Ron Paul's last speech to Congress

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No it's not. Its lazy and ignores the facts. Ron Paul did not write the articles, and he was not aware of what was written "under his name", so you can't say they represent his views.

How the ef can you can you believe that?

[Shawnski]

Any more posts about the newsletters/racism and I will ask a Mod to intervene.

I consider that a derailment, one of which was requested not to do in the opening post.

This is about the man's final speech. Vulcan, did you even watch it?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Any more posts about the newsletters/racism and I will ask a Mod to intervene.

I consider that a derailment, one of which was requested not to do in the opening post.

This is about the man's final speech. Vulcan, did you even watch it?

I watched about half of it and got bored. Since this may be his final speech as he's retiring and others are bemoaning his loss, I figure discussing his legacy is fair game. Just because you don't like a differing opinion, doesn't mean I can't voice mine.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Right, so according to your argument, one of the principles of our existing society is that everyone must live by what you conceive to be your 'dreamland utopia'. This implies that no disagreement is permitted as your utopia is one of societal 'principles'. I don't see that enshrined anywhere in either our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite whereby we are supposed to be free to live by our own ideals and not pigeon-holed into anyone's utopia but our own.

Your entire premise and argument is completely academically flawed and filled with complete hypocrisy.

I understand what you're trying to say and the premise of your arguments, but you could do so much better in arguing your preferred policy outcome. ie. Say 'this policy is better because...' as opposed to acknowledging you implied that it's wrong to live in a 'dreamland utopia' by using the term pejoratively, then say your version of a 'dreamland utopia' is the one everyone has to live in.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I don't want to see Ron Paul as Canadian PM. That was in response to someone else.

Nobody has to live by "my" dreamland utopia. A society that pursues the care of the sick and the vulnerable is not a dreamland (it exists in Canada's implementation of the welfare state), and it's not a utopia (it's not perfect). However, to live in this country, yes, one must live within the legislation dictating free health care to the sick and vulnerable, something put in action by the majority of Canadian voters, and so reflects our beliefs and principles. This isn't optional. You may want to change it democratically; however, that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with anyone being allowed to agree or disagree. Period. I never said anything even close to this. To try to imply so is a leap and an obfuscation, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

You're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist. I never even made one, so I really have no clue how you understand the premise of anything. You can disagree all you want about policy, I'm not here to argue that. I don't want Ron Paul as PM in Canada.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No it's not. Its lazy and ignores the facts. Ron Paul did not write the articles, and he was not aware of what was written "under his name", so you can't say they represent his views.

then he's an idiot and/or incompetent. any way you look at it, it's bad

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Matata

Ron Paul really impressed me during the republican debates, as he was the only one that didn't overwhelmingly come across as a dangerous, self-involved lunatic.

Granted, that wasn't exactly hard to do.

[Azure]

I don't agree with how Dr. Paul views healthcare, but I live in a country with 30 million people, not 300 million people, so our universal system can be more easily managed. Even so, it has its challenges.

Regardless, two of the biggest issues facing the US right now is defense spending, or the military industrial complex, and the financial collapse leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and a long, hard road back for a lot of people. Dr. Paul openly spook against how the financial system was regulated, and even more against the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

The man had integrity that NO politician these days has. Everyone of them has sold out to the highest bidder. Apparently even that isn't appreciated by some people.

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The idea that modern medicine can exist like it did 40-50 years ago is ridiculous. Medical care is more expensive now everywhere, not just in the US. It's more expensive because of the vast progress in technology that has led to both longer life expectancy (which leads to more expensive care in later years) and hugely increased non-labor costs in health care delivery. This Ron Paul quote about the "good ol' days" really sums up the disconnect between his opinions on the matter and reality:

Offering pro bono medical care was a lot easier when basically all you were giving was your time. How do you give a free CAT scan or MRI, or chemotherapy, or organ transplant, or artificial hip, etc? You can't. Yeah we could have cheap '50s style health care if we're willing to forgo all of the medical advances since then, but I don't see too many people signing up for that.

Of course his solution to that is that charity will make up the difference for anyone that can't afford proper insurance or can't find a company willing to cover them. That too is laughable and one needs to look no further than his own circle to see this in action. Kent Snyder, his 2008 campaign manager who many credited with his fundraising successes, couldn't get affordable insurance because of a pre-existing condition and Paul's campaign didn't provide insurance for its employees. Snyder eventually got pneumonia while still on the job and died, racking up a $400K medical bill. His estate couldn't pay so the bill collectors then went after the guy's mom for the money and she couldn't afford it either. Eventually people tried to raise money to pay off the Snyder's bills but only managed to cover about 10% of the costs.

And keep in mind, this was a campaign manager for a presidential bid who was credited being the driving force behind Paul's campaign raising $20 million dollars and all he could get raised for his medical bills was a paltry $40K. How much is your average working poor person who only knows other poor people going to raise to cover their medical costs?

And it's not like Paul has ever tried to do anything to increase the number of insured people to prevent such things. Some of his policy highlights include:

-being the only member of Congress to vote against a bill which would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on a policy holder carrying a gene which is associated with developing disease.

-advocating the elimination of Medicare which would leave seniors to find their own insurance which would either be prohibitively expensive or impossible to find due to pre-existing conditions.

-staunch opposition of laws which require treatment of emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay

Paul's had a consistent record of voting against increases in the government's budget, and those principles do indeed cross over to sensitive issues like healthcare. It's easy to cherry-pick a particular "No" vote and paint it with a vile brush, but the man's simply opposed to big government, period. I don't personally agree with every decision he's made, but for every one I disagree with, I can generally find two or three that are sound and on-target. I mean, there's a large contingent of critics who do the same thing with his individual votes on foreign policy. "In voting no on this foreign intervention/budget increase, etc., Paul's seeking to put Americans in greater danger!".

In an era where we're led along by the leash to believe that quantitative easing and the printing of more bills will save us all and allow the government to continue its spending habits unobstructed, it's refreshing to have a politician that not only saw it all coming, but is brave enough to suggest (popularity be damned) some of the painful repairs that the current system sorely needs. It's literally staggering to behold how many levels above his contemporaries he truly is, in terms of willingness to call it like he sees it and not entirely sell his soul. He was able to earn brownie points among people for the very fact alone that the well-entrenched political/financial/corporate establishment was so averse to the dude.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Any more posts about the newsletters/racism and I will ask a Mod to intervene.

I consider that a derailment, one of which was requested not to do in the opening post.

This is about the man's final speech. Vulcan, did you even watch it?

Oh come on. You posted a 48 minute speech from an obviously controversial political figure, and then asked for opinions. We all knew that the "rules" you tried to dictate weren't going to last long, and they didn't.

This is a message board. Very few people are going to watch a video that long (I didn't), let alone only comment on what you deem fit.

Paul was the only one that seemed sensible to me about foreign policy in the early debates. He also has plenty of beliefs that are downright idiotic.

Feel free to report this post to the moderator team.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Any more posts about the newsletters/racism and I will ask a Mod to intervene.

I consider that a derailment, one of which was requested not to do in the opening post.

This is about the man's final speech. Vulcan, did you even watch it?

I'm surprised a Libertarian would condone censorship.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh come on. You posted a 48 minute speech from an obviously controversial political figure, and then asked for opinions. We all knew that the "rules" you tried to dictate weren't going to last long, and they didn't.

This is a message board. Very few people are going to watch a video that long (I didn't), let alone only comment on what you deem fit.

Paul was the only one that seemed sensible to me about foreign policy in the early debates. He also has plenty of beliefs that are downright idiotic.

Feel free to report this post to the moderator team.

That "48 minute speech" IS the topic of discussion, plain and simple. Considering the last political thread got locked, I thought it prudent to set expectations for this thread. I am not stopping anyone from starting another if they deem fit regarding what they "think" about Dr. Paul.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm surprised a Libertarian would condone censorship.

See above. Focussing the discussion via setting expectations is not censorship.

There have been some interesting comments from many people, including Daradon and Muta, whom I might not usually agree with. I appreciate that (and them) for it. Others, well... seems to be the same old shyte.

Again, THIS thread is about his speech. Period. I thought I clearly stated that to begin with. Want to talk about other aspects, start a different thread. It is pretty easy to do.

Don't like this thread? Don't post.

