Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

I can't wait until election-time politcal junkies start flooding vs! With beer talk!


  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

#1 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:51 AM

One of the most amusing things I find about presidential elections, especially the last one, is how every Tom, Dick, Harriet, and Sally decides to post in a political sub-forum about their super ill-informed political views from left, right, and center. This forum is actually not the worst one I've ever been on and for the most part relatively sane. But hell, in a couple months, we'll be flooded with homeotherapy, PETA, and War of Northern Aggression types. I can't wait! LOLZ:lol:

Edited by dohdough, 22 February 2012 - 10:47 PM.


#2 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:36 AM

But hell, in a couple months, we'll be flooded with homeotherapy, PETA, and War of Northern Aggression types.

Or worse, women.

Amazing how accurate this report is in my own life. We use the MSNBC app on the Xbox and every time I look at the Iran/US stories my girlfriend rolls her eyes, but wants me to click on every single pregnant woman that goes missing. Yes, the husband did it. Let's move on!

But even she hates Nancy Grace.

#3 soulvengeance

soulvengeance

    Beating dead horses

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:54 AM

Or worse, women.

Amazing how accurate this report is in my own life. We use the MSNBC app on the Xbox and every time I look at the Iran/US stories my girlfriend rolls her eyes, but wants me to click on every single pregnant woman that goes missing. Yes, the husband did it. Let's move on!

But even she hates Nancy Grace.


Everyone should hate Nancy Grace. Didn't realize that many guys cared about Mike Vick.
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#4 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:18 AM

I think our mutual distaste for Nancy Grace will be something all the regulars of vs. can unite behind.

#5 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:15 PM

Didn't realize that many guys cared about Mike Vick.


Well, it was in 2007, so it was more timely then.

One thing I can say with years and years of anecdotal evidence to support: no matter what gender prefers what news, damn near nobody watches or reads the news.
Posted Image

#6 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:46 PM

There are a lot of trolls that come in. But vs. needs some new blood. There's really what, maybe 10 regulars who post here on a semi daily basis? So it's gotten pretty stale as it's the same old people, arguing over the same old shit ad nauseum--myself included.

But it is unlikely any informed people will come over for election crap and stay anyway. *shurgs*

#7 The Great Muta

The Great Muta

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:10 PM

Getting an early start on the madhouse rush.

- I'll most likely cast a vote for Ron Paul. I really dig the dude. I know every politician is a puppet but I like him the best.

- I hate the DREAM act and Newt Gingrich (politically and as a person). I think Rick "Frothy" Santorum is batshit crazy—especially his idea of foreign policy.

- I've been real critical of Barack Obama over the past four years. He sure can talk a good game, tho. His whole "I'm gonna put an end to insider trading and pass stuff for lobbying reform" sorta wet my pants.

Where do I fit in?

#8 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:23 PM

Since this is an organic thread...

Getting an early start on the madhouse rush.

- I'll most likely cast a vote for Ron Paul. I really dig the dude. I know every politician is a puppet but I like him the best.

What do you like about him exactly? Policy-wise.

- I hate the DREAM act and Newt Gingrich (politically and as a person). I think Rick "Frothy" Santorum is batshit crazy—especially his idea of foreign policy.

Establishment republican.

- I've been real critical of Barack Obama over the past four years. He sure can talk a good game, tho. His whole "I'm gonna put an end to insider trading and pass stuff for lobbying reform" sorta wet my pants.

Where do I fit in?

Tea-bagger.

#9 The Great Muta

The Great Muta

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:44 PM

I'm not a fan of partisan politics. I haven't truly read the politics-infused CAG Versus threads in a while, so I have forgotten how they function. There are a lot of well-educated people here. Somewhat intimidating, to be honest. Plus, I only dabble in political news.

But yes, Ron Paul.

- I dig small government.
- Somewhat torn on his opinion of abortion. People should accept responsibility for their actions if they didn't take preventative measures. But, I think abortion should be legal for cases like rape, incest, and for health concerns. I'm a fan of how he would let states handles these decisions.
- Unlike Mitt Romney, he has been consistent. For better or worse, I like consistency.
- He voted against No Child Left Behind
- Big fan of his environmentalism
- I dig how he wants government out of health care

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. (I had been mistaken on a few points about Romney, to be honest.)

