Ron Paul 2008.

[EBSB52]

Not to mention your current nut is so pathetic he can't even run as a Libertarian; is he ashamed?

Our founding fathers were "libertarians"

Ron Paul is running under TRADITIONAL Republican Values

Which was really neat for the 1700's when population was rated in the 100's of thousands and people lived what, 50 years. They had summary trials, blacks were property, only the rich voted, these founding fathers writing about liberty for all men owned slaves as well. Our founding fathers, by today's standard, were scum.

It is 2007, we have >300 million people; let's not regress to 1787.

As for trditional Repub values, just immulate Eisenhower, he was a great Republican, somewhat contemporary Pres. Like Clinton, the debt actually fell under him as well and he ended teh Korea conflict.

Ron Paul is a cheap knock off, running as a Repub when he actually rejects some Repub values..... the voters will tell you this with their 2% again.

[EBSB52]

Government services should be a safety net, NOT primary support. That's how SS was conceived...

What's how SS was formed? Safety net or primary support? Not sure which you are saying.

SS, as well as teh 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act were formed after the Great Depression by FDR of course. These were in reaction to atrocities of that era from conditions. FDR must have been liked enough to be reelected 3 times, so maybe he did something right.

SS was conceived as a safety net. When it was enacted, the average life expectancy was LESS than the retirement age... A person was expected to die before being able to draw benefits.
Now it's almost expected that the government will pay for 20-30+ years of retirement. People don't plan for their own futures the way they should and it's because they expect the government to take care of them. That's not freedom or self-determination.

I'll buy that. So now that we are here and now, should we cut elders off? Soilent Green anyone? I think that FDR got us ready for people to live into their 80's and to have a humanitarian foundation for society. I think it's inportant to mention that the nuclear family disintegrated around the turn of the century, 30 years before FDR's presidency, a new concept for that time. SS was needed thena nd is still needed.

I reject most Republican agendas, but think they are at least directed, just ill-directed. OTOH, the LIbertarians are as nutty as Nader or any other anarchist-based extremist groups.

[EBSB52]

Not to mention your current nut is so pathetic he can't even run as a Libertarian; is he ashamed?

Our founding fathers were "libertarians"

Ron Paul is running under TRADITIONAL Republican Values

Hey Brian, write a proposal of what we now have versus what the Libertarian agenda is. Establish our current expenditures and your proposed ones. Then take into account the human devistation, how many lives will be lost, etc. I've asked Libertarians to do this b4 but tehy never have. Be really comprehensive and not pie-in-the-sky ridiculous as if the church is gonna even scratch the surface of healthcare.

[DiggityBiggity]

EB... Clinton is SCUM!

Do you realize what he did to this country?

Our entire government is about to collapse under our economic policy...

People are going to die, but at least Ron Paul will retain LIBERTY and the CONSTITUTION!!

[The Dark Side of Will]

Government services should be a safety net, NOT primary support. That's how SS was conceived...

What's how SS was formed? Safety net or primary support? Not sure which you are saying.

SS, as well as teh 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act were formed after the Great Depression by FDR of course. These were in reaction to atrocities of that era from conditions. FDR must have been liked enough to be reelected 3 times, so maybe he did something right.

SS was conceived as a safety net. When it was enacted, the average life expectancy was LESS than the retirement age... A person was expected to die before being able to draw benefits.
Now it's almost expected that the government will pay for 20-30+ years of retirement. People don't plan for their own futures the way they should and it's because they expect the government to take care of them. That's not freedom or self-determination.

I'll buy that. So now that we are here and now, should we cut elders off? Soilent Green anyone? I think that FDR got us ready for people to live into their 80's and to have a humanitarian foundation for society. I think it's inportant to mention that the nuclear family disintegrated around the turn of the century, 30 years before FDR's presidency, a new concept for that time. SS was needed thena nd is still needed.

I reject most Republican agendas, but think they are at least directed, just ill-directed. OTOH, the LIbertarians are as nutty as Nader or any other anarchist-based extremist groups.

Not that it doesn't satisfy a need of society... just that it shouldn't be a government funded golden parachute... it should only be a safety net.

The insolvency of SS is a direct result of the fact that it's being asked to pay for WAY more than it was ever conceived to pay for. Serious reform of SS is absolutely necessary to prevent a disaster in support of elderly population.

