Rundown of candidates - can we just post pros/cons w/no arguing?

[carpro]

Interesting that everyone is so against "Romneycare." Bottom line, this is a state based program, not federal, which the residents of the state of MA wanted to have. It passed overwhelmingly in the MA legislature. It keeps private insurers insurers in the state and does not infringe on the patient/physician relationship.

As a result, the uninsured population in MA is only 4% -- considerably lower than the rest of the nation. Actually, Romney vetoed 8 sections of the legislation, all of which were eventually overturned by the legislature.

Yes, healthcare is expensive in MA. But then again, so is everything else. Ever paid for a hotel room in Boston?? Also, they have the best medical facilities in the NE - if not the entire US, so the costs are not that surprising.

Does this model work in every state? Probably not. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue.

Lastly, Romney has publicly stated that, if elected, he would overturn Obamacare.

I would answer , but I'm going to abide by the wishes of the member that opened the thread.

 

[poncho]

Just curious, can you recap your military experience for us

No problem. I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and that's what I did and that's what I'm still doing today.

The author of this thread wanted a civilized discussion Salty. Let's not ruin it for him okay? If you want to try and set me off do it in one of the threads I started or just PM me. I'd be glad to hear from ya. :thumbs:

I'm kinda curious about why some people believe Ron Paul is a liberal. He's in favor of limited goverment. Back in the 1980's that was conservative. He's in favor of financial sanity I remember a time when that was conservative. He's in favor of a non interventionist foreign policy that was our original foreign policy and at one time that was considered conservative. Ron Paul has always been in favor of those things that at one time were considered conservative. He's in favor of a strong defense at home and aboard to the extent it is actually needed.

So what makes him a liberal? Because he's in favor of individual liberty? The founding principle of the USA? The principle that helped make us and keep us the most advanced and admired nation in the world? Up until recently that is, when political correctness and the already failed idea of collectivism was injected into the public mind. Now we're probably the most hated and feared nation in the world.

Is it because he's in favor letting potheads out of jail to make room for serious crimnals? That alone would save this nation oodles of tax money.

As it is today the "land of the free" has the biggest prison population in the world and growing. If you carry an ounce of weed your going to jail, if you scam people for billions you're given awards and eat dinner in the White House.

If you are a gun running drug dealer dressed up as an "official" (see Iran Contra scandal) you get a pardon and a promotion and in some cases even your own tv talk show! Yet the guy that bought your wares 100 hands down goes to jail for possesion of your filth?

That's conservative? That's moral? That's a system worth keeping?

I remember a time when saving money was considered conservative. I remember a time when wasting money on things we didn't need or that didn't work was considered conservative.

Ron Paul has delivered 4,000 babies of all colors! I'd say that's pro life. That's still considered conservative isn't it?

So what is it? What makes Ron Paul a liberal?

 

[annsni]

I would answer , but I'm going to abide by the wishes of the member that opened the thread.

Carpro - Thank you so much for being considerate but if you have other facts that you can state without any arguments, that's fine!! There WILL be two sides (or 10 as we see in politics) to everything and I think it's good to share the wisdom. I have to say that so far I am woefully ignorant as to what these guys are really like and I wanted to see what my brothers and sisters in Christ thought of them.

 

[PamelaK]

As someone from his district, Paul is definitely NOT a racist. He has actually been a bit of a champion of civil rights around here...even before it was "cool" to be such. The writings that you are referring to, were not written by him, but are found in a handful of the 17 different newsletters that were being published under his name. They are not directly "Racist" but are certainly racially insensitive. As soon as Paul found out about them, he denounced them.

On the abortion issue: That is NOT his stance. Paul is a STRONG (in my opinion, the strongest) advocate of life. I have already gotten into an argument with the American Right to Life, who have apparently deliberately misrepresented his position, in order to push their pet candidates.

