Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
However, it would be irresponsible to suddenly cease assistance to places like Iraq or Afghanistan.


Just curious. Does Ron Paul advocate "suddenly" ceasing assistance or gradually ceasing assistance?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:51 pm    Post subject: On Defense and Security Reply with quote

Ok, this is the last one, I promise :D

I think I agree with Ron Paul's policies on immigration and border security (no amnesty, enforcement, real fences ... etc). I'd support the same measures being enacted here.

However, he endorses the 'why do they hate us' school of thought when it comes to defense and terrorism. He seems to honestly believe the answer is to hide in Fortress North America, send mercenaries to hunt Al Qaeda, and only use troops to defend against conventional mass warfare. Essentially, he's trying as hard as he can to wish the world back to the 1940s.

Stephen posted a video in which Ron Paul states his honest belief that the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan was just a pretext to take control of Afghanistan's resources.

I don't think there's anything to be said on this aspect of his policies that could sway me ... our basic premises and assumptions about how the world works are too different, I think.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Just curious. Does Ron Paul advocate "suddenly" ceasing assistance or gradually ceasing assistance?


Everything I've seen from him advocates immediate withdrawal of military and financial aid. Unless someone's got contradictory evidence, I stand by the phrasing.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, it would be hard to passionately defend Dr. Paul when I don't necessarily understand or support some of his positions. He definitely hits a few of my "buttons" and piques my curiosity... but I find it hard to imagine his ideas would receive wide-spread support. That being said, Paul has attracted a great deal of attention and inspired good debate about policy and philosophy.

I wonder what Gerry Nicholls thinks of Dr. Paul?

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From an interview with Dr. Paul:

Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: Let's start right at the very top, the issues. This is what you have been saying on the campaign stump, "I'd like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax." Abolish it.

REP. PAUL: That's a good idea. I like that idea.

MR. RUSSERT: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. So there're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You know, you have, you have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.


This more less confirms my suspicions about his stances on Free Trade. I'm all for reduced spending and cutting taxes - but funding the government through trade restrictions is a losing proposition. It wouldn't be very good for the Canadian economy, either.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
This more less confirms my suspicions about his stances on Free Trade.


Looking at global growth you would be hard pressed to argue that free trade has been a positive for the USA. It certainly has helped China but American growth is no better today than it was 50 years ago.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Looking at global growth you would be hard pressed to argue that free trade has been a positive for the USA. It certainly has helped China but American growth is no better today than it was 50 years ago.


Its true that US growth has been around a steady 4 or 5 % since the 50s. However, I don't think Free Trade has impacted China's explosive growth as much as their own economic liberalization has - they had a very poorly performing economy until the 70s, when they began instituting economic reforms. China may be becoming the world's manufacturer, but this would not have been possible without the massive internal changes to its economic structure.

I would posit that the yearly growth of a nation's economy is tied to the efficiency of its population - how much productivity there actually is, compared to how much productivity is possible within the system.

The US hasn't changed its system very drastically at all sinces the 50s, and thus has reached near maximum efficiency within current parameters. China, on the other hand, has improved and continued to improve its maximum potential through economic reforms.

Its real productivity is nowhere near its potential maximum, and thus it's economy will continue to grow at a higher rate for years to come. I predict the growth of the Chinese economy will slow to match that of the industrialized nations when it nears the maximum potential allowed by its system. At a guess, probably another ten years.

IMO, there are too many factors at work to declare that Free Trade is somehow detrimental to the US economy.
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its art imitating life. For years SNL has been running political campaign statements by ‘Tim Calhoun’, a fringe political candidate. Tim Calhoun’s views, however, are nothing compared to the GOP’s current Presidential candidate, the ‘crazy uncle’ of US politics, Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-everything rhetoric has bamboozled enough people that he’s actually begun to poll slightly higher than the margin of error, as high as 6%. He’s at a unique spot on the political spectrum, right where the whacky right and moonbat left bump into each other. He appeals to a cadre of ‘9/11 truthers’, radical leftists, anarchists, Klan members and assorted kooks and weirdos, but apparently he’s managed to convince a few people who might otherwise be declared ’sane’ into supporting him as well. In fact, I recently made a comment about Ron Paul being a whacko in the company of friends, and was shocked to be confronted with one of Ron Paul’s supporters. So, in an effort to convert those being misled, here’s what Ron Paul stands for, and why they are all terrible ideas (for the record, almost all of this was taken from Ron Paul’s website):

1) All bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements are bad. Free trade is bad. Univeral standards are bad. Especially NAFTA, which is about merging the US Canada and Mexico into one country.

Ron Paul has a special place in his heart for other countries. He frankly wants nothing to do with them. He doesn’t want any multi-lateral agreements in regards to trade. He seems to be immune to understanding that as a net producer its in the US’ interests to have trade barriers removed. However, in his mind, it opens up the US market to undermining US businesses. Yes, Ron Paul, cheap Canadian gasoline hurts the US producers, so too does cheap pulp and paper, forestry products, all of which the US turns into other consumer goods, or fuels the US economy. Higher prices via tarrifs would hurt the US more than it would help. He also lives in a dream world where NAFTA is really about unifying all three countries into one. This is a complete fantasy with no basis in reality. Its a non-starter in all three countries, but he’s still convinced there’s an evil cabal trying to bring it to fruition.

2) The UN wants to directly tax the US.

Apparently Ron Paul thinks the UN wants to tax americans directly, as some form of global welfare scheme. Its simply untrue and has no basis in fact.

3) Build a wall to keep out immigrants, send all the illegals back, end the citizenship right of children born in the US (to eliminate so-called anchor babies), and track everyone on visas so that we can kick them out if they overstay.

The ‘build a wall’ plank and the ’send them back’ planks are becoming more mainstream options by the day, but they are extreme positions at this point. More odd is his desire to eliminate anchor babies, essentially creating the possibility of children being citizens of no country at all. As for the visa tracking idea, this would require a massive bureacracy to achieve, something which conflicts with Ron Paul’s stated goal of reducing the size of government. Its a completely impractical idea, which is why no one else has ever tried to implement it.

4) Disband the department of Education.

I don’t think much further comment is required, other than that his comments on education betray a view of public schools as a place for miscreants, while home schooled kids are paragons of virtue, a view which I think is oversimplistic.

