The Obama Presidency

[Gooch]

Ron Paul wants to go back to the morals that founded the country. Maybe to the extreme a little too much for many, but he's open about his policies and stands by them with his voting record. Not that many politicians can make that same claim. Lobbying doesn't need to be thrown out IMO. It needs to be made public. Industry having a platform to voice opinion and set policy is not a bad idea in theory. The execution of back-room deals, mass campaign contributions (read: bribes) and so forth that make corporate voice louder than individual voice is cracking the foundation of the US.

Firstly, please correct me if I am wrong about any of Paul's positions as I acknowledge upfront that I may be misinterpreting his views or am just more unfamiliar with them than I am aware of. I respect aspects of Ron Paul and believe his perspective is needed in the government for balance but he has no business being anywhere near the presidency. The man fell in love with the Austrian school of economics, many principles I also agree with but not in exclusivity, and this creates a dangerous bias and lack of pragmatic economic thinking, and his view of sound money is flawed and inflexible. He also supports free trade yet campaigns for the US withdrawal from the WTO, NATO, and UN, three vehicles that enabled the rise of American power through global economic influence resulting in a virtual hegemony and ushering in a new world order to replace the collapse of the European imperial system. He advocates a form of nationalism and protectionism, cries for his twisted vision of restoring sovereignity by relinquishing the very structures that enable and support it, his non-interventionist foreign policy is a severe threat to American security and prolonged prominence. He is also questionably a racist and homophobic, only questioned because of his denials and counter-explanations for comments attributed to him.

[Vasteel]

I absolutely agree with everything you just stated (although I am firmly anti-capitalist). But where/when has he displayed racism or homophobia? Not a rhetorical question, by the way- I have no doubt such incidents may have occurred, I'm just unaware of them.

[Diff-chan]

Vasteel, it came out during the 08 campaign. A bunch of newsletters from around 1990 or so with his name attached had some pretty vile shit inside. I think it had to do with the Rodney King riots or something similar.

Ron Paul wants to go back to the morals that founded the country.

This phrase is utterly meaningless. Anyone who says they want to go back to the morals that founded the country or just go back to "whats in the Constitution" is an utter fool not worth listening to. No surprise that is the teabag motto.

[Nash]

Ron Paul wants to go back to the morals that founded the country.

So Ron Paul wants to bring back racism and slavery.

[Andrew]

Affirmative action is state-sponsored racism, and compelling doctors to perform services for free could easily be considered slavery. It would seem to me that the "progressive" agenda is more of a threat to civil rights than Ron Paul or libertarianism.

[Vasteel]

Who plans to compel doctors to work for free, other than the current clusterfuck of a system we have now where patients can't possibly afford the bill?

[Andrew]

Anyone who believes that health care is a right. If it is a right, then people should be afforded a doctor's services regardless of ability to pay. But if the doctor is not paid (or paid reasonably in proportion to the service rendered), said doctor would not be in a position to decline service, since that service is now a "right." You have essentially placed the doctor in a position of obligation to another person by virtue of his or her profession. That is slavery.

Granted, our current system is fucked. But there is a huge difference between systemic failure and government compulsion.

[Bojack]

You have essentially placed the doctor in a position of obligation to another person by virtue of his or her profession. That is slavery.
.

It's only slavery if we force people to become doctors (or any profession).

[Andrew]

No, it's only slavery if you force someone to provide a service without appropriate compensation. People join the military expecting to be ordered to do this or that by the government. People don't apply for medical school expecting the same.

[bbobb]

Anyone who believes that health care is a right. If it is a right, then people should be afforded a doctor's services regardless of ability to pay. But if the doctor is not paid (or paid reasonably in proportion to the service rendered), said doctor would not be in a position to decline service, since that service is now a "right." You have essentially placed the doctor in a position of obligation to another person by virtue of his or her profession. That is slavery.

Who the fuck ever said that National Health Care means doctors shouldn't be paid for their work? Do you think that Doctors in Britan, Japan, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and so on aren't paid, and aren't paid reasonble proportions?

Are you only capable of arguing by creating a straw man?