Ron Paul says tornado victims should not get aid

[Harry Dresden]

You can't be serious. No relief for disaster victims is one of Paul's most popular spiels. Go to Youtube and do a search on "Ron Paul against FEMA". You can watch him rail against disaster relief till your heart's content.

How is it possible for you guys to have so little knowledge about your presidential candidates?

You seriously scare me.

Yeah, FEMA's Katrina effort was an epic performance. Upgrade that unit.

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ron Paul says tornado victims should not get aid | 11alive.com

Nuts. My heart goes out to the people in tornado alley and I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help the survivors rebuild their lives.

You don't have a problem with it? That settles it, everyone can go home now, the debate is over.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, FEMA's Katrina effort was an epic performance. Upgrade that unit.

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

In Which California do you live?

Democrats have a majority in both chambers but without a two-thirds plus one majority their hands have been tied by the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes in decades.

Spending has been out of hand but Governors in our state have the line-item veto and Republicans have held the office of governor for 31 years and 2 months; while Democrats held the office only 12 years and 10 months, in the years since Reagan took the office.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

In Which California do you live?

Democrats have a majority in both chambers but without a two-thirds plus one majority their hands have been tied by the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes in decades.

Spending has been out of hand but Governors in our state have the line-item veto and Republicans have held the office of governor for 31 years and 2 months; while Democrats held the office only 12 years and 10 months, in the years since Reagan took the office.

You must be talking about a different California than the one Brown is governor of. There have been tax hike initiatives on the ballot almost every year, and they all got voted down by the residents of California, not the Republicans in the legislature.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I wish libertarians would actually read the Constitution. It would make things a lot easier

I read it all the time, I have a copy of it in my desk and the complete text of it online. Please point out the part of it that authorizes the Federal government to spend money on weather-related problems or 'disasters'...

General Welfare clause.

Show where any court has EVER upheld your bizarre interpretation that Natural Disasters don't fall within the scope of General Welfare

i have to agree.......i would think everyone one of us, would want to know that we have the aid of the Feds .....IF NEEDED ....at the peoples backs....why would not ALL the States be concerned if there was a natural disaster in one of the 50,and want to help?.....does not the Arm help the hand?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not having a rainy day fund for these type of natural disasters is the state's fault. Again, you're not holding government responsible for being fiscally liberal, typical of a neocon.

And, once again, charities do a far better job in these instances than gov't does.

maybe in feeding and shelter Doc.....but moving a couple tons of concrete and dirt,and things of that Nature.......i give the edge to the governments from the Local to the Feds......

 

[Harry Dresden]

I read it all the time, I have a copy of it in my desk and the complete text of it online. Please point out the part of it that authorizes the Federal government to spend money on weather-related problems or 'disasters'...

General Welfare clause.

Show where any court has EVER upheld your bizarre interpretation that Natural Disasters don't fall within the scope of General Welfare

I don't believe your ridiculous proposition has ever been before a court, but if you're looking for precedent I can help you...

In 1893, when a massive drought afflicted Texas farmers, Cleveland categorically refused to grant federal aid to the victims. He issued an eloquent written justification for his decision:

“I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit...The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune...Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthen the bond of a common brotherhood.”

Cleveland’s words skillfully represent the contrast between the effects brought about by the voluntary generosity of private parties and those created through the exercise of the coercive powers of government. Private individuals, when not hindered by government intervention, have a choice in how to allocate their funds among the various purposes that they deem to be of importance.

i think a drought is somewhat different than an Earthquake,Tornado,Flood,Forrest Fires,massive Blizzards,Hurricanes.....things that are very destructive and kill people at the moment it happens.....i think the instant destruction these things cause is different than that Drought......just sayin.....

 

[rdean]

Let them die!

 

[Againsheila]

"The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance," Paul said on the program.

Is this untrue??

Easy to say, harder to do. I don't know about tornados, but I live in earthquake country and I have had earthquake insurance for 30 years now, but I have friends who had theirs cancelled after paying for it for nearly 40 years because the Insurance companies decided not to provide it anymore. No, they didn't refund the 40 years of payments.

Fortunately I have USAA. Best insurance company in the USA.

 

[rdean]

Yeah, FEMA's Katrina effort was an epic performance. Upgrade that unit.

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

California gives tens of billions to the Federal Government. For every dollar the give, they get back much less. In fact, it's been linked that they give twice as much as the next state, which is Texas.

So where does that money go? It's been linked to many, many times. You know it all goes to Republican run Red States. You know it. I know it. It's not something that can be denied.

If you were able to divide the country along party lines, you would have two very different countries. The Blue US would have a balanced budget. It would be highly educated. It was have a strong military backed by the best technology in the world.

The Red US would be a welfare state. Which is what it is now, draining Blue states. They would be teaching magical creation in place of science and climbing the fence to get an under the table job without health care.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

California gives tens of billions to the Federal Government. For every dollar the give, they get back much less. In fact, it's been linked that they give twice as much as the next state, which is Texas.

So where does that money go? It's been linked to many, many times. You know it all goes to Republican run Red States. You know it. I know it. It's not something that can be denied.

If you were able to divide the country along party lines, you would have two very different countries. The Blue US would have a balanced budget. It would be highly educated. It was have a strong military backed by the best technology in the world.

The Red US would be a welfare state. Which is what it is now, draining Blue states. They would be teaching magical creation in place of science and climbing the fence to get an under the table job without health care.

yet its funny how i never hear any Democratic politicians in California say this.....California has a SPENDING problem Dean.....and they have to many Entitlement programs that were left unchecked and are now out of hand.....they are not to business friendly .....and they have let Illegal Immigration get out of hand......as well as other factors....

 

[Harry Dresden]

That's what happens when you put Republicans in charge. Thanks for clearing that up.

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

In Which California do you live?

Democrats have a majority in both chambers but without a two-thirds plus one majority their hands have been tied by the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes in decades.

Spending has been out of hand but Governors in our state have the line-item veto and Republicans have held the office of governor for 31 years and 2 months; while Democrats held the office only 12 years and 10 months, in the years since Reagan took the office.

i live in the same California you do.....only i dont live in Latte land Frisco.....i live in the real part....why is California considered "Ungovernable"?.....could it be because the State Assembly has been controlled by Democrats who fight every Governor we have ever had?....Governors seem to be fairly ineffective when they try to cut some of these guys programs they like......why are businesses leaving?.....could it be because they are taxed and regulated to death?.....why do the Democrats here refuse to do something about Illegal Immigration?......you try anything and your called a Racist......why are there Sanctuary cities here?.....come out of Latte Heaven once in a while Wry....come and see the REAL State you live in....which is controlled by Democrats AND a majority of Democratic voters.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

explain California Dean.....and please dont mention Arnold, the State was already sinking when he took over......Democrats are basically in charge here......so apparently it does not matter who is in charge....

In Which California do you live?

Democrats have a majority in both chambers but without a two-thirds plus one majority their hands have been tied by the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes in decades.

Spending has been out of hand but Governors in our state have the line-item veto and Republicans have held the office of governor for 31 years and 2 months; while Democrats held the office only 12 years and 10 months, in the years since Reagan took the office.

You must be talking about a different California than the one Brown is governor of. There have been tax hike initiatives on the ballot almost every year, and they all got voted down by the residents of California, not the Republicans in the legislature.

Your post is really a red herring. People vote for their own immediate self interest. That is why we live in a Republic, where elected officials are supposed to see the big picture. Sadly, elected officials today only look to the next election.

I think Brown has made a convincing argument that a small rise in the sales tax and a small increase in income taxes for the 1%ers is necessary. Will the people vote for these changes in November? Time will tell.

Leadership requires a vision and the ability to convince others that the course offered is safe and beneficial. It is easy to demagogue issues and offer voters a free lunch, after a while voters will understand there is no such thing.

In fact tax increases have been voted for in school districts, on bond issues to provide funds to special districts (water, sewer, roads, etc.) as citizens understand that the cost of a free lunch are pot holes, closed libraries and a busy single when 911 is called.

 

[editec]

Ron Paul is nuts.

To imagine that we can apply 18th century political solutions to a 21st century poltical world is truly insane.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well.....what is it?

If Ron Paul was president when Katrina hit, would he send federal aid or claim it is not the Governments job?

America wants to know

He wouldn't have had the FEMA disaster, I agree. I was wondering why your childish smirk remark was necessary.

Ron Paul tends to smirk

What does Ron Paul need FEMA for? Is that another agency he wants to kill?

You didn't answer.......would Ron Paul have sent federal aid after Katrina?

No he wouldn't have, that's what I've been saying this entire thread and I would've supported his stance.

Charities and local gov'ts work better in these areas, hence the FEMA disaster in Katrina. You most likely disagree, but I don't think FEMA all of a sudden magically got better once Obama got to Washington.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul humiliated himself on that stage.

His initial response was .....if he doesn't have insurance, he took the risk and should face the consequences

Which means........Let him die!

