The following names are the people in Congress that voted AGAINST helping the 9/11 1st Responders with health care. There are about 900 dead responders since the attacks 9 years ago, and tens of thousands more sick and dying. When everybody was running away from Ground Zero, these people were running in to save as many people as they can. The people on this list feel that we should not help them. Please adjust your voter ballots accordingly in November.
|
No Votes (160)
Member
Party
Dist.
Robert B. Aderholt
R
AL-4
Todd Akin
R
MO-2
Rodney Alexander
R
LA-5
Steve Austria
R
OH-7
Michele Bachmann
R
MN-6
Spencer Bachus
R
AL-6
J. Gresham Barrett
R
SC-3
Roscoe G. Bartlett
R
MD-6
Joe L. Barton
R
TX-6
Marion Berry
D
AR-1
Judy Biggert
R
IL-13
Brian P. Bilbray
R
CA-50
Gus Bilirakis
R
FL-9
Rob Bishop
R
UT-1
Marsha Blackburn
R
TN-7
John A. Boehner
R
OH-8
Jo Bonner
R
AL-1
Mary Bono Mack
R
CA-45
John Boozman
R
AR-3
Charles Boustany Jr.
R
LA-7
Kevin Brady
R
TX-8
Bobby Bright
D
AL-2
Paul Broun
R
GA-10
Henry E. Brown Jr.
R
SC-1
Ginny Brown-Waite
R
FL-5
Vern Buchanan
R
FL-13
Michael C. Burgess
R
TX-26
Dan Burton
R
IN-5
Steve Buyer
R
IN-4
Ken Calvert
R
CA-44
Dave Camp
R
MI-4
John Campbell
R
CA-48
Eric Cantor
R
VA-7
Shelley Moore Capito
R
WV-2
John Carter
R
TX-31
Bill Cassidy
R
LA-6
Jason Chaffetz
R
UT-3
Howard Coble
R
NC-6
Mike Coffman
R
CO-6
K. Michael Conaway
R
TX-11
Jim Cooper
D
TN-5
Ander Crenshaw
R
FL-4
|
John Culberson
R
TX-7
Geoff Davis
R
KY-4
Mario Diaz-Balart
R
FL-25
Charles Djou
R
HI-1
David Dreier
R
CA-26
John J. Duncan Jr.
R
TN-2
Vernon J. Ehlers
R
MI-3
Jo Ann Emerson
R
MO-8
Jeff Flake
R
AZ-6
John Fleming
R
LA-4
J. Randy Forbes
R
VA-4
Jeff Fortenberry
R
NE-1
Virginia Foxx
R
NC-5
Trent Franks
R
AZ-2
Elton Gallegly
R
CA-24
Scott Garrett
R
NJ-5
Phil Gingrey
R
GA-11
Louie Gohmert
R
TX-1
Robert W. Goodlatte
R
VA-6
Kay Granger
R
TX-12
Sam Graves
R
MO-6
Tom Graves
R
GA-9
Parker Griffith
R
AL-5
Brett Guthrie
R
KY-2
Ralph M. Hall
R
TX-4
Gregg Harper
R
MS-3
Doc Hastings
R
WA-4
Dean Heller
R
NV-2
Jeb Hensarling
R
TX-5
Wally Herger
R
CA-2
Peter Hoekstra
R
MI-2
Duncan D. Hunter
R
CA-52
Bob Inglis
R
SC-4
Darrell Issa
R
CA-49
Lynn Jenkins
R
KS-2
Sam Johnson
R
TX-3
Timothy V. Johnson
R
IL-15
Jim Jordan
R
OH-4
Steve King
R
IA-5
Jack Kingston
R
GA-1
John Kline
R
MN-2
Steven C. LaTourette
R
OH-14
|
Doug Lamborn
R
CO-5
Tom Latham
R
IA-4
Robert E. Latta
R
OH-5
Christopher Lee
R
NY-26
Jerry Lewis
R
CA-41
John Linder
R
GA-7
Frank D. Lucas
R
OK-3
Blaine Luetkemeyer
R
MO-9
Cynthia M. Lummis
R
WY-1
Connie Mack
R
FL-14
Donald Manzullo
R
IL-16
Kenny Marchant
R
TX-24
Kevin McCarthy
R
CA-22
Michael McCaul
R
TX-10
Tom McClintock
R
CA-4
Thaddeus McCotter
R
MI-11
Patrick T. McHenry
R
NC-10
Howard P. McKeon
R
CA-25
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
R
WA-5
John L. Mica
R
FL-7
Gary G. Miller
R
CA-42
Jeff Miller
R
FL-1
Jerry Moran
R
KS-1
Sue Myrick
R
NC-9
Randy Neugebauer
R
TX-19
Devin Nunes
R
CA-21
Pete Olson
R
TX-22
Ron Paul
R
TX-14
Erik Paulsen
R
MN-3
Mike Pence
R
IN-6
Tom Petri
R
WI-6
Joe Pitts
R
PA-16
Ted Poe
R
TX-2
Bill Posey
R
FL-15
Tom Price
R
GA-6
Adam H. Putnam
R
FL-12
George P. Radanovich
R
CA-19
Denny Rehberg
R
MT-1
Dave Reichert
R
WA-8
Harold Rogers
R
KY-5
Mike D. Rogers
R
AL-3
Mike Rogers
R
MI-8
|
Dana Rohrabacher
R
CA-46
Tom Rooney
R
FL-16
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
R
FL-18
Peter Roskam
R
IL-6
Ed Royce
R
CA-40
Paul D. Ryan
R
WI-1
Steve Scalise
R
LA-1
Jean Schmidt
R
OH-2
Aaron Schock
R
IL-18
F. James Sensenbrenner
R
WI-5
Pete Sessions
R
TX-32
John Shadegg
R
AZ-3
John Shimkus
R
IL-19
Bill Shuster
R
PA-9
Mike Simpson
R
ID-2
Adrian Smith
R
NE-3
Lamar Smith
R
TX-21
Cliff Stearns
R
FL-6
John Sullivan
R
OK-1
Lee Terry
R
NE-2
Glenn Thompson
R
PA-5
William M. Thornberry
R
TX-13
Todd Tiahrt
R
KS-4
Pat Tiberi
R
OH-12
Michael R. Turner
R
OH-3
Fred Upton
R
MI-6
Greg Walden
R
OR-2
Zach Wamp
R
TN-3
Lynn Westmoreland
R
GA-3
Edward Whitfield
R
KY-1
Joe Wilson
R
SC-2
Robert J. Wittman
R
VA-1
Frank R. Wolf
R
VA-10
Don Young
R
AK-1
|
source: Visibility 9-11
..just gotta love
all those Bible thumping, flag waving "compassionate conservatives". Not that it is necessarily bad to be conservative ...But the term has been hijacked by a bunch of hypocrites.