For this reform:
-No one should be deprived of benefits for which they have already paid. No one currently on benefits will be cut off.
-Retirement age should be raised to 75 or higher (preferrably continually adjusted for average life expectancy based on birth year).
-Rate of SS tax should NOT be raised.
-Rate of compensation should be adjusted so that the system is solvent on a per-individual basis. IE, pay in at 10% for 50 years, draw at 100% for 5 or 50% for 10.
-EVERYONE should be thoroughly EDUCATED from a young age on how to provide for their own retirements.

[EBSB52]

EB... Clinton is SCUM!

Do you realize what he did to this country?

Our entire government is about to collapse under our economic policy...

People are going to die, but at least Ron Paul will retain LIBERTY and the CONSTITUTION!!

>>>>Our entire government is about to collapse under our economic policy...

Without dodging this issue, explain the fllowing then:

1) 1 US Dollar = X Canadian Dollar:

a) 1993 $1.29
b) 2001 $1.55
c) NOW $1.05


2) Total Debt:

a) 1993 $4 Trillion - and increasing at a rate of $250B per year
b) 2001 $5.5 Trillion - and leveled off, perhaps sagging a bit with a 230B surplus
c) NOW ~$9 Trillion and increasing at at least $250B per year

________________________

>>>>>>Do you realize what he did to this country?

Yes, he gave the underclass a few rights, gave college tax breaks therefore enticing education, shrunk the military as it needed to be, killed the enormousy increasing debt for the first time since Eisenhower, incresed our dollar against all other currencies I've checked hence allowing us to travel overseas and buy foreign goods w/o aking it up the ass in exchange rate, and a myriad of other things. Now that you've become a Repub lican/Libertarian drone since I've last written to you, perhaps you're now relegated to typical rhetoric rather than empirically investigating issues with data and other scientific evidence. Sad.

_____________________

>>>>>>>>People are going to die, but at least Ron Paul will retain LIBERTY and the CONSTITUTION!!

I understand that you know a little more than the average layperson when it comes to law, so perhaps you can teach us a little about it. The only Amendments that matter are the 2nd, 4th and 14th; tell me why. You were always a free-thinker, aparently now a Republican drone.....

[EBSB52]

Government services should be a safety net, NOT primary support. That's how SS was conceived...

What's how SS was formed? Safety net or primary support? Not sure which you are saying.

SS, as well as teh 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act were formed after the Great Depression by FDR of course. These were in reaction to atrocities of that era from conditions. FDR must have been liked enough to be reelected 3 times, so maybe he did something right.

SS was conceived as a safety net. When it was enacted, the average life expectancy was LESS than the retirement age... A person was expected to die before being able to draw benefits.
Now it's almost expected that the government will pay for 20-30+ years of retirement. People don't plan for their own futures the way they should and it's because they expect the government to take care of them. That's not freedom or self-determination.

I'll buy that. So now that we are here and now, should we cut elders off? Soilent Green anyone? I think that FDR got us ready for people to live into their 80's and to have a humanitarian foundation for society. I think it's inportant to mention that the nuclear family disintegrated around the turn of the century, 30 years before FDR's presidency, a new concept for that time. SS was needed thena nd is still needed.

I reject most Republican agendas, but think they are at least directed, just ill-directed. OTOH, the LIbertarians are as nutty as Nader or any other anarchist-based extremist groups.

Not that it doesn't satisfy a need of society... just that it shouldn't be a government funded golden parachute... it should only be a safety net.

The insolvency of SS is a direct result of the fact that it's being asked to pay for WAY more than it was ever conceived to pay for. Serious reform of SS is absolutely necessary to prevent a disaster in support of elderly population.

For this reform:
-No one should be deprived of benefits for which they have already paid. No one currently on benefits will be cut off.
-Retirement age should be raised to 75 or higher (preferrably continually adjusted for average life expectancy based on birth year).
-Rate of SS tax should NOT be raised.
-Rate of compensation should be adjusted so that the system is solvent on a per-individual basis. IE, pay in at 10% for 50 years, draw at 100% for 5 or 50% for 10.
-EVERYONE should be thoroughly EDUCATED from a young age on how to provide for their own retirements.

>>>>>Not that it doesn't satisfy a need of society... just that it shouldn't be a government funded golden parachute... it should only be a safety net.

At the same time, you have no issues with our tax dollars going to the budget and then turned into the unneccessary war machine. You are a smart guy Will, so tell teh forum what percent of the worlds 1.15 T$ military budget the US is a part of. IOW's, what % of teh 1.15T did the US spend? BTW, that doesn't account for war measures, just basic military operations. THEN, since we are the #1 spender, who is the #2 and how far do we have to step before we get there? IOW's, how many times is our military budget compared to them? And now we spend too much on medical and social welfare because???????? Please, do share with the forum the military budgets.

>>>>>>>>>>The insolvency of SS is a direct result of the fact that it's being asked to pay for WAY more than it was ever conceived to pay for. Serious reform of SS is absolutely necessary to prevent a disaster in support of elderly population.

If we cut 1/3 of the grossly overspent military we could provide coverage for all Americans. I thought the concerns of the country were supposed to be about people.

>>>>>>>>>For this reform:
-No one should be deprived of benefits for which they have already paid. No one currently on benefits will be cut off.

And fuck those who fall after

-Retirement age should be raised to 75 or higher (preferrably continually adjusted for average life expectancy based on birth year).

If we provided real healthcare, I agree. HArd to demand longer worklife when we won't enusre health.

-Rate of SS tax should NOT be raised.

Then how do we pay for newcomers who aren't part of SS?

-Rate of compensation should be adjusted so that the system is solvent on a per-individual basis. IE, pay in at 10% for 50 years, draw at 100% for 5 or 50% for 10.

So rate of adjustment means to lower compensation..... And for those who don't pay into it or who have low paying jobs...fuck em, making soilent green out of em. Will, you have still neglected millions of people w/o acknowledging that.

-EVERYONE should be thoroughly EDUCATED from a young age on how to provide for their own retirements

That's utopian and desireable, but how do we do it? I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.



Will, what do we do with the mentally ill, the underemployed, the underclass? Let em rot in the streets? Other countries have answers for this, and their currency is kicking our asses all teh while; where's the rub - why can't we keep up with these countriues economically when they offer real social services and we don't?

[eHoward]

what's wrong with the 401k? :scratch:

I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.

[EBSB52]

what's wrong with the 401k? :scratch:

I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.

Because Enron-tyep sit happens. In the airlines, we had our own Enron, yet it didn;t get the same attention. United and US Air were 2 of the biggies, the stock was starting to fall from 150/share, the big wheels stopped any movement, they chopped theirs, then it hit litterally $1/share and the FAscist maggots let the poor slobs dump theirs. Litterally took guys with 30 years and 1M in stock and took em down to 30k in there. A simple savings account would be nice and a great start, but fed assistance needs to be there without question for those not, prepared, smart, capable, etc.

[eHoward]

Nothing in 401k code says you have to hold company stock in there.

what's wrong with the 401k? :scratch:

I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.

Because Enron-tyep sit happens. In the airlines, we had our own Enron, yet it didn;t get the same attention. United and US Air were 2 of the biggies, the stock was starting to fall from 150/share, the big wheels stopped any movement, they chopped theirs, then it hit litterally $1/share and the FAscist maggots let the poor slobs dump theirs. Litterally took guys with 30 years and 1M in stock and took em down to 30k in there. A simple savings account would be nice and a great start, but fed assistance needs to be there without question for those not, prepared, smart, capable, etc.

[FIEROAJ]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=1

:salute:

[FIEROAJ]

HEALTHCARE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

[The Dark Side of Will]

-No one should be deprived of benefits for which they have already paid. No one currently on benefits will be cut off.

And fuck those who fall after

This is where our difference of opinion lies. I think that a gov't sponsored golden parachute is a BAD thing and that people should fend for themselves until they can't and only then be taken care of by the government. You think otherwise.

-Retirement age should be raised to 75 or higher (preferrably continually adjusted for average life expectancy based on birth year).

If we provided real healthcare, I agree. HArd to demand longer worklife when we won't enusre health.

I don't think that state sponsorship is the right answer in the area of health care either. What we're seeing now in health care is what's been going on in the aerospace industry for years... when something "just has to work" and the costs of failure are potentially enormous (not just in the ovious--life--but in legal defense costs as well), that something becomes expensive. I don't think there's one answer to the question of health care, and as I said, I don't think that state sponsorship should have a big part in that answer. Government services should only be a safety net.

What's conditioned you to think of 65 as a good retirement age in the first place? Social Security. Remember that when SS was enacted, you were expected to die (on average) before drawing benefits. IE, you were expected to work your entire useful life and SS would only take over if you outlived the means of support you'd set up while saving for your old age. Why should that have changed in the intervening half century? With all the "60 is the new 50, 30 is the new 20" talk going around, people's useful working lives should be getting LONGER.

-Rate of SS tax should NOT be raised.