5) Get rid of government environmental standards and replace them with the right to sue if you suffer results from Pollution.

Somewhere out there on the hustings in Iowa, John Edwards just had dollar signs flash before his eyes. This idea would create a system in which lawyers solicit people suffering from cancer, and then try and find an ‘environmental’ cause (bonafide or not, doesn’t matter), and then sue pretty much every business for causing cancer. The ABA would fall over itself to see this idea become law, and it would nearly guarantee that the US would have to abandon any form of manufacturing for fear of litigation. American society is already overly litigious, this would just make it way worse. Instead of a government panel of scientists deciding what is considered ’safe’, that would be determined by 12 people unable to escape jury duty.

6) He’s against universal medical coverage AND private HMO’s or insurance. Instead he wants to make medical expenses tax deductible and create health care savings accounts.

So, if you’re poor, you die. That’s pretty much how his medical plan would work. If you don’t make enough money to pay tax, then there is nothing to deduct from, and if you have low income, you are unlikely to be able to put anything away in a savings account.

7) Wants to weaken the FDA, especially when it comes to regulating ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ medical products. He’s also against universal vaccination.

The universal vaccination issue is a staple of the lunatic right, so we shouldn’t be surprised about this, but remember what I said about him being where the moonbat left meets the whacky right? He’s against any sort of regulation of ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ medical products. This would allow any shuckster to sell ‘Simpson and Son - Revitalizing Tonic’ as a cure for impotence, or cancer. Heck, they might even be able to convince people not to keep going for chemo or radiation therapy. Crystals and bear testicals should be unregulated, that’s Ron Paul’s position.

8 ) Opposes any standards for home schooling.

In a related note, I just recieved a PhD from PomoUniversity. Since we’re not allowed to have standards, its therefore a legitimate degree, and I now demand you all address me as ‘Dr. PomoChristian’. This is, by far, one of the dumbest ideas in his pantheon. The result of this decree would be to create a situation in which no one recognizes a person who has been homeschooled as being acceptable into a university. They would not have a recognized state high school diploma, and would thus be barred from higher education. The standards are there to protect homeschoolers as much as to restrict what they are being taught.

9) Opposes Abortion.

Not that I have a problem with this position, but I think that if his supporters on the moonbat left realized he was anti-abortion, they might try and burn him at the stake. So, I thought I’d just point that out.

10) Opposes all sorts of common sense law and order laws, like tracking all deposits of more than 10 000, secure drivers licenses, FISA warrants, sneak and peek warrants, other important national security measures.

Before you consider this position, remember, most of these provisions far pre-date Bush. The tracking of deposits of more than 10 000$ has been in effect for a long time, and is mainly used to prevent counterfeiting and money-laundering, and also to interdict drug trafficking. Secure driver’s licenses are a means to ensure that identity theft is less possible, and to interdict terrorists attempting to move under assumed identities or forged documents. The FISA system was set up to allow for search warrants in which the people under investigation are foreign entites (for example, China or Al Qaeda), and when a conventional search warrant would result in the public release of intelligence sources or methods. The system is designed to be a compromise between protecting americans from harm, and protecting the rights of accused people, since it still requires judicial oversight. Scrapping this would hobble the ability of US intelligence agents to prevent future terrorist attacks or break up terrorist organizations or interfere with espionage by foreign nations or groups. Ron Paul would basically make every police officer’s job much tougher, and expose millions of americans to potential terrorist attacks.

11) Wants to truly eliminate gun controls, eliminate the Federal Firearms License.

Bruce Cockburn’s ‘If I had a Rocket Launcher’ should be playing in the background during Ron Paul’s campaign stops. The man wants the repeal of all gun laws, and to eliminate federal firearms licenses. This would essentially make all firearms legal, even automatics or whatever a person desires. There would be no controls over emotionally disturbed people getting guns, no background checks or waiting periods. Even I, a supporter of the rights of gun owners think this is a terrible idea.

12) Wants to leave the UN

He wants the US out of the UN. That’s pretty straightforward.

13) Wants to recall all US forces from anywhere overseas.

So, good luck Korea, you’re on your own now.

And last, but not least, he’s a racist. This is the one thing I didn’t take from his campaign website:

Quote:
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.


That’s from his Ron Paul Survival Report in 1992 - You can read the transcript from the Nizkor Project, a jewish anti-hate site. That gives an darker (pun intended) spin on his vote against aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (the only person who voted against the aid package). I mean, how crazy do you have to be to tell a million people just flooded from their homes by a hurricane and related flooding, to ‘tough it up’

He’s also had to defend himself lately of accusations of hanging around with white supremecists and other ne’erdowells.

He attacts ‘9/11 truthers’ like bees to honey, thanks to his comments suggesting the government was planning a terrorist attack on the US, in order to bring about martial law and a new fascism.

What people need to understand about Ron Paul, is that his view of the world is basically this: There is a cabal of people trying to run the world. These people want to run the US for their benefit, and they want to do it on the backs of normal people. He has never identified outright the whom the cabal is made up of. At various times he infers that it is the US government, the Bilderbergs, the World Bank, the UN, Israel/Jews/Zionists, and the like. This is why his coalition of the extreme left (who believe that the cabal is ‘BushCo’ or ‘Halliburton’) can co-exist with the stormfronters and skinheads (the cabal is the Jews). His campaign is one in which people are urged to be scared of the coming darkness this cabal will bring.

That’s just not a view of the world which is accurate or healthy. Which is why 6% is his apex in scientific polls (in web polls the Ron Paul Army makes him a winner by thousands of votes, mainly by spamming or the use of webbots). Only 6% of the population is sufficiently deranged to believe in his cabalist conspiracy theories. A statistically insignificant number are like my acquantaince, merely misled.

http://www.pomochristian.ca/ar.....president/
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
1) All bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements are bad. Free trade is bad. Univeral standards are bad. Especially NAFTA, which is about merging the US Canada and Mexico into one country.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the benefits of free trade are arguable... and there's been ample talk about creating a "North American Defensive Zone" which would involve securing all exterior borders. Do the math. Freer borders inside the zone, tighter borders outside the zone. North American Union.

