured is inexcusable, especially those that are children.

I agree that healthcare is screwed up. In another thread I posted 5 examples of how Paul (limited government) could help this situation without destroying the economy. Remember that 70 cents of every dollar put into a federal program like that will go to bureaucrats and not the patients who need it not to mention give people more of an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties (smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, skateboarding are all "unhealthy" ad infinitum). That why I feel that option is totally unacceptable.

Just remember that Hilary voted for the iraq war and the patriot act, twice. Obama voted to extend the patriot act. That makes them unelectable to me.

My wife is a lefty too and she's coming around to Paul. Maybe you will too. Maybe not. I'll gladly take a primary vote though. We appreciate your support :)

[Starks]

By absolute, what do you mean? Can you elaborate or give me an example.

I fully agree that it's inexcusable. But I don't believe the government can 'run' a federally funded health care system. Time has shown the government is not good at this sort of thing, and government run Health Care systems in other countries are abysmal. Look at Canada, Great Britain, etc, or our VA hospitals for Veterans. It's appauling.

By "absolute", I mean that a person shouldn't be able to buy a gun like they buy groceries.

It would be foolish to sell guns without asking for ID and without asking questions.

[Kuldebar]

In my opinion, that's the very nature of the problem. We've turned healthcare into a business, when it should be about people. I hate to sound like Michael Moore here, but $60,000 to have a finger reattached is bloody predatory and completely heartless.


Why stop there?

Let's take your "principle" and apply it across the board, see how it flies.


Why should we pay for caskets and funerals? Really, talk about heartless!

And shouldn't access to free food be a guaranteed "right"? After all, you can't live if you don't eat!

[BLS]

By "absolute", I mean that a person shouldn't be able to buy a gun like they buy groceries.

It would be foolish to sell guns without asking for ID and without asking questions.

Why is that foolish.
If I want to buy a gun to hunt with, or to protect my home, why should I have to be run through a wringer to get one? Even if it's a handgun.
I'm a law abiding citizen. Who gets to decide what is considered an "OK" reason to buy a gun? The Supreme Law of the Land says I have the right to own a gun.
Why do people believe they can supersede that??

I do, however, agree that convicted felons should not have the ability to ever own a gun again. They've proven they're not responsible.

[nullvalu]

In my opinion, that's the very nature of the problem. We've turned healthcare into a business, when it should be about people. I hate to sound like Michael Moore here, but $60,000 to have a severed finger reattached is bloody predatory and completely heartless.

Our costs are out of control.. That's true, but it's not because the doctors are just greedy people. Hospitals have to pick up the slack for covering the uninsured, illegal aliens, and those on welfare programs. I'm no expert and i'm sure there are many other influences, but I do know the first issue would be corrected over time through true free markets and Ron Paul will fix the other 2 problems through a sane immegration policy and smaller government.

[BLS]

And shouldn't access to free food be a guaranteed "right"? After all, you can't live if you don't eat!

Amen Brother. Amen.

[BLS]

Our costs are out of control.. That's true, but it's not because the doctors are just greedy people. Hospitals have to pick up the slack for covering the uninsured, illegal aliens, and those on welfare programs. I'm no expert and i'm sure there are many other influences, but I do know the first issue would be corrected over time through true free markets and Ron Paul will fix the other 2 problems through a sane immegration policy and smaller government.

Don't forget the countless frivolous lawsuits, soaring malpractice insurance rates for doctors, and big Pharm charging a ridiculous amount for their products that may cause anal leakage and sleepwalking.

[Kuldebar]

By "absolute", I mean that a person shouldn't be able to buy a gun like they buy groceries.

It would be foolish to sell guns without asking for ID and without asking questions.

And this prevents what exactly?


By now the news about the shootings at Virginia Tech have reached everyone. I hate hearing about things like this. I hate it not only because some probably good people were killed (I say probably because I didn't know any of them), but because those who hate us and our way of life will seek to use these events to further their political agendas. I can almost see Pelosi and Hillary snickering over their bubbling cauldrons at their "good fortune"

I wrote a piece a few months ago on how to prevent these things and it involves, simply and decidedly, that being armed is the best solution.

Point One: It is already illegal to do what the gunman did... murder people. . . but he did it anyway. . . sadly, the law failed.

Point Two: It is illegal to bring guns into the University, yet that didn't stop the gunman. He did it anyway. . . again, the law failed.

Point Three: As courageous as the University police may be. . . as trained and equipped as they may be. . . they are totally irrelevant in such events. As we saw, they did not stop this man. He killed a boatload of people unbothered by the enforcers of the law, the prosecutors of the law, and of course, unbothered by those who obey the law.

Again. . . The Law Failed.

There are only three conclusions we may reach here.

Conclusion One: These events are unavoidable and some people will simply die this way in the society we have. I personally refuse to accept that under any terms.

Conclusion Two: These event can be stopped by making it illegal for civilians to possess guns. The stupidity of this argument cannot be overstated, yet that is undoubtedly what we will hear. I will reference all to the points above. In short, as they all invariably do, The Law Failed.

Conclusion Three: Allow those who wish to, to carry guns for their own protection. (and I would add, make any organization that enacts policies to prevent the free exercise of civil rights, liable for any crimes of violence). I think of the three, this one makes the most sense, but probably the one least considered.

Some would say that an armed man or woman would only be able to protect themselves and would not have stopped the gunman. I disagree if in the act of this self-protection, they killed the gunman. What if the first or second intended victim had been one of these? How many lives would have been saved by one civilian carrying a pistol? After all. . . with all the cops in and around the college already, they could not prevent the shooter from killing again. The law failed here as well did it not?

On the shooter, few facts are coming out. This makes me wonder. First of all, I find it a very strange coincidence that every time some sort of anti-gun (anti-civil rights) legislation is being discussed, something like this happens. I'm not suggesting anything, but the contestants on Deal or No Deal should have as much "coincidental happenstance".

Regardless of where all of the fallout takes us, I expect a greater impetus in the left's attempts to deny our civil right to own and carry guns. I have just ordered a boatload of pistol and rifle magazines for sale at our store, and another two crates of ammo for our own armory.
-Gabe Suarez (mailto:info@suarezinternational.com)

[BuddyRey]

Why stop there?

Let's take your "principle" and apply it across the board, see how it flies.


Why should we pay for caskets and funerals? Really, talk about heartless!

And shouldn't access to free food be a guaranteed "right"? After all, you can't live if you don't eat!

That's a strawman argument if ever I've heard one.

1. Coffins are a luxury for the families of people who are already dead. That IS a free market issue.
2. The cost of living is rising everyday, but most people can still afford food (thank God). If there are people who cannot afford food, private charities, missions, shelters help them out. There are no places to go for "charity healthcare."