Then how do we pay for newcomers who aren't part of SS?

They will be part of SS, they'll just come in under the reformed policy. I'm not talking about killing SS... just seriously curtailing it until it's sustainable.
I believe that it IS sustainable without an increase in taxes if it's approached as a safety net, not a golden parachute.

The problem, in that case is NOT paying for the new entrants into the system, it's making sure that those already in the system aren't short changed by the reform.

-Rate of compensation should be adjusted so that the system is solvent on a per-individual basis. IE, pay in at 10% for 50 years, draw at 100% for 5 or 50% for 10.

So rate of adjustment means to lower compensation..... And for those who don't pay into it or who have low paying jobs...fuck em, making soilent green out of em. Will, you have still neglected millions of people w/o acknowledging that.

So how do people with jobs that are so low paying that they can't survive on job + SS benefits survive BEFORE they were elligible for SS benefits?
Who doesn't pay into it?

-EVERYONE should be thoroughly EDUCATED from a young age on how to provide for their own retirements

That's utopian and desireable, but how do we do it? I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current savings and investment vehicles available... people just don't use them to their fullest advantage. Go ask a recent high school graduate if they were even taught how to balance a check book in high school, much less how to budget, save for a rainy day, and just live life in the real world. Radical educational reform in this country is a necessity to continued prosperity and should rank above SS in funding priority.

Will, what do we do with the mentally ill, the underemployed, the underclass? Let em rot in the streets? Other countries have answers for this, and their currency is kicking our asses all teh while; where's the rub - why can't we keep up with these countriues economically when they offer real social services and we don't?

I've said government services should be a safety net. That would seem to apply in the extreme cases you're fond of exemplifying. By the way, why don't you pin a reasonably verifiable number on this group of people? It's very easy to pin a large number on your pet group in society to increase the validity of your case (as was done with the homeless population a few years ago), but that's not the way a government needs to run.

The US military budget exclusive of war effort is in the neighborhood of 450-500B depending on what source you consult and what ancillaries you include. Yes, even if we cut this in half we'd still have the largest military budget in the world. That would help your case because that would add another million to the jobless indigent masses you continually cite.

[DiggityBiggity]

I'm sorry EB, but you cannot lump me into a group of DROID LIKE REPUBLICANS.

Do you understand what Clinton did to this country when it comes to NAFTA, GATT, and WTO? Do you understand why all of our jobs are LEAVING this country? Do you understand the NET BUBBLE was the only reason people were happy with Clinton, something that just so happened to happen under his presidency.

Do you realize that EVERY OTHER MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE on stage is a member of the CFR and some even members of the TRI LATERAL COMMISSION.

Do you understand that BOTH of those organizations have VOWED to literally destroy the sovereignty of our country through the creation of a NAU (North American Union) and it's already being worked on BEHIND THE SENATE AND HOUSES BACK in the SPP (security and prosperity partnership)

Ron Paul is not some Neo-Con, he a REAL republican, someone who belies in the fundamental understanding of LIBERTY!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Don't understand the CFR or Tri Lateral Commission?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/586965/posts

Ron Paul 2008!

[Kohburn]

omg not another political thread

:crybaby:

[EBSB52]

Nothing in 401k code says you have to hold company stock in there.

what's wrong with the 401k? :scratch:

I would like a mandatory savings account, not a 401K so some maggot can bilk them all and have the gov shrug their shoulders and the head maggot, Bush, pardon them all as he leaves office.

Because Enron-tyep sit happens. In the airlines, we had our own Enron, yet it didn;t get the same attention. United and US Air were 2 of the biggies, the stock was starting to fall from 150/share, the big wheels stopped any movement, they chopped theirs, then it hit litterally $1/share and the FAscist maggots let the poor slobs dump theirs. Litterally took guys with 30 years and 1M in stock and took em down to 30k in there. A simple savings account would be nice and a great start, but fed assistance needs to be there without question for those not, prepared, smart, capable, etc.

>>>>>Nothing in 401k code says you have to hold company stock in there.

Yea but most companies seem to work it that way. Usually u can oly trade between a few stocks or compilations of stocks rather than have open access to the entire stock market. I love 401k's, but not limited ones. I think a savings account would be more appropriate.

[EBSB52]

HEALTHCARE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

My comp doesn't do vids real well or real fast, but if you have an argument to make I would honestly love to read it.

[EBSB52]

[quote="The Dark Side of Will"][quote="EBSB52"]->>>>>>>This is where our difference of opinion lies. I think that a gov't sponsored golden parachute is a BAD thing and that people should fend for themselves until they can't and only then be taken care of by the government. You think otherwise.

