Paul on Leno

by Aaron Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:06 pm

I just finished listeneing to Paul from The Tonight Show from Monday night. One of the things he said stuck with me so I figured I'd ask you Stephanie.

Paul said the reason we can't spend a trillion dollars on medical care was because we were spending a trillion dollars on the Iraq war.

Does Ron Paul now favor universal health care?

by Keli Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:28 pm

Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

by Aaron Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:30 pm

Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

So I take it you think he should drop out of the race, huh???

If so then you'll agree that Thompson should as well since he wasn't in the race in Iowa (although he did do better then Paul) but he barely registerd in New Hampshire and he's no where in the ballpark in the amount of money raised. It's clear that Thompson isn't a serious candidate so he, Hunter and Paul should all drop out and leave it to viable candidates, right Terry!!!

by Keli Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:54 pm

Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

Paul is not a Republican. He should run as a Libertarian. The GOP should dump him like they did David Duke--and for the same reasons.

by Aaron Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:57 pm

Keli wrote:
Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

Paul is not a Republican. He should run as a Libertarian. The GOP should dump him like they did David Duke--and for the same reasons.

Who says Pauls not a Republican? Is there some sort of test?

by Keli Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:10 pm

Aaron wrote:
Keli wrote:
Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

Paul is not a Republican. He should run as a Libertarian. The GOP should dump him like they did David Duke--and for the same reasons.

Who says Pauls not a Republican? Is there some sort of test?

Is he a Libertarian? Is there not a Libertarian party? Do you think for a moment that he does not intend to make a third party--Libertarian--run this year?

by ziggy Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:41 pm

Keli wrote:Is he a Libertarian? Is there not a Libertarian party?

Not in West Virginia there isn't- nor in most other states, either. For there to be a Libertarian Party on state ballots in November, almost every state would need to create a Libertarian party. It's not as simple as just "signing up" as a Libertarian and magically being on the ballot.

by **Stephanie** Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:17 pm

Aaron wrote:I just finished listeneing to Paul from The Tonight Show from Monday night. One of the things he said stuck with me so I figured I'd ask you Stephanie.

Paul said the reason we can't spend a trillion dollars on medical care was because we were spending a trillion dollars on the Iraq war.

Does Ron Paul now favor universal health care?

No he does not. You only see things the way you've learned to see them. If citizens currently aren't insured and they can't afford to purchase insurance or pay their medical expenses, the only possible solution is another huge government entitlement. I disagree, Dr. Paul disagrees. There are other options, better options. There are solutions that do not require higher taxes and more mandates.

You dislike Ron Paul for whatever reason and so you are unwilling to research and consider his proposals. If you did research what he advocates and legislation he has proposed, you'd understand how the trillion dollars being spent on this senseless war and other wastes of taxpayer money would make health care affordable and accessible to everyone without another bureaucratic mess and more government intrusion.

by **Stephanie** Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:27 pm

Keli wrote:
Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

Paul is not a Republican. He should run as a Libertarian. The GOP should dump him like they did David Duke--and for the same reasons.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. So was Rudy Giuliani. So it's ok to switch from the Democratic Party to the GOP but if you've ever been a member of the Libertarian Party you should be treated like a leper?

You can keep making charges of racism against Ron Paul until the cows come home but they will never hold up. If he were a racist over the course of the past 30+ years of campaigning for and serving in public office at the Congressional level or higher you would be able to produce a video clip of him making racist statements. You can't because he isn't.

President Taft was a Republican. Barry Goldwater was a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican.

Fred Thompson, GWB, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney are not Republicans. They are neocons.

The real Republicans want their party back and Dr. Paul is helping us reclaim it.

by Aaron Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:40 am

Keli wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Keli wrote:
Keli wrote:Why doesn't Ron Paul give the millions he intends to use for his pathetic stealth Republican candidacy to free medical clinics for the treatment of the uninsured?

Paul is not a Republican. He should run as a Libertarian. The GOP should dump him like they did David Duke--and for the same reasons.

Who says Pauls not a Republican? Is there some sort of test?

Is he a Libertarian? Is there not a Libertarian party? Do you think for a moment that he does not intend to make a third party--Libertarian--run this year?

I don't know if he's going to run as a Libertarian or not and I really don't care. I'm more interested in reading the guidelines set forth to be a Republican. Got a link to the page?

by Aaron Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:41 am

Stephanie wrote:
The real Republicans want their party back and Dr. Paul is helping us reclaim it.

You guys got a test too??? Where can I find that one.

I am still curious though as to the comment about spending a trillion dollars on health care that Paul made Monday night on Leno. Is he now in favor or universal health care??? That seems to have gotten lost in your and Terry's testing.

by **Stephanie** Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:09 am

Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
The real Republicans want their party back and Dr. Paul is helping us reclaim it.

You guys got a test too??? Where can I find that one.

I am still curious though as to the comment about spending a trillion dollars on health care that Paul made Monday night on Leno. Is he now in favor or universal health care??? That seems to have gotten lost in your and Terry's testing.

Aaron wrote:
I just finished listeneing to Paul from The Tonight Show from Monday night. One of the things he said stuck with me so I figured I'd ask you Stephanie.

Paul said the reason we can't spend a trillion dollars on medical care was because we were spending a trillion dollars on the Iraq war.

Does Ron Paul now favor universal health care?

No he does not. You only see things the way you've learned to see them. If citizens currently aren't insured and they can't afford to purchase insurance or pay their medical expenses, the only possible solution is another huge government entitlement. I disagree, Dr. Paul disagrees. There are other options, better options. There are solutions that do not require higher taxes and more mandates.

You dislike Ron Paul for whatever reason and so you are unwilling to research and consider his proposals. If you did research what he advocates and legislation he has proposed, you'd understand how the trillion dollars being spent on this senseless war and other wastes of taxpayer money would make health care affordable and accessible to everyone without another bureaucratic mess and more government intrusion.

by Aaron Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:41 am

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:
I just finished listeneing to Paul from The Tonight Show from Monday night. One of the things he said stuck with me so I figured I'd ask you Stephanie.

Paul said the reason we can't spend a trillion dollars on medical care was because we were spending a trillion dollars on the Iraq war.

Does Ron Paul now favor universal health care?

No he does not. You only see things the way you've learned to see them. If citizens currently aren't insured and they can't afford to purchase insurance or pay their medical expenses, the only possible solution is another huge government entitlement. I disagree, Dr. Paul disagrees. There are other options, better options. There are solutions that do not require higher taxes and more mandates.

You dislike Ron Paul for whatever reason and so you are unwilling to research and consider his proposals. If you did research what he advocates and legislation he has proposed, you'd understand how the trillion dollars being spent on this senseless war and other wastes of taxpayer money would make health care affordable and accessible to everyone without another bureaucratic mess and more government intrusion.

You don't have a clue Stephanie, do you!!! You swallow everything Dr. Paul says hook line and sinker whether you understand it or not. Me thinks you should do some research of your ownso that you can answer questions if your going to promote Dr. No as much as you do. All pasting links and post like the one above do is show you don't understand what you're supporting.

I've read Dr. Pauls stances on health care. He's in favor of MSA's and opening up the pharmaceuticals for re-importation, using altertanative treatments, dietery supplements and among other things. I get all of that, including reducing the burden of paperwork on doctors which accounts for so much of the cost of health care. I understand that even though you don't.

But that's not what he said on Leno. "If we weren't spending a trillion on a needless war over there we wouldn't have any problem spending it on medical care here." That's not me making anything up because I don't like Dr. No. That is what HE said. Watch the show if you don't believe me.

by **Stephanie** Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:18 am

Aaron I watched the show. I don't have to see it on YouTube. I heard what Ron Paul said.

Are you asserting now that you are some sort of expert on health care issues or are you saying you are an expert on Ron Paul's plans to make high quality health care more affordable and accessible to all Americans without another huge money grab from the taxpayers?

If the taxpayers of the USA had the trillion dollars our government is taking from us to pay for war and occupation in Iraq, they would be in much better financial condition to take care of their own health care needs.

If our elected leaders would concentrate more on their Constitutional obligations and authority, they would make it possible for citizens to purchase insurance across state lines and make health decisions for themselves and their children without government interference.

The Tonight Show audience's enthusiam for Dr. Paul must really have rattled you, Aaron.

by **ohio county** Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:27 am

I’ve given this a lot of thought. I don’t usually jump in to defend Ron Paul. I don’t have the time and don’t want a lot of back-and-forth.

I’m inclined to give him some leeway on the question of publications released under his name. I’m also inclined not to carp too much about returning to the gold standard. I don’t much like that. Gold is also a commodity and has its own market and will fluctuate every bit as much as paper currency. It makes it harder for the government to print paper money to cover itself which has some redeeming value. Non-intervention does sound like isolationism. I cannot say I’m totally on board but we need to keep our swords sheathed somewhat more than we have.

I support Ron Paul because he is saying that we need to shrink the federal government and cut taxes. It is that simple. He is the only candidate willing to distill his message to that. If he were elected could he accomplish those things? Somewhat. He’d have more influence in those areas. He is the only candidate that pays slavish devotion to following the Constitution to the letter. Less government, less taxes, less doubt about how to proceed in any situation – just follow the Constitution.

I can forgive a lot. I cannot help that he attracts kooks who call Sean Hannity names. I don’t like that. I don’t like that he was silent for so long for disowning material that might be construed as offensive. I regret that he has the charisma of a ’72 Pinto and is probably not electable. He may be the catalyst that ignites the transformative forces that restore the republic and demand the government cut all extraneous crap. I think supporting him is the right thing to do.

by SamCogar Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:12 am

Aaron wrote: I am still curious though as to the comment about spending a trillion dollars on health care that Paul made Monday night on Leno. Is he now in favor or universal health care??? That seems to have gotten lost in your and Terry's testing.

--------------------------------------

But that's not what he said on Leno. "If we weren't spending a trillion on a needless war over there we wouldn't have any problem spending it on medical care here." That's not me making anything up because I don't like Dr. No. That is what HE said. Watch the show if you don't believe me.

GEEEZUS ..... Aaron, the Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't have any problem spending another $10 TRILLION on welfare programs either.

What you implied Paul said ....... and what he actually said ..... were not the same thing.

Paul was only criticizing the Iraq War spending.

by Aaron Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:19 pm

SamCogar wrote:GEEEZUS ..... Aaron, the Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't have any problem spending another $10 TRILLION on welfare programs either.

What you implied Paul said ....... and what he actually said ..... were not the same thing.

Paul was only criticizing the Iraq War spending.

But I didn't imply anything Sam. I posted what he said, pretty much word for word. Check it out if you don't believe me.

by Aaron Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:22 pm

Stephanie wrote:Aaron I watched the show. I don't have to see it on YouTube. I heard what Ron Paul said.

Are you asserting now that you are some sort of expert on health care issues or are you saying you are an expert on Ron Paul's plans to make high quality health care more affordable and accessible to all Americans without another huge money grab from the taxpayers?

If the taxpayers of the USA had the trillion dollars our government is taking from us to pay for war and occupation in Iraq, they would be in much better financial condition to take care of their own health care needs.

If our elected leaders would concentrate more on their Constitutional obligations and authority, they would make it possible for citizens to purchase insurance across state lines and make health decisions for themselves and their children without government interference.

The Tonight Show audience's enthusiam for Dr. Paul must really have rattled you, Aaron.

Why would I be rattled. I agree with some of what he says, some I don't and the rest I laugh at. He's got a better shot of doing stand up then he does of being the next President of the United States. Very Happy

by SamCogar Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:18 am

Aaron wrote: But I didn't imply anything Sam. I posted what he said, pretty much word for word. Check it out if you don't believe me.

Right Aaron, but it was that "pretty much your words" ..... interpretating "Ron Paul's words" ........ that bothered me.

When one "extracts" a sentence or phrase "out of context" of what was written or said, ...... and then critically interprets it "on its own merit", .......... it is akin to starting with Step #8 of a fifteen (15) Step Installation procedure ........ and then bitching because "it didn't work" and blaming their failure on "bad instructions".

An observer of said is never sure if said person is "just simple minded or ignorant" ........ or whether it was done "out of deviousness or dishonesty".

Aaron, it is like when ShermanGeneral extracts the phrase "there were 600,000 Unemployment Claims during Governor Underwood's 1st Term" and then goes on to badmouth the Republicans for all the lost jobs.

Of course, ole Shermmy baby never mentions the FACT that the culprit responsible for the majority of said Claims ........ was the mechanization of the coal mines in WV, ....... which incidently the most of which were owned and operated by Democrat partisans.

.

by Aaron Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:27 am

We can take that trillion dollars we're spending on a needless war over there and spend it on medical care here.

Interpret that sentance Sam.

by SamCogar Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:56 am

(Ron Paul on Leno)...... we wouldn't have any problem spending it on medical care here.

Aaron wrote:We can take that trillion dollars we're spending on a needless war over there and spend it on medical care here.

Interpret that sentance Sam.

Aaron, I interpret your sentence as a "definitive statement" as to exactly "on what" you are saying said "trillion dollars" is to be spent on.

Aaron, if I made the following statement about my monthly earning$, ....... to wit:

"I wouldn't have any problem spending it on prostitutes and whiskey in Charleston's East End",

doesn't interpret to mean ...... "that is exactly what I intend to do with my money" ...... and thus doesn't give anyone the right to call me "a hoaring around drunk".

But there are some who would because their amoral nature controls all aspects of their being.

Ron Paul could just as easily have stated, ...."we wouldn't have any problem spending it on building new infrastructure in WV."

I guess if he had, ....... you still would have jumped his arse for saying it, right?

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,

but some people only look for the uglyness in everything."

Its a nurtured thingy, .... ya know.

cheers

by **ohio county** Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:39 am

try option #3:

http://www.mywvhome.com/audio/mcgraw.html

by Aaron Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:47 am

SamCogar wrote:Aaron, I interpret your sentence as a "definitive statement" as to exactly "on what" you are saying said "trillion dollars" is to be spent on.

Aaron, if I made the following statement about my monthly earning$, ....... to wit:

"I wouldn't have any problem spending it on prostitutes and whiskey in Charleston's East End",

doesn't interpret to mean ...... "that is exactly what I intend to do with my money" ...... and thus doesn't give anyone the right to call me "a hoaring around drunk".

But there are some who would because their amoral nature controls all aspects of their being.

Ron Paul could just as easily have stated, ...."we wouldn't have any problem spending it on building new infrastructure in WV."

I guess if he had, ....... you still would have jumped his arse for saying it, right?

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,

but some people only look for the uglyness in everything."

Its a nurtured thingy, .... ya know.

cheers

Nutrured being I believe a man should mean what he says Sam and say what he means. If you say you're going to spend your money on women and booze then I'll take it to mean that's what you're going to do with it. It's your money and you can do what you want with it up to and including changing your mind. A politician doesn't have that same right. That's why this country is in the situation we're in right now. It's a corruption thingy...ya know Sammy. Very Happy

by Sponsored content

Paul on Leno

Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno

Re: Paul on Leno