New Rick Perry Ad

[HotelUser]

Of course, every issue is important to somebody somewhere - but I simply have a problem with the notion that because a Presidential candidate has made what is essentially a non-policy remark in the great scheme of things, that means the United States is somehow 'doomed' as though it were a paradise at this moment.

Rick Perry should have stayed in Texas.

And it was because airport security was federally regulated that 9/11 occured, because if airport security provided for the allowance that armed security were allowed on aircraft - then the planes would not have been hijacked. It was because of the government removal of guns that essentially no fight was fought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...rport_security

Commercializing airport security to a severity where the federal government holds no concerns over the safety of commercial aviation is an extremely dangerous decision. This should always be immense federal attention to security airports. If this was unto the state or regulated commercially by the airlines operating out of the airport it would open the doors to gaping holes in overall security.

Have you taken drugs? do you report anybody who has taken drugs to the authorities? if the answer to both questions is no, then please do not tell me that you give a damn about the ability of people to make 'good decisions' for themselves - they can make that just fine themselves. As stated also, it is not in the remit of the constitution that the federal government should have this power to regulate or prohibit drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ug_prohibition

Regulations on drugs are an absolute necessity. Drug corporations are like any other corporation where their number one priority is to immerse themselves in profits. With fewer regulations drug corporations would not hesitate to push out thinner regulated drugs which would naturally raise the dangers of being negatively affected by unhealthy drugs. When we do not even now fully understand the long term repercussions of certain medicines or substances we consume the last thing we need is even less regulations.

Because that is in the U.S. Constitution which, you may not think so, is an incredibly important document.

The constitution is an incredibly important document however in advocating the legalization of homosexual marriage in America regulating the parameters of the law per state is not going to be productive at all, but instead take many more years until it's legal across the nation, than it shoul

What if a President decided to make a federal pro-life law? you wouldn't like it would you. Yet for some reason, it is ok when the side you support uses the federal government as a means of imposing policy.

Neither side should use the federal government for issues which are not in the constitution.

My compromise on abortion is to permit pregnancy termination upto 14-20 weeks depending on the growth of the fetus, and then allow further terminations beyond 20 weeks where the pregnancy endangers the mother or fetus. If the abortion is of just the embryo or under developed fetus then termination is not taking the live of a human. With regards to people who attempt to impose their beliefs retaining to pro life due to religious views, I strongly disagree because I do not believe it is any of their business what others do so long as it's not harming a developed fetus without valid reason.

Dr. Paul also believes this, via helping people pay bills with tax credit schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...#Health_policy
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/

When Obama's healthcare came into play I was outraged at several of my American friends because they were complaining about how they would now have to pay more taxes. When I discussed the situation with them they said they could care less about the well being of other people and should only have to pay for their own medicare. Even many people considered poor in America are living a damned good life compared to others around the world. We are blessed to live in a society where we have hospitals and the ability to save lives from horrible conditions and I will be damned if something as petty as money is going to cause the mother of three children to die from leukaemia when it was within our knowledge to prevent it. It's inhuman and disgustingly selfish for individuals to want to keep a small fraction of their money at the expense of killing and ruining countless lives which could have been saved. In Canada it's no secret that we pay more tax than our American counterparts because of our medical system and I wouldn't have it any other way.

So would you not object to China or Russia surrounding the U.S./Canada with military bases, flying drone bombers overhead and sending paramilitary squads on your sovereign soil to take out enemies of the state? Because thats what you do to other countries, and yet you wonder why you are so loathed by so many. Here the reasons are, straight out of the horses mouth - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

If Canada and America pushed women into the ground, if Canada and American slaughtered thousands of our own people in order to pursue power and control, if Canada and America attempted to force religion upon our people, if Canada and America severely suppress our people's freedoms, and if Canada and America imposed a dangerous and immediate threat to the national security of other nations or international security of the world to a unconstructive and unhealthy level then I would be all for another nations forces pushing forward to restore justice in Canada and America. With regards specifically to US and NATO involvement in the middle East, I do not want to be remembered as the generation who created Facebook and Twitter, I want to be remembered as the generation who strived to bring fair rights and freedoms to everybody across the world.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Rick Perry should have stayed in Texas.Commercializing airport security to a severity where the federal government holds no concerns over the safety of commercial aviation is an extremely dangerous decision. This should always be immense federal attention to security airports. If this was unto the state or regulated commercially by the airlines operating out of the airport it would open the doors to gaping holes in overall security.

