Jump to content


- - - - -

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


#31 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6836 Posts   Joined 8.4 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:29 AM

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

Hahaha...yeah...Letters of Marque are so much better and cheaper..except when they're not.

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

And who's going to regulate how a manufacturer labels their product? Especially with no FDA?

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.

Uh huh...all those red states are going to do great! How the Fuck is it cheaper and more efficient to be poisoned and have to sue if a company fucks up?

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.

Hahaha...holy shit. Do you think I'm a moron or something? When it comes to Jim Crow, black people are hardly in any kind of position to exercise institutional power upon white people.

As for Prop 8...LOLZ...How cute! Yeah...let's talk about those exit poll numbers. Black voters were polled at 70% against same-sex marriage...quite a high number because it's more than the 49% of whites that were also against it. Let's look at how many people actually voted: whites represent 63% and black people represent 10%. Now, let's put those numbers together. If half of white voters for Prop 8, that means they represent about 31% of the votes against people that were against it. Black people represent 10% of the total vote and voted 70% for Prop 8, which comes out to 7% of the total vote. Black voters have a part to play, but white voters outnumbered them 6 to 1. I'd be more concerned about the 4,000,000+ white people against same-sex marriage than the 650,000 black people against it.

What does this mean? Well, two important things can be gleaned from this. The first is the point above, but the second, and just as important that's a little more related to your argument, is that being subjected to generational discrimination doesn't mean that you'll be more empathetic to other oppressed people...kinda like what I was saying about intra-racial conflict in other posts.

Sounds like state's rights wut?

Edited by dohdough, 21 February 2012 - 06:45 AM.


#32 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:47 AM

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.


This is part of why I don't respond seriously to spokker anymore.

Underneath it all he is just another con clown.

Edited by Msut77, 21 February 2012 - 11:03 AM.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#33 The Crotch   There are ten sticks of dynamite waiting for you. CAGiversary!   14926 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:48 PM

wait this isnt the thread about vic toews and bill c-30 how i did

Posted Image


#34 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2835 Posts   Joined 10.4 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:09 PM

HahaWUT?.


I'm a programmer and there's a million different ways to do things in my line of work. But a lot of people would agree that you need to fix bugs before implementing new features. In terms of health care, the US needs to fix it's debt problems before it starts piling on new programs that are going to add to the debt. If we start something as big as a universal health care system while we're this far in debt, we could just end up going bankrupt and having to retract the health care system soon anyways. This is only my opinion, but I think we should fix our current money issues before adding more on the pile. (I don't agree with the government getting into health care at all, but that's beside the point. If they're going to do it, do it right.)

#35 Mike23   il mago CAGiversary!   3344 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:16 PM

wait this isnt the thread about vic toews and bill c-30 how i did


#tellthecrotcheverything
Posted Image

#36 The Crotch   There are ten sticks of dynamite waiting for you. CAGiversary!   14926 Posts   Joined 11.4 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:32 PM

Tell me what you did last night or you're siding with the pedophile army.

I'm a programmer and there's a million different ways to do things in my line of work. But a lot of people would agree that you need to fix bugs before implementing new features. In terms of health care, the US needs to fix it's debt problems before it starts piling on new programs that are going to add to the debt. If we start something as big as a universal health care system while we're this far in debt, we could just end up going bankrupt and having to retract the health care system soon anyways. This is only my opinion, but I think we should fix our current money issues before adding more on the pile. (I don't agree with the government getting into health care at all, but that's beside the point. If they're going to do it, do it right.)

Counter-example:

I play Starcraft a lot. In the game of Starcraft, it is standard practice to try to expand your territory as soon as possible to secure more resources. It is also standard practice to try to prevent your opponent from doing the same (in Starcraft 2, for example, it is very popular for protoss and terran players to construct cheap, expendable structures where a zerg opponent would want to place a new base, forcing him to go out of his way to clear you out). When this happens, the last thing you want to do is "stop until the bugs are worked out". You get your tech structures up. You take your gas. You establish your infrastructure. Maybe you take your third before your natural. And while you are doing these things, you get a few lings out to go clear the pylons.

Now, this is a terrible analogy for how governments should operate. You can not run a nation like you play Starcraft. And you can not run a country like you are a programmer.