Paul Morrison wrote:
2) The UN wants to directly tax the US.

The UN's bureaucracy is always looking for more and better ways to pick our pockets. Can you say definitively that the UN hasn't discussed this possibility? I can't... and I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of a GDP "levy" was discussed for all nations... the practical effect of which would be a direct tax.

Paul Morrison wrote:
3) Build a wall to keep out immigrants, send all the illegals back, end the citizenship right of children born in the US (to eliminate so-called anchor babies), and track everyone on visas so that we can kick them out if they overstay.

Is it such a bad thing to want to stabilize the population and the economy? If someone is in the country illegally, why should the fact they've bred give them some kind of hold on the country? What purpose does a visa do if not control when foreign nations must leave? So you honestly believe other nations don't control immigration, don't deport illegals, automatically give citizenship to anchor babies and don't track visa holders? If so, you've very naive.

Paul Morrison wrote:
4) Disband the department of Education.

Since education is a state jurisdiction, there shouldn't be a federal department of education. Is there a federal Ministry of Education in Canada?

Paul Morrison wrote:
5) Get rid of government environmental standards and replace them with the right to sue if you suffer results from Pollution.

This simply reflects a different vision of the role of government in the daily lives of it's citizens. Canadians have spent the last 50 years or so being taught government is the solution of all problems. Truth be told, government is usually also the source of those problems but I digress.

Given how skewed the views of scientists have become regarding the environment since they gained an economic vested interest, I wonder whether any standards they've developed can be trusted?

Paul Morrison wrote:
6) He’s against universal medical coverage AND private HMO’s or insurance. Instead he wants to make medical expenses tax deductible and create health care savings accounts.

If, as you assert, the poor will die, why hasn't it already happened? A significant portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Instead of dismissing his ideas out of hand, how about giving them a bit of thought.

Paul Morrison wrote:
7) Wants to weaken the FDA, especially when it comes to regulating ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ medical products. He’s also against universal vaccination.

I think you're misinterpreting this due to a lack of understanding of libertarian thought. I don't ever drive my car without a seatbelt but I think seatbelt laws are a ridiculous waste of time and a symptom of authoritarian governmental attempts to subvert liberty. I don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet but I think helmet laws are.... well, you guess.

I take salmon oil tablets daily because I believe there is a health benefit to doing so. I don't get annual flu shots because I had a bad reaction to one years ago. If the government started telling me that I couldn't take salmon oil tablets or that I must have annual flu shots, that would represent in infringement on my liberty. This is my body and as long as I harm no-one else, I should be permitted to do with it as I wish.

My grandmother discovered she had lung cancer. Within five years, she'd helped to care for two of her brothers who also had lung cancer. They did everything possible to fight their cancers and died miserably and painfully. She refused treatment and died swiftly with a minimum of pain. Should the government and the medical establishment have forced her to endure treatment? Is liberty such a foreign concept to Canadians?

Paul Morrison wrote:
8 ) Opposes any standards for home schooling.

Once again, education is not a federal jurisdiction, Dr. PomoChristian. If those standards include forcing home schoolers to teach curriculum which they don't believe in (like teaching socialism) then I would oppose it as well.

Paul Morrison wrote:
9) Opposes Abortion.

I think you'll find there are a significant number of voters who oppose abortion. Would you rather Paul had a "nuanced" position like Lizzie May?

Paul Morrison wrote:
10) Opposes all sorts of common sense law and order laws, like tracking all deposits of more than 10 000, secure drivers licenses, FISA warrants, sneak and peek warrants, other important national security measures.

If and only if you consider these sort of laws to be common sense. In many cases, these laws are intrusive and useless. Canada has more than it's fair share of ill-considered legislation like hate crime laws and gun registries. I agree there is a place for some limited intrusion into citizen's lives but governments have pushed that envelope far beyond what is required or prudent.

Paul Morrison wrote:
11) Wants to truly eliminate gun controls, eliminate the Federal Firearms License.

Do you believe emotionally disturbed people cannot find criminals who will sell them guns if they're truly determined to have guns? Same thing for waiting periods. If someone is determined to get a gun, they will do so. If they're unable to get a gun, they'll use a stick or a knife. The vast majority of gun controls are "feel good" laws which serve no useful purpose.

Paul Morrison wrote:
12) Wants to leave the UN

I don't have a problem with this. The UN has taken corruption and venality to new depths and the majority of their "declarations" are anti-Semitic prattle. They're following the path of their predecessor organization, the League of Nations into irrelevance. All western nations (ie: those who are paying the bills) should wash their hands of the UN and start over... or not...

The only reason we persist in trying to evolve the UN into something useful is ideological. Rightists keep hoping the UN will spread freedom and democracy despite all evidence to the contrary. Leftists have visions of the UN evolving into some form of world government despite all evidence to the contrary.

Paul Morrison wrote:
13) Wants to recall all US forces from anywhere overseas.

I believe he's stated this as a long-term goal, not an overnight one.

Why should western nations act as "world police" for people who aren't able to resolve their disputes? Shouldn't we have some kind of time-limit on how long we're expected to babysit... especially when our intervention sometimes perpetuate these disputes...?

As for your other quoted nonsense, Dr. Paul has acknowledge he allowed his "newsletter" to be ghostwritten for a number of years. He has disavowed this racist content but I guess that's not good enough for you.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, as long as Ron Paul would stick with NAFTA, and stay away from protectionist and isolationist crap, then I don't see anything wrong with him. As Canadians, our primary concern is of course trade, and how a new president would affect our relationship with what is our largest trading partner.

Of course, it goes without saying that he will not get the republican nomination, he won't even come close.

The US president does not decide our foreign policy, monetary policy, make legislation for us, or set tax rates for Canada, so my interest in US politics is limited.
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the benefits of free trade are arguable... and there's been ample talk about creating a "North American Defensive Zone" which would involve securing all exterior borders. Do the math. Freer borders inside the zone, tighter borders outside the zone. North American Union.


Talk? There is no desire to create a union between Canada and the US, or including Mexico. None. The idea is about as far removed from reality as can be. Canadians would not stand for allowing any form of union with the US, especially those on the left for whom the US is the great satan. There is no chance of anything remotely like union happening. Consultation and working together on security? Yes, because its in both our interests to keep ne'erdowells out. But Union? Never.