What, like 9/11?

Regulations on drugs are an absolute necessity. Drug corporations are like any other corporation where their number one priority is to immerse themselves in profits. With fewer regulations drug corporations would not hesitate to push out thinner regulated drugs which would naturally raise the dangers of being negatively affected by unhealthy drugs. When we do not even now fully understand the long term repercussions of certain medicines or substances we consume the last thing we need is even less regulations.

As i'm sure you have friends/family who have taken drugs/do take drugs, have you reported them? it's a yes/no question. If you have not, why do you continue to pretend that you care about the welfare of people who take drugs when you won't even report or 'help' those closest to you? It shows to me that actually you don't care, but just pretend to.

Besides, this issue (whatever we both think) should be down to the states, as provided for by the constitution.

The constitution is an incredibly important document however in advocating the legalization of homosexual marriage in America regulating the parameters of the law per state is not going to be productive at all, but instead take many more years until it's legal across the nation, than it shoul

So you now agree with Ron Paul that the federal government should have no place in enforcing gay marriage, yes?

My compromise on abortion is to permit pregnancy termination upto 14-20 weeks depending on the growth of the fetus, and then allow further terminations beyond 20 weeks where the pregnancy endangers the mother or fetus. If the abortion is of just the embryo or under developed fetus then termination is not taking the live of a human. With regards to people who attempt to impose their beliefs retaining to pro life due to religious views, I strongly disagree because I do not believe it is any of their business what others do so long as it's not harming a developed fetus without valid reason.

I am not debating the topic of abortion or the rights and wrongs of terminating a child, I am debating how you can say that the likes of Rick Perry should not use the consitution to ban gay marriage yet you yourself seem perfectly happy in abusing the consitution to legalise gay marriage and allow abortion.

When Obama's healthcare came into play I was outraged at several of my American friends because they were complaining about how they would now have to pay more taxes. When I discussed the situation with them they said they could care less about the well being of other people and should only have to pay for their own medicare. Even many people considered poor in America are living a damned good life compared to others around the world. We are blessed to live in a society where we have hospitals and the ability to save lives from horrible conditions and I will be damned if something as petty as money is going to cause the mother of three children to die from leukaemia when it was within our knowledge to prevent it. It's inhuman and disgustingly selfish for individuals to want to keep a small fraction of their money at the expense of killing and ruining countless lives which could have been saved. In Canada it's no secret that we pay more tax than our American counterparts because of our medical system and I wouldn't have it any other way.

You have just completely ignored the points on why the government being involved in healthcare is a bad thing, instead giving me a lecture on the good merits of you as a human being. The truth is, we can still have all of that (as the United States used to have before the government became involved in healthcare) with a free enterprise system and tax credits. It is you, in your so called 'kindness' who condemn the poorest to eternal poverty which, when they do become ill, you send them to appalling hospitals.]

That is not on.

If Canada and America pushed women into the ground, if Canada and American slaughtered thousands of our own people in order to pursue power and control, if Canada and America attempted to force religion upon our people, if Canada and America severely suppress our people's freedoms, and if Canada and America imposed a dangerous and immediate threat to the national security of other nations or international security of the world to a unconstructive and unhealthy level then I would be all for another nations forces pushing forward to restore justice in Canada and America. With regards specifically to US and NATO involvement in the middle East

So are you effectively declaring the rest of the world a colony here?

I do not want to be remembered as the generation who created Facebook and Twitter, I want to be remembered as the generation who strived to bring fair rights and freedoms to everybody across the world.

No, you'll be remembered as the generation who died in pointless wars based on lies and a generation which will have to pick up the enormous financial cost of policing the world, just as we in the United Kingdom went through when we overstretched ourselves with our Empire. But you mistake yourself as being part of this 'fighting for freedom' generation because you yourself have not volunteered to go and die in the desert in Afghanistan or Iraq, no no, thats the job of others isn't it?