Posted Image


#37 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37008 Posts   Joined 13.5 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

I'm a programmer and there's a million different ways to do things in my line of work. But a lot of people would agree that you need to fix bugs before implementing new features. In terms of health care, the US needs to fix it's debt problems before it starts piling on new programs that are going to add to the debt. If we start something as big as a universal health care system while we're this far in debt, we could just end up going bankrupt and having to retract the health care system soon anyways. This is only my opinion, but I think we should fix our current money issues before adding more on the pile. (I don't agree with the government getting into health care at all, but that's beside the point. If they're going to do it, do it right.)


Austerity is killing the European countries that are practicing it. Moreover, it's not reducing the debt at all, because it's hurting the tax base so much that even though spending is reduced, a weak economy getting weaker has reduced tax revenues just as much.
Posted Image

#38 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 8.7 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

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

One that's been cut off at the knees.
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

#39 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 8.7 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:53 PM

I'm a programmer and there's a million different ways to do things in my line of work. But a lot of people would agree that you need to fix bugs before implementing new features. In terms of health care, the US needs to fix it's debt problems before it starts piling on new programs that are going to add to the debt. If we start something as big as a universal health care system while we're this far in debt, we could just end up going bankrupt and having to retract the health care system soon anyways. This is only my opinion, but I think we should fix our current money issues before adding more on the pile. (I don't agree with the government getting into health care at all, but that's beside the point. If they're going to do it, do it right.)

OK, so give us a number figure for how low our spending should be before a national health care system is started.
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

#40 willardhaven   Thief of Life CAGiversary!   7086 Posts   Joined 13.7 Years Ago  

willardhaven

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:14 PM

Oh snap governing a nation is complicated.

PaulManda.png


#41 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:16 PM

Now, this is a terrible analogy for how governments should operate.


I think it's fantastic.

Or maybe not:



#42 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15220 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:25 PM

This country needs to tighten up the graphics a little bit.

#43 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:44 PM

I'm a programmer and there's a million different ways to do things in my line of work. But a lot of people would agree that you need to fix bugs before implementing new features. In terms of health care, the US needs to fix it's debt problems before it starts piling on new programs that are going to add to the debt. If we start something as big as a universal health care system while we're this far in debt, we could just end up going bankrupt and having to retract the health care system soon anyways. This is only my opinion, but I think we should fix our current money issues before adding more on the pile. (I don't agree with the government getting into health care at all, but that's beside the point. If they're going to do it, do it right.)


Are you just going to deny that UHC is cheaper than what we had?

If so, just expect your complete denial of reality to be brought up whenever you post.

Also, it is not literally inconceivable but we do not have a system where you can just create a new more rational system from scratch. I consider it a pretty silly assertion that we have to fix some other random problem before considering any other by the way.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#44 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6836 Posts   Joined 8.4 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 07:50 PM

Oh snap governing a nation is complicated.

Not if you use cheat codes.

#45 Spokker   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2211 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:40 PM

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.

An individual mandate is not the only way to fix it, but if you want to go that route, you are going to face opposition that might not come up in other nations.

#46 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:18 PM

Having to face a bunch of cretins that won't listen to common sense or evidence isn't a reason not to do something.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#47 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:25 PM

Dammn there's like a 75 comment political debate going on my facebook feed right now. So much gold...

#48 Spokker   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2211 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:24 PM

Having to face a bunch of cretins that won't listen to common sense or evidence isn't a reason not to do something.


Something must be done because our health care system is in shambles. The direction to go is what's being debated. Very few people are advocating that nothing be done.

#49 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:42 PM

It isn't a debate. People who are/were pro reform had facts and evidence, those against reform had lies and BS.

Nothing is a big word here. Conservatives have their talking points but they aren't solutions to any actually problem.

Almost all cons were saying American healthcare is #1 (only in price) and were against any plan that actually helped people get care.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#50 BigT   Hey Zach... CAGiversary!   859 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:13 AM

Are you just going to deny that UHC is cheaper than what we had?

If so, just expect your complete denial of reality to be brought up whenever you post.

Also, it is not literally inconceivable but we do not have a system where you can just create a new more rational system from scratch. I consider it a pretty silly assertion that we have to fix some other random problem before considering any other by the way.


IMHO, the error that many people make is assuming that increased access to care will fix our healthcare system. I certainly had that viewpoint prior to practicing medicine. However, the problems are much more deeply rooted than that.

