Without trying to open a massive can of worms regarding US Politics again, here is Dr. Paul's likely final speech to Congress. Of all the politicians I have ever followed, THIS guy calls 'em like he sees 'em and has stood by his positions for longer than many posters here have even been alive. I only wish other politicians would be so intelligent, thorough and steadfast in their positions.
Now, this thread is about THIS SPEECH and the contents thereof. I implore everyone to focus on that and curb any inclination to derail it, or post drive-by's.
So, without further adieu, and for all you political junkies, here he is.
I really have no use for libertarian politics, but it's always good to have different views represented. He was always well-spoken and at least made an attempt to present his views in a rational format.
I don't agree with alot of the ideas he espoused, nor do I believe he is correct in many arguments he passes off as facts in that speech.
However, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the man for saying what he means and trying to do what he says. There are few, if any, politicians in the US (or Canada) that can make that claim.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I may be wrong, but are there not a lot of areas that his point of view matches yours? I am curious. What part of his speech do you disagree with, and conversely, what parts do you agree with?
I don't agree with alot of the ideas he espoused, nor do I believe he is correct in many arguments he passes off as facts in that speech.
However, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the man for saying what he means and trying to do what he says. There are few, if any, politicians in the US (or Canada) that can make that claim.
Thank you Red.
Not many know of the lead up (and other predictions) to this particular speech he gave today. In hindsight, his speech from 2002 is eerily on target....
The Following User Says Thank You to Shawnski For This Useful Post:
I am curious. What part of his speech do you disagree with, and conversely, what parts do you agree with?
Personally, I have no interest in rampant de-regulation, relying on the "invisible hand" to govern an otherwise free market, nor any interest in completely eliminating the "welfare state", removing any burden on government to care for the vulnerable or poor. Regulations and welfare programs could always be "smarter" but both are worthy endeavors for government.
I don't want to live in a country that lets businesses decide how much they want to pollute, or lets insurance companies decide whose kids get proper medical care.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mike F For This Useful Post:
Personally, I have no interest in rampant de-regulation, relying on the "invisible hand" to govern an otherwise free market, nor any interest in completely eliminating the "welfare state", removing any burden on government to care for the vulnerable or poor. Regulations and welfare programs could always be "smarter" but both are worthy endeavors for government.
I don't want to live in a country that lets businesses decide how much they want to pollute, or lets insurance companies decide whose kids get proper medical care.
fair enough, his most important ideas are definitely on interventionist policies and the federal reserve so while his economic philosophy may be different than yours it's important to understand his core beliefs because unless you are on wall street or work for the fed it's hard to disagree with him.
Whats funny about the US is you have 2 parties that are each so corrupt and only focused on retaining power that anyone who actually has ideas on the future is so refreshing.
I'm editing a project from a local individual on the financial infrastructure of the USA and he tries to show the current conditions and how toxic it is. It coincides with a new documentary called "The Four Horsemen" and touches on what Ron Paul brings up. I recommend you watch it.
I definitely believe in welfare aid however Ron Paul is also saying that the USA needs less debt crippling "war". You can't have both.
He'd be a dreadfull PM, he is a true believer with little ability to compromise or even see the othersides position.
I also don't really want canada to be a country where if you can't afford healthcare you are left to die on the side of the road
Health care wouldn't be cut as Canada would be able to sustain it; there wouldn't be an issue in Canada because the Canadian Military isn't such a gluttonous beast. He comes across to me as a common sense individual, follower of the rules (Queationing the loss of Liberty in the States).
Health care wouldn't be cut as Canada would be able to sustain it; there wouldn't be an issue in Canada because the Canadian Military isn't such a gluttonous beast. He comes across to me as a common sense individual, follower of the rules (Queationing the loss of Liberty in the States).
Sustainability has nothing to do with it; he's fundamentally opposed to government involvement in healthcare. He's said many times that access to health care isn't a right, but that it's a good that should be priced and delivered by the free market.
Health care wouldn't be cut as Canada would be able to sustain it; there wouldn't be an issue in Canada because the Canadian Military isn't such a gluttonous beast. He comes across to me as a common sense individual, follower of the rules (Queationing the loss of Liberty in the States).
I doubt we would be able to afford a band aid after going back to a gold standard.
Sustainability has nothing to do with it; he's fundamentally opposed to government involvement in healthcare. He's said many times that access to health care isn't a right, but that it's a good that should be priced and delivered by the free market.
I doubt we would be able to afford a band aid after going back to a gold standard.
Canada is one of the only countries that can because of our vast resources.
It's not about going back to the gold standard but applying the FULL principles or rules set out under this current economic style and continuing the agreement of the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. Nixon axed it in 1971 and began the fiat crisis we are now in.
The Following User Says Thank You to To Be Quite Honest For This Useful Post:
Sustainability has nothing to do with it; he's fundamentally opposed to government involvement in healthcare. He's said many times that access to health care isn't a right, but that it's a good that should be priced and delivered by the free market.
I am aware of his policies, however, as a PM he couldn't change the current health care system without MASS disapproval and rejection. Canada isn't as burdened as the states. The States are dying a quick death and cutting the spending and relying on actual profitability of businesses is a good idea. It's a circle of life.
Personally, I want to live in a society where one of the goals of that society is to care of the sick and vulnerable. Ron Paul can go find his own de-regulated dreamland utopia.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Funny thing is, Paul's been a physician since the days of the Roman empire and witnessed the blatant downturn that the healthcare system in the US took when the government began to meddle and over-regulate, in terms of folks being excluded from care and unable to afford insurance (if Paul's outlook for healthcare and the economy in general would so favour large insurance companies/corporations, etc., you wonder why none of them are ever in his corner).
I'll miss Paul, and I've been a fan of his for quite a few years now. It's easy for many Canadians or anyone acclimated to a socialized climate to balk at his proposals, but the man stood by his principles and had a more consistent voting record than any other congressman during his tenure. He was one of the few to truly foresee the financial crisis and has been feeding uppercuts to the veil of big government since he splattered out of the womb. He's also what could be defined as an "old-school Republican" in the sense that he's very anti-war, and he extended his belief in government non-intervention to social policy as well (logically consistent, in my eyes).
I was glad to see that his support really surged with this past election, particularly among younger people. He was the most successful candidate at raising money online, if I recall correctly, and he'd come a long way from basically being shrugged off as a joke in 2008. To see Paul get 25 seconds in a 2 hour debate to sneak in a quick point -whilst bumbling embarrassments like Romney or Giuliani would be given the floor for what seemed like days to ramble about the finer points of gay marriage and containing Iran- was grating on the soul.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
Last edited by Max Cow Disease; 11-16-2012 at 01:02 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
Ron Paul's last speech to Congress