Quote:
the benefits of free trade are arguable


Not to any reasonable person. Canadian business is predicated on good access to US markets, and US economic health is predicated on access to Canadian natural resources at reasonable prices to sustain their economy. Free trade is neccessary for both sides to prosper. Without the 30% of US oil imports provided by Canada, the US would be paying far higher gas prices, which would fuel rampant inflation. Without access to US markets, Canadian businesses would have to make do with an incredibly limited market.

Quote:
The UN's bureaucracy is always looking for more and better ways to pick our pockets. Can you say definitively that the UN hasn't discussed this possibility? I can't... and I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of a GDP "levy" was discussed for all nations... the practical effect of which would be a direct tax.


His fantasy is based on an amendment he made to a completely unrelated law which would prohibit a certain kind of tax that really was proposed to benefit the UN. However, there was no actual bill in place to make that proposal law, nor was there any serious attempt to make it so. Some economist delivered a paper suggesting it at the world economic forum in Davos a couple of years ago, and a few months later, Ron Paul proposed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act prohibiting funds from it from being used to benefit the furtherance of this proposal which no one ever took seriously.

He creates a boogeyman that doesn’t exist, demonizes everyone but himself as being ‘for’ the boogeyman, then sets himself up as the hero slaying the boogeyman. Its shameful that so many people are so deluded by his act.

Quote:
Since education is a state jurisdiction, there shouldn't be a federal department of education. Is there a federal Ministry of Education in Canada?


In Canada it is the ministry of human resources and social development.

Quote:
Given how skewed the views of scientists have become regarding the environment since they gained an economic vested interest, I wonder whether any standards they've developed can be trusted?


While you'll find few arguments from me on that, do you really think juries are a better arbiter of science? These are the same juries that built John Edward's millions by awarding huge cash awards in Cerebral Palsy cases blaming the doctors (something which scientifically is impossible. Its caused by infections in utero, not by malfeasance). These are the same juries which awarded millions to a woman who spilled coffee on herself. Millions to strippers who blamed imaginary health problems on their boobs. His idea would create a business environment in which bankruptcy would appear a great option.

Quote:
If, as you assert, the poor will die, why hasn't it already happened? A significant portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Instead of dismissing his ideas out of hand, how about giving them a bit of thought.


Well, I'm sure some poor have already died, although not because of lack of coverage, but lack of knowledge of that coverage. In the US, there is a universal system for the poor, its called medicare. Those americans who have no coverage have none because they've chosen not to purchase one, that's a risk they chose to take. Something Ron Paul would actually endorse: people making a decision for themselves, rather than being told by government. However, disbanding a choice which many do choose (HMO's) and something which would restrict their choice, but ensure coverage (universal), he's creating a system in which almost no one would have coverage.

Quote:
I don't ever drive my car without a seatbelt but I think seatbelt laws are a ridiculous waste of time and a symptom of authoritarian governmental attempts to subvert liberty.


Seatbelt laws have nothing to do with laws regulating medical drugs. If seatbelts administered potentially toxic cocktails of medication, without prescription, or promised miracle cures for diseases, then I'd be interested in your commentary on seatbelt laws.

My problem is not with 'choice' if people want to choose alternative medical procedures or curatives, that's none of my business. However, if businesses want to sell medical products, then there is a role for government in proscribing fraudulent claims and ensuring the safety of consumers by mandating labelling and proper restrictions when there are issues of drug interaction or safety.

For example, if you have only one working kidney (like me), you should never take Advil or any other NSAID class drug. Why? Because it works your kidneys hard and could potentially damage your good one. So, when I go to the drug store for anything, I look for 'should not be taken by people with kidney disease [even though I don't have kidney disease, the reasoning is the same]. That message on the box could potentially save me from a lifetime of dialysis because of a few words on a box.

In Ron Paul's world any 'alternative' medication would not need such warnings, which means that if I took some 'curative' potion that's described by the company that makes it as 'natural' or 'pure', I really could end up on dialysis for the rest of my life. While I am sure Ron Paul would give me the right to sue said company, that won't save me from dialysis.

'Alternative' medicines are a misnomer. They are medical drugs, and they have medical effects. Those effects may be dangerous in some people, and government has a role in creating standards to ensure that people are not harmed by those products.

This is not about removing products from the market, or mandating use, its about bringing 'natural' or 'alternative' products up to the same standards as other medical products to ensure safety and protect against fraudulent claims.

Quote:
My grandmother discovered she had lung cancer. Within five years, she'd helped to care for two of her brothers who also had lung cancer. They did everything possible to fight their cancers and died miserably and painfully. She refused treatment and died swiftly with a minimum of pain. Should the government and the medical establishment have forced her to endure treatment? Is liberty such a foreign concept to Canadians?


While it is very sad that all those people died, none of it has anything to do with the regulation of alternative medicines. I have no problem with refusing treatment or seeking out different treatments, only that the same rules of consent apply to conventional and unconventional treatments: namely that the patients be informed of any and all risks, and that the choice be made without coercion.

Quote:
If those standards include forcing home schoolers to teach curriculum which they don't believe in (like teaching socialism) then I would oppose it as well.


There is nothing wrong with mandating that students in home schooling environments need to maintain a level of excellence in order to be granted a recognized degree or diploma. Your argument is about 'what' they teach. Its immaterial. I would argue that the state is giving the degree or diploma, it is their right to require the teachings they desire. However, it is very easy to teach 'about' something without prescribing it. I would argue that EVERY student should be taught as much about socialism as possible. Because knowledge is power, and socialism is a great evil.

Quote:
I think you'll find there are a significant number of voters who oppose abortion. Would you rather Paul had a "nuanced" position like Lizzie May?


You will note in my response, that I agree with his position, I merely pointed it out because many of his supporters probably do not.

Quote:
If and only if you consider these sort of laws to be common sense. In many cases, these laws are intrusive and useless. Canada has more than it's fair share of ill-considered legislation like hate crime laws and gun registries. I agree there is a place for some limited intrusion into citizen's lives but governments have pushed that envelope far beyond what is required or prudent.