[Starks]

If the health care industry wasn't supercapitalist, we wouldn't have 40 million uninsured. We don't necessarily need universal health care to fix it.

[BLS]

If the health care industry wasn't supercapitalist, we wouldn't have 40 million uninsured. We don't necessarily need universal health care to fix it.

Agreed!!

[Nash]

If the health care industry wasn't supercapitalist, we wouldn't have 40 million uninsured. We don't necessarily need universal health care to fix it.

You don't think it's this way because it's over-regulated and people are over-taxed? If so why not?

[Starks]

You don't think it's this way because it's over-regulated and people are over-taxed? If so why not?

I think things are bad right now because the concept of "free enterprise" has superseded all standards of human decency in the health care industry.

[kylejack]

Why is that foolish.
If I want to buy a gun to hunt with, or to protect my home, why should I have to be run through a wringer to get one? Even if it's a handgun.
I'm a law abiding citizen. Who gets to decide what is considered an "OK" reason to buy a gun? The Supreme Law of the Land says I have the right to own a gun.
Why do people believe they can supersede that??

I do, however, agree that convicted felons should not have the ability to ever own a gun again. They've proven they're not responsible.
Without ID checks, how do you propose imposing such a prohibition? When a person is released from prison, they should have their full citizenship rights restored, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

[nullvalu]

2. The cost of living is rising everyday, but most people can still afford food (thank God). If there are people who cannot afford food, private charities, missions, shelters help them out. There are no places to go for "charity healthcare."

Don't you hear yourself? You are using the same arguments as the socialists themselves. All they ever say is "Just think of all the poor people it will help..." And what ALWAYS ends up happening in a socialist policy? The poor people get screwed the worst.

[Starks]

Without ID checks, how do you propose imposing such a prohibition? When a person is released from prison, they should have their full citizenship rights restored, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

Question: What if said person is on probation? Is his debt to society not repaid until he is off probation?

[Mom4Ron]

Thanks for supporting him in the primaries, Starks. I hope that by the time the GE rolls around, you'll realize that he is indeed the best hope for all of us.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Honestly, the War is one of the only things that RP would really have control over as President, so I understand Starks

[LibertyEagle]

I think things are bad right now because the concept of "free enterprise" has superseded all standards of human decency in the health care industry.

No, that's the problem Starks. We don't have free enterprise. We have corporatism. A bunch of people making money off of government largesse. Huge lobbies for big business, big agra and big pharma paying off our Congress to do their bidding. Not to mention huge lobbies for the military-industrial complex.

Here's a good article about corporatism.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp

It's the government that is causing the problem, Starks. We no longer have a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

[Kuldebar]

That's a strawman argument if ever I've heard one.

1. Coffins are a luxury for the families of people who are already dead. That IS a free market issue.
2. The cost of living is rising everyday, but most people can still afford food (thank God). If there are people who cannot afford food, private charities, missions, shelters help them out. There are no places to go for "charity healthcare."

Horse crap.

Health care is a service and it costs money. More money than it should because of government intrusions and the entrenched socialization of the whole field.

And, yes there are still places to go for charity health care. Not as many as there used to be 30 years ago because some well intentioned idiots bought into the idea that socialism works.

What charity can truly thrive when people are forced to pay taxes for services promised by their government. Charities have dried up in the last 30-40 years, but America is still one of the most charitable nations on the earth.

It could afford to be even more so if parasitic socialist government intrusions came to an end.

[BLS]

Without ID checks, how do you propose imposing such a prohibition? When a person is released from prison, they should have their full citizenship rights restored, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

You've lost your rights when you infringe upon the rights of someone else.

[kylejack]

You've lost your rights when you infringe upon the rights of someone else.

And that's why we send you to prison. Being released from prison means you are ready to return to society and have your rights returned to you. Freed felons should have the same rights to life and liberty as everyone else, so long as they don't commit new crimes.

Back to my question, how will this felon ban be enforced if ID is not check at point-of-sale?

[kylejack]

Question: What if said person is on probation? Is his debt to society not repaid until he is off probation?
Hm, okay, I could go with that, though certainly most other rights should be returned to him. I think its ridiculous that we take away the right to vote from some for the rest of their lives, long after they've paid their debt to society.

[nullvalu]

so long as they don't commit new crimes.

This doesn't make any sense. What if they do commit new crimes and get put back in prison? When he comes out, do you tell him he can have his gun back as long as he doesn't commit any more new crimes. Really. This time we're super-serious.

[BLS]

This doesn't make any sense. What if they do commit new crimes and get put back in prison? When he comes out, do you tell him he can have his gun back as long as he doesn't commit any more new crimes. Really. This time we're super-serious.

I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

[kylejack]

This doesn't make any sense. What if they do commit new crimes and get put back in prison? When he comes out, do you tell him he can have his gun back as long as he doesn't commit any more new crimes. Really. This time we're super-serious.
Yes, if he is again released, he should have his citizenship rights returned to him. The more pertinent question is, why are we releasing violent repeat felons to make room for people who smoke marijuana? When a person has served his sentence, the justice system is saying that he is ready to return to society. A person who will always be a threat to those around him should never be released from jail.

[BLS]

And that's why we send you to prison. Being released from prison means you are ready to return to society and have your rights returned to you. Freed felons should have the same rights to life and liberty as everyone else, so long as they don't commit new crimes.

Back to my question, how will this felon ban be enforced if ID is not check at point-of-sale?

I have no problem with an ID check when buying a gun. I just don't want to be run through 1000 steps, go to conceal and carry classes, etc, etc, in order to purchase a gun.

[kylejack]

I have no problem with an ID check when buying a gun. I just don't want to be run through 1000 steps, go to conceal and carry classes, etc, etc, in order to purchase a gun.
Okay, and what did all of that have to do with the post you responded to? The person said:

"It would be foolish to sell guns without asking for ID and without asking questions."

You replied:
"Why is that foolish. If I want to buy a gun to hunt with, or to protect my home, why should I have to be run through a wringer to get one? Even if it's a handgun."

The implication here is that its NOT foolish to sell someone a gun without asking for ID and without asking questions. Any assumption on your part about "1000 steps, go to conceal and carry classes, etc" had little to do with what you responded to.

[paulitics]

Thank you in advance for your vote for RP in the primaries. Do you kow any other democrats? I voted for gore in 2000, and have never voted for a repub before. I realize liberty is more imp than anything right now, and I honestly believe if a mainstream guy gets in, we may never have a real election again. It is this serious right now.

