[Grizzly]

On Ron Paul, are we talking about the senior guy or the junior guy?

[Luis Dias]

The junior is Rand Paul, named after the great, the amazing, the super-magnificent miss Ayn Rand.

Ron Paul is someone who believes in a crazy economic model that was refuted 40 years ago, but still keeps at it as if it's some kind of novelty. It doesn't surprise me in the least to find he's a creationist.

[Kosh]

Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.

[achtung]

Ron Paul is a closet evangelist.

The junior is Rand Paul, named after the great, the amazing, the super-magnificent miss Ayn Rand.

Yes, my state's glorious senator. His campaign promises included killing the DoE, and filling the gap with homeschooling.

[Turambar]

if you need god to help you, you've already failed.

[JCDNWarrior]

Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.

I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.

[Luis Dias]

Any creotard is a nutcase. Case closed.

[NGTM-1R]

How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old

It's not 235 years ago.

[Nemesis6]

This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.

As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.

Err what? Please, explain your position.

Ron Paul talks a lot about states' rights, but in doing so, specifically promotes dangerous stuff like nullification, just like the other GOPers when they want to oppose something the government did, whether it's unraveling Obama's patch-work medical insurance thing or whatever. Endorsing something like nullification makes those two things -- 10th amendment and the supremacy clause -- useless. The kind of states' rights that Ron Paul advocates would allow the circumvention of basically the entire constitution, which is why a lot of his rhetoric, you will also find among the Creationist GOPers; they know that this is the way to go if they want to push Christianity into science class, among many, many other things.

[Bob-san]

Not entirely. Obama's medical plan has sections that are unconstitutional according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/us/13health.html The Federal government overstepped on that measure. In fact, during the debate last night, he was quoted as saying, "The states do not have the right to do wrong." Nullification between state and federal laws has a long history. Some of it good, some of it bad. Nullification is legal and expedient when the law was unconstitutional in the first place. It's interesting that federal agencies are currently using nullification via the threat to prosecute states that allow the legal sale of cannabis. The 10th Amendment isn't useless--it gives a very clear conditional on the actions of the the Federal and state governments. As for Creationists, remember that you vote with your feet. As a grand-scheme plan, this could mean that states with laws requiring the teaching of creationism (if the Supreme Court holds those laws to be constitutional) could have residents that support that view and thus create an artificial majority in the Senate. However, there's the House which is distributed on population--which counteracts that effect. The same thing applies to the abortion issue and same-sex marriage.

[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, it does have a long history. The 11th Circuit Court's decision is still subject to further review.

We fought a ****ing Civil War to prove that you cannot nullify the dictates of the federal government. The nullification side lost. You want to go back over that territory again?

[Bob-san]

Yeah, it does have a long history. The 11th Circuit Court's decision is still subject to further review.

We fought a ****ing Civil War to prove that you cannot nullify the dictates of the federal government. The nullification side lost. You want to go back over that territory again?

Right or wrong, the scope of refusing a mandate to require the purchase of health insurance is quite a bit different in scope the secession from the Union. And if the Federal government really does overreach, then yes--nullification matters. It sends quite a clear message even if it's declared unconstitutional. The Federal government is run as a republic but states are typically run more as a democracy. The word of the legislature, constitutional or not, still matters. That doesn't mean that either party are permitted gross overreach.

The decision will be reviewed and I'm interested in the result. There is some talk that it will be ruled unconstitutional for the same reason; until then, the standing decision by the highest court is that the law is unconstitutional.

[Nuke]

the thing i disliked about obama's healthcare plan was that it is to be implemented after his first term is over (is there a legitimate legal reason for the delay? because if not im gonna have to call him a douche). thus sparing his campaign any responsibility for it going tits up, should it turn out to be a total flop. if he had the balls to implement it before his current term is over, that would have earned him some brownie points in my book, if he saw a problem and he fixed it now instead of sitting on the soultion till it was convenient for him. but that he pushed it into the back burner to cover his own ass really doesn't chime well with me. if someone other than him wins the presidential race, especially a republican, the whole thing is likely to be canned, and given the economical landscape it likely will be.

[Bob-san]

And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.

[Kosh]

Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.

I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.

His "constitutional ideas" are not really the problem, it's everything else.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php

[Woolie Wool]

This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.

As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.

I'd say his idiocy regarding economics is far more dangerous than his states' rights idiocy.

The Republican candidates are so bad that Mitt Romney is the only one who's even remotely electable. They might as well just give Obama his third time right now.