Except, we're not talking about hate crimes laws or gun registries (neither of which really exist in the US like in Canada), we're talking about a FISA system which was designed to protect intelligence sources without compromising criminal investigations, balancing the interests of America's innocent people from attack against the rights of those accused of desiring, planning or carrying out such attacks. We're talking about treasury laws which are designed to prevent large drug cash transactions, money laundering and counterfeiting. We're talking about duly constituted warrants which allow police to search without the suspect's knowledge. None of this is nascent fascism, but rather a keen balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of everyone else not to be blown up.

Quote:
Do you believe emotionally disturbed people cannot find criminals who will sell them guns if they're truly determined to have guns? Same thing for waiting periods. If someone is determined to get a gun, they will do so. If they're unable to get a gun, they'll use a stick or a knife. The vast majority of gun controls are "feel good" laws which serve no useful purpose


I do think it is much more difficult for EDP's to purchase guns by non-legal means. Name one EDP who committed a mass murder with an illegally purchased firearm. Waiting periods provide a cooling off period for some, although I think they are of dubious merit. I would generally agree about gun control laws. HOWEVER, there is, I think a role for government in licensing people to own guns, and in restricting access to EDP's. If you are curious about my position with regards to Canada's gun laws, feel free to check out my blog. I made a recent post on the subject.

Quote:
Why should western nations act as "world police" for people who aren't able to resolve their disputes? Shouldn't we have some kind of time-limit on how long we're expected to babysit... especially when our intervention sometimes perpetuate these disputes...?


When you make committments to allies, the allies should be able to take your committment to the bank with them.

Quote:
As for your other quoted nonsense, Dr. Paul has acknowledge he allowed his "newsletter" to be ghostwritten for a number of years. He has disavowed this racist content but I guess that's not good enough for you.


He put his name and picture on it, and he has never disavowed the actual content, only questioning whether he actually penned it.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
Talk? There is no desire to create a union between Canada and the US, or including Mexico. None. The idea is about as far removed from reality as can be. Canadians would not stand for allowing any form of union with the US, especially those on the left for whom the US is the great satan. There is no chance of anything remotely like union happening. Consultation and working together on security? Yes, because its in both our interests to keep ne'erdowells out. But Union? Never.

To my knowledge, the US constitution holds no provision for such cooperation, even on security. Never is a big word and there are many who would be delighted to see all borders banished. Leftists who hope to evolve the UN into a form of world government have no considered the practical results of such government.

Paul Morrison wrote:
Not to any reasonable person. Canadian business is predicated on good access to US markets, and US economic health is predicated on access to Canadian natural resources at reasonable prices to sustain their economy. Free trade is neccessary for both sides to prosper. Without the 30% of US oil imports provided by Canada, the US would be paying far higher gas prices, which would fuel rampant inflation. Without access to US markets, Canadian businesses would have to make do with an incredibly limited market.

Yes and no. Canadian businesses could access the world market which, in case you hadn’t noticed, isn’t incredibly limited but the US market is close, large and easy. How did we exist before NAFTA? I’m not saying free trade is a bad thing but it’s benefits versus it’s costs are arguable, especially for our manufacturing sector.

Paul Morrison wrote:
His fantasy is based on an amendment he made to a completely unrelated law which would prohibit a certain kind of tax that really was proposed to benefit the UN. However, there was no actual bill in place to make that proposal law, nor was there any serious attempt to make it so. Some economist delivered a paper suggesting it at the world economic forum in Davos a couple of years ago, and a few months later, Ron Paul proposed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act prohibiting funds from it from being used to benefit the furtherance of this proposal which no one ever took seriously.

He creates a boogeyman that doesn’t exist, demonizes everyone but himself as being ‘for’ the boogeyman, then sets himself up as the hero slaying the boogeyman. Its shameful that so many people are so deluded by his act.

So he’s a politician. Is this a surprise to anyone?

Paul Morrison wrote:
In Canada it is the ministry of human resources and social development.

Education remains provincial jurisdiction. HRSD has a wide mandate but the educational aspects are mainly student loans and vocational skills development. In both cases, the actual educational aspect is handled provincially but the funding is handled federally which begs the question why are the feds dabbling in provincial jurisdiction...

Paul Morrison wrote:
While you'll find few arguments from me on that, do you really think juries are a better arbiter of science? These are the same juries that built John Edward's millions by awarding huge cash awards in Cerebral Palsy cases blaming the doctors (something which scientifically is impossible. Its caused by infections in utero, not by malfeasance). These are the same juries which awarded millions to a woman who spilled coffee on herself. Millions to strippers who blamed imaginary health problems on their boobs. His idea would create a business environment in which bankruptcy would appear a great option.

I’m saying we shouldn’t allow our decision making to become entrenched in a single arbiter, whether that be scientists or the courts.

[quote="Paul Morrison"]Well, I'm sure some poor have already died, although not because of lack of coverage, but lack of knowledge of that coverage. In the US, there is a universal system for the poor, its called medicare. Those americans who have no coverage have none because they've chosen not to purchase one, that's a risk they chose to take. Something Ron Paul would actually endorse: people making a decision for themselves, rather than being told by government. However, disbanding a choice which many do choose (HMO's) and something which would restrict their choice, but ensure coverage (universal), he's creating a system in which almost no one would have coverage.
As a medical doctor, I’m fairly sure Dr. Paul isn’t interested in killing people. I haven’t read his proposals in detail so I can’t endorse or dismiss them.

Paul Morrison wrote:
Seatbelt laws have nothing to do with laws regulating medical drugs. If seatbelts administered potentially toxic cocktails of medication, without prescription, or promised miracle cures for diseases, then I'd be interested in your commentary on seatbelt laws.

Seatbelt laws was an example and it was intended to be taken allegorically rather than literally. Has abstract thinking become a lost art?

Paul Morrison wrote:
My problem is not with 'choice' if people want to choose alternative medical procedures or curatives, that's none of my business. However, if businesses want to sell medical products, then there is a role for government in proscribing fraudulent claims and ensuring the safety of consumers by mandating labelling and proper restrictions when there are issues of drug interaction or safety.

For example, if you have only one working kidney (like me), you should never take Advil or any other NSAID class drug. Why? Because it works your kidneys hard and could potentially damage your good one. So, when I go to the drug store for anything, I look for 'should not be taken by people with kidney disease [even though I don't have kidney disease, the reasoning is the same]. That message on the box could potentially save me from a lifetime of dialysis because of a few words on a box.