How would John McCain have reacted if someone in the audience yelled....Let him Die!
McCain would have called the man out and said "This is America, we do not let people die"

Ron Paul and every other republican on that stage said nothing

I'm really glad you illustrated your hyper-partisanship with such an OBVIOUS example.

Sound bite crucifixion, where a reply is cut off at a point to make it mean whatever you WANT it to.

Hack!

That was Paul's initial reply on what we should do with a man in a coma who does not have insurance.......basically, he made his bed let him sleep in it

When given a second chance to reply, he blabbered about letting some church pay for it

RW I've never seen you reach this level of hyper-partisanship.

Deal with the consequences, obviously that means deal with the debt from the medical expenses. For you to actually think Ron Paul would order a doctor not to care for a patient, and that a doctor would listen and leave him there to die, is astounding.

I guess i can expect this level of lying and emotional hysteria to only be the norm for most posters the closer and closer we get to election time.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm really glad you illustrated your hyper-partisanship with such an OBVIOUS example.

Sound bite crucifixion, where a reply is cut off at a point to make it mean whatever you WANT it to.

Hack!

That was Paul's initial reply on what we should do with a man in a coma who does not have insurance.......basically, he made his bed let him sleep in it

When given a second chance to reply, he blabbered about letting some church pay for it

RW I've never seen you reach this level of hyper-partisanship.

Deal with the consequences, obviously that means deal with the debt from the medical expenses. For you to actually think Ron Paul would order a doctor not to care for a patient, and that a doctor would listen and leave him there to die, is astounding.

I guess i can expect this level of lying and emotional hysteria to only be the norm for most posters the closer and closer we get to election time.

Ron Paul had the floor when the audience yelled...Let him die

What was his eloquent response to that callous position? Paul shrugged his shoulders and ignored it. Is that leadership? John McCain would have put those jerks in their place

How does a Doctor sworn to save lives respond? He doesn't

 

[Dr.Drock]

That was Paul's initial reply on what we should do with a man in a coma who does not have insurance.......basically, he made his bed let him sleep in it

When given a second chance to reply, he blabbered about letting some church pay for it

RW I've never seen you reach this level of hyper-partisanship.

Deal with the consequences, obviously that means deal with the debt from the medical expenses. For you to actually think Ron Paul would order a doctor not to care for a patient, and that a doctor would listen and leave him there to die, is astounding.

I guess i can expect this level of lying and emotional hysteria to only be the norm for most posters the closer and closer we get to election time.

Ron Paul had the floor when the audience yelled...Let him die

What was his eloquent response to that callous position? Paul shrugged his shoulders and ignored it. Is that leadership? John McCain would have put those jerks in their place

How does a Doctor sworn to save lives respond? He doesn't

Why should he react to random shouts from one member in a crowd? Why is it important to you how a politician reacts to one heckler in a crowd? They deal with that bs everywhere they go, of course they shouldn't react to it. There's a lot more grown up issues to worry about then how a politician reacts to one random shouter.

 

[rightwinger]

RW I've never seen you reach this level of hyper-partisanship.

Deal with the consequences, obviously that means deal with the debt from the medical expenses. For you to actually think Ron Paul would order a doctor not to care for a patient, and that a doctor would listen and leave him there to die, is astounding.

I guess i can expect this level of lying and emotional hysteria to only be the norm for most posters the closer and closer we get to election time.

Ron Paul had the floor when the audience yelled...Let him die

What was his eloquent response to that callous position? Paul shrugged his shoulders and ignored it. Is that leadership? John McCain would have put those jerks in their place

How does a Doctor sworn to save lives respond? He doesn't

Why should he react to random shouts from one member in a crowd? Why is it important to you how a politician reacts to one heckler in a crowd? They deal with that bs everywhere they go, of course they shouldn't react to it. There's a lot more grown up issues to worry about then how a politician reacts to one random shouter.

Because it is the right thing to do

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul had the floor when the audience yelled...Let him die

What was his eloquent response to that callous position? Paul shrugged his shoulders and ignored it. Is that leadership? John McCain would have put those jerks in their place

How does a Doctor sworn to save lives respond? He doesn't

Why should he react to random shouts from one member in a crowd? Why is it important to you how a politician reacts to one heckler in a crowd? They deal with that bs everywhere they go, of course they shouldn't react to it. There's a lot more grown up issues to worry about then how a politician reacts to one random shouter.

Because it is the right thing to do

If it were Obama ignoring a heckler, I'm sure you'd have no problem with it. Nor would I.