Ron Paul wins first ever on-line IOWA straw poll with 44%

[dude1984]

Ron Paul is the real deal, and that scares the crap out of the establishment of both parties, the Fed, and the big multi-national corporations because they are all in the same bed.

Paul is the only person that would bring America back to a pre-JFK era that we have read about in history books and or heard our parents, grandparents, and or great-grandparents talk about.

He would rule with logic and the best interest of Main Street, not fear mongering and the interests of Wall Street. The corruption that has brought this country down would be assaulted with Paul as President.

[Rockrunner]

Ron Paul for President!!!!

He gave a great speech today.

[pommysmommy]

Originally Posted by emilybh

The "standard of care" was obviously HIGHLY INFLUENCED by the AMA if no other developed countries have the same "standard of care". Their quality of care overall is clearly FAR SUPERIOR to ours as evidenced by the fraction of money per capita they spend on medical care that results in a FAR HEALTHIER population. We on the other hand, force allopathic care down the throats of amaercians because that is our "standard of care" and end up RIPPING OFF Americans and leaving them less healthy than they might have been had they lived elsewhere where the "standard of care" included ALL MODES of care not just conventional western --which is CLEARLY the LEAST EFFECTIVE and MOST INVASIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE when it comes to eliminating chronic and degenerative diseases.

What good is the medical profession if the main goal is to gouge the person's health insurance and run a battery of tests just to avoid a potential law suit ? Shouldn't the goal be to help the patient in the most effective least invasive and least expensive mode available. If that means suggesting the patient sees a naturopath with a 30 year track record of eliminating the patient's disease with natural methods, how in the world is giving the patient advice that can make him well quicker or less money going to exopse the medical doctor, who is UNTRAINED to provide the same care, to a lawsuit?

Emily, I respect your opinion of naturopathic medicine but, in my 20+ years working in field of medicine, I have seen patients die because they rejected chemo and/or radiation as poison and naturopaths promised cures for cancers. There is no regulation in the Naturopathic field. Naturopaths can lure patients in with any false promise. Licensed physicians have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making false promises to patients.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I just remember what he said in the 2008 debates: That alone turned me agains him.

Nita

What was it that did it?
I can't wait to here this.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

What was it that did it?
I can't wait to here this.

ok, I am paraphasing but his attitude about 9/11 had to do with "if we hadn't invaded Iraq we would have had a 9/11. It is our fault. Remember, I am paraphasing. The other thing he has said, again paraphrasiing: people who build on the Mississippi river and lose their homes should not get govenrment bail outs, they knew what they were doing: this would be true if those people had built on the river, but most of the homes distroyed in the floods were a mile or more from the river and it was the worst flooding in history or almost. These are just a few things that he had said, that are too much for me. Some of what he believes I agree with, some I do not...

Nita

[unicane]

I think hes right on both accounts. That doesnt mean I think terrorists had good cause to execute 911 but it is certainly possible that we provoked them, Bin Laden said as much. As far as the flooding there are arrogant rich folk in this country that will build anywhere because they know if a "likely" natural disaster occurs FEMA insurance or whatever it is will rebuild their oppulant waterfront vacation homes.


Dont let the media spin his platform into what they want you to hear. They want to frame him as a loon

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by nmnita

ok, I am paraphasing but his attitude about 9/11 had to do with "if we hadn't invaded Iraq we would have had a 9/11. It is our fault. Remember, I am paraphasing.

Of course he was correct on that. The reasons he gave during the debates came from the CIA report written by the head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer. He listed the reasons as our occupation of their holy lands, bombing innocent people, and blinded support of Israel.
If they attacked us for our freedoms how come no planes crashed into Canada or Sweden?

Originally Posted by nmnita

The other thing he has said, again paraphrasiing: people who build on the Mississippi river and lose their homes should not get govenrment bail outs, they knew what they were doing: this would be true if those people had built on the river, but most of the homes distroyed in the floods were a mile or more from the river and it was the worst flooding in history or almost. These are just a few things that he had said, that are too much for me. Some of what he believes I agree with, some I do not...

Nita

he said for them to buy flood insurance and I agree. Because you make bad choices on where to put a home and don't insure it, why should others pay for your mistake? Someone wants to live in a high risk area it's not my obligation to help them pay for it.

Here is his policy on this in his own words. You cannot understand Ron Paul through sound bites. The actual reasons behind his policies are the answer.

http://minnesotachris.blogspot.com/2010/07/ron-pauls-statement- (broken link)
on-flood-insurance.html

"it is also true that the flood insurance program often imposes flood insurance mandates on property owners in areas where there is little actual risk of flooding."

"In some cases, FEMA is even demanding that communities spend money to alter levies that were constructed after consultation with the Corp of Engineers!"

"At the least, Congress should not give FEMA the ability to impose new flood maps without adequate oversight. Yet, under this bill, it would be five years before Congress seriously re-examines the flood program."

"The basic problem with the flood insurance program is that it assumes government officials are capable of knowing who should and who should not be required to purchase flood insurance, and also determine the premiums for every individual living in a flood-prone area. However, there is no way that government bureaucrats can determine correct amounts of coverage and premium prices for millions of individual homeowners."

Know that it is explained with detail I hope it makes better sense to you.

The two most important issues at the last presidential election were the economy and the Middle East. If we had listened to Ron Paul and followed his policies, we would have avoided the housing bubble and we would have never experienced 9/11.

And now all of a sudden the republican platform is starting to return to its roots. More are picking up on the important issues and the reasons why those policies have been failures in the past. People are actually talking about the biggest threat to our economy, the federal reserve.

So the answer is business as usual??? We should keep taking the lives of innocent people in the Middle East while running up enormous military deficits and needlessly risking the lives of our military personnel?
We should continue to allow the economy to be manipulated and the booms and busts that destroyed it?

[silas777]

Originally Posted by nmnita

ok, I am paraphasing but his attitude about 9/11 had to do with "if we hadn't invaded Iraq we would have had a 9/11. It is our fault. Remember, I am paraphasing. The other thing he has said, again paraphrasiing: people who build on the Mississippi river and lose their homes should not get govenrment bail outs, they knew what they were doing: this would be true if those people had built on the river, but most of the homes distroyed in the floods were a mile or more from the river and it was the worst flooding in history or almost. These are just a few things that he had said, that are too much for me. Some of what he believes I agree with, some I do not...

Nita

You and a majority of the rest of the country Nita..........its deja vu all over again, I am with Paul on so much of his economic positions and think it is very good he is raising the questions.......but I am not going to get aboard the crazy train, when it comes to his foreign policy and national defense nonsense! I understand that is precisely why a lot of people who wouldn't normally vote Republican like him, but it is also exactly why he will never be President of the United States!!