In Ron Paul's world any 'alternative' medication would not need such warnings, which means that if I took some 'curative' potion that's described by the company that makes it as 'natural' or 'pure', I really could end up on dialysis for the rest of my life. While I am sure Ron Paul would give me the right to sue said company, that won't save me from dialysis.

'Alternative' medicines are a misnomer. They are medical drugs, and they have medical effects. Those effects may be dangerous in some people, and government has a role in creating standards to ensure that people are not harmed by those products.

This is not about removing products from the market, or mandating use, its about bringing 'natural' or 'alternative' products up to the same standards as other medical products to ensure safety and protect against fraudulent claims.

If a business misrepresents the effects of a product, they can be sued. If I don’t know what a product does other than the manufacturer’s claims, do I bear no responsibility for my own actions if I take it? Why does the government need to be involved in this? Basically, you’re asking for the government to take on a nanny role to protect people without common sense from themselves.

If you’re wondering who will prove these products safe, there are several private companies which do product testing (Underwriter’s Lab, CSA, etc) and offer their results & endorsement to companies for a fee. Why should the government interfere with this private industry?

Paul Morrison wrote:
While it is very sad that all those people died, none of it has anything to do with the regulation of alternative medicines. I have no problem with refusing treatment or seeking out different treatments, only that the same rules of consent apply to conventional and unconventional treatments: namely that the patients be informed of any and all risks, and that the choice be made without coercion.

Again, you’re seeking to remove responsibility (which is the natural companion of liberty) from the hands of people. Governments don’t need any encouragement in their push to become a nanny state.

Paul Morrison wrote:
There is nothing wrong with mandating that students in home schooling environments need to maintain a level of excellence in order to be granted a recognized degree or diploma. Your argument is about 'what' they teach. Its immaterial. I would argue that the state is giving the degree or diploma, it is their right to require the teachings they desire. However, it is very easy to teach 'about' something without prescribing it. I would argue that EVERY student should be taught as much about socialism as possible. Because knowledge is power, and socialism is a great evil.

Good point; knowledge is never a bad thing but doesn’t government control of curriculum worry you at all?

Paul Morrison wrote:
You will note in my response, that I agree with his position, I merely pointed it out because many of his supporters probably do not.

Ahhh...

Paul Morrison wrote:
Except, we're not talking about hate crimes laws or gun registries (neither of which really exist in the US like in Canada), we're talking about a FISA system which was designed to protect intelligence sources without compromising criminal investigations, balancing the interests of America's innocent people from attack against the rights of those accused of desiring, planning or carrying out such attacks. We're talking about treasury laws which are designed to prevent large drug cash transactions, money laundering and counterfeiting. We're talking about duly constituted warrants which allow police to search without the suspect's knowledge. None of this is nascent fascism, but rather a keen balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of everyone else not to be blown up.

I’m not sure Arar and others who were shipped to Syria and allegedly tortured would agree the balance is entirely appropriate.

Paul Morrison wrote:
I do think it is much more difficult for EDP's to purchase guns by non-legal means. Name one EDP who committed a mass murder with an illegally purchased firearm. Waiting periods provide a cooling off period for some, although I think they are of dubious merit. I would generally agree about gun control laws. HOWEVER, there is, I think a role for government in licensing people to own guns, and in restricting access to EDP's. If you are curious about my position with regards to Canada's gun laws, feel free to check out my blog. I made a recent post on the subject.

Mass murders are generally regarded as “black swan” events which defy prediction and prevention. They occur regardless of the status of gun control laws since guns aren’t the only weapon; just a convenient one.

Paul Morrison wrote:
When you make committments to allies, the allies should be able to take your committment to the bank with them.

Commitments must be respected but they’re not blind, unlimited or endless... and they should never be. We’re committed to NATO but our commitment is subject to limits, is it not? If NATO asked us to send 1,000,000 soldiers to Afghanistan tomorrow and to keep them there for the next 100 years subject to extension at their choosing, I don’t think anyone would be surprised if we declined to do so.

Paul Morrison wrote:
He put his name and picture on it, and he has never disavowed the actual content, only questioning whether he actually penned it.

I was under the impression he’d disavowed the content as well from what I’d read. Mind you, I was looking at pro-Paul sources...

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hey, as long as Ron Paul would stick with NAFTA, and stay away from protectionist and isolationist crap, then I don't see anything wrong with him. As Canadians, our primary concern is of course trade, and how a new president would affect our relationship with what is our largest trading partner.


That's more or less my thoughts on his candidacy as well. And while I can empathize with a 'Fortress North America' view of defense policy, I don't believe it is the correct approach to safeguarding America's national interests and security (nor is a policy of constant intervention).

On a side note, its nice to see a reasonable discussion about Ron Paul and policies taking place instead of the usual over-heated rhetoric.
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
To my knowledge, the US constitution holds no provision for such cooperation, even on security. Never is a big word and there are many who would be delighted to see all borders banished. Leftists who hope to evolve the UN into a form of world government have no considered the practical results of such government.


The US constitution also has no provision on abortion, homosexuality or many other things. It does, however, make reference to the 'law of nations' under the powers of the legislative branch, and in the executive branch it CLEARLY established the provisions for such security coordination:

Quote:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;


A security cooperation agreement is a treaty, and we've had ones between Canada and the US since the end of the war of 1812 in various manners.

A security cooperation agreement is not a national union. A national union is political kryptonite on both sides of the border, no matter what your hypothetical leftists think.

Quote:
Yes and no. Canadian businesses could access the world market which, in case you hadn’t noticed, isn’t incredibly limited but the US market is close, large and easy. How did we exist before NAFTA? I’m not saying free trade is a bad thing but it’s benefits versus it’s costs are arguable, especially for our manufacturing sector.


Before NAFTA, it duties prevented Canadian companies from being competitive, now we are. The little company I work for does about 90% more business in the US than in Canada. We are a manufacturing company, and manufacturing companies have benefited hugely from NAFTA. What is hurting the manufacturing sector right now is the strength of the dollar (reducing profits), and competition, neither of which are related to NAFTA.