[nik-]

Ron Paul has a lot of intelligent stances, the problem with his argument is that more people wanting "freedom" and "liberty" more than before really means nothing. Those are two vague ideas tossed around way too easily without anyone really thinking about what their definition of freedom and liberty even is.

What is "most free"? A lot of the people who drawl on about freedom have no idea the reliance they have and how screwed they'd be without the roles of government. Libertarianism should stick to being about morality issues alone in my opinion. Don't litigate to people how to live their lives in the privacy of their home as long as it doesn't burden society as a whole.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

Paul's had a consistent record of voting against increases in the government's budget, and those principles do indeed cross over to sensitive issues like healthcare. It's easy to cherry-pick a particular "No" vote and paint it with a vile brush, but the man's simply opposed to big government, period. I don't personally agree with every decision he's made, but for every one I disagree with, I can generally find two or three that are sound and on-target. I mean, there's a large contingent of critics who do the same thing with his individual votes on foreign policy. "In voting no on this foreign intervention/budget increase, etc., Paul's seeking to put Americans in greater danger!".

In an era where we're led along by the leash to believe that quantitative easing and the printing of more bills will save us all and allow the government to continue its spending habits unobstructed, it's refreshing to have a politician that not only saw it all coming, but is brave enough to suggest (popularity be damned) some of the painful repairs that the current system sorely needs. It's literally staggering to behold how many levels above his contemporaries he truly is, in terms of willingness to call it like he sees it and not entirely sell his soul. He was able to earn brownie points among people for the very fact alone that the well-entrenched political/financial/corporate establishment was so averse to the dude.

I'd never accuse Paul of being inconsistent or shaping his beliefs for political reasons. He's one of the last people I'd ever expect to do that. And I do agree with some of his opinions and admire his willingness to chart his own path.

My point was more to point out that his overall philosophy is still deeply flawed when it comes to making policy for a country because it allows no nuance or grey area. It's a simple black and white issue of more freedom = good and government = bad. Such beliefs ignore realities and his opinions on health care are probably the clearest example of that in action. The culmination of his world view put into action would simply be corporate tyranny.

[JohnnyB]

The saddest thing about Ron Paul is that his career confirms that in order to be successful in politics and gaining leadership you need to play the game. Patronage, pandering and opportunism are what result in political leadership. Ron Paul's fate in the the last leadership race put an exclamation point on that.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Again, THIS thread is about his speech. Period. I thought I clearly stated that to begin with. Want to talk about other aspects, start a different thread. It is pretty easy to do.

Maybe, MAYBE, if the OP was just the video and you stated that you wanted to talk about the subject of the video alone. But that's not what you did. You posted:

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.....

and then posted the video.

That's like:
"I think Stephen Harper is an evil, foolish, grade one a-hole. He censors his caucus, destroys the environment and eats kittens. But he was wearing some nice shoes yesterday. This thread is about his shoes only. Don't post anything except comments about his shoes."

You really cannot expect people to let the preamble stand unchallenged.

[troutman]

It is entirely appropriate when considering Paul's final speech to Congress, to assess his entire life and influence. The speech is almost meaningless without that context.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Any more posts about the newsletters/racism and I will ask a Mod to intervene.

I consider that a derailment, one of which was requested not to do in the opening post.

You go girl.

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The culmination of his world view put into action would simply be corporate tyranny.

This I can't agree with. It would suggest that the dismantling of America's current system of corporate courtship would actually benefit the businesses that most blatantly thrive off of it. Again, there's often a reason that the most powerful entities we know of invest so heavily in the status quo. Paul's written at lengths about his distaste for the military-industrial complex, the propensity for corporate favouritism to prevent competition, etc.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

This I can't agree with. It would suggest that the dismantling of America's current system of corporate courtship would actually benefit the businesses that most blatantly thrive off of it. Again, there's often a reason that the most powerful entities we know of invest so heavily in the status quo. Paul's written at lengths about his distaste for the military-industrial complex, the propensity for corporate favouritism to prevent competition, etc.

When his solution for injured parties negatively affected by industrial pollution, lax food standards, few employee rights, etc. is for them to sue giant corporations on their own dime, it's not a huge leap to see what the end result would be.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm surprised a Libertarian would condone censorship.

and that he'd ask those who govern this populace to effect it.