The Difference Between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich

These two presidential candidates from different parties are compared frequently: both are against needless wars in Iran and Iraq and refuse to fund them, both voted against the PATRIOT Act and continue to oppose it, both are unusual “underdog” candidates with large followings, and both claim they will bring a revolution to America’s government by returning to the values of the Constitution. But Ron Paul is far from “the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich” and not everyone realizes this. In fact, the differences are so huge that it is a wonder they are compared at all.

The very basis of Ron Paul’s campaign is to uplift the Constitution. As you already know, the laws of our nation are subjected to a lengthy and complicated process before becoming law. The Supreme Court can declare these laws constitutional or unconstitutional. This high court has ruled time and time again in favor of the separation of church and state, citing the establishment clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Supreme Court applies this clause to issues like Christian nativity scenes in front of government buildings and a moment of silence for prayer in public schools, which could respect the establishment of any religion. These laws are declared unconstitutional because our Founding Fathers designed the American government to stay out of religion in order to prevent discrimination, which their ancestors had experienced in England.

But Ron Paul explicitly opposes the separation of church and state in several ways, including his assertion that there is a war on Christmas and that secularists are trying to destroy Christianity. He said, and I quote from Paul’s own House of Representatives website: "The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents.”

This is true, but the fact that our Founding Fathers had a deep and personal belief in God does not justify any union of church and state, nor does it justify such things as a Christian education in schools paid for by the government. If one religion —in Paul’s case, Christianity— is allowed to maintain and alter the way our government works, this would be an extreme violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Not to mention that it would be a dangerous precedent to set, in which any religion, no matter how controversial the beliefs, could one day conceivably control America. Paul, who claims to be a strict constitutionalist, would be contradicting everything his campaign stands for by violating the Bill of Rights. Yet, this is what he seeks to accomplish if elected president.

I have a hypothesis, and, like all hypotheses, it has the potential to be incorrect. It is well-known that many of Ron Paul’s supporters are actually Democrats who are dissatisfied by their party’s candidates. They look to Paul because he is against the war, in favor of civil liberties, and seeking to uphold our founding documents. But I imagine that these supporters see only the positive aspects of Ron Paul’s philosophy, and not the suspicious discrepancy between who Paul says he is and his actual stances. Perhaps the issue that most concerns me is that these voters are generally in line with Dennis Kucinich’s values and political platform, yet, having been misinformed or misled, they follow Ron Paul. Votes are then taken away from Kucinich, a candidate who could represent them in their pursuit of peace, justice, and governmental action in accordance with our Constitution.

Many other points of Ron Paul’s platform defy the typical stances of the young, rebellious, and peace-seeking “revolutionaries” who make up much of Paul’s voter-base. The list is so long that it practically covers his entire political viewpoint, but here is just one obvious example. Young American voters are, in general, concerned with the environment and global climate change. Are the young American voters who support Ron Paul aware of his extremely lax policy proposals for energy conservation, including the removal of the Department of Energy and permission for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? This totally contradicts our generation’s “revolutionary” approach to demanding more accountability for environmental protection. Paul even voted against implementing portions of the Kyoto Protocol that are already allowed under law. In a way, this makes Paul’s environmental proposals no better than President Bush’s environmental proposals. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, wants the United States to enter into the Kyoto Protocol and seeks to hold corporations and car companies accountable for America’s needless pollution and relentless consumption of our limited natural resources.

So, why do voters who seem to belong in Dennis Kucinich’s following instead campaign so passionately for Ron Paul? Last I heard, you’re not being a revolutionary by supporting a politician who says he is someone he’s not and continues practices that his predecessors, like Bush, also advocate. If you want a real revolution, vote for Dennis Kucinich. He's similar to Ron Paul in the positive ways and, fortunately, totally unlike him in all of the others. It just might be that Kucinich is the Ron Paul you think Ron Paul is.

Comments

I knew Ron! And Dennis is no Ron?

If you want a real revolution, vote for Dennis Kucinich. He's similar to Ron Paul in the positive ways and, fortunately, totally unlike him in all of the others. It just might be that Kucinich is the Ron Paul you think Ron Paul is.* freedarfur

Sorry! Dennis is a wonderful Patriot, but the Ron Paul Revolution is something that this country has not seen in a hundred years......Ron is simply the messager, 6 million Federal Reserve Notes today from 40 000 small diverse voters should be enough proof to get your attention who the real patriot is and where the musketfire is........

The establishment is pissing in their pants....Does Dennis make them crap?

Max, I've heard it said....

that Ron Paul doesn't think abortion is a state's rights issue - that he believes there is no constitutional right to abortion. That it is, in fact, just plain illegal.

Is that true?

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Phony State-Rights issues divides!

Max, I've heard it said....
Robert P.

that Ron Paul doesn't think abortion is a state's rights issue - that he believes there is no constitutional right to abortion. That it is, in fact, just plain illegal.

Is that true?*Robert P.

Not true! Ron believes that only States can decide whether Abortion is legal, not the feds...That is why anti-abortion right wing pro-life religious groups hate his opinion on this issue. Personally, I think the feds have no constitutional authority in this matter, sorted like the Flag issue with the right wing pro-war groups wanting you to go to jail if you don't believe in a federal amendment and forcing you to swear a oath to the flag.....

The abortion issue is simply a conservative-republican and democrat-liberal paradigm to divide the peoples like many of the other phony issues today....

That is what Hilter demanded when he and his fascists corporate supporters did when seizing power, you swear a oath to the Furher first and not to the German consititution or it's peoples......

Ron Paul is wrong.

The problem I have with the Naderites who support Ron Paul is that they are always looking for something better without taking in the whole picture. They rail against the two-party system and vote for Nader, they rail against dems and reps and look to Ron Paul.

Well, Ron Paul has voted against gay couple being able to adopt.
He is against the basic idea that a woman's choice is a federal issue, in other words he wants to overrule Roe v. Wade and he has said as much.
He wants to do away with the IRS and Dept. of Education.
He doesn't believe in ANY federal funding of research, do you have any idea how damaging that would be?
He is against stem cell research.

Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who claims to be a Democrat and supports him has lost their mind.

He's more of an anarchist than he is a Democrat.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Ron Paul is right?

The problem I have with the Naderites who support Ron Paul is that they are always looking for something better without taking in the whole picture. They rail against the two-party system and vote for Nader, they rail against dems and reps and look to Ron Paul.* Robert P.

As far as I know, I yet to find one Naderite in the revolution.....Are you against choice with political parties or simply a monopolyist bastard that want no competion or fresh ideas about real liberty for the masses? The country needs a good and well respect 3 rd party to keep the neo-cons from screwing us over time after time in elections....I believe that time has finally come.......with the amazing foundation that the revolution is building for the future...

Well, Ron Paul has voted against gay couple being able to adopt.* Robert P.

Not that I know of...that is a state issue and Dr Paul has made no such statement to that affect....find it for us?

He is against the basic idea that a woman's choice is a federal issue, in other words he wants to overrule Roe v. Wade and he has said as much.* Robert P.

So what! Let the States decide it.....What is wrong with that? Can image what would happen if the Bush Neo-cons had a federal law against abortions.....you would have a police state swat team at your doctors office everyday....Do you really want that? And chances they would be sub contracted Blackwater corporate goons. Nothing like state fascism at work in the health and medical field.....
He wants to do away with the IRS and Dept. of Education.* Robert P.

Great idea! Those are two that need to be trash, it appears that you have never been audited by the IRS and had your life ruin? I have been audited 7 times corporate and private and it is not a petty sight.......

He doesn't believe in ANY federal funding of research, do you have any idea how damaging that would be?
He is against stem cell research.* Robert P.

Sterm research is nessary, but the issue of government grants simply make more political whores who will piss it away like always. The greatest research in the medical field has aways been by unknowns....Are you aware that the Small pox cure was discover during the American Revolution at Harvard and given to our revolutionary soliders during the war? It was only 10 years later that Brits finally fiqure that out after half of England was dying of Small pox.....

Government grants for research is nothing new. The railroad corporate barrons of the 1860's suck up to the grants and abuse the hell of it....The Telegraph or the Morse Code was discover by a government Grant....You will notice that most government grants end up being in the hands of the Corporate masters making weapons or techology that supress individual rights and controling the masses by high tech police state methods....ie....Has it occured to you why we are now leading the world with instant cams on almost every city corner? You have no more private life anymore? Do you really think the bastards that invented this Orwellian crap love you and would use it against you if you piss them off about free speech or some other constitutional right that the Bush neo-cons have stoled from you in the last 7 years.?...

Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who claims to be a Democrat and supports him has lost their mind.* Robert P.

You are sounding like the neo-cons establishment fools and just generalize every known Paul supporter as luntics. If you are going to win in this fight, you need the independents to believe in your cause. Shame on you. What would you think if they said your were myth worshiper about global warming and other assorted weird liberal thoughts.

He's more of an anarchist than he is a Democrat.* Robert P.

If you knew your history, the term anarchist was invented by the Corporate masters on Wall Street during the anti-union days of the 1870.s.....In fact the first time we hear of the term was during the Hay Street riots in Chicago during the late 1800.s who were protesting the Corporate work conditions in Chicago. The Corporate Cops beat and stomp the shit out the so-called communist or progressive anarchists during that time....As far as I know Ron Paul believes in governments and the rule of law. Anarchists do not believe in any government, Barbarians or Viking would be consider Anarchists in today's political correct Orwellian newsdoublespeak, yet they established the first peaceful civilize constitutional republic in the new world long before European white man decided to rape the new world and steal it riches in the name of free trade....What makes you think that Ron Paul would be a democrat?

Now get out there in that snow and get some votes for Edwards and stop worrying about Ron Paul.......

I think that Ron Paul's supporters are many

but the ones who understand the facts of his campaign are few. We were confronted outside of Best Buy on Saturday by a young man who wanted to give us information about Ron Paul. I asked him what he knew about RP. He knew that RP was against the war, and that was good enough for him. I told him there were lots of candidates against the war; why was RP different? Because RP was not part of the establishment! RP is an elected Congressman. How is that not part of the establishment? Well, he's not! OK.......And Dennis Kucinich was the example I used. I agree with freedarfur, Kucinich is the true Constitutionalist in this race.

I'm afraid he hasn't caught the way Ron Paul has because he's done this before and coming from him, the message of "no war" is old news.

And Ron Paul is about as anti-government as you can get and still be an elected official. From his website:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Dissect that for a minute. There are some code words in there: "low taxes" "free markets" . Guess who he's trying to appeal to there? It's not me! As a congressman, he has set himself up as a de facto supreme court justice, deciding whether legislation is expressly authorized by the Constitution. That's not his job. That's the job of the supreme court. He's a medical doctor (graduate of Duke Medical school) who is making legal decisions about what is constitutional. Hmmm.

I'm sure he means well, but from my point of view, he sounds like a whack job. Not as much of a whack job as Giuliani, but a whack job all the same.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

more a whack job than Giuliani

people need to quit thinking of him as some kind of outsider hero and realize he is anti-them.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Maybe you're right.

We need more diaries like this to get the word out, then.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

It's the message that counts, not the messager!

but the ones who understand the facts of his campaign are few. *lcloud

Not true! His amazing and massive supporters are the most educated, most informed, and just piss off at the establishment for screwing them over on the war, bankrupting their future with massive debt that has no solution except to print more phony paper money, You don't raise 7 million dollars or Federal Reserve Notes in one day from 54,000 small donors in one day if they are really that stupid or dumb....They are the new political activism and new people who have never engaged in the political system before, nor republican, democrat unlike many misinformed establishment types think.....It is the true grassroots movement and it will not stop....It 's here to stay........

I'm sure he means well, but from my point of view, he sounds like a whack job. Not as much of a whack job as Giuliani, but a whack job all the same.*lcloud

And what if somebody thought you were a whack job if you believe or thought that the world is a perfect paradise until we get the right kind of Democrat into office.....Rudy is a political police state thug.....Ron Paul is against the police state big time and if that is being wackly, than you deserve what you get!

