Question about Ron Paul

Arguments for (or against) the Constitutionality of anything are largely based on what the Constitution happens to say (or not say). I prefer a moral argument derived from facts that precede any written Constitution.

 

My concern is with the folks who say "that's a state issue, not a federal one" and ignore the fact that it is no more justified for a state to act when the act is a rights violation. We can agree that President Obama is a statist disaster in the making if Congress (or the courts where possible) cannot or will not reign him in.

 

maurice strong failed

The economy of the United States is the world's largest national economy. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be nearly $14.5 trillion in 2010, approximately a quarter of nominal global GDP.

Its GDP at purchasing power parity was also the largest in the world, approximately a fifth of global GDP at purchasing power parity.

The country remains the world's largest manufacturer, representing a fifth of the global manufacturing output. The United States is home to 139 of the world's 500 largest companies, which is almost twice that of any other country. About 60% the global currency reserves has been invested in the United States dollar and only 24% in euro. The country is one of the world's largest and most influential financial markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_economy

 

Well when you get in the soup line, Im betting the Enviroment, the EPA, and the Religon of Global Warming are going to drop from your priority list rather quickly.
.
.
.
.

 

That argument is moot in my opinion. Everyone saw what BP did to the gulf, no one liked it, but people are still buying their oil...

The problem is that we have become so reliant, we can't stop if we want to. It's worse than an addiction to nicotine.

 

Perhaps this proves that most people aren't as concerned with the environment as some. By the way, I still avoid BP gas stations if I can.

My opinion is that the Federal govt is partially to blame. Why are these rigs so far off the coast? Federal regulations force them out there.

Look at what happens when they drill in such deep water? There is no way to stop a leak.

That would have been stopped immediately in shallow water.

 

I just realised I am having exact same question. since I live in the national forest, and all this drilling here, and if Ron Paul is like the rest of the scum for eliminating regulation, and if my well water will be damaged somewhere a mile away (and theyre drilling for gass all over the place here) I doubt I will ever be able to fight back against corporations who have paid experts to tell me that "it was just a natural slide and unrelated to their drilling".... and then I will be kicking myself in the ass about why the f did I give this guys campaign $100 in 2008?.......... anyway, here is the real answer:

 

You may be right though, shouldn't let them scare us into voting for someone else or not voting, but who knows. can't trust people on the media, but at least Ron Paul sounds honest on what he talks about unlike the rest

 

First of all, you have to understand that big business is not the largest polluter in this country. The federal government is the largest polluting entity in this country. However, the EPA is in cahoots with many large corporations that are allowed to pollute the environment because of their lobbying efforts (mostly the military industrial complex). Ron Paul also believes that the states should set up their own environmental regulatory agencies because the federal government is not authorized in the Constitution to regulate environmental pollution. For these reasons, he advocates abolishing the ineffective and corrupt EPA.

Although the federal government is not authorized to regulate the environment, Ron Paul believes that environmental pollution is a violation of private property (since it damages property, of course) and also can be a violation of the individual's right to life (if it causes sickness, disease, death, etc). Since the federal government is required to protect the Constitutional rights of individuals, so any entity polluting the environment could be successfully prosecuted in a federal court (on a case by case basis) for violating individual liberties, as well as in a state court for violating that state's environmental regulation laws.

The idea that Ron Paul supports deregulating businesses so they can pollute the environment is based on fear mongering left-wing propaganda. But once you examine his complex and sophisticated position closely, and really understand it...it's clear that he is the toughest candidate on pollution by far, and is the only candidate who has a real solution that will actually solve the problem.

 

Big Fed is all about the Big Corp monopolies, Big Money, and shutting down the competition. These tricksters don't care about your drinking water or the air. Handle it locally and take a pitchfork to the pollution factory.

 

Undeniable truth

 

Awesome clarification.

He really needs to clear up this point, in my opinion, because he could really steal some environmentalist votes away from other candidates.

Whenever he says that he wants to deregulate it sounds like he wants to allow corporations to do whatever they want to the environment. It especially sounds bad because he wants to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency.

To the average Joe, this sounds like a bad thing... But most people aren't educated on exactly what the EPA does and why there are better ways to "protect" the environment.

 

He tries to, but alot of the mainstream media will not allow him to do that. They will twist his position around in any way they can to make it look like he is against environmental regulation.

Yep. The average Joe has been indoctrinated by government education and mass media brainwashing. The concept of there being better ways to regulate the environment does not enter their minds. Obviously we can never get rid of corruption. It's always going to be there and it's always going to happen no matter what. But I think that any rational person would agree that corruption at the state leve is far better than corruption at the federal level.

 

The slippery slope started with car insurance. The great majority of America are places where a car is a necessity, not a luxury. Obviously not a Benz, but you get my drift. That is why I tell people all the time, don't look at the legislation now, look at the precedent to which it will set. Sure, now days the market has finally worked itself to where car insurance is insanely cheap compared to years past, but it still doesn't excuse the fact forcing people to buy it never should have been legal in the 1st place. It should not be mandatory, just highly recommended, like health insurance is now. I would still recommend health insurance with a public option, as private hospitals will always be better, but at this point a public option is what America truly needs as to the problem of health care prices run-a-muck.

 

No it isn't.

What we need is the govt to get out of the medical field.

 

I have a friend right now diagnosed with stomach cancer at 34 years old. Malignant, but he could be saved with a public option. The emergency room won't treat him until his wife calls the day he is dying. Your ideals are what is going to kill him. There are 100s of millions of hard working Americans who can't afford the gouged prices of medicine. These are not bums. Hard working Americans at the slave wage level because that's how pyramid schemes work. You don't have a dumb bone in your body Steveo. Do you honestly think medical prices would ever go down to where someone who makes 10 dollars an hour could afford preventive treatment?

 

Yeah,Cuz everyone knows US Republicans like Dirty air and filthy water.
We prefer smog and oil spills.Just as soon let garbage sit idle like in
N.Y.C. during Garbage strikes.
So YOU Right.Republicans can't be bothered with the Environment.
After all it ain't Our Environment but the Environmentalist.
All US Republicansa care about is sitting comfortably is Our cushy Mansions.

 

Before the govt began the takeover of medicine, we had churches and charities.

Charity is not the role of govt.

Charity is the responsibility of families, neighbors, communities, and churches.

To answer your question, yes. I do believe health care costs would go down significantly if the govt were not subsidizing it.

 

Well, I wasn't intending to side track the thread. Health care is a hard subject for me, people assume I am just some lefty who wants them to pay more taxes. I am the guy who would do away with the FED, which would save enough money annually for 5 health care systems. I would bring back protectionism, enough revenue for your taxes to sink to nearly nothing. But do I believe in a public option? You bet your ass. These aren't statistics, these are human beings. I believe in it as sure as police and firefighters. I could see your side's argument 30 years ago when cancer was rare. In this day and age, guaranteed either one or both of us will die from it. Everything around us causes cancer at this point, and there is NO ONE who is going to cure a cash cow disease. But you at least have the VA. Grats.

 

What happens when the US health care system resembles Cuba's?

No thanks.

 

If it sounds too good, then it is. If it sounds good, then America can't afford it. People we die, songs will be sung, poems will be written.

 

Public option means you have crappy hospitals where people can at least get some treatment, while at the same time still having all the nice hospitals for those who can afford them. Public option does not mean universal health care. Public option means when you use your insurance to go to the ER, you get right in, because all the welfare bums who were congesting the place are standing in line someplace else. I could go on and on with the benefits. I know you have caught on to the lies of both pseudo-camps of American politics. You must also look outside the box on this subject as well. All will benefit from a public option, except those who pay media outlets and politicians to convince you universal health care and a public option are the same thing.

 

Again, this is not the role of US government. This is the role of charity.

 

And your house on fire isn't the role of government, it is the role of your neighbors forming a bucket line. Your house being robbed isn't the role of government, it is the role of you and your friends tracking the people down. Ridiculous. You can have the last word now, as I hate when threads get side tracked. My apologies to the OP.

 

I don't consider fire fighting charity.

If you let a house burn, it could burn down the entire town. It is the role of govt to promote the general welfare.

Justice is the role of govt as well.

Taking care of every poor person is not. That is the role of charity.