Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe that is because Ron Paul is orignally from Pittsburg, PA and he doesn't have a Texas accent because he grew up in PA.
I actually knew he was from Texas, but I just didn't equate him with Texas as I do Perry and Bush and maybe it is because Perry's and Bush's mannerisms are so much alike...and there is the accent, so maybe you are on to something!
I'm not going to get pulled into a smoking debate. Every smoking thread I've ever been on, and I take the no smoking position as far as laws to protect people go, has ended badly.
I certainly didn't say I think Paul has Alzheimer's. I'm saying, he's old. The statistics are not on his side. There's no such thing as a 50 year old man in a 70something year old body.
Its not a debate about smoking, its a given that it causes cancer and kills people.
There is no such thing as a smoker who has not drastically increased their risks for cancer.
As I said, you cant have it both ways. Either Paul's age and Obama's smoking are BOTH issues, or NEITHER is an issue.
That's your opinion. You can't tell me how to think. Are you a facist? (J/K)
It really is not an opinion. Both men have what modern medicine would consider "one strike" against them being 100% healthy. While age and cancer risk may have different relative weights, they are both pretty big factors. Ignoring one for the sake of supporting "your" candidate is a bit transparent, and ignores modern science...which is something that Republicans are usually blamed for.
The reason you think doctors would charge a lot is because you do not understand the free market and competition. The more competition you have, the better the service and the lower the price. If one person can charge $1 and still make money you can be sure another will charge $.95 OR offer better service at the same price.
You have no idea what I understand or my background. I understand the free market and competition but I also understand that many individuals are greedy and will charge an arm and a leg for any service that they provide if they are left to their own devices.
Right now the govt says "this is the most we will pay for service A". The doctors will then charge the most for service A. There is no incentive to go lower because the doctors know the govt will pay that price.
Before govt took over medicine you did not see that. With all the technology, why hasn't the prices of medicine gone down in the USA. The same medicine is cheaper in Mexico and Canada.
Think of all the information we have at our fingertips. You can search for anything and compare prices on the internet.
Right now both Medicaid and Medicare pay less for medical services than private insurance. Due to that, many doctors are no longer accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients. It has nothing to do with the government setting prices. The prices the government is setting is low. It has to do with those who are running HMOs and other managed plans who want more money than the government is willing to pay. The doctors and their employers chose to only accept those who can pay more for their services. This by itself is proof that the idea that doctors will set their prices lower to service more of the country, is ludicrous. Medicine prices are higher here because the aforementioned HMOs and insurance providers know that they can make more money here in the US and because there is not interference with them making record amounts of money on medicine here in our country versus other nations. We can search for items on the internet, but like I stated above, if you are on Medicaid or Medicare then you are out of luck with a lot of doctors, usually the best doctors. Some doctors won't even take certain insurance companies who pay less than others. It is all about the money and how much people are willing to pay.
You missed the point completely. It was government that made those laws. Or maybe you think those laws were okay since you said "they worked"?? dunno
It was government that put those laws in place not the people. Why would a bus company want to offend a good sized portion of their customer base? Without govt force those laws would have existed in the first place.
Government put those laws into place based on the will of the people. I am an amateur history buff, I love the history of our nation in particular and I didn't think any of those laws were okay at all, just like a lot of other laws our country has had and have to this day. But the fact that they were put on the books and the fact that Jim Crow did its job, as did the imprisonment of the Japanese during WWII is proof that legislation from the government does get the job done. You can even take the CRA into the equation, without it, Jim Crow would still be in place and widespread discrimination would still exist in our society. People aren't going to do anything just because it's the right thing unfortunately. People go with the flow, they adapt and most stay silent due to fear (the victims of oppressive laws) or complacency since the laws do not affect them. This was the case with black Americans especially during the CRM. The majority of black Americans did not support the CRM there were many who wanted to wait and wait and wait. Only a small minority of black people along with an even more small minority of white people chose to work together and bring about change through legislation. What they did was successful.
In response to civil rights and property rights. Our foundation is based on property rights. Government does not "give" anyone rights. They take them away.
What is the "Bill of Rights" then if the government does not give anyone rights?
We would not be involved in any foreign wars. As President he would not go to war unless we were attacked. Our troops would be home right now. All those lives and all that money saved. You're against that? Why?
I didn't say I was against that at all. I said that I thought he was out of touch with reality and that I didn't like him for that reason and others which I have gone into detail about. I never mentioned his stance on the military. I actually do agree with him about that. But that is probably the only thing I agree with him about and it is not enough for me to support him.
Check out executive orders and see how often the last two Kings, Bush and Obama used them. Ron Paul has said he would not abuse them.
I don't trust any politician also BTW. You don't know if he would use or abuse them or not.
Ron Paul is a health nut. The first 7 Presidents were 60 years old or older while in office at a time when the life expectancy was a lot less than 60.
In his up coming economic plan he wants the President to take a big pay cut. With a smaller federal government, meaning more local control, he won't be ordering people around so he'll be doing less work. It makes sense he should have less pay.
Good for him for being a health nut. That doesn't change my opinion.
We speak of personnel responsibility yet we shirk or duties because government is there to save us. The federal Government is not there to raise people from cradle to grave. It has enumerated duties. Local control is always better.
I also didn't speak anything of personal responsibility either. I am not dependent on any government services. I'm in my 30s, I'm married, my spouse works as do I we have two children we are solidly middle class and can afford to take care of ourselves without the intervention of the government. I actually do feel the government does to much for too many but that does not negate the fact that I personally don't like RP. The OP asked why those of us who don't support him, don't like him. I gave my response. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I do not have my valid reasons based on my own personal view. I respect that you support him and you feel he is good for the country. I do not and am not one of those people who are so polarized for or against a specific candidate that I go all batty when someone doesn't support the candidate who I want to win. No one is the same and everyone has different ideas based on their own personal experiences.
I'm not going to get pulled into a smoking debate. Every smoking thread I've ever been on, and I take the no smoking position as far as laws to protect people go, has ended badly.
I certainly didn't say I think Paul has Alzheimer's. I'm saying, he's old. The statistics are not on his side. There's no such thing as a 50 year old man in a 70something year old body.
He sure is "old", but he is fit as a fiddle. Last time someone made a quip about his age, he challenged the other GOP candidates to last a 20 minute bike race with him. That shut them up.
(I heard Newt might take up the challenge though.)
Ron Paul seems more callous now compared to the way he acted back in 2008. During the FAA debaucle he didn't seem a bit concerned about the employees who were working without pay...He's lost a lot of his caring and sensitivity through the years and this turns me off...I was a Ron Paul fan back in 2008 but not anymore.
Ron Paul seems more callous now compared to the way he acted back in 2008. During the FAA debaucle he didn't seem a bit concerned about the employees who were working without pay...He's lost a lot of his caring and sensitivity through the years and this turns me off...I was a Ron Paul fan back in 2008 but not anymore.
We need a "Callous" president. Look where caring and looking after the rest of the world has landed us!
As far as Republicans go he is about as good as you can expect. I have never actually taken him seriously though since I can't/don't want to vote in an R primary and he cannot seem to win an R primary.
Ron Paul seems more callous now compared to the way he acted back in 2008. <snip> He's lost a lot of his caring and sensitivity through the years and this turns me off...I was a Ron Paul fan back in 2008 but not anymore.
I've always thought he was interesting. But, I didn't agree with half of his positions and he comes across to me as if he's in his own little world.
He's extremely intelligent but it seems to me that he doesn't care what other people's opinions might be, you just need to follow him because he knows best.
I also think he's way too old. Don't throw Reagan at me, I thought he was too old too. Look at Obama after 2+ years, he's going gray from the stresses of the office. And with the chaos worsening every day around the world, I don't think RP could handle it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at Obama after 2+ years, he's going gray from the stresses of the office. And with the chaos worsening every day around the world, I don't think RP could handle it.