Paul's plan, specifically, was to define "life" as being from the moment of conception, rather than having to pass a bunch of abortion laws. This is better. Why? Because it would immediately make unborn persons in every single state, privy to the same rights and privileges as everyone else under the Constitution. Rather than a doctor being tried for "Abortion," a doctor would be tried for the same crime of murder, according to the laws of each state. However, this does NOT mean that states could legalize abortion. Far from it. They would be required, by there OWN laws, to prosecute the crime just as any other murder.

Now, what does this mean? It just means that there would be different punishment from state to state, just as there is now, with murder. In Texas, we might put you to death. In California, or New York, you might get a more lenient sentence, such as 20 years in jail. The American Right to Life has done a great disservice to our cause of life, in spreading this false propaganda about Paul, in order to prop up their own candidates.

As far as legalizing drugs; Paul believes indeed, this should be a state issue. For myself, I think it is far more unjust, to imprison young men and women and ruin their life over drug use. They have to go to prison, but liars, adulterers, etc., get to go free. We need to recognize the concept of personal accountability; legislating against personal sin, does not work. Because if we did it consistently, we would all be in jail.

Thanks, Havensdad. I'd have to look back and figure out where I got the abortion info on Paul to be sure, but I'm thinking it was the Nat'l Right to Life. Thank you for all the info and responses - lots to chew on.

 

[PamelaK]

Thanks, Havensdad. I'd have to look back and figure out where I got the abortion info on Paul to be sure, but I'm thinking it was the Nat'l Right to Life. Thank you for all the info and responses - lots to chew on.

Hi again Havensdad - I came across this first link and a few other things like it. Have yet to find a video link from a debate/speech that clearly shows him saying it. But I'm still a bit unclear about the "legalization" point per my second link. Thanks again for your input above.

http://easterniowagovernment.com/20...-abortion-decisions-should-be-left-to-states/

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...nt-16-to-28-states-would-keep-abortion-legal/

 

[Havensdad]

Hi again Havensdad - I came across this first link and a few other things like it. Have yet to find a video link from a debate/speech that clearly shows him saying it. But I'm still a bit unclear about the "legalization" point per my second link. Thanks again for your input above.

http://easterniowagovernment.com/20...-abortion-decisions-should-be-left-to-states/

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...nt-16-to-28-states-would-keep-abortion-legal/

First, as far as the issues, lets let Paul speak for himself..

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

Notice, that Paul wants to pass the Sanctity of life act (or even better, an amendment). That means that an unborn baby would be treated no different than any other person. If someone took their life...they would be prosecuted.

What Paul is against, rightly I believe, is any law that gives one group of people more rights than another. He is also against the Federal government intruding on the states rights to prosecute crimes as they see fit (as I explained in a previous post).

However, what these articles are referring to, is Paul's "We The People" act, which is a bill that Paul introduced, that would strip Federal Jurisdiction away from the Federal Courts, for not only abortion, but also prayer in schools, the teaching of Creationism in schools, and teaching of the Bible in schools.

What would this do? It would instantly make abortion illegal in 18 states, and restricted in 22 more. These states have so called "trigger" laws, which would go into effect immediately were Roe Vs. Wade overturned in such a way. It would also allow the state of Texas, for example, to teach the Bible in schools, and choose to not teach evolution, or teach the two views of Creation and Evolution both, and to pray in schools, etc.

All of this would happen instantly, with a simple majority in congress and the signature of the presidents pen. California, and New York, who presently hold a disproportionate hold over Washington, would be silenced in terms of Texas morality. And that is a good thing! It would also save millions of children's lives.

However, what most people do NOT understand, is that this would NOT prevent the Supreme court (or other federal courts) from hearing murder cases. Thus if the child in the womb were federally considered a normal person, these would not be effected by the law, if and when that got passed.