If I could pick any American to become president, I'd pick Barbara Ehrenreich, but a lot of Americans tend to react with total horror to anything remotely connected with socialism, and deep-throating corporate dongs is pretty much a prerequisite to becoming a politician nowadays, so she'd never get elected.

And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.

Obama-care needs to be replaced with real single-payer healthcare like they have in every other civilized country in the world.

[Nuke]

And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.

if hes so uncertain about his plan or its so high risk that hes not willing to risk his reputation on it would seem to indicate that the plan is totally worthless. if you want to do something to fix our health care system, then reduce the corruption in the medical and insurance field, and make it so doctors can do their jobs without getting sued over trivial nonsense. sometimes i think the insurance companies are to blame for the ridiculously high cost of healthcare. they make unrealistic demands on doctors and then the lawyers are always looking for malpractice cases to exploit. so doctors have to get malpractice insurance which makes further demands on the doctors, some of which in conflict with demands from the patient's insurance, and that drives costs way up.

[Bob-san]

The costs of heathcare are what the market can bear. Insurance has limits--typically by year and often by procedure--with different procedures valued differently. The fact of the matter is that universal insurance means that procedure costs will rise because now everyone has coverage and everyone will pay. It won't help in malpractice suits, either. Did you know that professional insurance is claims-based? Converted to plain English, that means that insurance needs to cover a professional (most frequently doctors, lawyers, and accountants) for their entire career up until that point. That means a doctor's first year is also their cheapest; they only need to protect themselves against actions made in that year. In year 2, they need to cover the past 2 years of actions. By year 10, it's 10 years of actions. By retirement at Year 40, it's 40 years of actions needing insurance. That's part of the reason that health procedures cost so much; the premium on their insurance policies is hefty to say the least.

A good portion of the proceeds from a procedure go towards insuring the doctors and nurses involved in the procedure. Added potential revenue equals increased liability coverage and some ability to fight unsubstantiated claims. After all, a successful lawsuit against a professional means they were at fault. In the eyes of a common person, settling a lawsuit (which is often cheaper and far more expedient than defending one's self) implies guilt. Kind of ironic that a settlement includes a hold-harmless as well as gag agreement.

So no, it's not the insurance companies jacking up the premiums. Their premium formulas are pretty clear and the market is pretty competitive. Short of turning health insurance into a pyramid scheme like Medicare or Social Security, they can't charge much less. They need an operating profit on it, of course. It's the competition with other companies that keeps premiums reasonable.

[Grizzly]

Can't the US cut down on the the malpractice suits? There seem to be an awfull lot of 'sueing people for the money' going on over there, or atleast, that is the impression I get.

[JCDNWarrior]

Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.

I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.

His "constitutional ideas" are not really the problem, it's everything else.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php

Oh that again.. Ron Paul was the candidate who got the loudest applause during the black voter GOP debate in D.C. Even the head of the Austin NAACP defended him and his lifetime career and said the newsletters were not his but ghostwritten.

Ron Paul condemned the war on drugs and knows the race statistics like the back of his hand. He stood up against the racist military-industrial complex and had more visible black support than any GOP candidate I have ever seen.

I seriously can't believe that weak smear campaigns like this from 2008 continue to be believed by other people, yet blind to what people such as Mitt Romney are responsible for. I find it much harder to have to defend globalist neo-conservatives (same-as-the-old-bush) than someone actually wanting to actually change something for the people instead of big foreign business interests.

With Romney there is no clear distinction or contrast between himself and Obama. The obvious inference is that the media is scared of the contrast a true conservative/libertarian would make against Obama and the GOP – Like Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Kucinich, the ONLY true conservatives running for the GOP nomination, the rest are all Bush-esque neo-conservatives or very similar as Obama - all talk, no change. It's a shame really..

When asked the question in the Iowa debate how to fix the economy, all of them had very similar ideas of raising taxes, cutting costs, yet no one brought up the elephant in the room, the Federal Reserve, the Military Industrial Complex, the fraudulent derivative based debt and other elements that actually caused the problem, except Mr. Paul. If you don't fix the spending there you can cut all benefits and all ordinance and you'd still be unable to pay off the debt for hundreds of years.

I wish politics weren't 99% made up of liars, that there were more people actually knowing what they'd do as a president or even show a basic understanding of the true issues the country and the world is in. Nonetheless, most people support Ron Paul, every poll I followed, be it CNBC, FOX, CNN etc. had him leading by an extreme amount. I'd say he's becoming quite the front runner, unsurprisingly. Curious how the media is going to keep hiding his victories by omitting it like in 2008.

How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old

It's not 235 years ago.

Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.