[HotelUser]

What, like 9/11?

Regulations on airport security have increased tremendously since 9/11.

As i'm sure you have friends/family who have taken drugs/do take drugs, have you reported them? it's a yes/no question.

yes I do have three family members who do different drugs, all of which are legal through green cards and I have been against them doing it since I first found out about it. I am completely against the legalization of cannabis by the way, but I think you might have slightly missed what I'm getting at here anyway. Yes, the above is a valid issue but concern with loosening regulations on allowed medicines is that counter medicines could in theory become much more dangerous and cheaply manufactured.

So you agree with Ron Paul that the federal government should have no place in enforcing gay marriage, yes?

No, what I said before was: "The constitution is an incredibly important document however in advocating the legalization of homosexual marriage in America regulating the parameters of the law per state is not going to be productive at all, but instead take many more years until it's legal across the nation, than it should"

to summarize in theory a fragmented scenario where each state can tailor laws to its specific needs is a good thing. However when time comes for drastic change to be implemented it is painfully slow. By the time you and I die it wouldn't surprise me if gay marriage was still banned in several states. Another example is how I believe the figure is that 19 states still allow using gas chambers to kill dogs. This is shocking, and obviously medical injections are a lot less painful ways of putting down stray dogs which is why many states banned chambers and now only use injections. So then why is it that in 19 states gas chambers are still used? Because it's state regulated. In some cases it just makes more sense for federal regulations to claim dominance over state.

I am not debating the topic of abortion or the rights and wrongs of terminating a child, I am debating how you can say that the likes of Rick Perry should not use the consitution to ban gay marriage yet you yourself seem perfectly happy in abusing the consitution to legalise gay marriage and allow abortion.

So your logic here is saying that if I'm against imposing one law then I'm not entitled to set any laws at all?

The only argument against gay marriage is that apparently two men in love on one side of the America are completely ruining the life of a few religious folk on the other side of America even though they're not doing anything to harm that religious individual(s). By banning homosexual wedlock, you're inventing law on grounds of nothing else other than religion, which is completely absurd. The implementation of the suppression of gay marriage has little basis or justification to exist at all. The issue of abortion is a lot more complex because it relates back to the long and detailed argument of defining what life is and calculating the consequences and impacts of terminating potential future life. Abortion is a law which requires great lengths of detail, care and compromise to come to a just conclusion, where as the gay marriage ban is only based upon suppressive and unjust ideologies.

You have just completely ignored the points on why the government being involved in healthcare is a bad thing, instead giving me a lecture on the good merits of you as a human being. The truth is, we can still have all of that (as the United States used to have before the government became involved in healthcare) with a free enterprise system and tax credits. It is you, in your so called 'kindness' who condemn the poorest to eternal poverty which, when they do become ill, you send them to appalling hospitals.]

That is not on.

No, it is not possible to provide everyone with free healthcare in a capitalistic healthcare environment, and no it did not exist before and still doesn't as it should.

So are you effectively declaring the rest of the world a colony here?

By giving other nations my permission to invade us should we need to be invaded?

No, you'll be remembered as the generation who died in pointless wars based on lies and a generation which will have to pick up the enormous financial cost of policing the world, just as we in the United Kingdom went through when we overstretched ourselves with our Empire. But you mistake yourself as being part of this 'fighting for freedom' generation because you yourself have not volunteered to go and die in the desert in Afghanistan or Iraq, no no, thats the job of others isn't it?

I can guarantee you the soldiers who go over and the people's lives they change would not see our nations' actions as being involved in a string of pointless wars. Whether you're willing to accept it we're still making a difference in the lives of others, however small it may be on the grand scale of things.

[Grig]

Why are you grouping Canada and America David? I'd not go to that.

Now, I have never looked into Ron Paul's campaign that seriously in the past, but I must admit that now his libeterian views are needed more than ever. It's the fact that Africa receives 70% of its aid from America, then America has to borrow money from China to sponsor that aid- that is quite mind boggling. The fact that the US has tens of thousands of troops in Japan and around the world, but America has open boarders also simply doesn't make sense. Money domestically is wearing thin and to think we have more spending abroad is silly.

I'm not saying I'm with him 100% on all his ideas, but he seems to be a candidate who makes the most sense, can challenge Obama and can turn the tide of this economic mess, because if we see that 'lame duck' and yes, I am grouping Obama in the same 'lame duck' umbrella as Bush here, then all that is going to happen is the situation will become worse and the US and in turn the world will go into even deeper crisis or depression.

Whoever is taking a serious stance to Obama is simply blind, he like Romney and like Gingrich are flip-flopping on issues. You have him saying he is going to withdraw troops from Iraq, when all he really did was throw them over to Afghanistan. It is just a system of wasteful spending and bureaucracy, which needs urgent sorting. Such is the case on a number of domestic issues. You cut can talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk and Obama's mouth is bigger than any other part of him.

As for foreign intervention, the US doesn't need it. The US seems to be obsessed with asserting its power. It makes countless of foreign policy mistakes everyday, look at Iraq and how that's turned on them. The fact it needs to have navy patrol boats going around countries such as China and North Korea is absurd. Who gave America the right to install such satellites, deploy such vessels. I am with Dr. Paul on his foreign policy, to which some people are completely wrong on it. It is in no way isolationist, it is simply non-interventionist.

[GommeInc]

Gays serve in the military? They're everywhere!

Can't believe his political message is based around such a boring, irrelevant issue. But if people want to vote for that then Vive La American-Stereotype! It's a shame voters are ignorant, one day there will be such a thing as a smart one but it would seem that will not be for years :/

That said, he doesn't say anything bad about homosexuals, it's just a strange little bit of information he dished up warm to serve alongside religious freedom. I also adore how he says he approves his own message - it's so daft.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Regulations on airport security have increased tremendously since 9/11.

Which ignores the point which is true, that if airport security was private-run then 9/11 wouldn't have occured. Business falters if it fails in its duty, government does not - you can remove the ruling party but not the instruments of government. So which would perform in its duty much better? the business.

yes I do have three family members who do different drugs, all of which are legal through green cards and I have been against them doing it since I first found out about it. I am completely against the legalization of cannabis by the way, but I think you might have slightly missed what I'm getting at here anyway. Yes, the above is a valid issue but concern with loosening regulations on allowed medicines is that counter medicines could in theory become much more dangerous and cheaply manufactured.

Over 30,000 people die on American roads each year, should cars be all automatically set to 10mph/banned completely to save the lives of those who drive?

No, what I said before was: "The constitution is an incredibly important document however in advocating the legalization of homosexual marriage in America regulating the parameters of the law per state is not going to be productive at all, but instead take many more years until it's legal across the nation, than it should"

'Than it should' - sorry, I thought the United States was a democracy? or are you going to ignore what the majority in each state wants and simply impose it on each state on a federal level? you have no respect for the consitution, do not pretend otherwise.

to summarize in theory a fragmented scenario where each state can tailor laws to its specific needs is a good thing. However when time comes for drastic change to be implemented it is painfully slow. By the time you and I die it wouldn't surprise me if gay marriage was still banned in several states. Another example is how I believe the figure is that 19 states still allow using gas chambers to kill dogs. This is shocking, and obviously medical injections are a lot less painful ways of putting down stray dogs which is why many states banned chambers and now only use injections. So then why is it that in 19 states gas chambers are still used? Because it's state regulated. In some cases it just makes more sense for federal regulations to claim dominance over state.

So in other words, "because I [HotelUser] do not agree with what states I do not live in decide on their policy, I advocate using the federal government to force the states to do as I wish" - so again, why oppose the likes of Rick Perry ignoring the constitution and banning gay marriage on a federal level? you may not agree with their viewpoint but they don't agree with you so essentially you turn it into a 'who can screw the other side first?'.

You know what the irony is here? the very dictators you advocate taking down around the world are the very same dictators who have a system of Imperial rule - they create the policy and they ignore the constitution of their country and its safeguards, simply because "they know better".

So your logic here is saying that if I'm against imposing one law then I'm not entitled to set any laws at all?

