Should You Vote for Rudy?
(1) He is just as bad, if not worst. Yet, many people will vote for him. (2) Do you approve of outright killing and murder? (3) Would the American people go along with this?
During World War II, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, God's people. Germans are Catholic (Christians) shouldn't they have know better? And how, then, did a maniacal Hitler come to power? How about George W. Bush? And the same goes for Rudy Giuliani. Hillary Clinton, though, labeled a Democrat is no different from these two.
Obama is green and HAS little or no integrity, when you challenge him, he falls down as it has been proven. Robertson, Kucinish, and Ron Paul seem to be a little crazy to many people. When you hear them speak, they seem like nutcases trying to do away with health care, social security, and the Internal Revenue Service.
What Kucinich is doing by trying to have Cheney impeached is a good move on his part. Ron Paul though being a far-fetched libertarian, is right on the Iraq War (best candidate).
Obama had the right approach, but he had foregone it, as he thought that he would be losing votes. He won't get elected anyway, so why not stick with a strong stand on the Iraq War?
Ron Paul, in spite of having very radical libertarian views, many of which will hurt this nation, is very qualified to be President as he has the education and background experience.
There are many others, who could step up to the plate, but they don't have the money to do so.
The Iraq War could have ended in 1990, but many people closed their eyes to truth and reality, so your troops are killing people, innocent people, fighting for their freedoms and land.
If the anti-war groups tried to mount an attack (media campaign) on the White House, they will fail. They were infiltrated by government spies and Bush people and have been led astray long ago.
Is there any hope?
Giuliani will use force to get his way in the world, domestically and on the international scene, and injustices will prevail
truth will no longer prevail under Giuliani or under anyone like him!
To J1: How good is Mitt on Iraq and will the people vote for him. People choose and you need to make people aware of truth...of what good choices are and of what bad ones are.
Mr Taco, I am trying to express an opinion as well as to ask a question.
1. Should You (anyone) Vote for Rudy?
2. My opinion, I have no favorites to some extent and I am not endorsing Ron Paul by this posting.
3. My company were the insiders during the first Iraq War (1990-91) and had done our own work from that time on until now. We can testify before US Congress, if Congress wanted as to the criminal nature of the Iraq War. They have never called us and therefore we have concluded that they (US Congressmen) are not really being truthful with the American public on the Iraq War. Of all of the candidates that come close to the truth would be Ron Paul. This is a fact and no merely an opinion. Obama waivers on Iraq and Hillary is a war hawk (Republican) when it comes to the Iraq War.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
I am not a one issue voter and I hope you are not either.. You may not even choose the party that you are currently thinking about after checking out these sites.
My number one candidate is Mike Huckabee, who is yours?
ELECTION 11/4/2008: THESE ARE THE MOST INFORMATIVE SITES FOR ALL PARTIES, ISSUES AND CANDIDATES NON-PARTISAN. REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, INDEPENDENT, GREEN, AND OTHER.
1. Presidential Election Resources; including each candidate's voting record and position on all issues.
2. State Presidential Primary Dates
3. How Does the Primary Process Work?
4. Electoral College Votes per State
5. What is the Electoral College?
6. Political Party Information
7. Other Internet Resources
Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You?
Answer the questions to find the 2008 presidential candidate that best aligns with your beliefs according to issue and priority of those issues!
- Mr. TacoLv 71 decade ago
When you go to such extremes as to bring Hitler into your argument, you really do lose a lot of credibility. Giuliani and Bush are not Hitler. Overall, your argument here is disjointed and makes little sense. What exactly is your point? What makes this not simply a rant, which is ultimately in violation of the community guidelines? How does this supposed to convince anyone to vote for Ron Paul? You provide absolutely no concrete evidence to support anything you say here.
That said, in answer to your original question, NO. I don't think anyone should vote for a guy that has basically profitted off the victims of the 9/11 attacks. That's as sick as it gets. You sure as heck don't convince me that I should vote for Ron Paul, but I certainly agree with you about Rudy!
- sagacious_nessLv 71 decade ago
Even if the 'way-warm' place were to freeze over, I would not vote for Rudy. I worry about who is 'in bed with him', or more accurately the interests that are 'making his bed' and that he will most likely listen and cater to if he's elected. In my opinion, one of his most repugnant bed-fellows is Paul Singer.
Paul Singer is a billionaire who's made all his money from 'vulture funds', one of the vilest forms of exploitation. These funds prey on the poorest of Third World nations by buying their debt cheap, then suing for 10+ times the amount. The result is that future (taxpayer-funded) aid, instead of going towards the needs of the impoverished, goes straight into the pockets of the ones who bought up the loans... thus the term "vulture fund".
-- “Vulture Fund” Articles:
Singer has been a very big donor to the Republican Party and to Bush's campaign. Now he's pledged to raise $15 million for Giuliani. Bush did nothing at the G8 Summit to stop vulture funds. Want to bet that, with Singer lining Rudy's pockets, he won't do anything to stop vulture funds either?
-- Paul Singer's political contributions:
-- The Giuliani Papers - Rudy's Money:
- AckDuScheisse!!Lv 41 decade ago
Excuse me... but wasn't Marin Luther from Germany?!?! I'm pretty sure there's a big Lutheran sector of Christianity in Germany.
Secondly... I'm hoping this country will finally throw Hillary AND Rudy out of the race, because they aren't right for the job.
GOD!!! The media sucks!!!!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm looking to vote for someone that is honest and moral and not a nutcase. That knocks all of them out of the race. I guess I won't vote this time.
- Ted SLv 41 decade ago
HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NO!!!! F'ing CFR scum son-of-a-mobster deserves time in prison for the removal of the steel from the WTC towers before an investigation even began.
I'm voting Ron Paul. He'll kick his A$$
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Rudy Hillary Romney Edwards McCain all the same , if they are elected there will be no change in America we will slip from the recession we are heading into into a depression.
they are all weasels
- J 1Lv 51 decade ago
No, Mitt Romeny will get the bid.
- sligomanLv 41 decade ago
no vote Hilary
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That's an interesting perspective.. I agree with you on both Obama and Giuliani
Some clarifications on Paul's positions though..
on social security:
"We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”
Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances."
The IRS: This explains it better then I can:
“1) The destruction of the IRS would include a free market solution of competing currencies.
2) Competing currencies (read: gold and silver used as money without government intervention) would lead to the destruction of the Federal Reserve.
3) The destruction of the Federal Reserve would lead to a halt on the interest we pay to them for the pleasure of using their valueless paper.
4) The income tax, which is solely used to pay back said interest, would no longer have a purpose.
5) Tariffs were collected at point of entry (read: ports and airports), just as sales tax is collected at point of sale today.
6) Excise taxes are collected at point of sale.
7) The abolishment of the IRS would not limit the collection of said taxes, just the unnecessary and unpopular Income Tax.”
Healthcare: this plan would actually make the system more effective.. HIS PROPOSAL IS FOR REFORM NOT ELIMINATION
First addressing the problem:
“The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.”
“For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.”
“As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.”
“A more viable solution is to let the consumer and his doctors pull themselves out of the system, by means of medical savings accounts. While this does not solve the entire problem, it provides a larger degree of freedom for those who desire it.
Under an MSA system, a consumer could save pre-tax dollars in a special account. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with the patient negotiating directly with the physician of their choice for the care they choose without regard to HMO rules or a bureaucrat's decision. The incentive for the physician is getting paid in cash as the service is rendered, rather than waiting months for an HMO or insurance provider's billing cycle.
With the cash for the MSAs coming from pre-tax dollars, most Americans could afford deposits that would cover routine expenses families' experience in a year. To cover larger expenses, major-medical insurance policies are readily available and fairly inexpensive.
Medical care will always be expensive, regardless of the system. The real question is how much freedom will a patient have in determining the care they receive. It is only when the patient controls the purse strings of his own money that he will have that freedom.”
“Health Care Reform Act
Ron Paul Speech to Congress
August 2, 2007
Madam Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers.'' Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.
Unfortunately, most health care "reform'' proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100 percent of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).
C. Makes every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.”
-ron paul library
Thank you for the question!