This argument is kind of like the death penalty argument; it’s circular. With the DP, we want it to be more exact, but want it quicker and cheaper too, but w/o killing any innocent people, but more expeditious…. Get it? With healthcare, we want to ensure everyone has means to get covered, yet want to ensure no abuse, but want the really needy to have coverage, but not the ones who have the means but want to cheat……. Get it? Civilized, intelligent countries have established it’s better for the government to provide coverage and to abolish the DP that way they know everyone has coverage and no innocent people get executed. Otherwise it’s just a circular argument where the poor get fucked (w/o coverage and with innocent people executed) and the rich manipulate the system and get too much, eg the USA.

>>>>>>>>I don't think that state sponsorship is the right answer in the area of health care either. What we're seeing now in health care is what's been going on in the aerospace industry for years... when something "just has to work" and the costs of failure are potentially enormous (not just in the ovious--life--but in legal defense costs as well), that something becomes expensive. I don't think there's one answer to the question of health care, and as I said, I don't think that state sponsorship should have a big part in that answer. Government services should only be a safety net.

Well, exactly, we worry more about money than we do about people and wonder why society is so depraved. With your approach you have no ability to ask questions as to why our society can be as cruel as we often see it is. Perhaps you can explain how Canada has socialized meds and they are kicking the piss out of our dollar. Don’t be a Brian and duck/run.

If there is no state-sponsorship there will continue to be 1 of 6 Americans w/o coverage. But I agree, money over people, just ignore the news when we read about society killing each other.

>>>>>>>>What's conditioned you to think of 65 as a good retirement age in the first place? Social Security. Remember that when SS was enacted, you were expected to die (on average) before drawing benefits. IE, you were expected to work your entire useful life and SS would only take over if you outlived the means of support you'd set up while saving for your old age. Why should that have changed in the intervening half century? With all the "60 is the new 50, 30 is the new 20" talk going around, people's useful working lives should be getting LONGER.

I agree, so let’s ensure that 50 is the new 60 via guaranteed health coverage so no one gets stuck in the cracks and has no healthcare or SS; isn’t it a fair tradeoff?

>>>>>>>>The problem, in that case is NOT paying for the new entrants into the system, it's making sure that those already in the system aren't short changed by the reform.

Soilent Green then?

>>>>>>>>>So how do people with jobs that are so low paying that they can't survive on job + SS benefits survive BEFORE they were elligible for SS benefits?
Who doesn't pay into it?

They survive by not having healthcare, running from creditors and losing their teeth at 40, you know, the American way. I bet the Britts are now making fun of American’s teeth now.

>>>>>>>>>>I've said government services should be a safety net. That would seem to apply in the extreme cases you're fond of exemplifying. By the way, why don't you pin a reasonably verifiable number on this group of people? It's very easy to pin a large number on your pet group in society to increase the validity of your case (as was done with the homeless population a few years ago), but that's not the way a government needs to run.

Pin a number? Gee, I thought the slave-owning founders of your country were about protecting the defenses, or was that more rhetoric to draw away from the true unconscionable nature of who these elitists really were? So you think that throwing a number or a rate to the amount of needy and mentally ill people goes to establishing a real need? If 1 person needs it then the question of resources should be how much appropriations rather than should we take care of them or not. So you apparently have a negligible number to decide real need rather than using that number to decide $ appropriations….let me guess: Republican?

>>>>>>>>>>The US military budget exclusive of war effort is in the neighborhood of 450-500B depending on what source you consult and what ancillaries you include. Yes, even if we cut this in half we'd still have the largest military budget in the world.

I think more like 550+Billion, but now we’re at semantics. Let’s face it, 7 times+ over #2, which is idiotic. Throw in Bush’s war-hobby and we’re at ¾ Trillion $ per year - BRILLIANT of your president. I do commend you for throwing a number out there, as Brian would not. If we cut it in half we would still be 3 to 4 times that of #2, Britain. And let me guess, Clinton was a bad boy for slightly cutting this and balancing the debt - BRILLIANT.

>>>>>>>>>That would help your case because that would add another million to the jobless indigent masses you continually cite.

Turn 100K/year military industrial complex engineers like you jobless? Sounds like you have something at stake here. Care to discuss the value of the dollar before Clinton, after Clinton and now? That should pretty much ice the facts.