My logic is very simple and clear - when you yourself advocate totally ignoring the constitution of the United States in order to enforce your ideas on others, you cannot yourself complain when the likes of Rick Perry do exactly the same to you.

The only argument against gay marriage is that apparently two men in love on one side of the America are completely ruining the life of a few religious folk on the other side of America even though they're not doing anything to harm that religious individual(s). By banning homosexual wedlock, you're inventing law on grounds of nothing else other than religion, which is completely absurd. The implementation of the suppression of gay marriage has little basis or justification to exist at all. The issue of abortion is a lot more complex because it relates back to the long and detailed argument of defining what life is and calculating the consequences and impacts of terminating potential future life. Abortion is a law which requires great lengths of detail, care and compromise to come to a just conclusion, where as the gay marriage ban is only based upon suppressive and unjust ideologies.

I'm not arguing for/against homsoexual marriage here as you are wishing to confuse the issue and turn it into a pro-gay marriage vs anti-gay marriage - no, i'm simply advocating that both the pro-gay marriage lobby (yourself) and the anti-gay marriage lobby (Rick Perry) win their argument in accordance with the U.S. consitution which means on a state level.

On gay marriage itself I take the view of Ron Paul - remove the government out of marriage altogether and allow people to call it what they want (even though myself I do not view it as marriage and never will do so). However as Ron Paul states, this is a matter for each state to decide on and not for he, you, I or Rick Perry to enforce any opinion on the other via the federal government.

No, it is not possible to provide everyone with free healthcare in a capitalistic healthcare environment, and no it did not exist before and still doesn't as it should.

]

Yes it is, please see post-NHS Great Britain and Singapore today.

By giving other nations my permission to invade us should we need to be invaded?

Its a simple question, are you answering it or not?

I can guarantee you the soldiers who go over and the people's lives they change would not see our nations' actions as being involved in a string of pointless wars. Whether you're willing to accept it we're still making a difference in the lives of others, however small it may be on the grand scale of things.

You'll never understand then why these people hate and attack us because you are so locked into this utopian idea that you can play god and run the world. If you are really serious about this issue, I advise a read of the 'Letter to America' that Osama Bin Laden wrote explaining why he and others attacked the United States and continue to attack the western world. But whats even more curious is, why won't you yourself go and fight and make a difference? or isn't your life worth holding up the Karzai government in Afghanistan?

Want to know why Iran acts like Iran does? look up the history.

[Chippiewill]

But whats even more curious is, why won't you yourself go and fight and make a difference?

argumentum ad hominem

Look it up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

argumentum ad hominem

Look it up.

Thanks for the outpouring of wisdom there, but isn't it strange how those who advocate sailing/flying around the world invading sovereign nations to 'benefit the people' (which in itself is a questionable conclusion from our interventions) are never ever the ones who go themselves? I say quite openly that in the event of an invasion of the Falklands I would be prepared to take up duty and in turn I think the Falklands and British territory are worthy of my life in the event of foreign aggression. But do I think my life is worth the Afghan/Iraq acts of war against nations which pose no threat to myself or my country? no, I can firmly say my life isn't worth either one of them and I think yourself and HotelUser deep down agree but can't face up to that.

We refer to these people as 'chicken hawks' because thats what they are - when its their time to serve they duck it but have no qualms in the future of sending our young men and women into battles which they themselves wouldn't fight or be prepared to die for.

"A war is justified if you're willing to send your son. If your not willing to send your son, then how do you send someone elses?"

Incidently, Ron Paul is the candidate who recieves most donations to his campaign by far from active duty officers.

[Chippiewill]

This is still a logical fallacy. They're not wrong just because they won't go themselves. It just means they have quite a strong will to survive.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is still a logical fallacy. They're not wrong just because they won't go themselves. It just means they have quite a strong will to survive.

Thats interesting, an admission on your part that these wars are not worth the lives of those who wish to live (frankly, 99.9% of all of us). But in all honesty, i'd be pretty happy if the advocates of these wars would simply just say that, that actually, the wars aren't worth their own lives but they are worth the lives of others.

Even better, have western leadership admit it on live television - and we'll see just how much longer these fruitless conflicts would last for.