Who else hates Hillary Clinton?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but libel refers to published materials. Anyway, the claim is "well-refuted" only if you choose to believe every word which comes out of Ron Paul's mouth, or those of his supporters. I don't. To me, the white supremacy material associated with him is an issue, one that can't just be wished away. How am I supposed to believe your word, or his, over something that was in fact published?



So clearly the solution is to eliminate FEMA, or the public school system? Maybe you and he think that's a good idea. But I think it's a recipe for disaster. Sorry, I just don't see the private sector on its own providing adequate relief in the case of natural or man-made disaster. There's a reason why people wanted to institute fire stations, the police department, and yes, FEMA in the first place.



I don't want to get into too many nitty-gritty details here, but it is my belief that Social Security is easily salvageable with relatively minor adjustments. Even Ronald Reagan realized that minor changes to the payroll tax (simply to keep up with inflation) do a lot to solve the problem. We don't need to redesign the wheel here, or throw out a system which has actually worked. As for healthcare, I'm an advocate of universal healthcare. It's worked in countless countries--most "civilized" countries, in fact. I doubt you can name of an example of a successful 100% free-market healthcare system.



Because the free market isn't some god that's automatically going to solve everyone's problems. Even your language indicates a problem to me---"believe in the free market"? That's not rationality, that's faith.



Because of the truism that power can't be destroyed. It only shifts hands. You may fear Big Government, but I can assure you that if Big Government ever disappears (not likely), that power is going to go somewhere. I see no reason to see why rule under Big Business is going to be any better--and lots of reasons why it may very well be worse.



Yes, I'm so uninformed that I take seriously the fact that newsletters with anti-gay content were sent under Paul's own name. How very unfair of me. I ought to have known that those letters were in fact written by some sort of invisible Bigotry Fairy.



Again, this kind of thinking fails to comprehend the reason why environmental regulations were instituted to begin with. Sure, there were some thoughtful individuals and corporations who voluntarily incorporated environmentalism into their business practices. They weren't the majority. The fact is, most people aren't going to forgo profit in favor of not polluting quite so much unless they're somehow required to. To me, this is just one of many problems with the "everyone in it for themselves" ideology of libertarianism. I don't see the CEOs of America as the best stewards of our natural resources.



I think you're confusing the cause and effect there. Did environmental regulations actually cause the pollution? That sounds specious. It's more likely that the pollution caused people to institute stricter environmental regulation. As a resident of LA county, I can tell you that the city has actually made some improvements over the past decade--it's still a problem, but it is better than it was and now Houston is the most polluted city in the country. I know that doesn't quite fit with your idea that "any regulation imposed by the government doesn't work."



I think there might be a slight difference between my criticizing the ideas of Paul (a presidential candidate who is not present) and your referring to my "thick skull." I said that I found his ideas crazy and was put off by his history of anti-gay and white supremacist comments. You all but called me stupid. I think there's a slight difference, don't you? I think you're taking this all way too personally, frankly. Not everyone here is going to embrace Paul and your/his ideas (I can't tell the difference). I wish you would refrain from telling me to look up verses in a part of the Bible which I don't adhere to, being Jewish. Clearly the two of us have very different ideas about politics and the world, but there's no need to act as though every differing opinion on the candidacy of Ron Paul is somehow ignorant or stupid or deserving of righteous indignation. I should note that you were the one who bombarded me with Paul propaganda simply because I stated my intentions to vote for Barrack Obama. (Why you thought that there was the slightest chance I might be receptive to your message, I have no idea.)

Orwell, thanks for further elucidating your viewpoints and I think I understand them better now. However, I must point out that it was you who brought up the subject of Ron Paul. My original post in this thread mentioned only two candidates by name, and they were Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In response, you mentioned Ron Paul as a positive example. I then explained why I would never even consider voting for him, ever. Perhaps I was a bit flippant in my comments and should not have used certain words, such as the word "crazy", even though they were and still are an honest assessment of my views. I was just perturbed by your attempts to "convert" me to Paul even though I clearly stated a preference for a very different candidate. I am sorry if you were offended by my flippant language; I was just honestly stating my opinions.

After reading your latest post, I realize that we agree more than I had previously thought. Thank you for clarifying, and again, sorry if I overgeneralized. Thank you for letting me know that Paul is more supportive of gay rights than the other Republican candidates; however, I still find his history a cause for concern. If I were running for office in 20 years, someone might pull out this thread as evidence of my views. If I wanted to, I could claim never to have written the things I'm writing now. Wouldn't make it true, though. I understand that you feel differently, though, and I respect that.