I wasn’t talking about that kind of welfare. I meant national welfare in general–things that the common man generally cannot or will not do for himself. Paul’s philosophy overlooks this in favor of strongly emphasizing the freedom of the individual, which is nice and all, but it isn’t especially pragmatic.
Kerry thought his win was guaranteed so he didn’t care as long as he would become president. Polls showed that everyone was against the war so Kerry chose that position.
Ron destroyed so many debates. They fear the Paul. :nunchuck:
Politicians and the media have their code words, and you can’t always take everything they say literally. Yeah, you hear a lot of talk about Obama and “change,” but it isn’t 100 percent of the time referring to his politics. They use it to subliminally refer to his skin color on a lot of those occassions.
Then Hillary said to herself, “fuck this ‘change’ shit is catching on, i’m a woman goddamnit, i need to use it too!” So she started whoring the word out. Then every other candidate saw it was catching on and THEY started using it also, only always referring to their politics.
So now everyone talks of “change” because A.) it’s the new talking point/catchy phrase, and perhaps most importantly B.) to distance themselves from Bush. Even republicans. Think about it, what Rep candidate has embraced Bush? None.
It’s all about “change,” and that means different things for different candidates.
PS VSlash,
Not only is Obama’s name one letter off from Osama, his middle name is Hussein!! 
you didnt know?
draw the ire of the ‘black community’ and kiss you ass goodbye
Insanity. If he wins, Satan will have something to do with it.
When he gets assassinated at least lots of hillbillies will think we finally got that turban wearing fucker and his beret wearing cousin.
Voting does not care about black people.
Can you be a bit more specific? The Comptroller General of the US, Dave Walker, himself said that the US gov’t social security/medicare obligations are far beyond the ability to pay and puts us in a 53trillion dollar debt. So what makes you think this current path is practical?
[media=youtube]btCmQJXTyTw&feature=related[/media]
I grew up in the not so nice area of Jamaica, NY myself so I have the same problems a lot of the common man did while growing up. But you know what, I’m able to make a retirement plan for myself, get my own healthcare, and help out the poor on my own- it would help people more to improve the economy than to let the government make a social safety net- but whether or not you agree with that philosophy doesn’t change that its not possible to uphold this any longer.
And his first name is one letter removed from this guy… his name is simbliminal fear…
I’d like Obama to win the party nom just to smite the Black Caucus and other so-called black leaders (Sharpton, Bob Johnson etc) that turned their backs on him in favor of Hillary. Obama winning the nom would be a punch in the eye of the establishment, hopefully inspiring others succeed on their own, instead of expecting the leaders in the black community to do anything but exploit the people they supposedly represent…
Again, you’re selectively reading. I said nothing about the status quo being practical. I’m saying Ron Paul’s philosophy is, at best, unrealistic and would flop in practice, and at worst, is nuts.
And again, you’re taking the word “welfare” the wrong way. I will (again) explain to you that I am not using the word in the political sense. I am talking about the basic set of things that a government does for its people–in other words, the services for which the government exists in the first place. Not welfare as in the money that gets taken from your check to subsidize low income families, though I suppose that could fit in there somewhere.
Consider, for example, the possibility of a new vaccination being created for an incredibly dangerous and contagious disease. If I’m understanding Paul’s views correctly, he would make such a thing strictly voluntary. Yeah, personal freedom, rah rah rah and all that… but no. I do not want a bunch of uneducated hillbillies and needlephobes to refuse the vaccine out of ignorance and turn themselves into incubators for more powerful strains. That’s the kind of situation in which the line is crossed from one person’s freedom into a danger to the community, and the government must have the authority to ensure that it doesn’t happen.
Of course, his views on individual freedoms aside, his disrespect for science would also cause problems in this hypothetical situation.
I’m not selectively reading, I understand that national welfare basically means the government trying to protect the people in ways outside of military use. Yeah I know you’re not for the status quo, but the status quo is the national welfare system and it is unrealistic, nuts, and flopping as we speak.
Most of the services a government provides such as schools, police/fire department proteciton is done by the states anyway. Its the Federal government having a say in which everyone who lives in every state must comply with that is what Paul is railing against. An easy example that he brings up all the time is how medical marijuana can be allowed in a state, but the Federal government still has the power to arrest you and override the states power.
Well this is more of a hypothetical mass hysteria type situation, I think you’re probably referring to Ron Paul being against the government mandated small pox vaccination- you can read his view here http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html .
Just look at the constant failures of the FDA to see the government not being so great at trying to protect people when it comes to new drugs.
This was already addressed in another Ron Paul thread. Suffice it to say that Ron Paul fans like to make a big case over the supposed failures of the FDA, but the criticisms are not especially well grounded in reality.
Care to back that up?
Covers it more than I can. But the basic idea is, what is the point of the FDA if it takes roughly a decade to approve a possible new drug that could help people, and when it continues to approve harmful drugs/dissaprove harmless ones. Turns out to be more of a waste of money- and I think the criticism that the country would turn into a wasteland of destruction and chaos if government run programs such as these were ended are much less probable.
You are totally misrepresending the issue of the P.A. reauthorization by not detailing WHY he did it. On that The Iranian Revolutionary Guard IS a terrorist organization so I don’t see why he voting on a bill to label them one is something controversial.
And the I’am tired of people thinking Iraq is a situation that can be solved by just leaving over night. He DID a many other Democrats support benchmarks that would quicken the efforts to get out of Iraq.
I’ve already discussed this issue at length before, so you’ll have to excuse me if I decline to do so again.
Guess who’s paying for it?
Why don’t we invade every single country while we’re at it.
Also, if these guys are so bad, why not let someone ELSE play the cop.
As if we don’t have enough problems in the US that we’re wasting our money on problems outside the US.
A trillion dollars (almost there) is a lot of money we wasted on Iraq alone.
I think a man will win before a woman, regardless of race
Times change.
You can also take role reversal.
Females are more likely to vote for Hillary because she is a female.
Therefore automatic win for Hillary.
In reality, this is a close race, taking race and gender into consideration.
But I think black people are more likely to vote for Obama because he is black (most black people vote democratic anyway).
Therefore, automatic win for Obama. I think even black females will vote for him because he’s attractive, and Oprah said to vote for him.
Let me put it this way. Identical candidates, identical stances, one is a man, one is a woman…which one would you pick?
Yeah. I’d pick the guy too :lol:
Is she hot?
On the other side of the coin, if we split on Iraq before the time is right, we could (and probably will) see another situation like Afghanistan: the rise of a very oppressive, very anti-western regime, worse than Saddam ever was. I was against the Iraq war before it was cool, but to insist on cutting and running now is just as foolish and shortsighted as invading ever was in the first place. As shitty as it is to be stuck there, the alternative at this point is potentially far worse.