Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The case for Ron Paul possibly winning the nomination!!
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
phataccino



Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4771
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Someone find me a candidate that will fight tooth and nail to protect our right to bear arms (any arms) AND a woman's right to an abortion as well as gay's rights to marry, who will also curb the imperialist tendancies of our bloated buerocracy and you got that muthufucka/muthafuckette a vote right here.


Your wish list is almost exactly the same as mine. The closest I've been able to find is Mike Gravel, though he does have some caveats when it comes to gun ownership. From wikipedia:

Quote:

His Presidential campaign website states that Senator Gravel 'fully supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'. It also states that he advocates a licensing program whereby a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before s/he may own one
Post Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

In other words, he has what I call "bumper sticker support" for the 2nd ammendment. Got it. ;-)

It's precisely the notion that the government is the arbiters of who does and does not recieve gun licenses that I find offensive. Heh.

Ah well.

My marquee issues are civil liberties (i.e. gun ownership and homosexual marriage) and foreign policy.

If I were without it, I'm sure health care would top the list. But right now, the required health insurance initiative in MA is totally fucking a few of my friends. One of which is required to pay me rent and now cannot because he's required to have health insurance - so I'm actually fine with the health care system as it is if this is the fucking disgusting alternative (thank you MA Demoncrats/Mitt Romney, I appreciate it. Fucktards.)
Post Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lusid
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0


Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Dr. Pepperland
 Reply with quote  

I was pushing for Gravel for a long time.
Sadly he has no real support and shot himself in the foot a number of times.

The Paul racism thing has been spun to a certain extent, that was the main reason I didn't support him until recently.

I'm watching my son right now afterwards I'll dig up what I can find and post later tonight.
Post Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
phataccino



Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4771
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
In other words, he has what I call "bumper sticker support" for the 2nd ammendment. Got it. ;-)

It's precisely the notion that the government is the arbiters of who does and does not recieve gun licenses that I find offensive. Heh.


Ha...exactly. Though I guess I can stomach bumper sticker support for the 2nd ammendment better than bumper sticker support for some of the other issues that I consider important.
Post Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11288
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Thing is, these 2nd Amendment types only generally support people in their tribe owning guns. In my gun-use wetdream, most of those fuckers are on the wrong end of my tool.
Post Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
3flip



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2201
Location: Minneapolis
 Reply with quote  

instead of looking at the supporters intentions for supporting an issue we should really look at the actual benefits of it. gun laws hurt the poor class most, especially when the police is receiving more and more control and privileges with firearms. all it does is open the door to infringing on our privacy in other ways.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message
mzehe916



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 4541
Location: Switzerland
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:

If I were without it, I'm sure health care would top the list. But right now, the required health insurance initiative in MA is totally fucking a few of my friends. One of which is required to pay me rent and now cannot because he's required to have health insurance - so I'm actually fine with the health care system as it is if this is the fucking disgusting alternative (thank you MA Demoncrats/Mitt Romney, I appreciate it. Fucktards.)


So you are forced to have Health Care in MA? How does this work? What solutions do they offer? Any? My friend pays $125 a month for private healthcare, and his plan sucks. I am actually paid $60 a month to have health care because I am single, don't know why....just how my employer does it, but if I went to get the same coverage from a private provider I'd be paying close to $700/month for all of my benefits. And now MA is pushing this on their people? So if I delivered pizza for a living and my boss didn't hook me up I'd have to pay out the ass for coverage? Sorry I just don't get it. Move to California, we have big trees here too.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

mzehe916 wrote:
MessiahCarey wrote:

If I were without it, I'm sure health care would top the list. But right now, the required health insurance initiative in MA is totally fucking a few of my friends. One of which is required to pay me rent and now cannot because he's required to have health insurance - so I'm actually fine with the health care system as it is if this is the fucking disgusting alternative (thank you MA Demoncrats/Mitt Romney, I appreciate it. Fucktards.)


So you are forced to have Health Care in MA? How does this work? What solutions do they offer? Any? My friend pays $125 a month for private healthcare, and his plan sucks. I am actually paid $60 a month to have health care because I am single, don't know why....just how my employer does it, but if I went to get the same coverage from a private provider I'd be paying close to $700/month for all of my benefits. And now MA is pushing this on their people? So if I delivered pizza for a living and my boss didn't hook me up I'd have to pay out the ass for coverage? Sorry I just don't get it. Move to California, we have big trees here too.


I'm sorry, I'm short on time in a major way - but here's the gist:

The law in MA is that you must have insurance. If you don't have insurance, there's a $219 tax penalty (if you were getting 300 back, you get $81, unless you had health insurance for every month of the year. My math might suck, but you get the idea. Heh.)
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Count



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1558
Location: Chapel Hill
 Reply with quote  

Isn't the state offered insurence plan in MA something in the neighborhood of 360 a month?
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:37 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Lusid
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0


Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 5081
Location: Dr. Pepperland
 Reply with quote  

mzehe916 wrote:
Move to California, we have big trees here too.