[MBA2008]

We did not turn healthcare into a business. Health care has always been a business. Individuals who are smart and desire to help people be healthy pursue a career in this field because there is a high demand for the services doctors provide. That is, people who become doctors, do so because they can do something that they enjoy and receive a substantial economic benefit. There is nothing wrong with receiving an economic benefit. The desire to receive economic benefits is good because

a) the competition to receive those benefits lowers costs
b) it motivates people to pursue careers that benefit others (like doctors)

Once upon a time doctors were not expensive. Admittedly, the service that was provided was very limited compared by today's standards, but nonetheless, care was inexpensive. The reason for this was that doctors didn't have to invest as much into their practice (financially), and doctors were in charge of deciding what care was needed. If you were a crappy doctor, you didn't last very long. If you were a good doctor, you flourished and your practice grew. there was a strong motivation to give the best care possible to patients.

Fast forward to today, where government involvement has driven up the cost of health care. More laws invite mote litigation which harms doctors financially in judgments and malpractice insurance. To be sure, there are cases of legitimate malpractice, yet there are just as many cases of circumstances outside of doctors' control. Medicine has advanced a lot, but it's not perfect. There is risk involved and people die or get hurt. Our legal environment (government) encourages punishing doctors.

In addition to that, when the government gets involved with regulating health care providers and the insurance companies these create additional costs of compliance. This causes prices to rise.

The insurance company lobby has gotten the system rigged so that the government provides incentive for insurance. This makes it difficult for doctors to operate outside of the insurance system, which limits the amounts it can charge in certain cases, and forces them to overcharge where they can to make up for it. Again higher prices.

Also, there are many treatments that are new or in development that are still early in their product development cycles. Products and services that are still in these stages are expensive because we have not yet learned the most efficient way to produce these products and services. We also have not developed the necessary efficiencies of scale and scope that would drive prices down. Revolutionary treatments and cutting edge technologies are just expensive. That's all there is to it. You cannot expect doctors and medical companies to take the risk to develop these new products if they are not going to be compensated for them.

Finally, when you have government bureaucrats (universal health care) and insurance companies (our current system) determining treatment plans instead of doctors, health care is going to suck. It also creates a system of "zombie doctors" who don't care about differentiating their service because their compensation doesn't change. As long as they provide the minimum level of service, they get a check from the insurance company.

You don't ask an accountant to fix your roof, and you don't ask your waiter to do your taxes. Why in any world would you want the government deciding what treatment you receive? And don't forget about the fact that only a portion of your tax dollars will go to health care. A substantial proportion goes to pay the salaries, office, power, paper, and other costs of administering the system. That fact alone should be enough to convince someone that UHC is a bad idea.

Universal health care "sounds nice", but that's the only nice thing it does. If you want to see the level of health care quality in this nation decline (even more), put the government completely in charge of it. Of course if that happens, we can always blame the doctors.

[Nash]

I think things are bad right now because the concept of "free enterprise" has superseded all standards of human decency in the health care industry.

Can you elaborate on this though? How is our Health-care system "free enterprise"? It seems to be rife with regulation, collusion de jure and crooked corporate subsidies. How is that "free enterprise"?

[BLS]

Okay, and what did all of that have to do with the post you responded to? The person said:

"It would be foolish to sell guns without asking for ID and without asking questions."

You replied:
"Why is that foolish. If I want to buy a gun to hunt with, or to protect my home, why should I have to be run through a wringer to get one? Even if it's a handgun."

The implication here is that its NOT foolish to sell someone a gun without asking for ID and without asking questions. Any assumption on your part about "1000 steps, go to conceal and carry classes, etc" had little to do with what you responded to.

Did I EVER say in the quote that I didn't want to have an ID presented either??

[kylejack]

Did I EVER say in the quote that I didn't want to have an ID presented either??

No, you just said that you didn't understand why not requiring ID would be foolish.

[Mom4Ron]

Be nice folks. Starks can help us get him past the primaries and then Ron can handle it from there. ;)

[specsaregood]

I have no problem with an ID check when buying a gun. I just don't want to be run through 1000 steps, go to conceal and carry classes, etc, etc, in order to purchase a gun.

I'd rather not give ANY information that gets added to a database that lets the govt know that I OWN A GUN. Seriously, if/when they decide to take the guns; do you want to be on a list?

[Starks]

I'd rather not give ANY information that gets added to a database that lets the govt know that I OWN A GUN. Seriously, if/when they decide to take the guns; do you want to be on a list?

Well, unless you are paying in cash, you're name is attached to that gun.

[Brutus]

People should also have to show ID before buying books with controversial ideas in them, or before saying controversial things, don't you think? After all, ideas have caused mass slaughters which make deaths caused by private people with firearms truly miniscule.

Criminals can get or make firearms IN JAIL. There is no way to stop them from getting them in the world at large short of a police state. Showing id is just to make fearful people think that something is being done, but fearful people will always be afraid and can never be free because they will gladly give up that freedom in exchange for someone who promises to make them safe, whether they actually do so or not.

[Starks]

I don't understand how presenting ID to buy a gun is any different from a drug prescription or loaning out books on a library card...

[specsaregood]

Well, unless you are paying in cash, you're name is attached to that gun.

Well I happen to pay cash for 99% of what I buy. So not a problem.
And I got my new fancy "Keep Your Money, www.ronpaul2008.com" ink stamp recently. I've circulated about 1grand of stamped bills recently.

Debt == slavery.

[specsaregood]

I don't understand how presenting ID to buy a gun is any different from a drug prescription or loaning out books on a library card...

Prescriptions are prescribed to particular individuals, so are books. So you know who received the item. So what you are saying is exactly what I am opposed to: the government knowing who has the guns.

[EvoPro]

I think things are bad right now because the concept of "free enterprise" has superseded all standards of human decency in the health care industry.

I think you're a bit confused about free-markets and how they can bring about competition. The reason prices are so high is because regulations cause lobbying which cause anti-competitve-regulations to the point where a new company can not enter the market. Turning the idustry into somewhat of a monopoly.

This what we have with the health care industry: government endorsed monopolistic power. This is why prices are so high.

[Starks]

Prescriptions are prescribed to particular individuals, so are books. So you know who received the item. So what you are saying is exactly what I am opposed to: the government knowing who has the guns.

Other than the absurd fear that the govt will take your gun away from you without just compensation, what's the harm in the government knowing you have a gun?

[nullvalu]

Other than the absurd fear that the govt will take your gun away from you without just compensation, what's the harm in the government knowing you have a gun?

A better question is what's the point of them knowing, and how much money will it cost us taxpayers to maintain the list.

[specsaregood]

Other than the absurd fear that the govt will take your gun away from you without just compensation, what's the harm in the government knowing you have a gun?

How is it an absurd fear? Not to bring this argument to the Hitler level; but what do you think he did before going after the jews?
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:P4oUIMblv_cJ:www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm+german +seized+guns+from+jews&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

"Hitler promised that he would void all "Jew-inspired anti-gun laws" if elected Chancellor.

Of course, Hitler and the Nazis broke their promise when they did actually seize power in 1933. One of the first things the Nazis did was to seize the vast majority of guns which law-abiding citizens had in their possession"

[EvoPro]

Competition is what drives prices down. And in this case they have a long way down to go!

There is virtually no competition in the health industry.

[Starks]

A better question is what's the point of them knowing, and how much money will it cost us taxpayers to maintain the list.

I'd rather have guns be registered to a person than have them be freely traded with zero paperwork. It's perhaps the only thing giving me a peace of mind.

[kylejack]

Other than the absurd fear that the govt will take your gun away from you without just compensation, what's the harm in the government knowing you have a gun?
If the British knew where all the guns were, the Minutemen might not have been as effective.

[specsaregood]

I'd rather have guns be registered to a person than have them be freely traded with zero paperwork. It's perhaps the only thing giving me a peace of mind.

Well we are at an ideologically disagreement. You must see guns for hunting purposes or self-defence from a robbery. I agree with the sentiment that the 2nd amendment was put in place to PROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It isn't about duck-hunting. It is our first line of protection from the governement taking complete control. I may sound crazy; but given the actions of this current administration.....

[nullvalu]

I'd rather have guns be registered to a person than have them be freely traded with zero paperwork. It's perhaps the only thing giving me a peace of mind.

What does it matter to you? All my neighbors surrounding me own guns but it doesn't bother me because they are [as far as i know] law-abiding citizens. It's not like criminals and gang members go get their gun registered.. What's really scary are those who have guns but are not registered. So all in all you have to ask yourself what good does gun registration do when most criminals have guns that aren't even registered to them?

[Nash]

I don't understand how presenting ID to buy a gun is any different from a drug prescription or loaning out books on a library card...

The major difference in these examples are that the drug prescriptions are on file with your insurance company and not the federal government. The library books are on file with the local government and not the federal government.

So yeah a truly oppressive federal government could get information from insurance companies in the prescription drug example but at least they have to clear that hurdle to do it. Better than just giving them the information directly.

You can of course think of the negative ramifications of this. Maybe you have some disease or something and maybe they have a serious problem with that. In an extreme example maybe they force you to take drugs you don't want to take or put you in institutions you don't want or need to be in.

Remember when the tech companies refused to hand over lists of people who were ripping music? Some did and some didn't. What if that was already consolidated in federal database to begin with? They never would have even have gone to court.

Note I'm not debunking your thoughts on gun control with this narrow concept I'm just giving you a reason why it's different for a company or a local government to have your personal info vs. the federal government. There is a difference.

[Starks]

Well we are at an ideologically disagreement. You must see guns for hunting purposes or self-defence from a robbery. I agree with the sentiment that the 2nd amendment was put in place to PROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT. It isn't about duck-hunting. It is our first line of protection from the governement taking complete control. I may sound crazy; but given the actions of this current administration.....

You've hit the nail on the head. I don't look it at it from a social contract point of view.

[kylejack]

You've hit the nail on the head. I don't look it at it from a social contract point of view.

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."
-Mao Zedong

[Mesogen]

That's a strawman argument if ever I've heard one.

1. Coffins are a luxury for the families of people who are already dead. That IS a free market issue.
2. The cost of living is rising everyday, but most people can still afford food (thank God). If there are people who cannot afford food, private charities, missions, shelters help them out. There are no places to go for "charity healthcare."

No places for "charity healthcare"? My girfriend's family is what I would consider lower middle class. Her sister was handicapped and needed several operations during her childhood and they couldn't afford it at all. They went to St. Jude's Children's Hospital (http://www.stjude.org/), which is most definitely "charity health care."

We could have more hospitals like this is health care costs were lowered and the charity money went farther. Health care costs can be lowered by making it a truly free market.

Some doctors don't take any form of government assistance and some don't even take insurance! Cash only! And their rates are usually half that of other doctors, simply because they don't have to pay an office full of people to handle the paperwork and administration of all the insurance and government programs. So far these are only walk in clinics (google: cash only clinic)

Here's a forum post from a doctor that appears to run a cash clinic.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5399668&postcount=5

I'm sure insurance would be advisable for procedures and emergencies, but for routine medical care, cash seems to be the way to go.

[Mesogen]

I'd rather have guns be registered to a person than have them be freely traded with zero paperwork. It's perhaps the only thing giving me a peace of mind.He he. Guns are freely traded without paperwork. Some law in some book does nothing to stop it.

[EvoPro]

Someone probably already said this, but if you restrict guns then all the law-abiding citizens will be without them, and all the criminals will have them. Doesn't seem right to me. But you may want to go further and take all and any guns from anyone, but that's what Hitler did.

[kylejack]

Ron Paul would be pretty stunned to hear one of his supporters saying there's no such thing as charity healthcare. He delivered babies for free when they couldn't afford his services rather than accept Medicare.

[Starks]

Ron Paul would be pretty stunned to hear one of his supporters saying there's no such thing as charity healthcare. He delivered babies for free when they couldn't afford his services rather than accept Medicare.

Universal health care should exist on the local or county level...

[kylejack]

Universal health care should exist on the local or county level...

Okay, so why would you consider voting for a candidate who would move in the opposite direction, toward implementation of it on a national level?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Universal health care should exist on the local or county level...

That would be your opinion... How exactly would the infrastructure of this work? Details, details, details

some generalized taking points to keep in mind on universal health care:

*the wasting of money
*low quality care
*extensive waiting lines
*sameness and lack of health care innovation

pro: better than the current US quasi fascist system, yet would lack the quality of care that we have now
con: not as good as free market health care, lack of innovation

conclusion: universal health care is an emotional response to the quasi fascist health care system that we currently have, it is not a logical solution

why not give free markets a chance?

[Starks]

Okay, so why would you consider voting for a candidate who would move in the opposite direction, toward implementation of it on a national level?

Our do-nothing congress and HMO lobbyists would never allow it to be implemented at a national level...

[nullvalu]

Let me ask a question, seeking an honest answer.

What does the government do so well for you, that you feel they can provide you with better medical coverage than a private system?

How is offering the government more ability to dominate your life -- better than getting their monopolizing lobbyists and regulatory policies out of the private sector and restoring all industries to a free market system?

[kylejack]

Our do-nothing congress and HMO lobbyists would never allow it to be implemented at a national level...

That's why you should be terrified. What would be implemented instead would be something that they call universal coverage, but which is in fact a big handout to the HMOs. Imagine the Medicare prescription drug benefit expanded to all citizens: not a positive program, but rather a boon for the pharmaceutical industry.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Our do-nothing congress and HMO lobbyists would never allow it to be implemented at a national level...

I wouldn't object to states implementing their own health care policies, wouldn't that be a more viable solution? I believe this is what would occur in a Dr. Paul administration, states would be able to take the initiative on health care reform, he does believe in states rights after all, yes? His policy on abortion rights is a good indication of his stance on health care.

[Roxi]

who would you vote for in the general elections?

Ron Paul! duh :D

[Starks]

Let me ask a question, seeking an honest answer.

What does the government do so well for you, that you feel they can provide you with better medical coverage than a private system?

How is offering the government more ability to dominate your life -- better than getting their monopolizing lobbyists and regulatory policies out of the private sector and restoring all industries to a free market system?

It's not a question of whether it will be better or not, it's a question of how the current system fails 40 million Americans. You and I both know that 40 million uninsured is unacceptable and that something should be done, directly or indirectly to reduce this number.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's not a question of whether it will be better or not, it's a question of how the current system fails 40 million Americans. You and I both know that 40 million uninsured is unacceptable and that something should be done, directly or indirectly to reduce this number.

LOL even the insured are getting screwed, I'm not insured myself. Your solution is not the best solution.. I believe that Dr. Paul will leave it to states, wouldn't that be better??

[Roxi]

Why is that foolish.
If I want to buy a gun to hunt with, or to protect my home, why should I have to be run through a wringer to get one? Even if it's a handgun.
I'm a law abiding citizen. Who gets to decide what is considered an "OK" reason to buy a gun? The Supreme Law of the Land says I have the right to own a gun.
Why do people believe they can supersede that??

I do, however, agree that convicted felons should not have the ability to ever own a gun again. They've proven they're not responsible.


im just curious how would they know they were felons if they didnt ask for ID and do a background check

[LibertyEagle]

It's not a question of whether it will be better or not, it's a question of how the current system fails 40 million Americans. You and I both know that 40 million uninsured is unacceptable and that something should be done, directly or indirectly to reduce this number.

Well, what I will agree with is that I find it deplorable that health care has become so very expensive that a large number of Americans cannot afford it. That did not used to be the case before government got involved in the health care business. What we appear to disagree on, is how to go about remedying the situation. See, I think we have the problem because of governmental actions in health care. That includes what they do with big pharma and insurance companies, which appear to be paying off our congressmen and women to legislate special favors for them.

So, if you believe that the problem has been caused by government, why would you look to government to solve the problem they caused by adding more government largesse? What we need to be doing is ripping out all this crap that they have passed; NOT add more.

[kylejack]

im just curious how would they know they were felons if they didnt ask for ID and do a background check
Yeah, I already confronted him on that and he gave some puzzling answers.

[Salamando]

It's not a question of whether it will be better or not, it's a question of how the current system fails 40 million Americans. You and I both know that 40 million uninsured is unacceptable and that something should be done, directly or indirectly to reduce this number.

Ron Paul will stop helping these so called "insurance" companies. The lobbyists will have no power under this administration, the free market will take over and while we won't see everyone with insurance, there will be better insurance for those who have it.

Also, do you really believe just getting everyone insured would help? Wouldn't the governmentally insured people just be the equivalent of the people who weren't covered before? They're still at the bottom of the barrel...

[Starks]

LOL even the insured are getting screwed, I'm not insured myself. Your solution is not the best solution.. I believe that Dr. Paul will leave it to states, wouldn't that be better??

I don't disagree. Things like civil unions and health care should be left to the states.

[nullvalu]

40 million Americans

I'd like to see the study that defines this number. The way I've seen it put is "On any given day, more than 40 million Americans are uninsured."

Drilling down into these reports, we find that nearly 50% were uninsured for 4 months or less. That means many of these people could have been uninsured for one week or even one day or less! Like.. when you're switching jobs? How many of us when we start a new job get all the health benefits all at once? Isn't there a lot of times a 90 day wait? Wouldn't that go a long way to explaining away at least half of the people who are uninsured on any given day.

I think it's mostly a bunch of sensationalist BS like the doomsday scenarios of Global Warming.. All just part of a larger agenda to push government regulations on us.

[SeanEdwards]

I wouldn't mind seeing government offering a medical insurance program of last resort that was optional to people. I imagine something just like private insurance, except it doesn't exclude people, doesn't turn a profit to shareholders, and is payed for by user fees, and if necessary has it's solvency backed through taxation.

Of course, this is not Federal government I'm talking about, I'd be interested in seeing states experiment with ideas like this.

[SeanEdwards]

I think it's mostly a bunch of sensationalist BS like the doomsday scenarios of Global Warming.. All just part of a larger agenda to push government regulations on us.

No, it's not just sensationalism. I've got no medical insurance and haven't had any for years. If I get sick or injured I'm boned. Could end up having to spend all I own before qualifying for medicare. I tried to purchase private medical insurance, and was rejected. This shit is no joke. :(

[bobmurph]

Once upon a time doctors were not expensive. Admittedly, the service that was provided was very limited compared by today's standards, but nonetheless, care was inexpensive. The reason for this was that doctors didn't have to invest as much into their practice (financially), and doctors were in charge of deciding what care was needed. If you were a crappy doctor, you didn't last very long. If you were a good doctor, you flourished and your practice grew. there was a strong motivation to give the best care possible to patients.

Fast forward to today, where government involvement has driven up the cost of health care. More laws invite mote litigation which harms doctors financially in judgments and malpractice insurance. To be sure, there are cases of legitimate malpractice, yet there are just as many cases of circumstances outside of doctors' control. Medicine has advanced a lot, but it's not perfect. There is risk involved and people die or get hurt. Our legal environment (government) encourages punishing doctors.


Exactly. What people fail to realize is that not all healthcare is created equal. Not all physicians are created equal either. There are great doctors, horrible doctors, and everything in between...just ask someone who has had a botched surgery. Healthcare is a service, and the same principles of free market economics must apply to healthcare.

In a free market system, and to a lesser degree in today's over-regulated system, the BEST doctors will build a bigger patient base because they provide a beter service...just like any business! In a free market system there are limited ways to grow your patient base. First, do such a good job that their own patients refer their friends and family to them. Second, do such a good job and build up a reputation so primary care doctors refer their patients to them, becuase they (primary care) want their patients to come back happy.

On the other hand, the HACK doctors will get no referrals from their own patients to their friends, or from primary care physicans...and their patient base will be small or fail completely. However, within the current system, these bad doctors can manage to stay in business because insurance companies & HMO's refer their patients to them instead of their own patients or other physicians.

These, of course, are the extremes. In the end, w/ free enterprise in healthcare, just as everything else, some people can afford the best healthcare, some can only afford the worst, and the vast majority get average service.

Free markets are all about incentive. UHC brings out the worst of both worlds in healthcare (just as socialism does for everything). It takes away the incentive for the best doctors to work hard and grow a patient base, and yes, get compensated accordingly...(when did that become so wrong anyway???) These great doctors dont' work as hard because there is no incentive for them to do so, and as a result less people recieve their service. On the flipside, it keeps the sh**ty doctors afloat and more patients become victims to poor services.


Great post, MBA2008...perhaps its too long that most people just skipped over it as nobody is commenting on your thoughts.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't disagree. Things like civil unions and health care should be left to the states.

I think the states will do well competing with eachother.

[MozoVote]

I went without insurance for 7 years until I joined the corporate workforce again, which brought me into the ranks of the "haves".

I simply took care of myself while without, and banked the money that would have gone into insurance premiums. And was even able to use the savings to pay cash for elective LASIK surgery, to get my childhood 20/20 vision back.

Never got sick or injured during that time and it seemed like a meritable choice. There may be quite a lot of healthy people who don't really mind being without insurance.

[Birdlady]

You can't talk about health care without talking about the type of care people are getting.

Americans are more fat, more unhealthy, have more chronic diseases, and are on more prescription medications than EVER in our history. Why would we go to the same system we have now that is just fueling our unhealthy lifestyles? A free doctor's visit isn't going to help someone lose 100 lbs. A free doctor's visit isn't going to lower your cholesterol. Socialized health care will only increase our problems because it isn't treating the underlying causes. We are just putting bandages on a gun shot wound.

The real answer to the health care question is to go back to natural medicine. Get rid of the drug dealers that make rounds each day dropping off their pills at the doors of EVERY doctors office in this country. While we have drug dealers in our doctor's offices, buying them lunch and breakfast, the FDA raids businesses and clinics that are able to use natural foods/herbs to cure cancers and other chronic diseases.

We need to get rid of the mentality that a pill will help us. No, we need to eat healthier to be healthy. We need to take care of ourselves to be healthy. That includes being personally responsible for that cheesecake we ate for lunch and dinner. That includes being responsible for ordering McDonald's every morning before work. Health care is so much money because we are all dying inside at a much earlier age. People are getting heart attacks at 30 and getting cancers earlier and earlier. So aside from the politics behind the idea of health care we have to look at type of help we get when we go to the doctors. Even if it was free, I wouldn't want to go to the doctors because all they do is try to prescribe you some pill. That's NOT health care!

[Brutus]

Utopia isn't an option. Life is all about the choices we make, and dealing with the consequences.

I keep thinking people read "Brave New World" and rather than being repulsed by it are sorta wishing that they lived there. More Soma anyone?

[Starks]

I'd like to see the study that defines this number. The way I've seen it put is "On any given day, more than 40 million Americans are uninsured."

Drilling down into these reports, we find that nearly 50% were uninsured for 4 months or less. That means many of these people could have been uninsured for one week or even one day or less! Like.. when you're switching jobs? How many of us when we start a new job get all the health benefits all at once? Isn't there a lot of times a 90 day wait? Wouldn't that go a long way to explaining away at least half of the people who are uninsured on any given day.

I think it's mostly a bunch of sensationalist BS like the doomsday scenarios of Global Warming.. All just part of a larger agenda to push government regulations on us.Even if you subtract all those, we're still in the millions for uninsured people.

[Starks]

I think the states will do well competing with eachother.

I'm a fan of states rights. We live in a federalist country. We're citizens of the states and citizens of the federal goverment.

[MsDoodahs]

I'd rather have guns be registered to a person than have them be freely traded with zero paperwork. It's perhaps the only thing giving me a peace of mind.

Unless you treat others so rotten that some of them would be tempted to use their guns against you, it makes no sense to claim that unregistered guns obliterate your peace of mind.

[Starks]

Unless you treat others so rotten that some of them would be tempted to use their guns against you, it makes no sense to claim that unregistered guns obliterate your peace of mind.

I also look at it from a crime-stopping perspective. If you commit a crime with a certain gun, current laws enable police to trace people to a gun's serial number.

[FSP-Rebel]

I also look at it from a crime-stopping perspective. If you commit a crime with a certain gun, current laws enable police to trace people to a gun's serial number.
UH, not if it's been stolen from them. Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens, criminals don't follow them. In fact, a Supreme Court case in 1997 (Payne v. US) stated it was against a criminal's fifth amendment right of self-incrimination to have to license a gun. So, what useful purpose does licensing and registration have? Criminals have to think twice when committing crimes in an armed society, but in unarmed societies like England, crime is in a continual upswing. It doesn't take a genius like Dr. John Lott to understand that 'more guns = less crime.'

[MsDoodahs]

You and I both know that 40 million uninsured is unacceptable and that something should be done, directly or indirectly to reduce this number.

What exactly is stopping you from organizing and getting those people covered?

How many of that 40 million are YOU buying coverage for RIGHT NOW?

None?

Nothing is stopping you from doing it, you know.

Unless ... you are simply unwilling to do it yourself and instead prefer to use the power of the state to FORCE other people to pay for the things YOU think are important.

This is why I find collectivist types to be ... vile.

[LibertyEagle]

Unless ... you are simply unwilling to do it yourself and instead prefer to use the power of the state to FORCE other people to pay for the things YOU think are important.

This is why I find collectivist types to be ... vile.

Davy Crockett couldn't have said it better. :)

[Starks]

UH, not if it's been stolen from them. Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens, criminals don't follow them. In fact, a Supreme Court case in 1997 (Payne v. US) stated it was against a criminal's fifth amendment right of self-incrimination to have to license a gun. So, what useful purpose does licensing and registration have? Criminals have to think twice when committing crimes in an armed society, but in unarmed societies like England, crime is in a continual upswing. It doesn't take a genius like Dr. John Lott to understand that 'more guns = less crime.'

Interesting. I never thought of it like that. But I still believe that it would be foolish for this country to be completely devoid of any and all legislature regarding guns.

[DAZ]

Nothing is so cheap, in terms of both price and quality, as an item purchased with Other People's Money.

[MsDoodahs]

There may be quite a lot of healthy people who don't really mind being without insurance.

That accounts for a chunk of the scare tactic "40 million."

:)

[LibertyEagle]

I'm a fan of states rights. We live in a federalist country. We're citizens of the states and citizens of the federal goverment.

No, we are not citizens of the "federal government". You have things all backwards, dude.

[MsDoodahs]

I also look at it from a crime-stopping perspective. If you commit a crime with a certain gun, current laws enable police to trace people to a gun's serial number.

That's not crime stopping, as the crime has already been committed.

:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by Starks
I also look at it from a crime-stopping perspective. If you commit a crime with a certain gun, current laws enable police to trace people to a gun's serial number.