[EBSB52]

[quote="DiggityBiggity"]


>>>>>>>>I'm sorry EB, but you cannot lump me into a group of DROID LIKE REPUBLICANS.

For a guy that spent hours constructing a site with data and info to short stroke this argument w/o any data………uh, yea I can.

>>>>>>>>Do you understand what Clinton did to this country when it comes to NAFTA, GATT, and WTO?

Yep, NAFTA sucked, it was GHW Bush’s baby and he went along with it; that pissed me off. We’ve had Maqilladeros at the Mexican-American border for 40 years, so the work leaving was meaningless, it was a tax break for corps. Hell, my old 83 Chevy truck was made in Canada so I don’t wanna hear this is a new trend.

I don’t know tons about GATT or WTO, just the riots in Seattle for the latter.

>>>>>>>>>Do you understand why all of our jobs are LEAVING this country?

Because the US is primarily fascist. Corporations are writing laws to allow this and all politicians are going for it.

>>>>>>>>Do you understand the NET BUBBLE was the only reason people were happy with Clinton, something that just so happened to happen under his presidency.

He was the inheritor of great timing, however he did the right things with great fortune. If GW Dipshit were in charge he would find a way to give it all to corps. Conversely, if Clinton were in charge 2001 to now he would have done positive things with 911 and Katrina. So if the Clinton Bubble to what, 12000 was just a shirt-term bubblem then what do we have now at 13k+? Kinda shits on your argument.

People were happy because we moved ahead of foreign markets as far as money, our debt was leveled off, the world started liking us again and a myriad of reasons. Perhaps, Mr. dot.com bubble, you can explain that during the Clinton so-called bubble our dollar soared, but now with the market measurably higher the dollar is dying? Wait, wait, be the Ron Paulian drone and give me more rhetoric.

>>>>>>>>>Do you realize that EVERY OTHER MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE on stage is a member of the CFR and some even members of the TRI LATERAL COMMISSION.

OK, so they are part of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on ... _Relations) with their published agenda:


From its inception the Council was non-partisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African-Americans, with only women initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential.[22] It has exerted influence on US foreign policy from the beginning, due to its roster of State Department and other government officials as members; as such, it has been the focus of many conspiracy theories (Perloff 37, et passim). A study by two critics of the organization, Laurence Shoup and William Minter, found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.[23][24]

So what now Brian, should we be isolationists? More conspiracy talk? Everything doesn’t have to be a conspiracy, Brian.

>>>>>>>>Do you understand that BOTH of those organizations have VOWED to literally destroy the sovereignty of our country through the creation of a NAU (North American Union) and it's already being worked on BEHIND THE SENATE AND HOUSES BACK in the SPP (security and prosperity partnership)

Of course that will happen regardless of who is president or whatever happens.

>>>>>>>>Ron Paul is not some Neo-Con, he a REAL republican, someone who belies in the fundamental understanding of LIBERTY!!

Well at least you agree that Republicans and Libertarians are virtually the same thing. So a real Republican wants zero to do with ensuring the health of a country? NICEEEEEE. You have yet to lay out a real platform other that, “It will just work; you’ll see.â€

[The Dark Side of Will]

This argument is kind of like the death penalty argument; it’s circular. With the DP, we want it to be more exact, but want it quicker and cheaper too, but w/o killing any innocent people, but more expeditious…. Get it? With healthcare, we want to ensure everyone has means to get covered, yet want to ensure no abuse, but want the really needy to have coverage, but not the ones who have the means but want to cheat……. Get it? Civilized, intelligent countries have established it’s better for the government to provide coverage and to abolish the DP that way they know everyone has coverage and no innocent people get executed. Otherwise it’s just a circular argument where the poor get fucked (w/o coverage and with innocent people executed) and the rich manipulate the system and get too much, eg the USA.

Why would the rich want government health care, by definition from the lowest bidder, when they can have the best money can buy?

Perhaps you can explain how Canada has socialized meds and they are kicking the piss out of our dollar.

Explain how the two are related.

If 1 person needs it then the question of resources should be how much appropriations rather than should we take care of them or not.

Is every baby born healthy? Alive? Why not? Sometimes things just happen. You can't take care of everyone, even with the best of intentions and resources. Even in countries with socialized medicine, there are going to be mentally ill people sleeping under bridges. What can you do for them, even with government funded health care?

Turn 100K/year military industrial complex engineers like you jobless? Sounds like you have something at stake here.

It seems like you have animosity toward people who work hard and earn their status/paycheck/whatever. Isn't that what you're doing?