For some reason that's always been why I've wanted to move to Cali.
I want big fucking trees to... uh...
I don't know, I just want some big fucking trees in my life.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

For some reason I've found it hard to get the straight dope about the MA health care plan -- probably a) because I don't use it and b) because it's individualized.


Quote:

Rather than coming up with an entirely new health care infrastructure for the state, Massachusetts' plan seeks to plug holes in the existing system.

The poorest receive free care. Those making between one and three times the federal poverty level can apply for subsidized plans, which require they pay an increasing percentage of premiums based on their income.

Those not eligible for subsidized plans are required to obtain insurance privately, although under the law, insurers were encouraged to come up with lower cost plans.



Quote:

Max and Amy Newell say that without the law, they're not sure they could afford health care for themselves and their two young children. The two were paying $1,200 a month and said they were able to find an acceptable plan for $640 under the law.

Max Newell said the plan allows the two to work independently and spend more time with their children.

"We feel we could not have this configuration ... without this law," Newell said.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/12/07/as_health_care_law_reaches_key_threshold_ripples_spread/

It's a pretty good system, basically the State helping working-class people organize and get better health care rates than they'd normally get. To me it's a good example of government stepping in between corporations and the people they most like to prey on, while also hopefully reducing the burden of uninsured people that insured folks often carry. It's pretty good plicy, given the mess our health insurance industry is. I'd definitely like to see stronger reforms, but either way the HMOs have gotta get theirs or get gone. Preferably the latter.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Oh...so you voting for Romney for Prez then? ;-)

Seriously, man...I know 3 or 4 people who are FUCKED right now because of this law. The programs that help the "working class" are not helping them.

I guess they work too much, and for too little, to be considered "working class". Heh.

And since they are HEALTHY, they would really rather be able to pay for food or rent then be forced by the state to pay now or pay later. Odd, I know.

I'm sorry - but if the government wants to offer free services, that's one thing...for them to REQUIRE someone to PAY for services they do not want or need is fucking offensive and disgusting and completely against the notion of liberty.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Oh...so you voting for Romney for Prez then? ;-)

Seriously, man...I know 3 or 4 people who are FUCKED right now because of this law. The programs that help the "working class" are not helping them.

I guess they work too much, and for too little, to be considered "working class". Heh.

And since they are HEALTHY, they would really rather be able to pay for food or rent then be forced by the state to pay now or pay later. Odd, I know.

I'm sorry - but if the government wants to offer free services, that's one thing...for them to REQUIRE someone to PAY for services they do not want or need is fucking offensive and disgusting and completely against the notion of liberty.


Romney is not responsible for the health care reform law, much as he would like people to believe otherwise. He just didn't get in its way. It was a win-win for him -- take credit if it works, disavow it if it fails.

And I disagree with you completely. Liberty is about having the freedom to make choices for yourself. Not having health insurance coverage under the system that we have now is unfortunately making a choice for someone else. In the event that you do have a health issue, your care will detract from someone else's who is paying into the system, whether you pay back a portion of your costs over time or receive care for free.

I think it makes more sense to consider health insurance to be more like car insurance -- sure, you can make the argument that you're an impeccable driver and therefore are having your liberties restricted by government requiring you to purchase insurance, but that's silly. Accidents happen, and when they do, you're not going to expect to be left on your own to deal with the consequences to yourself, nevermind to someone else. Heath issues similarly do occur and any thought that you are not a part of the health care industry is rather oblivious and likely to be short-lived.

I dunno Shane -- I respect your libertarian but this is the kind of thinking that makes me cautious about libertarianism. For some reason libertarians seem disposed to forgetting the bigger impact of their actions or lack thereof. I don't think you're super wrong or anything, and I'm not trying to attack your principles. I just think that for some reason this happens a lot with libertarian thinkers. You can't act like you're an island. Especially on principle. 2nd Amendment protections are great, but not being afraid of unrestricted gun ownership is in many respects a product of experience, and acting like it's about principle when really it's principle + preference is disingenous. There are equally important principled reasons for maintaining gun controls, and dismissing those is one of those "i'm an island" things that really doesn't fly for me. I agree that it's important to maintain and protect self-reliance, but acting as if you're self-reliant in areas that you cannot ever really be does not seem realistic or fair to me.