Yes, and then the government knows right where to go to pick all the guns up later. Seriously, are you not aware that this has happened in country after country who first instituted gun registration?

[nullvalu]

Even if you subtract all those, we're still in the millions for uninsured people.

Ok, so we eliminated half just by cutting through the garbage statistics. We could probably cut it down to a quarter by realizing there are people like MozoVote (post 116) who would rather take the gamble of having no insurance and save that money for other things.

And where do the illegal aliens fit in? Do they fall into the category of being "americans without insurance" or does this number only include full-fledged american citizens?

As I said, I'd like to see where this number comes from. I'm not saying it's not a real problem, I'd just like to know the facts behind these numbers.

[Starks]

That's not crime stopping, as the crime has already been committed.

:rolleyes:

LOL, good point... I guess the correct term should've been "crime-solving".

But do we all agree that once a person commits a crime with that gun, they have effectively waivered their 2A rights.

[FSP-Rebel]

Interesting. I never thought of it like that. But I still believe that it would be foolish for this country to be completely devoid of any and all legislature regarding guns.
Like your civil unions and healthcare, can't firearm laws be left up to the states? I mean, what are the last four words in the 2nd Amendment--then follow up with the 10th amend. People can flock to whatever state has their desired level of liberty.:)

[Starks]

Ok, so we eliminated half just by cutting through the garbage statistics. We could probably cut it down to a quarter by realizing there are people like MozoVote (post 116) who would rather take the gamble of having no insurance and save that money for other things.

And where do the illegal aliens fit in? Do they fally into the category of being "americans without insurance?"

As I said, I'd like to see where this number comes from. I'm not saying it's not a real problem, I'd just like to know the facts behind these numbers.

Illegals shouldn't fit into the equation. I don't care if they're in the country, but they don't deserve our health care, universal or private. If we included them, they'd all have one more reason to swarm into the U.S. across our insecure borders.

[Starks]

Like your civil unions and healthcare, can't firearm laws be left up to the states? I mean, what are the last four words in the 2nd Amendment--then follow up with the 10th amend. People can flock to whatever state has their desired level of liberty.:)

I guess that could work... But the 2A has never been incorporated to include the states by the Supreme Court.

[MsDoodahs]

LOL, good point... I guess the correct term should've been "crime-solving".

But do we all agree that once a person commits a crime with that gun, they have effectively waivered their 2A rights.

No, we don't all agree on that.

[nullvalu]

Illegals shouldn't fit into the equation. I don't care if they're in the country, but they don't deserve our health care, universal or private. If we included them, they'd all have one more reason to swarm into the U.S. across our insecure borders.

Agreed, but i'm asking were they included in this number of 40 million for sensationalist effect?

[Starks]

Agreed, but i'm asking were they included in this number of 40 million for sensationalist effect?
I'm not sure... We have enough problems counting illegals as it is.

[MsDoodahs]

Agreed, but i'm asking were they included in this number of 40 million for sensationalist effect?

I suspect they are included, for exactly that reason.

[Starks]

Here's what I think about illegal immigration:

If you can beat the system and sneak into this country, good for you. If you can stay out of trouble, make an attempt to pay taxes, and be a productive member of the society, I have no problem with you being here.

[bobmurph]

Illegals shouldn't fit into the equation. I don't care if they're in the country, but they don't deserve our health care, universal or private. If we included them, they'd all have one more reason to swarm into the U.S. across our insecure borders.

Illegals already do get our healthcare...for free! Emergency rooms are requried by law to treat anyone who enters their doors that is has an urgent health need...whether they can pay or are a documentd citizen of the US.

http://chapelhillblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/illegal-aliens-emtala.html

[nullvalu]

Here's what I think about illegal immigration:

If you can beat the system and sneak into this country, good for you. If you can stay out of trouble, make an attempt to pay taxes, and be a productive member of the society, I have no problem with you being here.

Fine, but does being a productive member of society mean that they get to take part in your state-sponsored healthcare plan?

[MozoVote]

How do cash-under-the table illegals pay for the state sponsored health care? How do we know they are healthy when they sneak into the country?

[FSP-Rebel]

I guess that could work... But the 2A has never been incorporated to include the states by the Supreme Court.
States don't have to be incorporated since the 10th states that all powers not given to the Feds were reserved to the states. And surely, one can't bastardize the Constitution or BoRights enough to find an authorizaton to restrict firearm ownership.

[bobmurph]

Here's what I think about illegal immigration:

If you can beat the system and sneak into this country, good for you. If you can stay out of trouble, make an attempt to pay taxes, and be a productive member of the society, I have no problem with you being here.

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I broke into your house while you were away, cooked a nice meal for myself, cleaned up the dishes, watched some TV and used your computer, and took a nap in your bed...just so long as you didn't catch me when you got home?

[nullvalu]

How do we know they are healthy when they sneak into the country?

They Aren't (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28462)

[MBA2008]

Thanks, Bob!

I appreciate your kind words.

Sadly, I think you are correct about the length of my post. It appears to have been ignored.

It looks sound-bites, blue-sky statistics, and feel-good rhetoric trump centuries of economic thought.

Back to the drawing board...

[Starks]

Fine, but does being a productive member of society mean that they get to take part in your state-sponsored healthcare plan?

If they pay into it, I have no problem. Illegals deserve health care, it shouldn't be a free ride though.

[MsDoodahs]

I didn't ignore it - it was a great post and I couldn't add anything to it, except to say you're dead on correct, especially with the idea that when UHC fails, people will blame the docs. :)

[Starks]

States don't have to be incorporated since the 10th states that all powers not given to the Feds were reserved to the states. And surely, one can't bastardize the Constitution or BoRights enough to find an authorizaton to restrict firearm ownership.

I won't say your wrong, but dooesn't that sort of contradict the facts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

[FreedomLover]

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I broke into your house while you were away, cooked a nice meal for myself, cleaned up the dishes, watched some TV and used your computer, and took a nap in your bed...just so long as you didn't catch me when you got home?

yeah...i always had a problem with people who swept the problem under the rug by saying, "welp, you got away with breaking the law, good job"

We need to confront this head on.

[kylejack]

I won't say your wrong, but dooesn't that sort of contradict the facts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

No. This is from your source.

"Amendment II

* Right to bear arms
o Has not been incorporated. According to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, "The Second Amendment is one of the few Bill of Rights provisions that has not yet been held to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.""

[Starks]

yeah...i always had a problem with people who swept the problem under the rug by saying, "welp, you got away with breaking the law, good job"

We need to confront this head on.

Well, it's impractical to deport millions of illegals.

What needs to be done is increase border security... Question is, how do we pay for it? Like it or not, if we want secure borders, money will have be allocated in one form or another.