#10 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:48 PM

No, Romney wants federal government out of health care. I hate how everyone just assumes that the federal government is the only government.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#11 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:27 PM

No, Romney wants federal government out of health care. I hate how everyone just assumes that the federal government is the only government.


If you're responding to Chase's post, he was referring to Paul. And I'm pretty sure Paul does want the government out of it completely. (I may be wrong though.)

#12 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:38 PM

Since when is Ron Paul an environmentalist?

Even if he personally likes pine trees and fresh air his policies would keep the government from enforcing anti-pollution laws.

Also "government out of healthcare" is so abjectly stupid I don't even know where to begin.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#13 BigT

BigT

    Hey Zach...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:45 PM

But yes, Ron Paul.

- I dig small government.
- Somewhat torn on his opinion of abortion. People should accept responsibility for their actions if they didn't take preventative measures. But, I think abortion should be legal for cases like rape, incest, and for health concerns. I'm a fan of how he would let states handles these decisions.
- Unlike Mitt Romney, he has been consistent. For better or worse, I like consistency.
- He voted against No Child Left Behind
- Big fan of his environmentalism
- I dig how he wants government out of health care


Nice to have another Ron Paul supporter around.

Basically, the two party system serves mainly to distract people from the real issues, while perpetuating the status quo. GW Bush = Mitt Romney = Barack Obama. Judge Napolitano was right on with his comments earlier this month (I guess that was too much for Fox to handle... now he's off of TV and there are no more decent news programs available to watch):



With regard to the issues, I think that the most dangerous aspect of our day is the increasing amount of power that we are ceding to our government. The only one who argues against that is Ron Paul. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all want to expand government and all support stronger laws that superficially are designed to "protect the children," "fight the terrorists," or "protect the public from dangerous drugs or dangerous banks" However, deep down, these laws and regulations are designed to enrich those favored by government and to further strengthen their power...

#14 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:59 PM

Well, a non-business show on a business channel that had a pretty long legacy of modest-to-crappy ratings getting canceled is apparently a foolish notion when held up against the scrutiny of OMG RON PAUL SUPPRESSION EFFECT! paranoia.
Posted Image

#15 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:21 PM

Also "government out of healthcare" is so abjectly stupid I don't even know where to begin.


Maybe in 50 years that'll be true, but not now. America doesn't have the organization or the monetary resources to get into healthcare right now. If we did it now we'd probably just Fuck it up and it'd take another 250 years before it got another chance.

#16 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:35 PM

If you're responding to Chase's post, he was referring to Paul. And I'm pretty sure Paul does want the government out of it completely. (I may be wrong though.)

Yeah I misread that, was in a hurry. Though if a state (like Massachusetts) wanted to instate a healthcare plan, Paul would probably chalk it up to state's rights.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#17 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:39 PM

Maybe in 50 years that'll be true, but not now. America doesn't have the organization or the monetary resources to get into healthcare right now. If we did it now we'd probably just Fuck it up and it'd take another 250 years before it got another chance.


Other countries healthcare systems cost less than ours, much less.

You are telling the US doesn't have the resources to spend less?

As for the lack of organization explain or gtfo.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#18 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:48 PM

There are a lot of trolls that come in. But vs. needs some new blood. There's really what, maybe 10 regulars who post here on a semi daily basis? So it's gotten pretty stale as it's the same old people, arguing over the same old shit ad nauseum--myself included.

But it is unlikely any informed people will come over for election crap and stay anyway. *shurgs*

Yeah, I agree. We could use some non-troll-ish new blood, but even then, it'll devolve into the left/right paradigm. I think if we had a few more people more versed in political theory and gay issues would really improve the depth of of our discussions. Not to say that none of the regulars aren't either, but it comes up so rarely.

I'm not a fan of partisan politics. I haven't truly read the politics-infused CAG Versus threads in a while, so I have forgotten how they function. There are a lot of well-educated people here. Somewhat intimidating, to be honest. Plus, I only dabble in political news.

Well, the first step is always asking questions and since you didn't drop a Ron Paul 2012!!! bomb on us, I know I'm generally a lot more cordial.

But yes, Ron Paul.

- I dig small government.