Besides which, how is government going to offer free services? That's not really how it works in life. The government is, in my best-case scenario, a manifestation of the collective working strength of people in the community it governs. That means you gotta put your working strength into the pot for government to do things like provide services. If government is being run the way it should, this won't feel like being robbed. I know that that is not the case... so I sympathize... but I also don't think you can fix that by starving it for cash. That's how we disempower ourselves collectively.

As for your friends, they do sound like they're working class and obviously they're among the people who should be helped and not hurt by this law. But like I said, they can't make the choice to drive without insurance even if they are under the illusion that they will never have a car accident. And if they were raising a family, their math would look very, very different. I sympathize with their pain in this transitory time for health care and in the slow economy... I know it must be a really abrupt and disruptive impact on their balance sheet,. But they're not the only ones struggling... and in the end once the dust settles and, one can only hope, we get some real health care reform from a Democratic President (not going to happen under Ron Paul, that's for certain), I think it can't help but be better than the system we have now.
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

By "free services" I was clearly referring to those services that my taxes already pay for.


I'm really looking at this in a very narrow way, I know - but it goes like this...I have people close to me who did not have health insurance. They were on a budget that allowed them to live paycheck to paycheck with no state assistance. When they were sick, they did not see the doctor. Therefore nobody was paying for any of the services that nobody was receiving.

Now, those same people have to sign up for Commonwealth Care or MassHealth. Thus draining the social services they had no need to be a part of previously - since they could already pay their bills but now they cannot.

So how does this save money again when it's forcing people into welfare programs in ADDITION to the state-assisted funding of their health care?

It's a fucking stupid program, with side effects the politicians who created it will never fucking have to deal with. I don't even have to deal with it, but I know enough people who work their asses off only for the promise that - should they be lucky enough to keep their ass instead of it being worked off - they merely get fucked in it.

Whatever your theory about how this could be awesome is, it's divurgent from the reality I'm seeing people face right now. My roomate, for example, is going to have to go on welfare now in order to make ends meet. Before this, he simply paid for health services as he needed them. But that is no longer a choice for him. Which is obviously MORE liberty...limiting his choices. Ha.

And while I appreciate many of John Stewart Mill's ideas regarding Liberty, I do not believe even he had the idea of a law that required citizens to pay for things they cannot afford in mind. As a matter of fact, I would think that a mandate from the crown or government soliciting funds for things the citizens didn't want would offend him as it does I.

For what it's worth, I think he'd probably ignore the seatbelt laws too. Even though it saves the state money in ambulance dispatches.

Just saying.

I dunno man. It's fucking my friends, and as a result will only end up meaning they sign up for state services. If the goal was to avoid the costs of health care by being sure everyone has it, that's not very effective to me. I have no stats on the amount of new registrations with the Department of Transitional Assistance but I can promise I know 2 people who are on it now that weren't before. It might be great in the world of theory, but in practice it is a big fucking pile of suck for exactly the people who NEED health care...but not at the expense of a home.

Ron Paul would probably try and give Dr's tax breaks for proving they cared for patients pro-bono.

And car insurance is a horrible example to use with me, because I'd advocate not requiring that as well. ;-)

As to 2nd ammendment protections, I am not an island. If I were an island, I would have no need to protect myself from the cops and criminals with my arsenal of automatic weapons. :-P
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

how are you going to argue against mandating car insurance? you get hit by an impoverished bad driver and you're just screwed? we are not islands! we cannot expect our principles to make decisions for other people. that is contradictory to liberty, my friend. the libertarian focus on personal -- their own -- liberty is great, until it becomes clear that libertarians have no interest in determining where the line of "no harm to someone else's liberties" should be drawn. it's a good way to pick a fight with anyone who has any sense of social insecurity, because you're saying, "I don't need you [right now], so don't look to me for help." liberty only exists in the preservation of justice... so yes, sometimes it looks like a reduction in choice for one person. liberty is not self-serving and once you've started looking at it in those terms your principle has become yourself, and not liberty at all. there's a very fine line between liberty and tyranny, and the difference is that the line between one person's rights and another is drawn carefully when liberty is upheld. Someday, a libertarian MIGHT (if somehow his cushion of isolation and/or privilege fails) need government to help that line get drawn to protect his liberties, if he finds himself with less power than some other conflicting force. He might then wish he had the "insurance" of government that he might have defeated by voting for Ron Paul.

also, I don't see how your argument makes a lick of sense considering that the only penalty for not having insurance is a $219 individual tax exemption. what, he's paying for insurance to save himself $219? I don't think so... obviously your friend sees some benefit in going for the higher expense of actually having health insurance -- a benefit he's not owning when he complains to you about the system. Or, he's $219 away from welfare, in which case blaming the health insurance law just seems kind of silly.


Last edited by Embryo on Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:19 pm; edited 4 times in total
Post Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:29 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon