Has anyone noticed that the republicans have been fighting each other over presidency like kids fighting over icecream? These bguys repeatedly attack each other saying this guy will be a bad president. I barely hear about how they are going to help America, all I hear is don't vote for this guy, this guy is bad, this guy did this, etc. What are your thoughts on the Republicans?
All of the republican candidates suck. All of them. Even Ron Paul sucks. I'm glad I'm not old enough to vote, because I wouldn't want to have to avoid that booth because there's no "none of the above" option.
Despite the benefits it may bring us, withdrawing from the UN would be kind of a reckless thing to do. He's too strictly pro-life and too meek about his civil liberties--leaving everything up to the states is not libertarianism! By how he talks about how he'd deal with the budgeting if he were president, he's too inflexible. His conflicting views with democrats AND republicans would make him horrendously ineffective in office.
Really can't answer you as I don't watch Glenn Beck.
Any stances in particular that you reject?
He would want to abolish public schools. Leaving schooling to be solely privatized. This alone is enough for me to not want him in office.
He appears to be against all forms of government provided social services.
He was for Don't ask Don't tell.
Thinks that global warming isn't an immediate problem.
Thinks health care isn't a right and the removal of government funded system to the like will result in hospitals naturally providing free care to the less fortunate.
'"every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm" â" and that this was possible because healthcare costs were much lower. At a church charity hospital where he worked in his early years of practice, "nobody was turned away" for lack of ability to pay.' -wiki (with three citations)
He opposes government funded medical research. Just to recap on the medical stance this means no universal health care, no social security/medicaid/medicare and less money funding medical research.
Also from wiki. "Paul was the only member of the entire Congress to vote against the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2008, which prohibits health insurers and employers from discriminating against an individual on the basis of carrying a gene(s) that is associated with an increased risk for developing a disease. His alternative proposal, offered in 2006, would have prohibited genetic-information-based discrimination by federal, state, and local governments or government contractors, but would also have allowed such discrimination by health insurers and other employers."
This on top of the points alt made and this is just scratching the surface as well.
withdrawing from the UN would be kind of a reckless thing to do.
The only benefit our role in the UN is to basically give us the legal jurisdiction for letting our government and armies be the world police. We'd be in less conflicts.
leaving everything up to the states is not libertarianism!
It's about as close as we can get. By not making national requirements, people have more direct control over lawmaking instead of a 2/3 quorum majority in DC forcing the other 1/3 to comply.
By how he talks about how he'd deal with the budgeting if he were president, he's too inflexible.
Would you rather have someone who's so flexible they flip flop over a few campaign donations? At least he's cutting government spending (even his own salary will drop from 400,000 to about 40,000) instead of running up the debt and raising taxes.
His conflicting views with democrats AND republicans would make him horrendously ineffective in office.
People don't like it when congress does nothing, so they'll be blamed like they are now if they don't get stuff done.
Thinks health care isn't a right and the removal of government funded system to the like will result in hospitals naturally providing free care to the less fortunate.
Health care will be left to the discretion of the states instead of being a federal requirement.
He was for Don't ask Don't tell.
And he then voted for its repeal. He stated that he wouldn't outright discharge someone as long as their behavior wasn't disruptive.
He would want to abolish public schools. Leaving schooling to be solely privatized.
I'll look into this, but it's getting late and I'm getting tired.
Would you rather have someone who's so flexible they flip flop over a few campaign donations? At least he's cutting government spending (even his own salary will drop from 400,000 to about 40,000) instead of running up the debt and raising taxes.
Neither is good.
Health care will be left to the discretion of the states instead of being a federal requirement.
His argument is to put it in the hands of free market and wants everyone to handle healthcare independently. But having it at a state level only doesn't help anything either.
And he then voted for its repeal. He stated that he wouldn't outright discharge someone as long as their behavior wasn't disruptive.
Yes though I still find his views that there was nothing wrong with such a system disturbing.
Really can't answer you as I don't watch Glenn Beck.
When he was on Fox news he usualy tells people what he has seen in newspapers and tells us what will or may happen. The problem with his conclusions of what will happen is that my parents, my preacher, and a few other people at church say exactly what he was going to say on the news. Remember the time when egypt started having boycots? Well Glenn said the fires would spread, same what my parents said and what my preachers said. Glenn said that gas prices would rise. Way to define the obvious Glenn. Of course some people won't know what will happen, but then the government will say they're all just conspiracy theories.
He would want to abolish public schools. Leaving schooling to be solely privatized. This alone is enough for me to not want him in office.
He probably thinks this because, 1 the governmant is severely taking to much control of the schools and2 most schools are unable to correcly teach children. Most of kids up to 18 are failing in schools.
Thinks that global warming isn't an immediate problem.
"Most weather experts don't believe in global warming." said Sam Rikard, Mayor of Olive branch Ms who is also a weather expert.
Thinks health care isn't a right and the removal of government funded system to the like will result in hospitals naturally providing free care to the less fortunate.
Everyone should have a right to have healthcare if they so choose. Pointing a gun at someone's head and telling them they must pay for a health insurance plan that can't drop them is just criminal.
He opposes government funded medical research. Just to recap on the medical stance this means no universal health care, no social security/medicaid/medicare and less money funding medical research.
This flows off the idea that someone who doesn't support one form doesn't support any form. In this case, if Ron Paul doesn't support government funding on scientific research, he must not support science at all, right? Wrong. Science should progress without the need to force others to pay for the scientific research. I see no reason a scientist should have a job off of a small percentage of my paycheck without my consent.
Science is wonderful, but we need to remember that everything comes at a cost. It would be great if scientists could perform their experiments without a budget to worry about, but they need a budget. Every time a scientists uses goods and resources, it costs money, and since nobody is going to work for free, that money must be payed. Because people want to be payed for their work, that money must come from somewhere. The government can either force other people to pay for these scientist's research and paychecks, or they can print more money.
So what's wrong with forcing people to pay for scientific advancement that will benefit them? The problem here is that we have a government deciding what is best for the people, and forcing them to do something they don't want without any objections.
Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia:
In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASAâs New Vision for Space, September 2004.[35] The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars. Each lunar landing cost $18 billion in 2010 dollars.
18 billion dollars per lunar landing. That's an awful lot of money. Sure, lunar landings are great, amazing, and all of that and some cake, but 18 billion dollars?! The issue here is that such a steep price was forced onto tax payers.
I'll admit that government funding may help advance science at a quicker rate, however, we need to remember the expenses behind this scientific advancement.
He would want to abolish public schools. Leaving schooling to be solely privatized.
Nope, just keep primary schooling controled and funded at local levels instead of federally. He'd also give families a $5000 credit per student to spend on their primary education, regardles of the type.
He probably thinks this because, 1 the governmant is severely taking to much control of the schools and2 most schools are unable to correcly teach children. Most of kids up to 18 are failing in schools.
Yup. Also because federal plans like NCLB aren't working because teachers are teaching only what's on the standardized tests so the money keeps coming in.