Nothing personal! The world is much more evil than you think......Dennis would make a great VP to Paul should the impossible be done.......

Ron Paul is against too much of what I'm for, Max.

Sorry.
Just not going to make it with me.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

What is for chow tonight Brother?

Ron Paul is against too much of what I'm for, Max.* lcloud

Sorry.
Just not going to make it with me. * Icloud

I don't think anybody is forcing you to believe in the Revolutionary constitutional message. It is not what the message is against, it's about saving this country now, not later discussing it in some detention camp with cellmates complaining about the chow......You are buying into the Orwellian generic newspeak about simple establishment political program labels....

Do you really believe the Clinton machine gives a shit about your individual rights with their massive corporate neo-con support?

Ron Paul enemies is the same as yours....A good ancient Roman General knows that if you are going to kick barbarian ass, you need the barbarian worst enemy as your front line scape goat....in battle.....

Think of this way about your enemies. If Art Polk and his little devil fascist worshipers seize control of our state government. Would you want the Paul supporters in your camp or have them simply sitting it out and counting the bodies of progressives charging the Capital steps?

Misinformation

I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters aren't fully informed about his views on a lot of subjects.

For instance the above referenced essay from him on the subject of the separation of church and state. This is what he has to say on the subject...

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

The Founding Fathers envisioned no such thing. This is what the founding fathers had to say about it. From the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797...

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians. Most of them were Deists, and many of them were hostile to Christianity, or at best, indifferent to it.

The idea that the Christian churches should eclipse the state in importance should frighten everyone, including Christians, since there have always been churches that have sought to eclipse other churches as well as dominate those who are not Christians with the power they wield.

Thanks, Carol.

point eloquently made. :)


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

You have been watching the wrong National Treasure movie Carol?

I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters aren't fully informed about his views on a lot of subjects.* Carol

Sure they are Carol! They know all about the secret societies that you refer to in the so-called "From the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797...

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion by Jefferson......"

They just call it the New World Order or the Globist Corporate Police State. It's not a secret anymore. thanks to the internet and vast massive new political movements attacking at all sides of the estabishment Beast.

How long do you think it would have taken to know about Bush Globist's Skull and Crossbones early membership if not for the internet? And don't forget about John Kerry being up to his Skull and Crossbones ass in it too!

If Kerry really thought he had been screw by the Big Brother election 04 agenda in Ohio, why did he fold in the
Ohio recount leaving John Edwards hanging and 4 more years of hell in this country by the Bush neo-cons

The Reverend Jacob Duche' opened the September 7 th 1774 session of the Continenental Congress by reading from the 35 th Pdslhm and added 10 minutes of spontaneous prayer asking God to support the American cause.

One member of Congress said "it was worth riding a 100 miles to hear him"

In October 1777, a discourged Duch'e wrote George Washington urging him to surrender to the British.

I have no idea why you are trying to say Ron Paul is a neo-con church-state globists supporter when he said just the opposite?

Sorry, Max.

Not true! Ron believes that only States can decide whether Abortion is legal, not the feds.

If he really believed that, he wouldn't have authored Federal legislation that stated: "Life begins at conception."

Think about it. If that (or future) legislation passed and was signed into law, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference what the individual states decided, abortion would be in violation of Federal statute.

His views may be "radical" in comparison with the current GOP stance, but he is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, he's not even moderate for that matter, so any liberal progressive supporting him is deluding him/herself.

Sorry scharrison?

His views may be "radical" in comparison with the current GOP stance, but he is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, he's not even moderate for that matter, so any liberal progressive supporting him is deluding him/herself.*scharrison

Maybe in your progressive establishment mind set?

Define moderate? Define liberal progressive? and than define radical? You sound like a Senator Joe L moderate whatever that means since he loves John McCain now!

if he really believed that, he wouldn't have authored Federal legislation that stated: "Life begins at conception."*scharrison

Name the legislation please? I don't think if such legislation did exsist he would support a federal law taking away your individual rights by a federal tyrant rule.....Stop acting piss at Ron Paul,,,he is giving the Republicans more hell than a Army of Devil worshipers seeking to get inside President Huckabee soul....

Life not does start with conception. It starts with a heartbeat and brainwaves first in that order....That is life and when those systems stop, than that is death and a possible view from the other side, if you are real person of faith?

Here you go, Max:

I originally saw this on his website. Here's the relevant part of the bill from Thomas :

110th CONGRESS

1st Session
H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Each state has the authority to protect life, but the wording in A & B would cause any abortion (regardless of state law) to be categorized as wrongful death. If a state fails/refuses to prosecute, Federal statutes can then be brought to bear.

Here you go scharrison? Uh where again?

Each state has the authority to protect life, but the wording in A & B would cause any abortion (regardless of state law) to be categorized as wrongful death. If a state fails/refuses to prosecute, Federal statutes can then be brought to bear.* Each state has the authority to protect life, but the wording in A & B would cause any abortion (regardless of state law) to be categorized as wrongful death. If a state fails/refuses to prosecute, Federal statutes can then be brought to bear.*scharrison?

I'm still looking for the part that makes it's federal law? Is this some kind of De Vinci code that is hidden behind the Bill of Rights in the National Treasure Movie. I am half ass blind and can read, but you are reaching like hell like Brother Huckabee to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old after viewing Elivis latest Jailhouse rock movie!

Are you kidding?

I'm pretty sure it says that Congress recognizes that all life begins at conception - federal law, all life begins at conception. Then, it basically leaves it up to the states to decide how to punish for having an abortion, since by federal law it is taking a life.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Lets hear it for Thomas!

Lets give Thomas and the Library of Congress Website three cheers! (my brother is the webmaster for the LOC)

Shameless plug, I know, but hey, gotta do it for my baby bro

"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy

Paul is also a dirty campaigner ...

From npr.org

On the morning of the runoff election, Gammage got an early dose of a tactic that, 30 years later, would become known as "swift boating." Gammage says he was jolted out of bed by a radio ad from the Paul campaign that featured a blood-curdling scream.