The problems with small governments is that they're even more susceptible to corruption due to the mere scope of their jurisdiction. Paul is more interested in a loose confederation of nation states and less concerned with the abuses the people would experience a decentralized federal government.

- Somewhat torn on his opinion of abortion. People should accept responsibility for their actions if they didn't take preventative measures. But, I think abortion should be legal for cases like rape, incest, and for health concerns. I'm a fan of how he would let states handles these decisions.

If the resources and opportunities aren't there to take care of those responsibilities, then they need an alternative option. This means that if you are going to force these people to have kids, you better provide a welfare system. Throwing the social contract out the door is not an answer.

- Unlike Mitt Romney, he has been consistent. For better or worse, I like consistency.

Being consistently wrong is not something to admire. John Kerry put it best when he said that he has no problem changing a position if it is wrong.

- He voted against No Child Left Behind
- Big fan of his environmentalism
- I dig how he wants government out of health care

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. (I had been mistaken on a few points about Romney, to be honest.)

Without going too deep, the problem with Paul is that he wants to cut federal government out of everything, like I alluded to earlier. Let's take his stance on drugs for instance, which is a popular issue that privileged kids usually attach to when they first start really becoming politically conscious. Paul isn't really supportive of the carte blanche legalization of drugs, but just supports the stance that the federal government should have no say about it. He would rather have states make it illegal, rather than legalize it because he is anti-drug period. Change the issue into abortion, civil rights, or any seemingly "liberal" issue and it's the same thing.

He's an authoritarian dominionist that cavorts with known white supremacists. His excuse of "fools and their money are soon separated" doesn't fly because they'd stop supporting him if he didn't represent their ideology. It's really no coincidence; it's the Southern Strategy in action.

Nice to have another Ron Paul supporter around.

Basically, the two party system serves mainly to distract people from the real issues, while perpetuating the status quo. GW Bush = Mitt Romney = Barack Obama. Judge Napolitano was right on with his comments earlier this month (I guess that was too much for Fox to handle... now he's off of TV and there are no more decent news programs available to watch):

I'd say that there's enough of a difference between those three politicians to say that they would govern differently. Things like repeal of DADT or the pay equity bill would've never happened under Bush or Romney and neither would the new consumer credit protection agency.

With regard to the issues, I think that the most dangerous aspect of our day is the increasing amount of power that we are ceding to our government. The only one who argues against that is Ron Paul. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all want to expand government and all support stronger laws that superficially are designed to "protect the children," "fight the terrorists," or "protect the public from dangerous drugs or dangerous banks" However, deep down, these laws and regulations are designed to enrich those favored by government and to further strengthen their power...

This is emblematic of the problem with the narrow view of current conservative ideology: that the government has too much power. Instead of looking at the entity that benefits from malfeasance, they look at the middleman. Government doesn't just give and take in a vacuum, it's just a tool and right now, it's the power elite/.001%/corporations/or whatever you want to call them that are in control.

#19 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:58 PM

Maybe in 50 years that'll be true, but not now. America doesn't have the organization or the monetary resources to get into healthcare right now. If we did it now we'd probably just Fuck it up and it'd take another 250 years before it got another chance.

HahaWUT?

Yeah I misread that, was in a hurry. Though if a state (like Massachusetts) wanted to instate a healthcare plan, Paul would probably chalk it up to state's rights.

Paul would, and he'd denounce it just the same because then it would be the state infringing on Freedom and Liberty. Paul's an ideologue because it's less about state's rights and more about the state's right to do stuff he likes.

#20 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:38 AM

Paul would, and he'd denounce it just the same because then it would be the state infringing on Freedom and Liberty.

Absolutely not. He believes that states should have a right to establish something like gay marriage.



So if a state wants to do what it wants on health care, it has his blessing. He doesn't have to personally support it.

The problems with small governments is that they're even more susceptible to corruption due to the mere scope of their jurisdiction. Paul is more interested in a loose confederation of nation states and less concerned with the abuses the people would experience a decentralized federal government.

We have a strong federal government and that setup is much more suited to encroach on civil liberties. All the candidates, including the incumbent, support things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA and so on.

We have a lot of problems in which photographers get in trouble for photographing federal buildings and things like that. It's also an issue at the state and local level, but we don't need another layer on top of it all enforcing a police state. You've got federal agencies suggesting that someone with a SLR camera is somehow suspicious and a threat that needs to be called in. It's much easier for a centralized government to disseminate that kind of paranoia and fear and abuse our civil liberties.

#21 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:46 AM

But it is unlikely any informed people will come over for election crap and stay anyway. *shurgs*

It's still a forum where people come for information on video game deals and sales, at its core. Everything else is going to be secondary to that. Few people are going to say, "Hey, I want to discuss politics, let me go to Cheap Ass Gamer." What you're going to get here is people who came for the deals and then stayed for the other sub-forums.

The posters here are not any less informed than the average user at Reddit or something, though.

#22 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:17 AM

Absolutely not. He believes that states should have a right to establish something like gay marriage.


So if a state wants to do what it wants on health care, it has his blessing. He doesn't have to personally support it.

Of course he doesn't need to support it in other states because he would fight to have no same sex marriages, no abortions, and Civil Rights Act because of nebulous conceptualizations of "liberty" and "freedom." Accepting it is different from having his "blessing." He's very careful with his language in that clip.

We have a strong federal government and that setup is much more suited to encroach on civil liberties. All the candidates, including the incumbent, support things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA and so on.

We have a lot of problems in which photographers get in trouble for photographing federal buildings and things like that. It's also an issue at the state and local level, but we don't need another layer on top of it all enforcing a police state. You've got federal agencies suggesting that someone with a SLR camera is somehow suspicious and a threat that needs to be called in. It's much easier for a centralized government to disseminate that kind of paranoia and fear and abuse our civil liberties.

You know what's hilarious about things like the way you argue the PATRIOT Act? It was put together by the same people that were harping about freedom fries and flag lapel pins. Both sides might've voted for the measures, but only one side made it "unpatriotic" not to.

#23 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:34 AM

You know what's hilarious about things like the way you argue the PATRIOT Act? It was put together by the same people that were harping about freedom fries and flag lapel pins. Both sides might've voted for the measures, but only one side made it "unpatriotic" not to.

Ron Paul speaks of things that sound good and have titles with "patriot" and "liberty" in them, that actually are very unpatriotic and encroach on liberty. We should be diligent in looking out for these laws.

You are very correct about the people who put together the Patriot Act. Ron Paul was one of three Republicans who voted against the original, and one of 13 that voted against the 2006 renewal.

#24 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:48 AM

Ron Paul speaks of things that sound good and have titles with "patriot" and "liberty" in them, that actually are very unpatriotic and encroach on liberty. We should be diligent in looking out for these laws.

:roll:

You are very correct about the people who put together the Patriot Act. Ron Paul was one of three Republicans who voted against the original, and one of 13 that voted against the 2006 renewal.

He also voted against MLK day, called him a commie, and would've voted against the Civil Rights Act. Yeah..that's liberty all right...to discriminate and be as racist as you can be.

#25 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:58 AM

:roll:


He also voted against MLK day, called him a commie, and would've voted against the Civil Rights Act. Yeah..that's liberty all right...to discriminate and be as racist as you can be.


A government that will grant itself the power to regulate who you let onto your property will use that power to regulate sexual and social habits.

Question: Your solutions, on stopping drug trade, is, give up, give up to world drugs. I say zero tolerance, we use the military for aid, we stop it from getting into the country, we cut it off at the source. Why give up on that fight?
Ron Paul: What we give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem, and We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person, it can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet; you're a little overweight, and I think you need government help!

Here's more:

  • Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
  • All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
  • Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
  • Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

States' rights is the pitch to conservatives to get them on board with ending the war on drugs. You may know it as community empowerment.
Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

#26 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:17 AM

A government that will grant itself the power to regulate who you let onto your property will use that power to regulate sexual and social habits.

So in Libertopia, how are property rights going to be enforced?

Here's more:

States' rights is the pitch to conservatives to get them on board with ending the war on drugs. You may know it as community empowerment.

If churches and charity was effective, we would have no need for any kind of social safety net. Have an explanation for that?

Throwing the social contract out the window does not make for a make for a stable society. Do I really need to bring up Somalia?

Also, state's rights is a canard for allowing states to be as oppressive as possible. This is not conjecture; this is fucking history.

#27 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:33 AM

Do I really need to bring up Somalia?


Somalia has a coalition government and we have a constitutional republic. The two nations are not directly comparable. Some wonder if Somalia even has any kind of governance worth mentioning.

Ron Paul supporters are not trying to change the nation's form of government or the way it's supposed to do business, but at its core they want the constitution to be obeyed. This is the document that already governs our nation. You may call what they want Libertopia but it is more accurate to say Constitutiontopia.

There is something to be said for the health care systems of other nations. They report lower costs and better results, but I doubt a mandate is compatible with our governing document or ideals.

He also voted against MLK day, called him a commie, and would've voted against the Civil Rights Act. Yeah..that's liberty all right...to discriminate and be as racist as you can be.

Correct. And it was government that enforced Jim Crow laws that forbid people to not discriminate. Ron Paul did not support Jim Crow laws.

Holding a principled position is a very hard thing for people like Ron Paul to do because it clears the way for others to appeal to emotion and hurl insults at you, and those get more play than complex arguments full of nuance. It is much easier to bow down and say, "Yeah, anything the government can do to help people is good, and we shouldn't think of the consequences unintended or intended. And we shouldn't stop to think about whether or not we actually can control people and the things they do or say."

The same reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act is how we get the drug wars and things like that. It's this idea that people cannot think for themselves and have to be told how to run their lives.

#28 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:47 AM

Somalia has a coalition government and we have a constitutional republic. The two nations are not directly comparable. Some wonder if Somalia even has any kind of governance worth mentioning.

Huh? That's kind of the point?

Ron Paul supporters are not trying to change the nation's form of government or the way it's supposed to do business, but at its core they want the constitution to be obeyed. This is the document that already governs our nation. You may call what they want Libertopia but it is more accurate to say Constitutiontopia.

HA...

There is something to be said for the health care systems of other nations. They report lower costs and better results, but I doubt a mandate is compatible with our governing document or ideals.

The more recent cases regarding the General Welfare clause say otherwise.

Correct. And it was government that enforced Jim Crow laws that forbid people to not discriminate. Ron Paul did not support Jim Crow laws.

So when someone says that they don't support the Civil Rights Act because it was an over-reach of the federal government, how does that not ipso facto perpetuate Jim Crow in the absence of something like the Civil Rights Act? And what happens if states want to keep Jim Crow laws around? State's rights, right?

Holding a principled position is a very hard thing for people like Ron Paul to do because it clears the way for others to appeal to emotion and hurl insults at you, and those get more play than complex arguments full of nuance. It is much easier to bow down and say, "Yeah, anything the government can do to help people is good, and we shouldn't think of the consequences unintended or intended. And we shouldn't stop to think about whether or not we actually can control people and the things they do or say."

Yeah, let's just allow people to do whatever the Fuck they want because R FREEDUMZ. It's not like people people used to poison eachother to make a little extra money, right?

The same reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act is how we get the drug wars and things like that. It's this idea that people cannot think for themselves and have to be told how to run their lives.

Haha...yeah...telling white people to stop discriminating against people of color is an afront to their natural rights. OH man...you libertarians fucking slay me.

#29 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:14 AM

Huh? That's kind of the point?

In a Ron Paul world there would still be a federal government.

It's not like people people used to poison eachother to make a little extra money, right?

It turns out when you tell them a product is poison, they still want it. Sounds reasonable to me.

But it has never been about "doing whatever you want." There are avenues of recourse to take when someone poisons you. This is why we have property rights and why we have courts and all that.

Haha...yeah...telling white people to stop discriminating against people of color is an afront to their natural rights.

As if whites are the only ones who wish to discriminate. As if whites are the only ones who support government bans on gay marriage, for example. Whites are now evenly divided on gay marriage. Blacks continue to heavily oppose it. I'm pretty sure they support the right of a state (CA) to pass a ban on gay marriage (Prop 8). Exit polls back this assertion up. Sounds like states' rights to me.

#30 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:24 AM

There is something to be said for the health care systems of other nations. They report lower costs and better results, but I doubt a mandate is compatible with our governing document or ideals.


Our system is broken, the healthcare coffers are being raided by corporations, people are suffering and dying, and you want to stand there and say we can't fix the system because George Washington wouldn't approve.

Wow that's fucked up.

I think Ron Paul might be the worst out of the Republican candidates for President.