[MozoVote]

What we NEED to do is reduce taxation, so that American CITIZENS can compete with illegals and work for cash too. Employers hire illegals because they can avoid paying FICA, Medicare, Worker's Comp and Unemployment Insurance.

[LibertyEagle]

It's far cheaper to pay for border security than to pay to give illegal aliens SS, free medical care, free education, etc. Plus, it is actually a national security issue, as opposed to all the BS that our government currently does under that banner.

Here's an idea. Bring our troops home. Put our National Guard on the border and armed, this time. Instead of Homeland Security spending all the money on surveillance cameras to watch US, how about they use that money to add on to the fence that they're already supposed to be building.

[LibertyEagle]

What we NEED to do is reduce taxation, so that American CITIZENS can compete with illegals and work for cash too. Employers hire illegals because they can avoid paying FICA, Medicare, Worker's Comp and Unemployment Insurance.

In the meantime, we need to secure the borders and stop the handouts.

[MsDoodahs]

You want the gov't to spend billions on healthcare yet you're expressing concern over the cost of border security?

lol....

[Starks]

It's far cheaper to pay for border security than to pay to give illegal aliens SS, free medical care, free education, etc. Plus, it is actually a national security issue, as opposed to all the BS that our government currently does under that banner.

Here's an idea. Bring our troops home. Put our National Guard on the border and armed, this time. Instead of Homeland Security spending all the money on surveillance cameras to watch US, how about they use that money to add on to the fence that they're already supposed to be building.

Agreed.

One concern though... Won't having armed troops just create a repeat of Compian and Ramos?

[LibertyEagle]

Well, it's impractical to deport millions of illegals.

What needs to be done is increase border security... Question is, how do we pay for it? Like it or not, if we want secure borders, money will have be allocated in one form or another.

Is it "practical" to steal money from my pocket to give them free healthcare and free education. No thanks. If you want to open up your bank account and forward it to them in Mexico, that is your choice. You do not have the right to steal from my pocket.

[kylejack]

It's far cheaper to pay for border security than to pay to give illegal aliens SS, free medical care, free education, etc. Plus, it is actually a national security issue, as opposed to all the BS that our government currently does under that banner.

Here's an idea. Bring our troops home. Put our National Guard on the border and armed, this time. Instead of Homeland Security spending all the money on surveillance cameras to watch US, how about they use that money to add on to the fence that they're already supposed to be building.

Actually, I don't know about that. Most illegals are using a fake Social Security number that they'll never be allowed to collect on, so they're probably a net increase to the system. Also, they're mostly 20 and 30 something males working to send money home to Mexico, so for the most part, I bet they're mostly healthy.

[LibertyEagle]

Agreed.

One concern though... Won't having armed troops just create a repeat of Compian and Ramos?

What "repeat"? They shouldn't have been put in jail at all. This is a travesty of justice. We let the friggin' drug runner go and put the border patrol in jail for doing their damn jobs. Just dandy.

[Starks]

Is it "practical" to steal money from my pocket to give them free healthcare and free education. No thanks. If you want to open up your bank account and forward it to them in Mexico, that is your choice. You do not have the right to steal from my pocket.

I never said they deserved free health care and education... Only citizens should be entitled to such things if they were implemented.

[Starks]

What "repeat"? They shouldn't have been put in jail at all. This is a travesty of justice. We let the friggin' drug runner go and put the border patrol in jail for doing their damn jobs. Just dandy.

I never said it wasn't a travesty.

[Starks]

I never said they deserved free health care and education... Only citizens should be entitled to such things if they were implemented.

Let me rephrase that...

citizens, documented workers, and those with visas/green cards.

[MozoVote]

I never said they deserved free health care and education... Only citizens should be entitled to such things if they were implemented.


Too late. Our courts have ruled that denying medical care and public schooling is "discrimination" to illegals.

Actually, I don't object too much to letting their kids in school. They need to learn English somehow and they'd be bored and spraying grafitti otherwise. But it's still an unpleasant expense for communities to bear.

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, I don't know about that. Most illegals are using a fake Social Security number that they'll never be allowed to collect on, so they're probably a net increase to the system. Also, they're mostly 20 and 30 something males working to send money home to Mexico, so for the most part, I bet they're mostly healthy.

You haven't been following the legislation much, have you? It's called Social Security Totalization. Here's just one of the things Dr. Paul wrote about it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul360.html

You also clearly have not gone to the Emergency Room lately. I suggest you do and take a look at the waiting room. I think it will shock you.

[LibertyEagle]

I never said it wasn't a travesty.

So, what's your point then?

[Starks]

Too late. Our courts have ruled that denying medical care and public schooling is "discrimination" to illegals.

Actually, I don't object too much to letting their kids in school. They need to learn English somehow and they'd be bored and spraying grafitti otherwise. But it's still an unpleasant expense for communities to bear.

Yeah, English should be a top priority... Making English the official language of the country might backfire though.

[ThePieSwindler]

So starks back to your main point. Still thinking you're going to vote for Obama and hillary? Sure talking about leaving health care up to the states and not giving it to illegals is nice, but the fact of the matter is that that is EXACTLY what obama and hillary are going to do - federal national healthcare, and passage of amnesty piecemeal. And they voted to extend the patriot act, and they will not end our interventionist foreign policy, nor deal with the problems that REALLY affect the poor - inflation, the federal reserve, and income tax. And they will RAPE the upper middle/investor/intellectual class. No one is going to convince you of your 2A and health care beliefs fully, thats fine, but realize that Obama and hillary are not going to make anything better.

[Starks]

So, what's your point then?

There's still nothing being done to protect our border agents' rights as they are doing their job.

[Starks]

So starks back to your main point. Still thinking you're going to vote for Obama and hillary? Sure talking about leaving health care up to the states and not giving it to illegals is nice, but the fact of the matter is that that is EXACTLY what obama and hillary are going to do, and pass amnesty piecemeal. And they voted to extend the patriot act, and they will not end our interventionist foreign policy, nor deal with the problems that REALLY affect the poor - inflation, the federal reserve, and income tax. And they will RAPE the upper middle/investor/intellectual class.

If RP gets the republican nomination, I just might. If he doesn't get it, I'll have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

[ThePieSwindler]

If RP gets the republican nomination, I just might. If he doesn't get it, I'll have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

So you'll vote for him in the primaries.. and if he makes it to the general... then there too? Well then we have progress!!

[Starks]

So you'll vote for him in the primaries.. and if he makes it to the general... then there too? Well then we have progress!!

If a pre-emptive strike on Iran occurs, then definitely RP.

[Starks]

I find it scary that the NAU is very close to becoming a reality in everything but the name itself...

[FSP-Rebel]

I find it scary that the NAU is very close to becoming a reality in everything but the name itself...
So RP is your ONLY choice