"The next thing I heard was this sweet girl's little voice saying, 'I hope my daddy and mommy don't vote for Bob Gammage, 'cause he wants to turn the rapists and murders loose to attack us in our beds. I hope my mommy and daddy vote for Ron Paul. He wants to put them in jail where they belong,'"

Person County Democrats

Paul is a man of Principle first!

Paul is also a dirty campaigner ...* persondem

From npr.org

Oh good heavens, that story has been around for a long time and goes nowhere, since the establishment neo-con Republicans have try to beat it to death for the past 3 weeks. Hell if you are going smear him and his movement, just call them a bunch of muslin terrorists and he needs to be lock up with his followers in Gitgo and torture....Like Glenn Beck, Russ numnuts, and all of those other phony Fox media whores.....

I expected more of you! Now be a class act and go jump on those real bastards who want to screw you over like those neo-con Republicans

I thought the difference was that...

one of them claims to have seen a UFO and the other actually launches one.

Left on 49

WTF was that? It must be a another flaming Republican?

I thought the difference was that...

one of them claims to have seen a UFO and the other actually launches one.*LiberalNC

Hell son! Over 80% of the American people believe in UFO's.......And that includes a former Democrat President name Slick Willie who ask after his 3 week in office could he see any government files about them....

In fact just last night, me and my dog Max saw one shoot right over the trailer and flame out two blocks down the street destroying a new meth lab.

I suggest that you go back to basic UFO's training school and watch " Independent Day" 4 million times.....

You are not alone! Believe me....ET knows that? And if you think "close encounters" means a tight fit with Senator Craig in a Airport men's restroom searching for Alien lizards, than I want to sell you my 1 st edition Star Wars collection on E-Bay at a reasonable discount?

The LOC is awesome.

We manufacture books on tape for blind people under government contract. Tens of thousands of blind (and handicapped) folks are enrolled in this nationwide, and the people at the LOC make sure the program runs smoothly.

That is so wonderful! I

That is so wonderful! I wasn't aware of that, but I'm glad you shared.

I want the truth

Apparently, claiming to see a UFO doesn't disqualify people from serving in the presidency. Both Presidents Carter and Reagan have also made such claims.

I'm sure that Ron Paul is the best candidate for libertarians, and for those who prefer unfettered corporatism. But for many other people, who are not in line with these philosophies, and who think Paul is their candidate because of his stance on American interventionism around the globe, they might be in for quite a rude awakening if they were to take the time and trouble to read what he has to say on other issues. Health care, for instance. I want a candidate I can trust to tell me the truth. Ron Paul is clearly not a man who cares about the truth. On the subject of health care, he has this to say...

Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care.

My husband is Canadian, as are all of my in-laws. I know a LOT of Canadians, and not one of them would trade their system for what we've got here for anything in the world, and my husband wishes the US would adopt a system like they have in Canada (or Britain, or France), now that he has to contend with the system we have here. Nor would they trade their system for what we had here prior to the HMOs that Paul suggests are responsible for the problems with our current system.

Most of the industrialized world has socialized medicine, and most of those countries have better access to health care, and provide a higher quality of care to their people than what we have here in this country. If Ron Paul can't tell me the truth about this issue, how many other issues is he lying to me about?

Ron Paul fans are kook liars and so is Ron! Well maybe not?

learn how to blockquote Max. I'm sick of cleaning up your copyright infringement. Post the comment again, this time with a freakin' blockquote. And, don't cut and paste whole articles. - RP

Sorry... not impressed

First of all, I haven't called anyone a kook. Nor will I. That's a double edged sword. And I have not called Ron Paul's supporters liars. So please don't put words in my mouth.

You are confuse! Jimmy Carter saw a killer rabbit floating toward his fishing boat and he escape death by beating it to death with the rowboat oars....It was later reveal that it was his drunk redneck brother who was on a drunken easter egg hunt in a bunny suit.

I believe you are the one who is confused. The rabbit incident took place in a boat in water, with a swamp rabbit, in the presence of a photographer and the president's secret service detail. The UFO incident took place on solid ground at a Lion's Club, with several other witnesses, involving an object that could not be identified that was flying in the air.

Ronnie only made one reference to UFO's during his Presidental career, It was before the UN where he claim Area 51 was a free-trade holding zone or rest stop for Aliens, who were trying to escape from a secret government group call.." Men In Black" Nancy his wife later on claim that Ronnie had just visited her " Madame spiritual adviser" and was confuse about a place called Roswell...thinking it was Roswell Georgia....In fact in the Town square of Roswell, the citizens of Roswell erected a monment with Ronnie and ET signing the first space treaty that all Aliens had equal rights and health care in the 21 st century.

Reagan made more than one reference to UFOs. In fact he used to talk about it every time he could get a chance. His people used to try to keep him quiet about it, with little success, as you have demonstrated with your mention of his speech before the UN. Reagan claimed that he saw UFOs on two separate occasions. On one of those occasions, he told the pilot of the plane he was in to chase the object and according to both Reagan and the pilot, the pilot did so for about a half hour.

Maybe this where you got the idea that Ron Paul is liar.

No, I get the idea that he is lying because I showed you one of his lies (I suggest you read my last post - that's where it can be found).

Ask yourself one question, if you were out in the Northern woods of Canada during the winter and the Canadian health system couldn't find you while you had labor pains with your coming 4 th child and a Baby doctor name Ron Paul appear at your cabin door during the snow blizzard, would you call him a liar or let him deliver your 4 th child at no cost?

I prefer to ask myself this question, since it is precisely the situation I find myself in today...

If I was living right here where I am now, and I had a heart attack, would I lose my house? The answer to that question is YES, because I have no health insurance, I can't afford to buy my own health insurance, and I can't afford hospital bills.

You have no idea how much rage is out there against the Globist corporate establishment by the millions of Paul revolutionary Army....The revolution is just starting.....

Oh, I know exactly how much rage is out there against the globalist corporate establishment. And I don't trust someone like Ron Paul, who lies in order to win the support of people like you, to rescue me or this country from it.

I realize Congressman Paul has been very effective in raising money for his campaign. However, as with any other candidate who uses dishonest tactics to raise money and support, I don't trust him even as far as I can spit.

Hey! I didn't start this thead Robert?

learn how to blockquote Max. I'm sick of cleaning up your copyright infringement. Post the comment again, this time with a freakin' blockquote. And, don't cut and paste whole articles. - RP

Robert! I am shock that your emotions or your liberal compassion has got the best of you on this issue...You are starting to sound like a control freak republican and even use my persona on something that I didn't comment on.

Dear Max?

BLOCK-FRICKIN-QUOTE

You are shock? Really, like a car shock or an electric shock?

"Liberal compassion" - so you are pretty much admitting, along with your misplaced support of Ron Paul, that you're a neocon conservative?

As for using your persona, actually I deleted an entire comment of yours, you probably didn't notice because it was a big cut and paste of someone else's work.

Don't. Do. That.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Dear Robert!

"Liberal compassion" - so you are pretty much admitting, along with your misplaced support of Ron Paul, that you're a neocon conservative?* Robert

Robert! If am a neo-con conservative, than you must the be dumbest dumb down misplace communist that I have ever seen...You have no idea what a neo-con is? I love you Robert, so stop acting like a republican establishment asshole and get to work with the real enemies, Art Pope,,,,,and just about every fascist republican SOB who wants to lock your ass up in the future...

As for using your persona, actually I deleted an entire comment of yours, you probably didn't notice because it was a big cut and paste of someone else's work.

Don't. Do. That.* Robert

Only communists and fascists delete stuff when confronted with a another opinion...Oh I get it!

"Most comments are equal except some comments are more equal than others..."

Sorry... not impressed! Neither am I?

If I was living right here where I am now, and I had a heart attack, would I lose my house? The answer to that question is YES, because I have no health insurance, I can't afford to buy my own health insurance, and I can't afford hospital bills.* Carol

There is a little safety net out there at the moment.....I am sorry, but there is millions of people like you out there...If you health is in doubt, Than you can at least use medcaid for a while.....Your rage is misdirected at the wrong enemy.....Not me nor Dr Paul nor the revolution.....Your fight is with the medical-industrial complex.......And the phony Democrats and Republicans who promise paradise with other people's hard earn money. I can't afford a tank of gas, but I am force to buy it whether I like it or not.....This country is in big time serious trouble....It's broke like you and me and cannot afford another credit card charge.

I hope you understand that I am having fun teasing you about UFO's and other silly pop culture crap out there, that really means nothing in life......

And I don't trust someone like Ron Paul, who lies in order to win the support of people like you, to rescue me or this country from it.* Carol

If you really feel that way, than you should ask John Edwards to stop lying about his haircuts and that big house that impresses the poor folks like you and me.....You are a victim of the oldest political trick in the world.....Bread and Circus's promises by the Emperor

Not quite...

There is a little safety net out there at the moment.....I am sorry, but there is millions of people like you out there...If you health is in doubt, Than you can at least use medcaid for a while.....

This is not true. My husband and I are not poor. We are middle class, and our income is too high to qualify for medicaid. We are two of the many millions of people who are slipping though the safety net. There is no safety net for us. If one of us gets sick, we will become homeless. Dennis' plan will correct that situation for us and for many millions of other voters in the US.

Your rage is misdirected at the wrong enemy.....Not me nor Dr Paul nor the revolution.....Your fight is with the medical-industrial complex.......And the phony Democrats and Republicans who promise paradise with other people's hard earn money. I can't afford a tank of gas, but I am force to buy it whether I like it or not.....This country is in big time serious trouble....It's broke like you and me and cannot afford another credit card charge.

Exactly. And Dennis is the candidate who will correct this problem. Dennis is not owned by anyone, and his plan addresses the problems faced by people like me. Dr. Paul's plan does not. Dr. Paul's plan leaves me in precisely the same situation I am in now, and will be for the foreseeable future. Dr. Paul's plan is no plan at all.

I hope you understand that I am having fun teasing you about UFO's and other silly pop culture crap out there, that really means nothing in life......

Whatever floats your boat...

If you really feel that way, than you should ask John Edwards to stop lying about his haircuts and that big house that impresses the poor folks like you and me.....You are a victim of the oldest political trick in the world.....Bread and Circus's promises by the Emperor

What makes you think I support John Edwards? I don't trust him any more than I trust Ron Paul. They're both cut from the same cloth, in my opinion.

I trust Dennis Kucinich. He isn't owned by anyone. He has the right plans for correcting the problems we face because of the medical-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex and all of the other forces that are destroying our democracy, our society, and our infrastructure, and eroding our rights.

You should spend some time reading what he has to say on these subjects. You might be surprised.

There is no safety net for anybody period?

There is no safety net for us. If one of us gets sick, we will become homeless. Dennis' plan will correct that situation for us and for many millions of other voters in the US.* Carol

Dennis nor Dr No cannot do anything unless the Congress makes them dictators like Emperor Bush and the chances are slim and none for both of them.....In fact, "they" would murder Dr No if he even comes close to seizing the presidental office...In Dennis case, they would simply waterboard him and dropped him off in lake Erie as a bus accident gone terribly wrong after a Cleveland Browns playoff game

Dr. Paul's plan does not. Dr. Paul's plan leaves me in precisely the same situation I am in now, and will be for the foreseeable future. Dr. Paul's plan is no plan at all.* Carol

Whatever floats your boat...* Carol

I don't have a boat! The finance company repo it 3 years ago and renamed it the Titanic 2..It is now located on the bottom of a dry lake near Durham and is a bait shop on the weekends for the local rednecks who still think the shimp season will open anytime soon.

What makes you think I support John Edwards? I don't trust him any more than I trust Ron Paul. They're both cut from the same cloth, in my opinion.* Carol

I had no idea that Dr No was a greedy trial lawyer supporting the Justicial Industrial-prison legal corrupt complex.

You should spend some time reading what he has to say on these subjects. You might be surprised.* Carol

I know Dennis personally and love him,,,,in fact he and Dr No have done hundreds of bills together while in congress.....You do understand that I am a George Bush persona and really know my history like John Edwards....strike that...make that Hillary Clinton

BTW...

