GOP Debate Excerpts -- Paul, Santorum, Pawlenty On Health Care - YouTube @ 3:05
I'm pretty sure he wrote a lengthy article going into more detail about it somewhere (usually does about everything).
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
I hear that Paul doesn't care about the minorities.
Well I said I heard but according to his views I can probably relate.
The problem with some conservatives is they refuse to admit that their autonomy affects other people. All the while touting personal responsibility...
Last edited by Camer☑n; 09-21-11 at 03:39 PM.
(avatar by Thomas Nast)
If you say you didn't say numerous times now that what that it appears I'm for them dieing go right ahead.You are now plainly lying.
How is government being the only legal arbor of force equal to everything else? How is the idea prevention in government usually calls for restricting rights and liberties equal to protections in your life that just call on your action on your own free will? Its not.If two things are the same, it's logically consistent to treat them the same.
Which it never is.It is when it's true.
Look up the term and get back to me. I will admit its closer than it ever was intended to be, but its still falls short.You are not in touch with reality.
General protection, IE police and military are related to the reason government even exists. Without them there would be no purpose to government. Like I said plenty of times this has nothing to do with what I want.Until you contradicted yourself by saying that there are "all kinds of things" you want the government to provide for you. In any case, I've already said that you want the government to provide only what you want it to (i.e. you think it ought to) provide for you. You don't want healthcare provided by the government - so "what needs" to be provided for everyone is not healthcare. You contradicted that and now you confirm it again.
If they are moral or not is not the point. They are based on logic.I didn't ask you what you want, I asked if those laws were "moral".
If you say so.The problem with you is that what's "logical" is tied to what you "want" or what you think it ought to be. You can't see it, but your answers confirm that every time.
They are all connected on personal level where they personally know and are dependent on the others for survival. We are not. Comparing animals to human generally fails and comparing them on how they protect each other is just another example.Wrong. It exists in other social animals too. Dolphins have been known to protect the members of their pods, even killing sharks to revenge their members. Elephants have been known to conduct funerals for their dead members. Birds share the burden of flying in front when migrating. Penguins huddle together to shield each other from the wind and cold and share their heat. Even lions hunt in pack and share their kills.
The problems in this country exist because of government intervention and the third party system. In other systems they worry about price while giving up care. The mandate doesn't do much of anything other than spread cost to cover up bad policy.Contradicted by the following:
My arguements are base on the problems currently experienced in the system and the remedies used in other countries - mandate makes people buy insurance - that's proven in Switzerland. None of your arguements so far are supported by actual facts on the ground.
Morals as you understand them never has made any sense. Its the kind of nonsense some hard line conservatives use on gay marriage. It not about logic and all about the feelings of the person that have them.Say whatever you want, it doesn't make anything you say true. Try to understand what "subjectivity" means, and you might understand my arguements.