Now, on the gay marriage issue. Paul believes not only should the Federal Government get out of the marriage business, but the states as well! Although he recognizes the states rights to conduct there own business on such matters, he believes marriage is a church issue, like baptism, and the government should never have overstepped its bounds in the first place. The idea of the government issuing "marriage certificates" should be as offensive to the Constitution loving American, as them issuing BAPTISMAL certificates. The government does not have the right to define marriage. God has already defined it.

Understand this; once you recognize that the Federal government has the RIGHT to define marriage, in a country that is, again, largely controlled by New York and California morality, it WILL be used against the states to enforce "Gay Marriage" upon them. Instead of passing laws, lets do what should have been done in the first place; return marriage to where it was before the Government decided they needed to keep whites and blacks from getting married...return marriage to the church. Then, if anyone wants to "say" they are married, they can, but I can also tell them there not, without fear of legal problems.

I hope that clears up both my, and Dr. Paul's positions..

 

[PamelaK]

First, as far as the issues, lets let Paul speak for himself..

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

Notice, that Paul wants to pass the Sanctity of life act (or even better, an amendment). That means that an unborn baby would be treated no different than any other person. If someone took their life...they would be prosecuted.

What Paul is against, rightly I believe, is any law that gives one group of people more rights than another. He is also against the Federal government intruding on the states rights to prosecute crimes as they see fit (as I explained in a previous post).

However, what these articles are referring to, is Paul's "We The People" act, which is a bill that Paul introduced, that would strip Federal Jurisdiction away from the Federal Courts, for not only abortion, but also prayer in schools, the teaching of Creationism in schools, and teaching of the Bible in schools.

What would this do? It would instantly make abortion illegal in 18 states, and restricted in 22 more. These states have so called "trigger" laws, which would go into effect immediately were Roe Vs. Wade overturned in such a way. It would also allow the state of Texas, for example, to teach the Bible in schools, and choose to not teach evolution, or teach the two views of Creation and Evolution both, and to pray in schools, etc.

All of this would happen instantly, with a simple majority in congress and the signature of the presidents pen. California, and New York, who presently hold a disproportionate hold over Washington, would be silenced in terms of Texas morality. And that is a good thing! It would also save millions of children's lives.

However, what most people do NOT understand, is that this would NOT prevent the Supreme court (or other federal courts) from hearing murder cases. Thus if the child in the womb were federally considered a normal person, these would not be effected by the law, if and when that got passed.

Now, on the gay marriage issue. Paul believes not only should the Federal Government get out of the marriage business, but the states as well! Although he recognizes the states rights to conduct there own business on such matters, he believes marriage is a church issue, like baptism, and the government should never have overstepped its bounds in the first place. The idea of the government issuing "marriage certificates" should be as offensive to the Constitution loving American, as them issuing BAPTISMAL certificates. The government does not have the right to define marriage. God has already defined it.

Understand this; once you recognize that the Federal government has the RIGHT to define marriage, in a country that is, again, largely controlled by New York and California morality, it WILL be used against the states to enforce "Gay Marriage" upon them. Instead of passing laws, lets do what should have been done in the first place; return marriage to where it was before the Government decided they needed to keep whites and blacks from getting married...return marriage to the church. Then, if anyone wants to "say" they are married, they can, but I can also tell them there not, without fear of legal problems.

I hope that clears up both my, and Dr. Paul's positions..

I have to sit and re-read this, and dissect it a bit, but VERY helpful, Havensdad. Many good points. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time in writing it all out.

 

[Salty]

..What would this do? It would instantly make abortion illegal in 18 states, and restricted in 22 more. These states have so called "trigger" laws, which would go into effect immediately were Roe Vs. Wade overturned in such a way. ...

Yes, said law would be instantly effective - AFTER a extremely court case - which would end up in the Supreme court.

 

[Havensdad]

Yes, said law would be instantly effective - AFTER a extremely court case - which would end up in the Supreme court.

No sir, it would not. The Congress has the right to strip jurisdiction from the supreme court. The case would never be heard in Federal court. Though each state might challenge their existing laws in their own courts.