Ron Paul hypocrisy

yes, I can. Chick fil a, or however they spell it. Made a bunch of money.

No, I'm not saying that. It's not that what may BE rational to some SEEMS irrational to others, the fact is that people very seldom act solely on rational motives, there's a LOT more thrown in.

Anyway, my question, again: Am I correct that you think that medical operations should be entirely privately owned and operated, and that they should, as such, be able do discriminate against anyone they please?

 

How are you claiming Chik-fil-A is discriminating? Are they refusing to serve to some customers based on something you see as discriminatory? And how are they reaping 'greater' profits resulting from discrimination?

What may seem irrational to me and others may seem rational to you and others, and vice versa.

 

Go look it up, if you want. Can you answer my question?

 

I did look, and found nothing to back up your claim.

I believe that those persons who obtain a license to practice medicine should be able to have a private practice if they so desire, wholly owned and operated by them. Some may choose to work for a hospital and hospitals are, and should be required to provide treatment within reason to anyone who needs it. Doctors may seem to be discriminating when they won't take on new patients, if they have more than they can provide care for already. But if they are found to be discriminating without just cause they can lose their license to practice, so I don't think many would want to risk that, and besides how many persons do you think would spend the time and money to become a Doctor with the intent to discriminate? I have several friends who practice medicine and I think they would each find your insinuation baseless.

Now, one more time. How are you claiming Chik-fil-A is discriminating? Are they refusing to serve to some customers based on something you see as discriminatory? And how are they reaping 'greater' profits resulting from discrimination?

 

Ron Paul and other Libertarians have never said that they don't believe in government-they believe that one of the legitimate functions of government is basic law enforcement, protecting people against theft, violence, etc. They're not anarchists, nor should they be.

 

you say hospitals should have to take in anyone who needs it. I can live with that.

About chick fil a, they threw a big fit about gayness, as it relates not only to marriage but immorality in general as they perceive it. Now, I'm pretty sure they could fire people for being gay all they have a mind to, though I don't think they have. I think they could refuse to serve them. The problem is that gay people don't have it branded on their forehead, so it's harder to accurately discriminate to the gay public at large, without being super paranoid and silly looking.

Nevertheless, their political alignment made them record profits, when, in response to a boycott, record numbers of bigots went to go eat chicken sandwiches in the name of hating fags.

 

You're wrong about Chick fil a Roo. No discrimination was ever found. The owner of the franchise voiced his personal opinion and everything got out of hand. Yes, they had record sales on ONE DAY. ONE DAY. Overall they've lost a lot of money out of the ordeal because of the boycotts and "kiss ins" that are still going on today. The record high sales was just for one day, it was an organized buycott that was to be in response to the boycotts. After the "Chick Fil A appreciation day" passed, the boycotts picked back up and have been going on, although its slowly dying off, ever since.

 

Well.... I can't say I'm too sorry for them. Now I know, and it's good to know.

He said that it was his opinion, and that it was the company stance.

It IS an example of individuals and companies doing irrational things (from the perspective of personal gain, that greed that freedman would advocate), though. Similarly to how, I believe, in the deep south of the US there would be serious problems for blacks, and in some of the southwest there would be serious problems for hispanics. There already are, in fact, dispite actual laws that make it criminally irrational, but there are still people who get off on cruelty and power and having someone to step on, and discriminate.

There's still segregated proms in deep south high schools. They know that they're to be un-segregated, they just don't give a fuck what anyone says. Society was unable to handle it without laws on the matter (in fact, they passed segregation laws in favor of it) and is still unable to handle itself with laws banning discrimination. If there was no problem, I'd say sure, who cares if it's legal, nobody would actually do it -- and some places, that's true. But there is still a huge problem on many levels, and I am entirely unconvinced that the solution is to stop trying to fix the problem.

 

I agree with you. However I don't think it really pertains to the topic. Paul said he would be in favor of all of the civil rights laws if they were passed on a state level. He's not against civil rights, he is against the federal government havin authority it was never granted.

 

To which I would say, fine, but it was granted that authority...

I know that he generally wants the feds to do nothing and the state to do stuff, and he doesn't seem to care what states do one way or the other if it's not the federal government, but there are issues like marriage or civil rights that really do need to be homogenous throughout the country, for the functioning of a modern and just country. If a marriage is currently not a federal deal, there needs to be an answer to things like florida taking married people's right of attorney and adopted kids, because florida doesn't feel like recognising legal contracts entered by free people in areas where it is legal. There needs to be a real answer, not just "everybody do what you want".