Quote:
I’m saying we shouldn’t allow our decision making to become entrenched in a single arbiter, whether that be scientists or the courts.


Except, that's what Ron Paul wants. What is in existence now is that the government commissions scientific studies of the effects of various pollutants and whatnot. The results of those studies are interpreted by other scientists on the government payroll, who then recommend to civillian personnel a course of action. The civil servants then draw up guidelines, trying to balance economic and safety concerns. Ron Paul would replace this with a system in which 12 people unable to escape jury duty get to define 'safe' within the context of a particular event. Clearly one is superior to the other. Also, even under existing laws, the citizen still has the right to sue, even if the government has created standards. Adherence to those standards might mitigate damages in courts, but a sucessful courtcase is always still a possibility.

Quote:
Seatbelt laws was an example and it was intended to be taken allegorically rather than literally. Has abstract thinking become a lost art?


Nope, but apparently False Syllogism has made a spectacular comeback.

Quote:
If a business misrepresents the effects of a product, they can be sued.


Not if Ron Paul has his way, because doing away with standards related to drug efficacy would make such lawsuits almost impossible unless they were clearly outrageous claims. All that is required under law is a reasonable belief of efficacy. Government rules prevent drug companies from sloganeering to the limits of that belief, removing those rules would allow companies to promise the moon again.

Quote:
If I don’t know what a product does other than the manufacturer’s claims, do I bear no responsibility for my own actions if I take it?


The problem is that we're dealing with potentially deadly interactions. There is a reason why many drugs have warnings, and others are restricted to prescription only.

Quote:
Basically, you’re asking for the government to take on a nanny role to protect people without common sense from themselves.


I find your assumptions about me being a nanny-stater kind of amusing, I am anything but. However, to be clear, what I am saying is that I am not a doctor or a pharmacist. When I go looking for a cold medication, I ask the pharmacist and look at the warnings on the box. But I'm not a doctor, so I don't know what interactions are out there, especially with alternative medicines. All the regulation of alternative medicine does is put it on the same playing field with other medications, ensures that pharmacists know about their potential interactions, opens them up to doctors knowing about them. If they are safe an effective, that's wonderful. However, failing to tell customers about their efficacy and potential interactions is negligent behaviour, and statutes need to be created to prevent that.

Quote:
If you’re wondering who will prove these products safe, there are several private companies which do product testing (Underwriter’s Lab, CSA, etc) and offer their results & endorsement to companies for a fee. Why should the government interfere with this private industry?


CSA and UL certify the safety of electrical products, toys, tools, protective equipment, but nothing to be taken internally. They simply do not have the resources to deal with the complexities of medicine.

Quote:
Again, you’re seeking to remove responsibility (which is the natural companion of liberty) from the hands of people. Governments don’t need any encouragement in their push to become a nanny state.


No, you are. I am saying that private companies producing medical products ALL, UNIFORMLY have a RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the customer they are producing the product for is properly informed of the risks, benefits and alternatives to using their product. Informed consent is an important part of medicine, it prevents people from being duped or pressured into taking something they should not, and it puts the responsibility on the private entities creating it to ensure that their products are safe, and are reasonably assured of safe use. If this private entity says: 'do not drink alcohol with this product', and then someone does, the responsibility shifts to the person who does it. They were told of the risks, they chose to ignore them, they are free to do so. The company making the product is absolved of negligence if they warn people. IF they do not, then aside from people dying needlessly, they expose themselves to liability.

Quote:
Good point; knowledge is never a bad thing but doesn’t government control of curriculum worry you at all?


The government doesn't 'control' the curriculum. What it does is set a standard that must be met to obtain a valid degree. IF you feel you have no need of that degree, then you can feel free to ignore the standards. If, however, you want the valid degree, then you adhere to their standards. The degree is the governments to give or not.

Quote:
I’m not sure Arar and others who were shipped to Syria and allegedly tortured would agree the balance is entirely appropriate.


Arar's deportation had nothing to do with FISA warrants or the things Ron Paul wants to repeal. So, this is a red herring.

Quote:
Mass murders are generally regarded as “black swan” events which defy prediction and prevention. They occur regardless of the status of gun control laws since guns aren’t the only weapon; just a convenient one.


Guns do, however, make them easier to undertake. I am not in favour of restrictive gun laws, but I do think a reasonable restriction when it comes to EDP's is valid and useful and probably would save lives. My theory: More guns in the hands of the responsible citizen, less in the hands of the irresponsible ones.

Quote:
Commitments must be respected but they’re not blind, unlimited or endless... and they should never be. We’re committed to NATO but our commitment is subject to limits, is it not? If NATO asked us to send 1,000,000 soldiers to Afghanistan tomorrow and to keep them there for the next 100 years subject to extension at their choosing, I don’t think anyone would be surprised if we declined to do so.


The problem with your argument is that the US presence in other countries, with a few notable exceptions, is based on long term committments the US made in previous administrations, and would need to be negotiated out. It sends compeltely the wrong message to our allies to say 'tough luck, you're on your own'.

Quote:
I was under the impression he’d disavowed the content as well from what I’d read. Mind you, I was looking at pro-Paul sources...


He has said: " could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," and "It wasn't my language at all." Basically saying 'I wouldn't have said it that way', or "'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but the campaign aides said that's too confusing." is not the same as saying: "what was said is just wrong".
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
The US constitution also has no provision on abortion, homosexuality or many other things....(snip)

My knowledge of the US Constitution is pretty limited and I can see your point. Constitutions should accommodate societal evolution, including interactions with other nations.

Paul Morrison wrote:
A security cooperation agreement is not a national union. A national union is political kryptonite on both sides of the border, no matter what your hypothetical leftists think.

Thankfully, you’re right but some see such cooperation as a precursor to weakening of borders. If you think these leftists are hypothetical, you’re sadly mistaken. That’s just one such group... and Canadians at that...

Paul Morrison wrote:
Before NAFTA, it duties prevented Canadian companies from being competitive, now we are. The little company I work for does about 90% more business in the US than in Canada. We are a manufacturing company, and manufacturing companies have benefited hugely from NAFTA. What is hurting the manufacturing sector right now is the strength of the dollar (reducing profits), and competition, neither of which are related to NAFTA.

In your original post on NAFTA, you spoke of the US being the marketplace for Canadian resources. I didn’t say Canadian companies don’t compete in the US market. I said there are other markets, although they’re not as close or cheap & easy to access. I’m not an economist; I’m a cop but if NAFTA is such a great deal for everyone, why are we so worried the next US president will be “protectionist”?

Paul Morrison wrote:
Except, that's what Ron Paul wants. What is in existence now is that the government commissions scientific studies of the effects of various pollutants and whatnot. The results of those studies are interpreted by other scientists on the government payroll, who then recommend to civillian personnel a course of action. The civil servants then draw up guidelines, trying to balance economic and safety concerns. Ron Paul would replace this with a system in which 12 people unable to escape jury duty get to define 'safe' within the context of a particular event. Clearly one is superior to the other. Also, even under existing laws, the citizen still has the right to sue, even if the government has created standards. Adherence to those standards might mitigate damages in courts, but a sucessful courtcase is always still a possibility.

You’re representing this as an “either/or” situation which clearly it is not. I haven’t read anywhere that Ron Paul wants to dismiss with scientific studies completely (even if he could!), rather he’s looking to reduce the government’s role. I guess it comes down to what role you envision for government in the lives of citizens. Some folks want a nanny. Others want government to back off and allow citizens to live free of government interference. I suspect most of us live somewhere between those extremes.

Paul Morrison wrote:
Nope, but apparently False Syllogism has made a spectacular comeback.

Perhaps but what if there were no rhetorical questions?

Paul Morrison wrote:
Not if Ron Paul has his way, because doing away with standards related to drug efficacy would make such lawsuits almost impossible unless they were clearly outrageous claims. All that is required under law is a reasonable belief of efficacy. Government rules prevent drug companies from sloganeering to the limits of that belief, removing those rules would allow companies to promise the moon again.

Evidently, you believe people who are stupid enough to require such rules to protect them from companies deserve such protection. I’m not uncompassionate but if someone is that dumb, they’ll find another way express their inner idiot. I don’t see the Darwin Awards ever running out of candidates for that particular form of recognition.

Paul Morrison wrote:
The problem is that we're dealing with potentially deadly interactions. There is a reason why many drugs have warnings, and others are restricted to prescription only.

Correct me if I’m wrong (yeah, I know you will!) but isn’t the testing done by independent labs and then submitted to the government for approval? Couldn’t this model also be used in other government departments like those we were discussing earlier? Reduce government’s direct intervention in other areas to regulation rather than doing scientific studies?

Paul Morrison wrote:
I find your assumptions about me being a nanny-stater kind of amusing, I am anything but. However, to be clear, what I am saying is that I am not a doctor or a pharmacist. When I go looking for a cold medication, I ask the pharmacist and look at the warnings on the box. But I'm not a doctor, so I don't know what interactions are out there, especially with alternative medicines. All the regulation of alternative medicine does is put it on the same playing field with other medications, ensures that pharmacists know about their potential interactions, opens them up to doctors knowing about them. If they are safe an effective, that's wonderful. However, failing to tell customers about their efficacy and potential interactions is negligent behaviour, and statutes need to be created to prevent that.

Glad I amused you but I was only pointing out YOUR assumption that governments must be involved at all stages of product testing. What exactly is a nanny state again? Oh, never mind...

Is there anything whatsoever to prevent the producers of alternative medicines from hiring independent laboratories to conduct standard testing of their snake-oils?

Paul Morrison wrote:
CSA and UL certify the safety of electrical products, toys, tools, protective equipment, but nothing to be taken internally. They simply do not have the resources to deal with the complexities of medicine.

My point was this is a successful model which can be used for consumer protection that DOESN’T require government intervention.

Paul Morrison wrote:
No, you are. I am saying that private companies producing medical products ALL, UNIFORMLY have a RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the customer they are producing the product for is properly informed of the risks, benefits and alternatives to using their product. Informed consent is an important part of medicine, it prevents people from being duped or pressured into taking something they should not, and it puts the responsibility on the private entities creating it to ensure that their products are safe, and are reasonably assured of safe use. If this private entity says: 'do not drink alcohol with this product', and then someone does, the responsibility shifts to the person who does it. They were told of the risks, they chose to ignore them, they are free to do so. The company making the product is absolved of negligence if they warn people. IF they do not, then aside from people dying needlessly, they expose themselves to liability.

Maybe we’re not so far apart here. I want to see those companies bearing responsibility for their products regardless what those products are! What I don’t want is for the government to be micro-managing at every step and stage.

Paul Morrison wrote:
The government doesn't 'control' the curriculum. What it does is set a standard that must be met to obtain a valid degree. IF you feel you have no need of that degree, then you can feel free to ignore the standards. If, however, you want the valid degree, then you adhere to their standards. The degree is the governments to give or not.

You’re talking about degrees in a discussion of home schooling?

Paul Morrison wrote:
Arar's deportation had nothing to do with FISA warrants or the things Ron Paul wants to repeal. So, this is a red herring.

Hmmmm... I thought it smelled a bit fishy too but I couldn’t resist...

Paul Morrison wrote:
Guns do, however, make them easier to undertake. I am not in favour of restrictive gun laws, but I do think a reasonable restriction when it comes to EDP's is valid and useful and probably would save lives. My theory: More guns in the hands of the responsible citizen, less in the hands of the irresponsible ones.

Agreed!

Paul Morrison wrote:
The problem with your argument is that the US presence in other countries, with a few notable exceptions, is based on long term committments the US made in previous administrations, and would need to be negotiated out. It sends compeltely the wrong message to our allies to say 'tough luck, you're on your own'.

I can’t disagree... but I understand Paul’s desire for his country to stop playing the world’s policeman, especially for those countries who won’t help themselves yet feel compelled to criticize the US.

Paul Morrison wrote:
He has said: " could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," and "It wasn't my language at all." Basically saying 'I wouldn't have said it that way', or "'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but the campaign aides said that's too confusing." is not the same as saying: "what was said is just wrong".

Politi-speak... ewww!! I can see why the pro-Paul website said he disavowed the controversial material rather than that gobbledygook.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


National Post endorses Ron Paul

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB