Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

If Hilary vs McCain

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Air Langhi, Feb 7, 2008.

Page 1 of 2

Air Langhi Contributing Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2000

Messages:

21,946

Likes Received:

6,696

Then

This a sad state of American politics. I would vote democrat, but hillary is so negative and she supports this war.

#1 Air Langhi, Feb 7, 2008

MadMax Member

Joined:

Sep 19, 1999

Messages:

76,683

Likes Received:

25,924

i'd move in with alec baldwin.

#2 MadMax, Feb 7, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

ron paul will be running as a 3rd party candidate.

#3 jo mama, Feb 7, 2008
mc mark Member

Joined:

Aug 31, 1999

Messages:

26,195

Likes Received:

472

So will Mike Bloomberg

#4 mc mark, Feb 7, 2008
Air Langhi Contributing Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2000

Messages:

21,946

Likes Received:

6,696

jo mama said:

ron paul will be running as a 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is nut job. Bloomberg I would want to vote for if he had a chance of winning. I guess if this country can pick W twice then I shouldn't be shocked that mccain and Hilary will make it through.

#5 Air Langhi, Feb 7, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

Air Langhi said:

Ron Paul is nut job.
Click to expand...

hes making more sense than anyone else running.

#6 jo mama, Feb 7, 2008
Dairy Ashford Member

Joined:

May 20, 2002

Messages:

14,585

Likes Received:

1,888

jo mama said:

ron paul will be running as a 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...

Not unless he's retiring from Congress. I don't think the Libertarian party funds those campaigns every two years.

#7 Dairy Ashford, Feb 7, 2008

rodrick_98 Member

Joined:

Oct 26, 2000

Messages:

4,362

Likes Received:

6

is he going to break from the party? he would have my protest vote, otherwise it'll go to hillary.

atleast she wants to pull the troops out. i think that is the only difference between the two, no?

#8 rodrick_98, Feb 7, 2008
Air Langhi Contributing Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2000

Messages:

21,946

Likes Received:

6,696

jo mama said:

hes making more sense than anyone else running.
Click to expand...

Any one who wants to get rid of SS, medicare, and go back to the gold standard is a nut job. Look at the countries with the best standards of living, they tend to be the more socialist countries.

#9 Air Langhi, Feb 7, 2008
Aceshigh7 Member

Joined:

Jun 16, 2003

Messages:

3,902

Likes Received:

258

Air Langhi said:

I guess if this country can elect Slick Willie twice then I shouldn't be shocked that mccain and Hilary will make it through.
Click to expand...

Fixed your post.

#10 Aceshigh7, Feb 7, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

rodrick_98 said:

atleast she wants to pull the troops out. i think that is the only difference between the two, no?
Click to expand...

no she doesnt - she said she will not even commit to having the troops out by the end of her first term (2013!).

that is only one of about a dozen reasons not to vote for that piece of trash.

#11 jo mama, Feb 8, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

swiftboat v.2

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

This is the "REAL" John McCain in living color seen belittling Delores Alfond, head of the National Alliance of POW/MIA whose brother went missing in action in Vietnam

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-CazKanlYDg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-CazKanlYDg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

#12 jo mama, Feb 8, 2008
Apollo Creed Contributing Member

Joined:

Aug 25, 2001

Messages:

4,449

Likes Received:

3

jo mama said:

swiftboat v.2

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com
Click to expand...

I hate this stuff. It should have no place in American politics. McCain served his country proudly, just like Kerry. After the horrors that McCain went through especially, he just doesn't deserve it. What a shame.

#13 Apollo Creed, Feb 8, 2008

rhester Member

Joined:

Jun 14, 2001

Messages:

6,600

Likes Received:

104

Air Langhi said:

Any one who wants to get rid of SS, medicare, and go back to the gold standard is a nut job. Look at the countries with the best standards of living, they tend to be the more socialist countries.
Click to expand...

Never mind

#14 rhester, Feb 8, 2008
LScolaDominates Member

Joined:

Oct 10, 2007

Messages:

1,834

Likes Received:

81

jo mama said:

hes making more sense than anyone else running.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul makes sense to conspiracy whackos. REVOL(U)TION!

#15 LScolaDominates, Feb 8, 2008
rodrick_98 Member

Joined:

Oct 26, 2000

Messages:

4,362

Likes Received:

6

jo mama said:

no she doesnt - she said she will not even commit to having the troops out by the end of her first term (2013!).

that is only one of about a dozen reasons not to vote for that piece of trash.
Click to expand...

so are there any differences between the two?

if no, go obama!

note: i want RP but he has no shot at this point, so my only hope is a dem win and then in 2010 the republicans have a '94ish revolution

#16 rodrick_98, Feb 9, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

LScolaDominates said:

Ron Paul makes sense to conspiracy whackos. REVOL(U)TION!
Click to expand...

ron paul makes sense to alot of people, but what do "conspiracy whackos" have to do with anything? and what is a "conspiracy whacko"?

its spelled "wacko" btw.

#17 jo mama, Feb 9, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

Air Langhi said:

Any one who wants to get rid of SS, medicare, and go back to the gold standard is a nut job.
Click to expand...

its a gross oversimplification to say that he wants to "get rid" of these things. but you forgot to mention that he does want to get rid of the irs. i dont know why im bothering, but you should probably actually listen to the guy before calling him a nutjob. he is the only candidate offering real solutions to the real problems that this country is going to be facing when it comes to this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation. Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,"[125] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[126] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[127] He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[128] He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to "protect the system for everyone."
Click to expand...

paul is right when he says that ss and medicare are bankrupt and they wont be around for the young people. we are being taxed for something we will never see. our government is spending that money. he isnt talking about taking it away from people who are already on it, but doing something for the future generations. paul is a doctor - he isnt going to leave people out to dry. when he talks about reigning in spending it isnt at the expense of the poor and needy of this country - it is at the expense of maintaining a global empire and our military industrial complex. he wants to take care of americans first.

why dont you try actually reading what the "nut job" has to say about it?

you can start here...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul143.html
Congress worked late into the night this past weekend to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that represents the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. The new Medicare drug plan enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers, and forces millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage – while doing nothing to address the real reasons prescription drugs cost so much.

Nothing from the government is free, of course, and prescription drugs will be no exception. The perception that seniors will be able to flash a Medicare card at the pharmacy and walk out without paying anything is completely false. In fact, many seniors will end up paying more out-of-pocket under the Medicare scheme than they do now with their private plans. The Medicare drug benefit requires monthly premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, just as private plans do. It also has gaps in coverage that no sensible person would accept if offered by a private insurer. Like all government programs, the Medicare drug entitlement will be shabby, degrading, and inferior to the private sector.

The vast majority of older Americans already have private prescription drug coverage that they don’t want changed, and this 78% of seniors may well lose their good private coverage altogether. In fact, the government’s own Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least one-third of all private companies will dump their retirees into the Medicare system as a result of the new bill. Big corporations love the Medicare drug plan, because they want to shift the responsibility for providing drug benefits to their retirees onto taxpayers. Dozens of major companies shamelessly advertised in the Washington Times and elsewhere in support of the Medicare bill for this very simple reason. Their pension plans are dangerously underfunded, so naturally they use their lobbying influence to promote a Medicare drug system. In this sense the Medicare bill is a taxpayer-funded corporate bailout for hundreds of American companies.

The financial impact of this legislation on taxpayers cannot be overstated. Government projections that the drug program will cost $400 billion over the next decade cannot be trusted, as existing Medicare programs cost 4 times more than estimated when they were created. The likely cost is at least $1 trillion over 10 years, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older. The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private-sector output! Clearly this new Medicare spending will bury our great-grandchildren unless we rethink the wisdom of ever-increasing entitlement programs.

Phony senior lobbies want free drugs paid for by taxpayers; American corporations want to dump their retirees into Medicare at the expense of taxpayers; pharmaceutical companies want huge windfalls provided by taxpayers; and politicians want to get reelected by passing incredibly shortsighted legislation courtesy of taxpayers. Most of today’s politicians will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits because of this expansion of Medicare. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.
Click to expand...

or here...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst030507.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst112403.htm

or here...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm
Q: You say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unaffordable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense.

A: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy. Nobody seems to be happy--except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

We have a mess because a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year, and we have a foreign policy that is draining us. I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.[/b]

You don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It's the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high. It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.

Q: What does your health care plan contain to address racial disparities in access to care?

A: We've had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications.
Click to expand...

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
RON PAUL ON HEALTH CARE...
* Insurance companies & gov't make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007)
* Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007)
* Socialized medicine won't work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007)
* Managed care is expensive and hasn't worked. (Sep 2007)
* Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
* Not government's role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007)
* Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)
* Prohibit mandatory mental health screen for students. (May 2007)

RON PAUL ON SS...

* Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007)
* Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007)
* Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007)
* Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Click to expand...

WHAT A NUTJOB!!!

#18 jo mama, Feb 9, 2008

glynch Member

Joined:

Dec 1, 2000

Messages:

18,100

Likes Received:

3,609

RON PAUL ON SS...

* Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007)
* Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007)
* Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007)
* Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Click to expand...

Well there you have it. Paul wants to get rid of social security. Interestingly, he is cowardly about it. I guess he feels he would not be reelected for Congress if he just came out and said it.

#19 glynch, Feb 9, 2008
jo mama Member

Joined:

Jul 9, 2002

Messages:

14,607

Likes Received:

9,127

glynch said:

Well there you have it. Paul wants to get rid of social security. Interestingly, he is cowardly about it. I guess he feels he would not be reelected for Congress if he just came out and said it.
Click to expand...

not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but again, its a gross oversimplification to just say he wants to "get rid" of it.

nothing that you bolded would indicate that he wants to "get rid" of social security. it sounds like he was fighting against the government spending that money (which they shouldnt be doing) and allowing people the freedom to get out of it if they want. what a nutjob!

but if out of all the stuff i posted this is the only thing you can find fault with i would say thats pretty good. paul just might be your candidate!

#20 jo mama, Feb 10, 2008

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page