I see where he's coming from, but at the same time, it really doesn't work. We COULD re-build the way the country works, and pass some constitutional amendments, and that sort of thing. But arguing to get rid of necessary functions, without arguing for a better, more proper way that they may be fulfilled, doesn't satisfy me.

Despite all this, I would have voted for paul in a heartbeat, at least for one term. But I won't pretend I don't have serious problems with a lot of his ideas. It's just that he's honest about them, so it's something I can work with, whereas the rest say whatever they need, and do whatever they want -- but that's why ron paul looks like such a joke for running to the UN, after so many years of being so adamantly opposed to it. He's run everything on honesty and integrity, and then he tries to use what he thinks is the evil new world order to seize a website for him.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said. The Federal government obviously has its place, but it shouldn't be ALL over the place as it is now. If All of Paul's ideals were put into place it would be going too far, but I believe a few steps towards that direction would be a good thing.

I'm not going to defen him for running to the UN, it's a bit of a bitch move. But after all we are all human. Paul isn't some all knowing profit that is immune to human faults, like some people would like to believe. But he is still head and shoulders above the rest, in my opinion.

 

You do understand that I'm ONLY saying everyone should receive some care, and NOT necessarily the same as someone who is paying for their care.

From what I've been able to find, Chick-fil-A expressed it's views on gayness, which is it's right to have an opinion, and those who disagreed with it had a fit. I'm sure you're "pretty sure" they could fire people for being gay, BUT DID THEY? Yes, it's pretty hard to identify someone as being gay, BUT IF THEY COULD, I suppose you are "pretty sure" they would do something terrible to them, RIGHT?

Hating Fags? Or simply having a similar or the same view on the issue of same sex marriage, without hating anyone at all? I disagree with Obama on nearly every view he holds, does that mean I hate Black people? I disagree with Ben Bernanke on every view he holds, so I must hate white people too? I disagree with Hillary Clinton very often, so I must hate women? I disagree with close friends sometimes depending on the issue we're discussing, do I hate my friends? Obviously you disagree with me and a few others who post here frequently, so I must accept that you hate me and them, right?

 

For the record, there is an openly gay woman who manages the Chick Fil A near my sisters house. My sister saw her cuss out a group of people having a "kiss in" because they were being inapropriate in front of kids.

 

That's pretty cool.

Individual, I believe that the guy said that that sort of value applies to his business at large, and that it was widely shared by the higher-ups, though I'm obviously paraphrasing.

If you think that there should be life saving care for anyone who needs it, and more from private doctors in private practices, well sure, I agree... I think we should call it like it is, single payer health care, but, yeah. Single payer doesn't stop you from paying for better care, it just assures that you can get what you need, at a basic level.

 

How are the values you refer to affecting the value or quality of the food Chick-fil-A sells? Are customers treated differently from one another based on Chick-fil-A's moral values?

There is no such thing as 'single payer' health care. What you're calling single payer is everyone who earns an income pays for it. Pre-Obama care, people who lacked the means to pay were, and I believe still are, receiving free health care via the Emergency room of hospitals, as well as Medicare having been taxed during their working life, and Medicaid paid for by the taxpayers for the benefit of others.
I fully support a true single payer health care system, in which the care receiver is the single payer, either out of pocket or through an insurance plan the care receiver has chosen to purchase, allowing the charges made by hospitals and Doctors to adjust to levels which are acceptable and within the means of those who actually pay for their care, and allow for free care to be provided within the limits allowable by the excess profit margins. Government involvement, especially at the Federal level usually, or perhaps more accurately stated, always focuses on providing needs and wants which is politically beneficial, with little or no attention at all to the means necessary for what is provided, which has the consequences of growing debt, and devaluation of our currency as more money is pumped into the system keeping the illusion of economic growth as the cost of living rises, higher wages are demanded and received, which only allows the same or a slightly lower life style to be maintained while both earning and spending more to try and maintain it.

 

Ron Paul just got ruled against in a lawsuit he had against the owners of ronpaul.com. They ruled against him because it was filed 'in bad faith' as he filed AFTER the owners offered to give him the domain for free.

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/2...ound-guilty-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/

 

No one thinks he's a savior at all.
It's the fact that he opened peoples eyes to what is going on and to get involved.
He knew he wasn't going to win any election for President.
He did exactly as planned and seems quite happy with the results.