even the best can turn to the dark side
A child born of prophecy, possibly conceived by the will of the Force itself, Ron Paul has left an indelible mark on the history of the galaxy, leading it through periods of lightness and dark. Discovered as a slave child on Tatooine, he was brought into the Jedi Order and quickly ascended to become one of its brightest stars. The trials of the Neocon Wars, however, transformed him. Tempted by Supreme Chancellor Brzezinski, Ron succumbed to the dark side of the Force, and became the Sith Lord Darth Cheney. It was only through the efforts of his son, Rand, that Ron was redeemed to fulfill the prophecy, and vanquish the Sith Lord, Darth Rumsfeld.
Much mystery surrounds the birth of Ron Paul. There was no father -- Shmi Skywalker carried him in her womb and gave birth to him, yet how he came to be remains a puzzle. Some speculate that it was the will of the Force. Darker theories point to forbidden Chemtrail experiments that could coax midi-chlorians to create life. Whatever the explanation, Ron was destined to be special, despite his lowly status as a slave.
Shmi and Ron came to tattooing when he was a toddler, and they were sold by their owner, Gardulla the Hutt, to the unscrupulous Toydarian junk dealer Watto to settle a gambling debt. While in Watto's employ, Ron learned valuable mechanical and technical skills. He earned the reputation of being able to fix anything. So technically inclined was he that at the age of nine, he cobbled together a working protocol droid -- R4 ND -- to help his mother.
Ron was a kind, selfless child. He had no thoughts of greed or malice in him. He would often risk his own well-being to bring help to those who needed it, heedless of the consequences. As a five-year old, Ron climbed a dune to chase away bankers. Though he collapsed from exhaustion several times, he nonetheless persevered in his effort to save the greenback. A few years later, he broke into the fortress of Rockefeller the Hutt to save debtor children captured there. Even the risk of enraging the Dug bully named Sebulba -- who provided the debtors as slaves -- did not deter the boy.
Inexcusable
.....for everyone on this list. Period.
Ron's precious ideology
Ron Paul still takes his Congressional salary from the same non-existent magic Government money pot. I don't see him having any qualms of conscience about this. It therefore seems that his oh-so-precious principles, which you have speculated about above, do have their limits after all, when it comes to his own material well being, for example. It's OK with Ron that the Government steals, as you put it, for his own salary, but not OK to help a dying first responder? Thar's hypocrisy, assuming you're right about Ron's "principled stand".
The truth is that Ron is compromised by his own position just like they all are. If Ron had any genuine principles, he wouldn't silently assent to the 911 cover up. What principle is more important, than that it's wrong to take a human life? The guy is a total fraud, he's useless, he should retire immediately and go and farm cabbages, if he wants to be of any real use to the rest of us who feel that mass murder is not acceptable.
All right, I confess, I've never liked Ron Paul, he's a smug 911 denier. This news certainly does nothing to change my mind, "Ron's precious ideology of private property rights" notwithstanding.
So many things wrong with your argument...
that I don't know where to start:
> any kind of taxation is arbitrary theft ...
No it is not! I pay my taxes willingly knowing that a large portion of it is spent on services that I take for granted on daily basis (roads, clean water, fucking electricity... I do have many problems with how it is wasted on wars and spying and torturing people though. But that is a different story) The government provides a framework within which the private sectors and charities mentioned in your post can exist and thrive. And to do that it needs money. Taxing, if done properly, is indeed a very effective mechanism for individuals to ensure that the government is properly funded and able to function properly.
> Private business and charities do much better than bulky bureaucratic governments
Wrong! private businesses and charities usually work in smaller scales, that is why they have less bureaucracy. Once you move up to a national scale, bureaucracy becomes inevitable in order to keep checks and balances. You really don't think NASA could run more efficiently by individual donations?
You mentioned Feal-Good foundation. I have great respect for these individuals, but I doubt enough money for treating even a handful of 9/11 cancer cases can be raised by individual donations. Again, it is about the scale. We are dealing with hundreds, maybe thousands of 9/11 first responders who are facing a variety of health problems, including cancer, which is very expensive to treat. And that is exactly why we need the government to step in and make a plan for treating these heroes. Yes, allocating millions of tax $$ paid by people like me and you is going to be part of that plan. Your local charity is not going to do it.
I could get into details, but for zealots of the Libertarian craze (including Ron Paul, though I respect him for his anti-war and personal-freedoms stance) I'd just suggest living in Somalia for a few weeks -- a libertarian heaven: no functional government -- and see how those glorious free market principles are working there.