On the subject of your 'safety net', medicaid (hope you're not relying on it yourself), what do you think will happen to that program if Dr. Paul becomes president?

If he has his way, it will be either eliminated or greatly reduced. Ron Paul believes that private charities should take over the role of providing for the poor. He says that the only reason they're not doing so now is because taxes are so high that there isn't enough money for them to do that. He fails to mention the fact that charitable donations are tax deductible, which provides people with an incentive to want to give to charities, and still there are many millions of people in the US who do not have access to any health care services at all.

And of course, private charities aren't going to provide health care to middle class people. They're only going to take care of the poorest of the poor, if anyone. So the middle class uninsured and underinsured are still going to lose their houses and life savings if they get sick.

Revolution just for the sake of revolution is a big mistake. If people don't make sure they know precisely what the revolutionary they support intends to do once in power, they will most probably end up with something even worse than what they're revolting against. If the revolutionary they're supporting is lying to them or misleading them, or if he is not being entirely forthcoming with them about his intentions, it's because he is going to do something they probably won't like in the long run. Take a lesson from history on that.

Thanks for making some sense, Carol.

Revolution just for the sake of revolution is a big mistake. If people don't make sure they know precisely what the revolutionary they support intends to do once in power, they will most probably end up with something even worse than what they're revolting against.

I totally agree. Not all revolutions are good, but the name is appealing to people unsatisfied with their situations. President Bush might make this country even worse by angering Americans and inspiring them to vote for any "revolutionary" who comes along, no matter what the real implications of his "exciting and different" ideas are.

Max, if you're going to respond to every Paul comment, it might be a good idea to re-read what you write before you post it. I don't think I've ever seen so many errors, misspellings, odd claims, and sentences ending with question marks for no apparent reason. Your view is important, but almost impossible to understand with all the nonsense. Also, I sort of wonder if you actually read my initial post.

Max is a regular here.

You'll learn to almost understand what he says. Sort of.

I think what has come through in this thread is how truly ripe for revolution this country is. I'm not talking about "taking up arms against our oppressors". But the one thing I remember from my sociology class in college were the 5 things that had to be present in a society for revolution to occur. I remember because the professor gave us an anagram to remember it. Pepsi. (I like Pepsi)

  1. Political conditions must be right. Enough of the population must be upset with the political order to be willing to change it.
  2. Economic conditions (this is a big one) There must be compelling economic reasons for the populace to be willing to change conditions.
  3. Social conditions. Social conditions - perceived or real injustices must be present for revolution to come about.
  4. Philosophical - the revolutionaries must have a philosophy that is different enough from the status quo to inspire the populace to revolt
  5. I. Dammit. I can't remember I. Well. It's been 30 years. I did ok.

I think a case can be made that several of those conditions have been met. Politically, what the Bush administration has done to the Constitution is frightening. His use of the "unitary executive" scares the crap out of me. Economically, we hear daily about the rich getting richer off of the backs not just of the poor but of the middle class. Social conditions - with health care becoming harder for people to find, even for children who should be held harmless from the "sins" of their fathers, and the conundrum of immigration, both documented and undocumented - we're ripe there too.

It's the philosophy where the two candidates you've been discussing greatly differ. While both seek to end the war, they seek to end it for different reasons. Ron Paul wants to end the war because he believes in very limited involvement in foreign policy. Dennis Kucinich wants to end the war because he believes in peace.

Philosophically, Paul will not make a difference for the children who are with out health care or the immigrants who are without a home. He will not compassionately solve the problems of the poor or the sick. Kucinich, on the other hand, would do what government at its best does. Take care of the weakest among us by tapping the strongest among us for help.

If it came to a choice as to whose revolution to join - I wouldn't have to think very hard.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

More Stupid sense from George Bush and the republicans

Max, if you're going to respond to every Paul comment, it might be a good idea to re-read what you write before you post it. I don't think I've ever seen so many errors, misspellings, odd claims, and sentences ending with question marks for no apparent reason. Your view is important, but almost impossible to understand with all the nonsense. Also, I sort of wonder if you actually read my initial post.* freedarfur

I am only responsing to the comments directed at me....Is there some internet law that says I can't respond unless approve by some republican star chamber Orwellian government board of public safety?

And stop trying to be a internet Nanny speeeling and grammeerrrrrr expert.....Most Republican idiots I know alway use that excuse when confronted with real hard core constitutional issues..

You do understand that the Max persona is George Bush gone wild on the internet with his amazing retarded reading, writing, speaking skills to the masses?

BWT2

On the subject of your 'safety net', medicaid (hope you're not relying on it yourself), what do you think will happen to that program if Dr. Paul becomes president?* Carol

I am retired! And cover by medicare which is totaly out of control. I recently had a defibrator installed in my chest at Duke....The total cost was 165 thousand dollars for 2 days.....the Defibrator was 95 thousand dollars with a 3 year warrenty that said should I be taser at a Airport by Homeland Security, it was not cover...My Great, Great Grandson is already covering the cost of this amazing techical device which might give me another 2 years.....

Revolution just for the sake of revolution is a big mistake. * Carol

Not really! If not for the American revolution, you would not be here trying to impress me why Dennis is a nice guy and will save America

Thomas Jefferson said " We need a revolution every once in while in order to keep the bastards from making us slaves to a police state"

When people want change so strongly,

they are much more likely to embrace a candidate who swims against the tide of his/her own party.

That independence becomes more important than specific issues, and there is also an assumed belief that said independence represents flexibility as well. In other words, this fresh-faced candidate can be shaped into anything the dreamer wants.

In reality, the opposite is often the case, and this "renegade" will be even harder to change than another.

Heh...

In other words, this fresh-faced candidate can be shaped into anything the dreamer wants.

Interesting point. I think that's a big part of the problem with our election process. A lot of candidates campaign more on appearances and personality than on issues and positions. Voters like that Hillary is 'tough', and others like Obama because he's 'a fresh face'. And you're right. When that happens, the candidate becomes more like a rorschach test onto whom the voters can project their dreams than a candidate for the job of presiding over the government of the country.

