Minutus

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/122107HA.shtml
as per our conversation about the insurance company, this
article gives a summary of the current presidential candidates
positions on health care. towards the end of the article,
dennis kucinich is referenced with his criticisms of these
alleged plans. i think he is the only one who said anything
meaningful about them. edwards, sounds good and is the
recipient of the least amount of money from these corporations.
i feel it is critical for homeopathy's survival to have a
true understanding of the these candidates and the state of
the corporate rule if we are to develop realistic and
meaningful strategies for our ongoing survival and protection.
tanya

I agree.
For those who may be interested, Ron Paul is an MD, but fully supports health freedom and alternative medicine. He also categorically opposes forced vaccination in any form.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/
Helen

as a libertarian he supports a laissez-fair position which
works for us concerned about health freedom access.
but dont get caught up with him. he, as all libertarians,
support corporate rights and he opposes spending any money
on social programs; ie, social security, public education,
labor, etc. and he supports funding religious groups. his
so-called structuralist interpretation of the constitution
would be rigid, anachronistic and supportive of theocratic
politics. we would not fare well as a culture under his
type of tenure.
dennis kucinich has a similar positions on health but is a much more
truly populist candidate. ron paul is dangerously seductive
and needs to be carefully watched and contained.
tanya

I suggest for those Americans who are eligible to vote to do your own
research on Ron Paul, as well as other candidates, and the topics that
are being discussed - social security, public education, corporate
rights, etc. He will protect social security, doesn't take corporate
funding from what I read, I highly doubt he's into government funding
of religious groups as it's against the constitution. As for public
education, anyone with children who are failing in public school should
know that the school can't do much. Every child learns at their own
pace and it's starting to cost a lot more money than it costs to send
your kid to private school or even homeschool for a lower quality
education.

Ann

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette" wrote:

read his web site. that is where i take much of
my info. he does not support public education but
does support vouchers for religious schools. he
subscribes to the idea that the constitution does
not separate church and state. and he does not
support social security since it is a government
program and he does not support government social
programs. he supports this delusion that capitalism
will level itself out fairly if left unattended. this
is a position of ignorance since capitalism is antithetical
to democracy and humanism--it is all about power and
money by any means necessary. for it to exist in
a democratic politic requires mass government oversight
and control, something that we do not have.
but you are correct, that everyone should take personal
responsibility to become educated, hopefully not succumbing
to more glitz and spin.
tanya