Hear, hear!
Well said.
Certainly if we are to
Certainly if we are to approach this topic logically and intelligently we must stay consistent with our arguments. This is something which I will try to do.
After reading your reply, you seem to be implying throughout that my statements above implied an Anarchistic society of some sort with no formal state. While I do have sympathy for an Anarcho-Capitalist system, this is not something which I feel comfortable associating myself with. Personally, I view government as a necessary evil. In this regard, you could call me a Minarchist.
Now deducing from this, I too believe a formal government can be entitled to provide the services of roads, water distribution, ect. Being taxed for this purpose is, for me, ok. However this does not eliminate the fact that when the government "taxes", the funds will be at the mercy of a sole arbiter. One single organization which in all it's wisdom and altruism knows how best to use it. In this regard, I believe the case for an Anarcho Capitalist system should be taken seriously.
The fact that you agree to be taxed for roads and electricity doesn't mean that your neighbor down the street concedes to it. You could say that well if he had a sense of morality or responsibly he would. This however is besides the point. The fact is, his right to voluntarily associate and make contracts with whomever he wishes is being violated. In short, his property is stolen. Like I said above, this idea of privatizing things like roads, electricity, water, ect is all closely examined in the Anarcho-Capitalist literature and I recommend you look at it if you're curious. There's a wonderful book by economist Dr. Robert P. Murphy called "Chaos Theory".
Business in a free-market conducts their action based on profit and loss. If NASA was a private firm, it certainly would be more efficient. If it was not, it would go out of business. Governments don't have to worry about going out of business. They are not subject to the profit and loss system. NASA doesn't have to worry about pleasing anybody but themselves, not to mention competing with anybody else. Keeping this in mind, a body set up to distribute the funds to dying 911 first responders won't be subject to possible consequences when it's found that the money in its entirety doesn't always "make it" to the final recipient.
You say you suspect not enough funds could be raised by private charities. I highly disagree with this. Did you know that in 2008 Ron Paul raised millions of dollars for his campaign? This all came from private citizens, chipping in to help their fellow brothers and sisters in a cause they believe in. Peter Schiff did the same just recently in his run for Senate. I entirely reject the idea that a private charity couldn't raise the necessary funds. We all are adults here, we don't need the government to be our daddy.
As for Somalia, according to Michael van Notten in his book "The Law of the Somalis" Somalia has vastly expanded their exports since 2001, their telecommunications industries offer competition in serving the citizens, it's economy is in fact stronger than it's neighbors Kenya and Ethiopia, and, most importantly, the Somalian shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets leading to a strong foundation for future economic prosperity.
This whole subject boils down to this. We all agree on one thing: Those first responders affected on 911 by the unhealthy working conditions need medical assistance. The part we disagree on is how this assistance should be given. I personally believe it could be done voluntarily without resorting to coercive government taxation and could be done very effectively if awareness of organizations like the Feal-Good Foundation was sufficient.
You could certainly state that the very people who caused the illnesses in the first place by saying the air was safe to breathe (EPA), should be forced to pay out compensation for their lack of insight or even purposeful neglect of analysis. I would agree with this. But instead of forcing the government to tax it's citizens, why don't we sue Christine Whitman and her advisers instead? Remember that the White House put pressure on the EPA to delete cautionary information about the air quality in their reports. We can sue these people as-well for their fraud and what essentially is murder. This solution is not a violation of property rights, and is a free-market approach to solving our problem.
You could argue that the above process would take precious time we don't have in helping give assistance to the dying. I will concede to this.
In the real world
And in this case in particular, we can see the our for profit health care system isn't getting the job done. Nor are the charities despite a vigorous ongoing campaign to help.
Over the last 30 years I have heard of one corporation after another going belly up. The execs take their golden parachute and say to all the workers that pave been paying into their pension fund for 20 years, "Sorry guys, your money is gone."
I payed into Social Security/Medicare for 45 years and now I am withdrawing. I guess that makes me a socialist. I'm damn glad I worked for myself and not a corporation. ;-)
The myth that private business is better does not happen in the world we live in because corporations, including HMO's, don't give a fuck about people. They care only about profits.
George Carlin sums it up like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
No.
The United States is in the ridiculous embarrassing situation it's in because of free market extremism. Libertarianism is a pipe dream by desperate Ayn Rand fans, and more often than not, it's in full sync with the kleptocratic ruling class on this matter. It's a disgrace. The deep and irreparable flaws in libertarianism became painfully evident when Rand Paul took a pie to the face when asked about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His weak and feeble excuses about himself not being a racist are inconsequential: his ideology would have made the 1964 Civil Rights Act impossible, and that's that.
Obama's 'health care' isn't 'socialist' at all, and that is precisely the problem. Have a look at this table from 2007, which can only be regarded as an utter EMBARRASSMENT for the United States, the self-proclaimed 'Greatest Country In The World'.
Tell me: what causes these shameful numbers? Is it because of the international researchers' 'liberal bias', is it because the Swedish socialist system is too good or because the American 'capitalist' (read theft and plunder) system is too bad? And don't tell me the US system was too 'socialist' in the first place, read the report.
I have to tell you, after seeing Donna Marsh O'Connor under attack from 911blogger, seeing the author of that blog out himself as a Holocaust denier, seeing 9/11 truthers slash climate deniers trying to conjure up a quixotic explanation why 'dead' 'fake' 'ventriloquist dummy' Bin Laden (he died almost ten times, wow!) supports climate change and how that helps his NWO puppeteers with their agenda, and now this witless defense of Ron Paul at the expense of the 9/11 first responders, who wanted the bill passed.... I am truly wondering what the hell happened to 911blogger and 9/11 truth. Or perhaps it's just me. I know what my allegiance is though: truth. Wherever it leads.