That's one of the things I like about Kucinich. He's campaigning on his positions and on his plans for correcting problems rather than on appearances or personality. You're either in agreement with his positions and proposals or you're not. If you're in agreement with them, he's probably the right candidate for you. If you don't agree with them, then clearly he's not the right candidate for you.

That's right - and that's scary.

the candidate becomes more like a rorschach test onto whom the voters can project their dreams than a candidate for the job of presiding over the government of the country.

As for Kucinich - it's not just that he's campaigning on his positions this time. He's been campaigning on the same principals every single time. He is a strong advocate for the Constitution, and also for Peace, and to me, for the right reasons.

And here is my dilemma. I despair of his chances. I don't believe he can win. I know that is not the truest ideal for which to vote, but to be realistic, should we not, in a primary, as Democrats, anyhow, be concerned with who rings the truest to the ideals who has a chance of winning the general election?


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

That's right - and that's more scary.

As for Kucinich - it's not just that he's campaigning on his positions this time. He's been campaigning on the same principals every single time. He is a strong advocate for the Constitution, and also for Peace, and to me, for the right reasons.*icloud

Right on most of the constitution, except he does not believe in the 2 amendent and wants to take away your right to defend yourself against George Bush and his Blackwater thugs......Do you think tossing creampuffs at Blackwater will scare them?

I think not! The only thing that Prince Erik and his Blackwater thugs respect is superior firepower coming from unknown sources at their evil religious cult ass...

On blackwater thugs.

Do you think tossing creampuffs at Blackwater will scare them?

Oh, Max. The way I bake cream puffs, they'd be lethal if you threw them. And trust me, sweetie. I'm a Jersey girl. I can throw a mean cream puff and come right back at you with a wicked knee to the groin. ;-) If I have to.

Hmmmm. note to self...bake sale for Blackwater...


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Creaming away for Jesus and Art Pope at Krogers?

Oh, Max. The way I bake cream puffs, they'd be lethal if you threw them. And trust me, sweetie. I'm a Jersey girl. I can throw a mean cream puff and come right back at you with a wicked knee to the groin. ;-) If I have to.* icloud

Well that settles it for me! I don't screw around with a Mafia Don daughter no matter how sweet the creampuffs are!

Did you know last year, I had a duel in a Krogers parking lot with creampuffs against Republican neo-con supporters who hated my wife. I cream those suckers, when their backs were turn and call 911 claiming a mob of gang bangers were assaulting a senior citizen.

I know what you mean...

And here is my dilemma. I despair of his chances. I don't believe he can win. I know that is not the truest ideal for which to vote, but to be realistic, should we not, in a primary, as Democrats, anyhow, be concerned with who rings the truest to the ideals who has a chance of winning the general election?

When I first knew that I was going to vote for him, I thought about making a shirt with "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Kucinich '08" on it. ;)

It does pain me to see certain polls with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards dominating the top three slots, but I think I'd be very upset at myself for the next four years if I just gave up and voted for someone who doesn't represent me. After all, Kucinich is only electable if people vote for him, and I've seen a lot of people who are voting or want to vote for him. I just remind myself that California is a giant state with a lot of Democrats and a lot of electoral votes... Also, several grassroots Democratic polls have put him at the top with a winning margin of thousands of votes.

Should Kucinich receive a lot of votes and still lose, I've thought of five potential consolation prizes:
1. He might be chosen as a vice president.
2. He'll remain solidly in Congress, a place where we need him.
3. The elected president will see that Americans want what he stands for and, in an effort to look good, might adopt or promote some of his policies.
4. He'll run again in 2012 with more support/publicity because of the 2008 election.
5. Just as he's called Bush and Cheney on their misdeeds, he'll be sure to do the same for an '08 president and people will realize that he might have made a better leader than whoever is in power.

I'm realistic, but I like to dream. I can't imagine any better dream than to have a representative of peace in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, and I don't want to take my chances in having that fail by not contributing a vote myself.

Hmmm...

And here is my dilemma. I despair of his chances. I don't believe he can win. I know that is not the truest ideal for which to vote, but to be realistic, should we not, in a primary, as Democrats, anyhow, be concerned with who rings the truest to the ideals who has a chance of winning the general election?

I don't consider myself a Democrat, although I'll be voting in the Democratic primary. In the past, I've voted for people who weren't my first choice because I thought they would have a better chance of winning. And I've been very disappointed with the results. So I feel that I need to vote my conscience now.

Same cloth

I had no idea that Dr No was a greedy trial lawyer supporting the Justicial Industrial-prison legal corrupt complex.

The particular cloth I'm talking about is the 'politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected whether it's true or not' kind of cloth. They're both cut from that cloth. They're just tailoring what they're saying to the particular audience they're trying to cultivate.

I am retired! And cover by medicare which is totaly out of control. I recently had a defibrator installed in my chest at Duke....The total cost was 165 thousand dollars for 2 days.....the Defibrator was 95 thousand dollars with a 3 year warrenty that said should I be taser at a Airport by Homeland Security, it was not cover...My Great, Great Grandson is already covering the cost of this amazing techical device which might give me another 2 years...

Well, if Ron Paul had been president and had gotten his way before you became ill, you would probably be dead now, or completely bankrupted by debt and homeless. Or living in a poorhouse. Dr. Paul seems to think poorhouses are a pretty nifty idea.

Not really! If not for the American revolution, you would not be here trying to impress me why Dennis is a nice guy and will save America

Thomas Jefferson said " We need a revolution every once in while in order to keep the bastards from making us slaves to a police state"

Please read what I said. I did not say there isn't ever a good reason for having a revolution. I said revolution for its own sake is a mistake. And it is. I've you're going to have a revolution, you want to make sure that it's for the right reasons. And if you're following a revolutionary who hasn't got your best interests at heart, you will probably not be very happy with the results in the long run.

Excellent!

A little revolution is necessary now and again. Revolution for it's own sake, well.....

If you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait.

