next »

[Golds]

So ok, Ron Paul.  I respect that he seems to be very genuine, but he has too many strikes against him.  OK, he's anti-war, that's nice but it's a ridiculous position to have ever supported the Iraq War, so that doesn't help much, because he's got so many other things going against him.

1.) As a libertarian he aims for a small Federal Government, and is completely opposed to Federal funding for Health Care, Education, and science research.  But it's obvious that you can't make money caring for sick people and it should not be left to the private sector.  Look where we are now.  Anyone with a chronic illness cannot even receive health insurance, and many people who have it actively avoid seeing a doctor because it's so expensive and it's there only in case they have a catastrophic accident so all their homes and property aren't confiscated to pay medical bills.

2.) He's Pro-Life and doesn't believe in evolution.  That's a pretty sad position for a doctor.  And I don't want a president that will deny reality in order to maintain a comforting idea.

So yeah, I really can't support him in any way.  The only area we agree on is that the Iraq War was completely baseless.

I'm confused by how many 'liberal' people are obsessed with a guy that is at odds with issues they otherwise care about.

[Alec]

I think its because Paul says what he thinks, and nobody else is really doing that. So even though people don't agree with him, it still seems really refreshing.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I agree with Alec, there are a lot of his positions I disagree with too, such as his stances on abortion and illegal immigration.

Re: evolution though, his official campaign says he believes in evolution, and when they asked all the candidates whether they disbelieve in evolution he didn't raise his hand. He later said that he isn't sure evolution is true in all respects but that he believes it's the best theory we have, so I'm not sure where you're getting that he doesn't believe in it.

And re federal funding for health care, education, and science, arguing about those is probably beyond the scope of this thread. But about health care, if you want to see the libertarian side of the argument, I recommend

(in 6 parts, the other parts can be found by searching that user's uploaded videos).

[skaldicpoet9]

I am pretty damn disillusioned with politics these days. However, I think Obama and Paul are th only two candidates that I find to actually genuinely care. Hillary just seems like she is a little too preoccupied with showing everyone how "tough" she would be on terrorism and the like and, the rest are of the same caliber of rich white assholes that we always get every election. My vote is more then likely with either Obama or Paul, but I am waiting until things thin out a bit to really decide where my vote is going, I love it when things start getting down and dirty, then you really get to see who some of these candidates are.

[Golds]

.

Just because someone appears genuine doesn't mean I should like their policies.  I'm tired of candidates pandering to the religious right.  I don't want prayer in schools.  I don't want the government regulating abortion for religious reasons. 

And the "Just a Theory" defense is really sad to see.  In the sciences "Theory" does not mean hunch.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I've heard that that video was edited to remove some of his answer, it's discussed here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124160.html.

I should also note that he never used the words "just a theory", he said "a theory".

[Golds]

Oh, come on.  Here's an uncut 10 minute clip from the event.  it's the second question: 



His position is pretty clear. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut: at other times he said things opposite to it, such as that earlier debate; he never issued an official statement either way; emails asking the official campaign about his position on evolution have resulted in them saying that he is a doctor and believes in evolution, and because he's 72 and inarticulate at times I wouldn't base a judgment just on one clip considering it goes against previous statements.

I'd certainly like to see him issue a clear statement detailing what he meant, and I disagree with him that it's an inappropriate question (it's not the most relevant question, but certainly people who are voting for him have the right to know).

I certainly don't think he's pandering to the religious right at all; when asked about Huckabee's campaign ad he quoted someone who said that when fascism comes to the US it'll be wrapped in a flag, bearing a cross. No one pandering to the religious right would say something like that.

[Zaphos]

But about health care, if you want to see the libertarian side of the argument, I recommend

(in 6 parts, the other parts can be found by searching that user's uploaded videos).

... that special shows you this one person's story, and makes you care about her, and then turns around and points out that if the system had to care for her it would cost everyone else money, so we should just ignore her problems.

[Smithy]

It has just come to my attention that Australia harbors a race of secret underground MOLE PEOPLE!

Forget the election. This takes precedence as the most important political issue of the decade. It raises important questions. Questions like, "What are they trying to hide?" and "Why haven't we declared war on these foul creatures yet?"

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

[Golds]

It has just come to my attention that Australia harbors a race of secret underground MOLE PEOPLE!

Forget the election. This takes precedence as the most important political issue of the decade. It raises important questions. Questions like, "What are they trying to hide?" and "Why haven't we declared war on these foul creatures yet?"

John Hodgeman has written extensively on the subject of molemen.

http://tv.boingboing.net/2007/11/16/john-hodgmans-mole-m.html

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

... that special shows you this one person's story, and makes you care about her, and then turns around and points out that if the system had to care for her it would cost everyone else money, so we should just ignore her problems.

True, but it later also points out (in the later parts of the six, if you watched all of them) that the extremely high prices she has to pay and the way health insurance currently works is also the cause of her problems; prices would be lower for everyone if people and doctors cared more about the prices. In areas where medicine is more free (cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, preventive medicine) the prices go down every year, whereas in normal medicine the prices go up every year, due mainly to the different business models they run on.

Also, this type of thing happens in countries with free health care too -- it's just that instead of insurance companies deciding who is denied care to save money, hospitals decide it to save money.

[skaldicpoet9]

.

Just because someone appears genuine doesn't mean I should like their policies.  I'm tired of candidates pandering to the religious right.  I don't want prayer in schools.  I don't want the government regulating abortion for religious reasons. 

And the "Just a Theory" defense is really sad to see.  In the sciences "Theory" does not mean hunch.

Yes, of course this is very true. Ironically, every time I find myself trying to figure out which candidate I wish to vote for I am in a tough place. Most of the time I don't really care for any of the candidates. This is what happened to me in the 2004 Election where I was faced with the Kerry or Bush choice, none of them seemed like a very good choice at the time to me. It's the same thing with this election. Paul and Obama are just the two candidates that I find to be the appealing out of a already poor selection. Personally, in the end I just choice the lesser of all the other evils so to speak.

[Golds]

Also, this type of thing happens in countries with free health care too -- it's just that instead of insurance companies deciding who is denied care to save money, hospitals decide it to save money.

I read that article today too.  It's talking about a survey conducted by a magazine  concerning whether british hospitals should deny service based on lifestyle factors (smoking, obesity).  That's not really relevant.  It's not a lifestyle choice to get a chronic illness like Leukemia, Parkinsons, or Alzheimer's.

In the current US system, if you contract a chronic illness, say you had leukemia as a child while you were covered under your parent's insurance.  You recovered, but  when you come of age and that insurance lapses, you will not be able to receive health insurance from any company because you'd be too great a risk.  Or if you were able to somehow get a private policy, the rates would be very high and would not cover your 'pre-existing' conditions, so if you ever had cancer or anything the insurance company could attribute to the sickness you had before that policy, they would not pay.

This is an insane system.  The only way to ensure that someone with serious medical problems can hope to not go into debt to receive care is to be covered under the  group health insurance of an employer or school.

We live in the wealthiest nation in the world.  Other countries are caring for their citizens and it's not breaking their banks. 

You can't turn a profit taking care of people when they are seriously sick, but those are the people that need the care the most.  And yet Health Insurance Corporations are obligated to turn the greatest profit for their shareholders.  The way to do that is to not pay for care for as many people as possible.

Imagine if you had to pay a bill to call 911, or call the fire department.  Those services are publically supported by taxes and health care should be the same way.  It's in the public interest.

[AdamAtomic]

We live in the wealthiest nation in the world.  Other countries are caring for their citizens and it's not breaking their banks.

Yeah we are practically bleeding money!  Not that that invalidates your point necessarily, I just have a beef with the idea that the US is the wealthiest nation, I have no idea what that even means when the amount of money we owe the rest of the world is basically an imaginary F'ing number...

[Golds]

We'd be in a fine state had our executive branch decided not to bluff its way into Iraq under a completely bogus pretense.  We spend too much of our tax dollars on the military industrial complex anyway, and a lot of it goes to unfeasible pie-in-the-sky projects that are out of touch with reality

[ravuya]

We spend too much of our tax dollars on the military industrial complex anyway, and a lot of it goes to completely unfeasible pie-in-the-sky projects that are out of touch with reality

Hey, without that we wouldn't have Missile Command. And without that game, what kind of defense would today's videogamers be able to put up against the combined assault of SkyNET and WOPR?

[Movius]

What you should do is convert all the characters in each candidate's name into their ascii values. Then sum the square of all these values and take the square root of this sum. Then do the same for George Bush.

Whichever candidate ends up the furthest away from Bush's value is who you should vote for, because not being like George Bush is the most important thing apparently.

You will notice I am presenting my opinions in the colour 'lime green' which is the closest colour in the tigsource colour picker to the pale light green shade that lends extra weight to uninformed ranting about elections in other countries. So even though I have no idea what I'm talking about, my opinions are the correct pigment and are therefore correct.

Also I have a secret inside tip from unnamed sources that the XBox is apparently quite huge.

[Chris Whitman]

Wait, are you defining a metric space on political candidacy?

Count me in!

[Zaphos]

True, but it later also points out (in the later parts of the six, if you watched all of them) that the extremely high prices she has to pay and the way health insurance currently works is also the cause of her problems; prices would be lower for everyone if people and doctors cared more about the prices.

Prices would probably be lower, but cancer treatment would still probably cost a lot.  In general the health care costs of any given person are hard to predict and could basically get arbitrarily large, so averaging those costs out over a large number of people makes a lot of sense.  From this perspective ideally it seems you would average costs over the whole society, but it should be possible to weaken that to some extent to make sure the system still incentivizes efficient choices.