There are several topics,
and if we want to get serious, we should narrow the scope of our discussion a bit. Here they are:
(By the way I did not down-vote you comments. I think this is a very healthy discussion).
* You agree that government is some sort of necessary (evil or not), but your objection seems to be that those in charge have too much power in deciding how to allocate the funds (from taxation or whatnot) to various causes. I think that is the whole point about democracy and government oversight: so that we the people can have a say on how the tax money is being spent. To make things more complicated, majority of individuals have limited technical knowledge of economy, science, engineering and medicine; at some point we'll have to rely on the opinion of experts on different fields on how and what to spend the money on. I hope we both agree on this.
* You argue that since my next door neighbor doesn't want to chip in for the road, electricity and water, he should not be taxed. I think you are missing the point about the basic untold agreements that exist among people living in a community. When my neighbor reaches his phone to call 911 in a medical or fire emergency, he knows fully well that people like me and you have chipped in to make the infra structure of fire departments and emergency rooms possible. This can be only done efficiently in a scale beyond the abilities of a single private entity, where reliability and responsibility take precedence to monetary profits.
* I mentioned NASA exactly because they don't make profits, and they can't run on donations. The kind of profit we get as a whole is a long term prosperity for us and future generations, and no private company would be willing to spend billions on basic research in order to advance science for the humanity as a whole. This is a point that a lot of Libertarian crowd tend to miss.
* The Ron Paul campaign example you gave: I really hope you don't think this is something that can be practiced on daily basis. Just think of the enormous amount of man-hours spent to mobilize an army of people knocking on doors, writing letters, making ads, the blimp... You really think this kind of operation can be done on daily basis for all kind of national emergencies? Ron Paul campaign was "exciting" for many people, especially the youth, and that is why they were able to collect millions. I assure you that the images of dying first-responders are nowhere as exciting, so even if we had enough volunteers, we couldn't raise as much cash as was done for RP, although the need is much higher. Besides, the public has a short attention span, and you can't run two such operations at the same time. There are so many other flaws with this model that I hope you won't consider this example as a standard protocol.
To get back at the main issue discussed in this thread: I agree that our main disagreement is that I don't believe addressing issues of national scale, such as 9/11 responders, can be or should be dependent on voluntary work, both for moral and technical reasons -- although I agree voluntary work can be a part of it. I believe it'd be a perfectly legitimate decision that the tax money collected from all of us (including those Libertarian or Republican brethren who wouldn't chip in otherwise) be spent for treating 9/11 responders, or addressing similar emergency or non-emergency issues. I am glad you are partially open to this idea, based on the last sentence in your comment.
First I want to thank you for
First I want to thank you for maintaining civility in your second response, I feel it allows for a healthy discussion like you mentioned. Also I want to say that the stance I have right now on this issue is that 911 could certainly be considered an exception to my views of private property and freedom of association. However just because I take this stance does not mean that other individuals who think like me (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists) hold the same views. I want to state that I reject the idea of being labeled anything. I am an independent thinker, that is all.
Unfortunately I do have a couple things to say about your first point regarding Democracy. The US is not a democracy despite what mainstream writers, media figures, and politicians propagandize. The US was founded as a Republic. The founding fathers like Madison were strictly against a Democracy, as Madison puts it:
"Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
To quote Jorg Guido Hulsmann,
"Democracy does not work. It can not work, because every man is free. He cannot transfer his inalienable life and liberty to anyone or anything outside himself. When he tries to do this, he tries to obey an Authority that does not exist."
We The People do not have a say in how our tax money is spent. We can see this empirically in the last 10 years especially. You seem to contradict yourself in your first point. You seem to imply that Democracy is right because it gives a voice to We The People, yet you concede in the next sentence in saying that We The People actually do not possess the intelligence to comprehend the important issues. If this is the case, why allow We The People to vote? Certainly if we don't have enough brain power to make intelligent decisions ourselves, We The People cannot possibly be smart enough to vote in the right politician, especially if we don't understand the issues.
"the basic untold agreements that exist among people living in a community"
Here's where I think we disagree. You seem to imply through this statement that by the very fact of existing in a community, or being born into one, that there exists implicit contracts between said community members. The point I want to make here is that when did person A decide to "join the community"? Or better yet, when did I decide to join the US government "club"? The problem comes when deciding whether or not you have a choice of "quitting the club" or "quitting the community." For the sake of argument I'll use an example from professor Walter Block. Lets look at slavery. Slavery wasn't all bad right? You got your gruel, you had your shelter and security, it was a "gig". The problem with slavery is that you couldn't quit. If you could quit, it wouldn't be considered slavery.
Sure when your neighbor calls 911 he knows very well that the 911 services are made available by the US Government club. I would argue that he should have a choice of whether or not he wants to use the US Government's services or not. You make the point that it is only through a scale larger than a private firm which these services could be provided effectively. I disagree with this. Government services, unlike private business, is always undergoing restrictive measures. To give an example, take city water. Government in some cases ensures individuals do not "exceed their water consumption". This is the exact opposite in the free-market. You would never see a business telling their potential clients to restrict the consumption of their product. They would in fact search for new methods of production upon seeing demand for their product increasing.