I am equally happy with Edwards or Kucinich - for different political reasons, but many of the same philosophical ones. Either way - we will see what we will see.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

The particular cloth I was in and it was not petty

The particular cloth I'm talking about is the 'politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected whether it's true or not' kind of cloth. They're both cut from that cloth. They're just tailoring what they're saying to the particular audience they're trying to cultivate.*Carol

I agree! The Clintons, The Bushes, Even Edwards playing stupid political games with the system after making a small forture off it, Obama playing the Opah card, And of course the whole damn Republican neo-con CFR presidental team except Ron Paul and to call Ron Paul a liar is beyond the pale when his own personal life is one of work, and principle without profit to himself or others..

Well, if Ron Paul had been president and had gotten his way before you became ill, you would probably be dead now, or completely bankrupted by debt and homeless. Or living in a poorhouse. Dr. Paul seems to think poorhouses are a pretty nifty idea.* Carol

You are making assumptions or not-facts nor do you know nothing of my past health issues.. You got to be kiding or very mean spirited to claim Ron Paul has said he enjoys watching poor people starve or living in homeless poorhouses.....Now to a little history of my health....I have had 27 vascular operations in my lifetime and two open heart surgerys, not counting a operation to remove cancer from my stomach and a year of Chemo threapy which almost kill me more than the cancer....During that time, the medical costs were cover by some company insurance, my wife busting her rear by working two jobs and able to hire lawyers to keep the wolf at the door during these sickness. I own and operated the 4th largest Gold and Silver corporation on the planet for 25 years with over 5000 employees...Every one of my employees were cover by health insurance which the corporation paid 100 % of the cost of the insurance while they work for the company and if they were fired or let go, the company continue to pay for their health costs for another year....So don't tell or talk to me about something that I don't know about the working person....If some of the women employees became of child bearing, they got 5 months off and another 6 months after child birth with pay until they return to work.. If one my employees got into trouble with the law. I provided the lawyers to defend them and the bonding to make sure they were free and able to earn a income while under this pressure....It's not charity my dear, it's simply knowning what real passion and concern is for human beings trying to make it in life. The world is not fair nor is it a paradise for humans reguardless of the politics, but it is sure the hell better than listening to people whinning about it or the future.......Hope is the key to any human and no government on earth can guarantee a free lunch without somebody else paying for it.....It's that simple!

Interesting story...

But it's not really a response to anything I've said.

to call Ron Paul a liar is beyond the pale when his own personal life is one of
work, and principle without profit to himself or others..

It's not beyond the pale if I catch him lying.

You got to be kiding or very mean spirited to claim Ron Paul has said he enjoys watching poor people starve or living in homeless poorhouses.....

Please show me where I said he enjoys watching people starving or living in poorhouses.

Now to a little history of my health....I have had 27 vascular operations in my lifetime and two open heart surgerys, not counting a operation to remove cancer from my stomach and a year of Chemo threapy which almost kill me more than the cancer....During that time, the medical costs were cover by some company insurance, my wife busting her rear by working two jobs and able to hire lawyers to keep the wolf at the door during these sickness. I own and operated the 4th largest Gold and Silver corporation on the planet for 25 years with over 5000 employees...Every one of my employees were cover by health insurance which the corporation paid 100 % of the cost of the insurance while they work for the company and if they were fired or let go, the company continue to pay for their health costs for another year....So don't tell or talk to me about something that I don't know about the working person....If some of the women employees became of child bearing, they got 5 months off and another 6 months after child birth with pay until they return to work.. If one my employees got into trouble with the law. I provided the lawyers to defend them and the bonding to make sure they were free and able to earn a income while under this pressure....It's not charity my dear, it's simply knowning what real passion and concern is for human beings trying to make it in life. The world is not fair nor is it a paradise for humans reguardless of the politics, but it is sure the hell better than listening to people whinning about it or the future.......Hope is the key to any human and no government on earth can guarantee a free lunch without somebody else paying for it.....It's that simple!

That's a nice story, but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I am saying. First of all, if medicare is paying your medical bills now (as you said it was), and if Ron Paul had been president prior to your receiving medicare benefits, and if he had gotten his way, you would be dead or homeless or living in a poorhouse now (and your wife with you), because there would be no medicare for you to receive.

Secondly, you are making a lot of assumptions yourself. There are millions of people who, either because their employer won't provide insurance coverage to their employees or because they are self-employed, do not have any access to any kind of health insurance. This is an indisputable fact. My husband and I are both self-employed. We don't have any corporate sugar-daddy like your employees had to make sure we're being taken care of. We both work hard, and we make enough money to have a home and the basics of what we need, but buying individual health insurance is prohibitively expensive, and even after paying thousands of dollars a year, you still have a very high deductible and co-pay. We can't afford to do that. We are putting all of what money we have into our businesses in the hope that one day we will make enough money to be able to afford some insurance. But if one or the other of us got sick before we could do that, we would lose our house, and everything we have.

During the last year, my son, who has a college degree, and who was working in entry level jobs in his field (two at the same time), did not have any benefits at all in either job. This is because employers these days would prefer to hire people and work them for just under 40 hours a week so they can report them as part-time and not have to provide any benefits.

There are many millions of people in this country for whom this is their reality. Just because you were a considerate and caring employer doesn't mean that everyone has the kind of experiences that your employees did.

Most of the countries in the industrialized world have socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is more cost-effective, and it provides better access and a better quality of care than the system we have here. It's not charity. It's not really any different than the kind of insurance you were providing your employees, except that with socialized medicine, instead of paying a corporation that makes its money by denying care (I'm assuming this is why you needed a lawyer), that has tremendous overhead for things like advertising, and that needs to make a profit, people pay into a fund that is administered by the government, which does not have those kinds of expenses and does not need to make a profit, and so is able to provide a better quality of care for less money. With socialized medicine, everyone pays less.

With socialized medicine, my husband and I would be putting our share into the fund, but it would be an affordable amount, because, as with the kind of insurance you provided your employees, economy of scale (and in the case of socialized medicine, lack of profit motive) would keep the costs down.

Absolutely, Max.

Hope is the key to any human and no government on earth can guarantee a free lunch without somebody else paying for it.....It's that simple!

There ain't no free lunch. It's just that some of us don't mind paying enough so that everyone gets something to eat, you know what I mean? >wink<


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi