Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

For those who truly understand what freedom is, there are no diverse interpretations of the Constitution.

 

Wow. That's about the most facile thing I've read on this board in ages.

The Constitution of *any* nation is open to interpretation and change (where do you think all those amendments came from).

And please don't drop meaningless words like freedom around. Freedom always comes with restrictions. Always.

 

Freedom is the right for you, at a personal level, to be ignorant and unaccepting of widely held opposing legal views and interpretations of the Constitution but not to impose your opinion on the country as a whole as an unambiguous and indisputable matter of law.

Fortunately, the judiciary has repeatedly ruled that your narrow and ideologically rigid interpretation has no standing under the law.

 

if you want government run healthcare you first have to accept the premise that the government is looking out for your best intrests when it comes to healthcare. i dont know how anyone could believe that.

soulless? i find the people who want to provide healthcare at the point of a gun so the corporations (who write the bills) can make billions more soulless...
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 1:53 PM ---

what about the newer generations? why do we have to get fucked by failed social programs? there's no social security for me when i retire. even if there is the payments wont buy anything due to the feds inflating the currency. if i rely on the government to retire i truly will be fucked.

there's no reason for me to pay into social security. how will i be less fucked when i become a senior? the program sucks and there are no intentions of fixing it. libertarians arent leaving the seniors out to dry, the failed policy's are however.

 

Not for nuthin', but how am I supposed to take seriously, something written with spelling errors?

erroniously (not a typo - writer misspelled this word on two separate occasions)
disitinct
reffered
statesment

 

Can you stop with the "government run health care" please, given that 200+ million Americans receive their health care through a privately administered and, for the most part, unregulated or unevenly regulated, non-competitive health care system.

What the new law does is impose new minimum standards of benefits and new limits on premium increases for those 200+ million and expand competition among the private sector for those 30-40 million uninsured and w/o access to affordable health care. It is far from perfect but a step in the right direction by regulating the private sector in the best interest of consumers.

Or would you prefer your precious free market where the private sector can deny affordable coverage to high risk consumers or those with pre-existing conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on benefits so that one major catastrophic health event can bankrupt a family, have no restrictions on what they can charge for premiums, have a closed market so that consumers have no real choice of providers, etc.
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 2:34 PM ---
Social Security is actuarily sound for another 40+ years at which time most of us baby boomers will be dust and the system will be on even firmer ground. The easiest and fairest short term fix is to raise the income level subject to FICA so that higher wage earners contribute an equal percentage to those making less than $100K .

I dont encourage anyone to rely solely on Social Security, but for many it is the only stable source of retirement income, unless you prefer the vagueries of the stock market and the greed of many on Wall Street over the best interest of uninformed investors.

 

This should be the ultimate goal of the system in the US or certainly a system I would like to see as opposed to samcol's unregulated free market approach that puts profit above quality, affordable health care. But the current employer-based system is so deeply intrenched that we cant get there from here w/o major disruptions, thus the need for interim steps in the consumers best interest.

 

It also forces companies to not use eliminating employee health benefits as a way to make more profit over your competitor that is doing the right thing.

And yes, SS will be around, unless the radical right decides that their friends on Wall St. need some more money in the next 40 years.

 

The problem we have right now is that Federal government has too much power. This is the United States...not one giant state. The federal government has usurped the power of the States and in doing so has become a derided entity that the people no longer support. There's so little distribution of power throughout the country and amongst the people that they feel their freedom being taken away. The almighty Federal government is consolidating power and wealth.

But in order to transition the power of the Fed gov back to the States we need to dislodge some very power, very rich politicians who will not go quietly. I'm talking about all the politicians who are pushing for move federal involvement and more socialist systems. Not saying that all the problems rest on the left side of the aisle...in fact I would say that we need an almost clean sweep of the house and senate and start fresh.

 

There still seems to be a grave misconception over which party is better at increasing the deficit and growing the Fed government.

Though the Bush Jr and Obama figures are not included, I think 40 years paints an adequate picture. Why, oh why, do the Democrats keep getting tagged with the 'big government', big spending, label?

 

It goes back much further than this current election cycle. At least back to FDR. It's like some "Democratic original sin" whether they're fiscally responsible or not. The truth is irrelevant.

The misconception is so ingrained in the American psyche, even a good number of Democrats believe it.

 

I think Ron Paul is the only politician who will truly deal with the Federal Reserve and their ownership of the U.S. government.

 

......if only he were electable.

 

This is from Ron Paul's article in the Washington Times yesterday:

"My administration will reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent, slash congressional pay and perks and curb excessive federal travel. As president, I will stand with the people by taking a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median income of average American workers..
Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent will make America competitive globally, and I will allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. I also will work to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the death tax and end taxes on all personal savings so families can build nest eggs."

I don't see how Americans are rallying around Paul by the tens of millions right now to push him into the White House so that he can start getting rid of the crooks in our government.

 

Probably because all of his fiscal plans will plunge the country even further into debt than it already is. His worldview is a Randian fantasy world of Free Markets and Deregulation. Cutting the federal workforce by 10%. How many people does THAT add to the list of the unemployed. Cutting corporate taxes would make them competitive how?

 

Um, no, his plan is to cut debt by trimming the fat. Slimming the government so down that it requires far fewer tax dollars to sustain it. The fewer tax dollars required to run this bloated government, the more we get to keep in our pockets. It's called balancing the budget and restoring wealth, a rather refreshing approach.

 

except those thousands of people he just unemployed