I reject the idea that NASA or a similar space program couldn't be run on private donations and private charities. You state that no private business would be whiling to provide billions of dollars to support it. Who's to say it would need billions of dollars? Certainly there isn't a gun pointed to the head of potential donations. People could voluntarily choose to donate what amounts they felt necessary. Even if we concede to the idea that private charities would not be enough to sustain an organization like NASA, who's to say that it needs to be? Remember, government has arbitrarily decided how much money to be spend on NASA, not individuals. If NASA was a
private firm relying on donations, it would progress at the pace in which individuals in the country deemed satisfactory. Just because we spend billions now doesn't mean we would have to in the future. Also, if the income of NASA were to fall dramatically because of reduced private contributions, economically we could see what would happen. Prices for factors of production such as steel (or whatever metal they use), technician wages, glass, tools, nuts bolts, all of these things would be reduced in price because of the decreased demand. Therefore it would actually benefit the space research.
I don't assume that the Ron Paul campaign could be sustained daily, or would it need to be. Monthly, quarterly, or annually would work fine. You seem to be making the point that there exists a difference in the motivation of people to donate to a political campaign as opposed to a national emergency situation like sick first responders. I see no difference myself. Why should there be one? In fact I would say that providing health care for all of the first responders trumps a Ron Paul campaign in certain regards. The pictures of dying first responders are not "exciting" in the same sense of electing a freedom loving president, of course. However the pictures of dying first-responders are very emotional and generates great motivation to help those in need. This can be said about people wanting to sacrifice their life to help innocent victims of war. The idea of dividing a line between "motivations" is arbitrary. I personally become very motivated to donate and help first responders when I see pictures of them and hear about their struggles, and do so regularly.
I feel there is a great deal of hypocrisy within people who voted for this bill and yet have not donated a single penny in the past 9 years to actually help the sick and dying. I'm not implying of course that you are one of them, but I'm sure that there are many shady politicians who this does apply to, and are only voting for this bill in order to receive baseless praise for their sick and twisted endeavors to win popular attention, not to mention votes.
I should have foreseen that
it would be useless to argue with such know-it-alls. You keep pulling out and regurgitating all this libertarian semi-religious beliefs (or whatever you want to call them) without providing any kind of evidence whatsoever, as if repetition in itself is an argument (I guess it is good enough for Fox viewers). Your faith in the sacredness of private firms is so strong; that no matter how many examples I give you of the disasters due to the corporate greed, you will keep repeating the same thing: government and tax is bad, and we should knock on doors try funding roads and power plants with a Ron-Paulesque campaign donation style once in a while. I do feel sorry for you and some of Ron Paul followers, being of good nature, yet utterly incapable of grasping the realities of living in an advanced society. To finish it up: If you don't like paying taxes, feel free to move to a place where taxes are minimal or nonexistent. I can guarantee you that (1) you won't be living in any one of the developed countries; and (2) you will be paying that same money in form of bribes to some corrupt officials in a crap-hole country in order to get the same services you take for granted here (assuming you live in Europe or North America).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. To each their own.
I thought you would be civil
I thought you would be civil but I guess not.
Have a good day.
It is paid for...
By taking out a tax loophole used by people trying to shelter money overseas. It is already paid for, and no taxes were raised.
Ron Paul is no friend of 9/11 Justice, and never has been, and people can post as many videos of Ron Paul saying he supports an investigation all they want, but it's just fluff with no substance.
After Alex Jones pushed the 9/11 Truth Movement into supporting his presidency, we gave him the start that he needed. During the presidential debates, when he was asked about whether or not he supports the idea that the attacks were orchestrated by our Government, he said he doesn't. What he should have done was said he doesn't (if he wanted to save face) and instead, said he does support the families call for a real investigation. He couldn't even do that.
As a doctor, he of all people should have voted yes for this bill. Instead, he shamefully did not.
He has done NOTHING over the years for 9/11 Justice, and again, is no friend of it, and never has been. F Ron Paul, and F those who have hijacked the 9/11 Truth Movement over the years for their agendas.
Easy Jon
I was with ya till the last sentence.
Not that tact is my long suit but you and I need to watch our F's and S's. ;-)
Yes you do Chris
You used the f word yourself after posting the above comment. Check out your post "in the real world" in this thread. Coarse language is destructive.
To every thing there is a season.
Jon was talking about members of the TM who share a different political view. I was talking about cold blooded fascist corporate executives.
Jon and I are angry that so much time and money was diverted. Pushing a candidate was very divisive. We have to disagree agreeably though.
Have to agree with you Jon
Dr. Paul appears seriously comprimised to say the least.
The Truth & Freedom movement should take him to task on this and hold him Accountable.
It is time to ask him some tough questions.
He is failing in his Duty as a Congressman, a Doctor AND as an American.
credit for asserting war
Ron Paul quote:
"Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. . . . The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization."
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
Ron Paul, March 20, 2003, lewrockwell.com
It suggests that those representing their nations in the UN are mere "bureaucrats" with no idea of what they're doing, and that the US Congress is not thoroughly corrupted and bought out. Only the UN kept Bush out of Iraq for precious weeks, allowing some time to get out, or prepare to resist, not the US Congress.
What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul,
and Why You Should Know It
http://911review.com/articles/bov/RonPaul_08.html#0.1_01000004
Ron Paul
Not surprising to see R.P. on the list.
He's sticking to his guns and his guns are pointed at sick people. It's a matter of principle.
I actually admire Ron Paul in the same way I admire any true believer. To have such courage of conviction, to 'know' that one is absolutely right despite all evidence to the contrary is strange and marvelous in the age of confusion.
Ron Paul worships the Austrian school of economics and the 'Founding Fathers' and Jesus. They all contradict one another in spectacular fashion, but logic is not at issue here. Ultimately, and unfortunately, in the real world, it always comes down to property and money. You can't worship mammon and Jesus at the same time, and Paul consistently sides on the part of Mammon.
Dress it up however you wish, thou libertarians, but Paul makes a living attacking the 'least of our brothers'. 'Illegal Aliens' spring to mind.
Since I don't have faith in Ron Paul's various gods I find the whole thing puzzling. And that's why I envy him. To believe with such certainty. To know.
I don't know much, but I do know that the first responders deserve care.
They and every other sick human. So-called 'primitive' peoples took care of their sick and elderly. 'Civilized' people construct elaborate arguments why we should give the money to banks and capitalists instead.
Why not give the monoploly money to heroes
Well, Ron Paul votes against all spending bills. This is no surprise. however, if the monopoly money is being sent to the offshore whorish bankersters, why not throw a few federal reserve notes to those who breathed in toxic gases, nanothermitic byproducts, asbestos and other national labs and construction materials, while attempting to save the lives of those who were not crushed, but were blown to bits by this black op.
Well
Ron Paul shows his true colors. Figures. They are all the same. We need a COMPLETE HOUSE CLEANING!!! These people make my stomach turn. Our day will come, trust me on that one. Every dog has his day.
Limited resources
We must not give any support to any politician that does not openly support the TM.
How can we force politicians to support 9/11 Truth if we keep backing those who don't?
Put your time and money into supporting Truth candidates and spreading the truth.
I called Ron Pauls offfice 4 times on this
subject & got nowhere with his aids.
Shame on the Congressmen for not supporting Americas heros who have been lied & toyed with by our Federal Goverment.
Fact is Alex Jone made Dr.Paul the 911 truth candidate & then Paul let down the honest cause.
I like Paul on many issues but this is his low point.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see how many people who are bashing Ron Paul and others for not supporting this bill actually donate themselves to organizations like the FealGood Foundation.
You want Health Care?
Buy insurance from a for profit loophole specialist company in an anything but a free market. You want tax dollars create a defense company and make weapons or domestic spying software dummy! Republicans vote national security not social security.
For the record the only change you're going to get from the Democrats is chump change, and we're the chumps!
I held...
The very first fund-raiser for 9/11 First Responders in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and half the money went to the FealGood Foundation, and half went to the Gear Up Foundation. Because of that fund-raiser, the 9/11 Truth Movement was introduced to the FealGood Foundation, and helped propel them to the status that they have today. I held 3 more fund-raisers since that time. I stopped holding fund-raisers because people were collecting money, but not giving it to the responders, and that put a bad name on what I was trying to do.
On the day James Zadroga died, I started an archive that has been updated daily ever since with information pertaining to the environmental impact of 9/11. There are probably between 500-1000 articles collected.
I have written several articles over the years pertaining to the responders.
When Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that James Zadroga wasn't a hero, I helped to organize a rally at Bloomberg's office that forced him to retract his statement.
Betsy Metz dedicated the proceeds from 9/11 Truth Tuesdays to the FealGood Foundation.
I was awarded a plaque for "Honorary Director" of the FealGood Foundation for all of my efforts over the years.
Very few people on this planet, outside of the 9/11 First Responders themselves, have done as much for the responders as I have.
F Ron Paul.
This comment was in response to...
"It would be interesting to see how many people who are bashing Ron Paul and others for not supporting this bill actually donate themselves to organizations like the FealGood Foundation."
Thank you Jon
For all you have done for the 9/11 first responders.
Why do people (like me for instance) use aliases?
Answer: Because we fear some sort of negative consequences.
Perhaps we should put up or shut up and leave the movement to Jon Gold, Chris Sarns, Aidan Monigan (spelling?) and those who use their real names.
Those of us who use alias all have excuses. My excuse is because I have a contribution to make to the world in an entirely different field, and I feel that my ability to make that contribution will be blunted were I to use my real name on this site. I feel that I am just one tiny voice in 9/11 Truth whereas I feel that I have a much larger presence in another creative and life-affirming field.
Perhaps this is just a lot of rationalizing.
Perhaps Ron Paul rationalizes that his work vis-a-vis economics is too important to jepoardize.
Perhaps he and I and Alison and Victronix and Leftwright and 911peacenik and Democracydiva and Danse and Ferric Oxide and 9-11 Joe and Truthoverprofit and Mber and PeacefulWarrior and the endless number of others who use aliases should all just go away from this medium - or confine our communications to first-hand, real-time events at which we are personally present.
zm
Anonymous is OK
The only people who can use their real names are retired or have incomes not dependent on "the system".
RP has no excuse for not voting for the first responders. It is consistent with his Libertarian philosophy. Every man for himself. If they can't afford bread, let them eat cake. The government should stay out of peoples lives except to control their sex behavior and reproduction rights.
He has no excuse for his outright rejection of the TM. He could have said "Let's have a real investigation so we can put these conspiracy theories to rest" and been politically safe.
He did not support the articles of impeachment brought by his friend Dennis Kusinich.
He does not support the TM and he does not deserve our support. He is a gatekeeper.
My name is John William Wright
I live in San Anselmo, California (about 12miles north of the Golden Gate bridge).
There is another John Wright in my town, so make sure you have the correct one before you start bugging him (he's a lawyer, too).
I started using LeftWright online because John Wright was always already taken at any site I wanted to comment on and when it came time to sign up here at 911blogger I just used that name (there were a lot of anonymous names at that time, too).
I have considered changing my name here, but am known here as LeftWright and thought it would be confusing to change my name after posting for years, plus I like the play on my name and politics that "LeftWright" is.
I will say that having what I consider to be a rather boring common name has made me very interested in names and their meaning since I was eleven years old.
I have thought about changing my name, but will keep the one my loving parents gave me out of respect and because I am proud to be their son and am also proud to be associated with my brothers and sister, as well as many other family members.
I plan on at least one other career in my life and may use a different name for that, the name I would have given myself were I born in a vacuum or to some of my Scottish ancestors.
For me, this has nothing to do with fear ( fear is the mind killer - Paul Atreides from the novel Dune) and is the only thing we really need to fear, imo. (Fear is also a soul killer, imo)
I can honestly say that I love you all, even those whose economic philosophy is antithetical to mine. I may disagree with some of you rigorously, as you may with me, but I will continue to fight with everything I have to create a world where we can all agree or disagree peacefully and come to know each other as individuals and not as members of this or that group, class, culture or ethnicity (there is only one human race, yes?).
I think everyone will agree that the size or function of government is irrelevant if said government is corrupt.
This is really one of the core reasons why we are part of the international 9/11 truth movement, maybe the fundamental reason.
A government that will not properly investigate the mass murder of its citizens (and others) on its own soil cannot be allowed to remain in power if we are to create the world we all want to live in.
Thus, I say to everyone, let us all work together to restore the rule of law, restore our constitution, restore and rehabilitate our electoral process and in doing so, reclaim our republic. Then, and only then, we can debate the role of government in our lives and actually have a chance to form meaningful governments at all levels, from my local town council to international bodies overseeing the oceans we share, the air we breath and the space above this big, beautiful blue ball we call home.
Considering the present reality we humans find ourselves in, I think bashing one another over theoretical political or economic philosophies is rather pointless, don't you brothers and sisters? [It also plays into the age old divide and conquer strategy used by the sociopathic elites to control people].
...and I thought I was just going to comment on my alias ... LOL (end of sermon)
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Just for the record
I use the peacefulwarrior as a handle which I feel sums up my personal politics in the war on truth.
I think my actual name could be easily found by any agency who cared to find out in short enough order.
Anyone else who wants to ask me just send me an email.
Regarding healthcare it really comes down to whether you feel an individual in an advanced society such as ours has a right to healthcare. I personally do and that being the case we could provide universal coverage and probably spend less money and certainly not more than we do now. Estimates of 4-5 billion dollars Per Year for administrative costs is just not money well spent. In addition there is an inherent conflict of interest in for profit insurance companies deciding on how to provide healthcare. Of course if you don't believe that we have a right to healthcare then I guess it doesn't matter. However, remember a very large percentage of bankruptcies in our country are a direct result of healthcare and by people who thought they had good insurance.
A couple reasons why I must
A couple reasons why I must object to your reply.
We both agree the US can be considered an "advanced" society however vague that notion is. Lets assume for sake of argument that you mean economically advanced.
The US became economically advanced because of Capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership in the means of production, we must keep this in mind.
Through the centuries the people of the US worked hard, accumulated capital, and invested this capital to produce more and more capital goods. These capital goods allowed our ancestors to be more productive in their labor output, resulting in higher wages and declining prices for consumer goods. This process increased the standard of living of everyone involved, and was initiated through savings, hard work, and sacrificing present consumption for that of the future. This was all made possible through the preservation of private property rights, and the highlighting of individual liberty in regards to ethics.
This is economically how we became an advanced society.
Now I reject fully the idea that individuals under any system has a right to the goods and services of others. This is a direct violation of the law of association and amounts to the extorting of other peoples property through the barrel of a gun. Allowing one group to gain at the expense of everyone else is ethically wrong in my opinion.
If we assume, as it seems you do, that individuals in an "advanced" society have a right to health care, why don't we extend this and grant everyone the right to high quality food? After all, being under a proper diet can be considered a health choice. If we want to care to everyone's health, why don't we give everyone this access? Why stop there? Let's give everyone the opportunity to travel the world. The world is such a aesthetically beautiful place, it would be a shame if everyone didn't have an equal opportunity to excavate and explore themselves.
The point is, is that someone must pay for these goods and services. The socialist idea of "equal access to health care" is inviting on the surface, however the argument collapses as soon as you investigate it further.
Economically, if everyone had access to health care through a government organization, the quality of health care would plummet drastically as the demand exceeds supply. In a rush to try to service everyone, quality must be sacrificed for quantity. This is exactly what you see in places like Canada.
A real solution to the health care problem in the US lies in freedom.
Economic professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe suggests four simple steps.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. (Eliminating the FDA)
3. Deregulate the health insurance industry.
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy.
Why stop there?
Let's give everyone the opportunity to travel the world.
Please, ;-)
Health care and food are essentials. We are not going to agree - ever. No worries.
The question here is: Do you think the the taxpayers should pay for the medical costs of the first responders? I do.
The point I was trying to
The point I was trying to make is that if you want to redistribute wealth for health care, why not for universal world travel or universal access to high quality food?
If you do concede to universal health and food, then be brave enough to say you favor redistribution of wealth, because that's what it is.
You betcha
The corporate fascist, terrorist government we now have is a result of deregulation. the elimination of the "fairness doctrine", media and corporate consolidation, which has resulted in the biggest transfer of wealth in history.
Without government regulations, that is the inevitable result. Free, unbridled capitalism is Fascism.
Fascism is violent
So you do favor redistribution of wealth? You kind of switched topics there.
Fascism is violent restriction of individual liberty.
Free market capitalism is voluntary association under the division of labor. Individual freedom.
What about the first responders?
Do you support the call to have the taxpayers cover their medical costs?
Incorrect definition
Fascism is the convergence of corporations and government. The RESULT is violence for profit and suppression of civil rights.
Regardless of whether
Regardless of whether corporations converge with governments or not, it's still the restriction of individual liberty in substitution of a command economy.
You made a 180 and pushed the argument for redistribution of wealth to what the current government does and not what will happen under your own proposals.
The topic of our economic problems is a long a lengthy one which I do not wish to get into. However I do suggest you read the book "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods Jr to get a correct understanding of our political and economic woes.
I can see the argument for taxpayers helping to pay the bills of the first responders. With that said, I don't think whenever there is a "national emergency" taxpayers must be on the hook for all expenses. See my post above in reply to psi3fi. Private charity can do just fine in this regard.
Let me ask you, in these 9 years, have you donated to help the sick and dying yourself?
Non-answer
"I can see the argument for taxpayers helping to pay the bills of the first responders."
Do you support the bill before congress to pay for the first responders mecical costs?
Yes or no?
Would I pay it if I had a
Would I pay it if I had a choice to or not? No I wouldn't, because I pay it already.
Yeah I know how this country developed and
now the mature companies we built on the backs of the US work force have outsourced our jobs to slave wage countries. Not democracies with long hard fought saftey, pollution, honest wages, regulations, just mass population centers where anything goes. So don't preach to me about Capitalism. You may think the system is about an exchange of goods and services but the economic model really exists for the oligarchies plain and simple. The bad news is they won't need the masses much longer. Less than 50 years IMO. What if China grows it's permanant workforce to 200 million, a fraction of their population, who's going to compete with that? India just behind them. Under the current system with respect to the current population there will never be enough jobs. Something will have to change the system or the number of people. If we were to scrap the economic model and build a better system with everyone making real contributions to society then yes we could most likely work a couple of days a week and have good food and travel the world. Think of all the human energy going to waste everyday, think of all the wasted energy we all put forth each day that has no real value to humanity. The truth is the elite doesn't want you to know what is really possible because they want to live like kings and queens as they always have. The beauty of our democracy was that the average guy could obtain some real opprotunities and have a pension, a vacation, send his kids to college, even be the sole breadwinner. This was the short lived miracle which is evaporating quickly. I don't think we are ready anytime soon to create a new system, but I do think if we don't move in that direction then the market solution handed out by the elite won't be pretty.
The sports team hats we buy in the mall for $28 have a labor cost of $.14 that's 14 cents each in Bangladesh. The people who earn the 14 cents are starving and feel their problems would be over if only they could earn about 28 cents. This is an example of capitalism in today's global form.
All of these things you
All of these things you mention which are supposedly defects of Capitalism are in fact because of government interventionism. The free-market is not to blame.
There is no such thing as "not enough jobs". As long as we live in a world of scarcity and in a world where we want more, there will always be work to do.
"Think of all the human energy going to waste everyday, think of all the wasted energy we all put forth each day that has no real value to humanity. The truth is the elite doesn't want you to know what is really possible because they want to live like kings and queens as they always have."
This is nothing but Socialist propaganda. If this is what you truly believe then I humbly suggest, as-well as the poster above, you openly state that you're in favor of redistribution of wealth and the public ownership of the means of production. You say that the elite don't want us to know what's possible? Well it seems like you're the omniscient Socialist dictator which knows precisely how all of society should be structured, lets hear your utopian plan, sir.
You must be Joking
What about the "free market" surrounding wall street.
And don't give me the old we should have let the big banks fail scenerio unless you really feel that it would have been ok for the entire economic model to collapse into worldwide severe depression. Because that was what really was at stake. The world would suffer because of the super capitalists on wall street.
Yeah for the record I like the Venus Project for the long term. However, we need to evolve to that system and I favor Richard C. Cook's ideas regarding a somewhat long transition period.
I grew up a capitalist, I live on a big estate, I have a couple of businesses which I started with $3000 about 15 years ago. No one gave me any inheritance and I ate macaroni and beans for three years everyday to save three grand while working for $14k a year back then with a family of three. I have almost always worked more than one job for most of my life.
Singling out Congress's only libertarian
Is this blog set up to discuss the truth of what happened on 9/11 and closely related matters? Or is it set up so as to discuss such matters as healthcare and what recompense the U.S. federal government should provide to people who were victimized by the murderous and illegal actions of said government?
Back in the day when the Constitution's meaning was still taken somewhat seriously by the political classes, House member Davy Crockett (you know, the coonskin hat guy) dissented from a Congressional vote to make charitably payments to a widow who husband was supposed to have done something patriotic. Crockett made the obvious point that the coercive agency of government has no moral (or Constitutional) authority to steal from citizens ("tax" is the euphemism) on behalf of those we think worthy of our charity:
http://members.cox.net/polincorr1/pol1.htm
Now, the vast majority of the latter-day House members who voted against the bill cited in this blog topic are hypocrites, as they're enthusiastic supporters of the illegal and unconstitutional wars of aggression which the 9/11 hoax was concocted to make palatable to the general public. (But, then, hypocrisy goes hand in hand with politics, as we all know.) Now, though Ron Paul is no paragon of perfection, it remains to his credit that he opposed this bill while consistently voting against these wars of aggression against Islamic countries in the aftermath of 9/11.
Of course, it would be lovely if Paul -- or one of the House members who voted for that bill -- sponsored legislation making it easier for rescue workers to sue the EPA or calling for a real, independent investigation to occur which would expose the murderous machinations of the EPA with respect to Manhatten. But, as we also know, not one standing member of the 535 people in Congress would be willing to go out on a limb like that, much less speak out on behalf of 9/11 truth. Interesting, the emphasis here on Paul, when every single other member of Congress also fails to speak truth to the warmongers and the power elite.