One of the bigwigs from our institution recently gave grand rounds on the changes in healthcare and how they will affect academic medical centers. When describing his research, he indicated that poor access to healthcare was only responsible for about 10% of the overall morbidity/mortality. 40% was attributable to poor behaviors (smoking, poor diet, obesity, substance abuse, lack of exercise, etc.) 30% was due to underlying genetic predispositions, 15% was due to social determinants, such as poverty, and 5% was due to environmental issues.

Currently, in the USA, we practice a rather aggressive brand of medicine that is designed to make people happy and to cover the physician’s ass, while achieving this in about 15 minutes so that you can see more patients and increase your billing. Thus, if you go to an emergency department (BTW, the ED is a dangerous place), you are likely to get a more extensive workup since it is easier and faster to order labs and imaging studies rather than to take a detailed history and examine the patient. So, a person with vague shortness of breath often ends up getting a CT scan of their thorax to rule out a pulmonary embolism even without any other objective signs… this is not an entirely benign procedure as one can (rarely) develop anaphylaxis to the contrast agent, can (more commonly) develop kidney injury due to the contrast material, and can have other incidental findings on CT that then lead to a further workup… plus, there is a small, but measurable increased risk of malignancy associated with studies that use ionizing radiation.

In the outpatient sphere, I see patients all the time with suboptimal medication regimens (usually too many medications)… this is driven both by pharmacological advertising and the fact that it is fast and easy to add-on medications. It takes time to carefully evaluate one’s regimen… in many cases people see numerous specialists and one may not know what the other has prescribed.

There is also a large proportion of patients who are the worried well or conversely, those with suboptimal psychological situations that manifest themselves as physical symptoms. The prototype of such a condition would be fibromyalgia. This has been studied and it was shown that fibromyalgia in an d of itself does not lead to any increase in physical morbidity or mortality, however, treating fibromyagia with pharmacotherapy does harm people. The only things that have been shown to be consistently effective are 1.) exercise and 2.) treatment of the underlying psychological comorbidities… this goes hand in hand with a new paper that came out which showed that patient satisfaction is actually linked to increased mortality (sometimes the physician has to the “bad guy”):
http://archinte.ama-...rnmed.2011.1662

Sorry, that was way too long… in summary, my opinion is that our overall approach to healthcare is so screwed up that universal healthcare will, at most, have minimal effects on outcomes. We would get more bang for the buck with public health to educate people on healthy lifestyles.

#51 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:21 AM

IMHO, the error that many people make is assuming that increased access to care will fix our healthcare system. I certainly had that viewpoint prior to practicing medicine. However, the problems are much more deeply rooted than that.


Depends on how you define "fix", I consider everyone having access to the healthcare system the most important thing.

in summary, my opinion is that our overall approach to healthcare is so screwed up that universal healthcare will, at most, have minimal effects on outcomes. We would get more bang for the buck with public health to educate people on healthy lifestyles.


A) Your overall point is just silly.

B) You can have both.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#52 BigT   Hey Zach... CAGiversary!   859 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:00 AM

Depends on how you define "fix", I consider everyone having access to the healthcare system the most important thing.

Fair enough, but I disagree. Simply having access to healthcare is but a small component. For those under 50 (aside from accidents or self-induced problems), it's not very important to have access to routine care. The efficacy of screening programs is overestimated in general, and largely useless for the young. Prostate cancer screening is useless in people under 50 and of questionable utility in those older than that (a cochrane review has shown that it leads to 50 men getting treated unecessarily in order to save one life). Breast cancer screening is of questionable utility under age 50. From 50-75, it seems to reduce mortality, but still 10 ppl get treated unnecessarily to prevent 1 death (not to mention the DCIS epidemic). Cervical cancer screening has better data... but it is quite rare to start off with and has a long latency... so screening every 3 years is likely reasonable...

I would define "fix" as developing a health care system that provides appropriate healthcare and interventions to those that would benefit from them, such that morbidity and mortality are minimized while quality of life is maximized to the extent possible given our current knowledge base. This would ideally contain a strong component of palliative care, while avoiding unnecessary and often harmful procedures and prescribing practices.

A) Your overall point is just silly.

B) You can have both.


A.) Based on what data? I challenge you to provide evidence that universal healthcare improves outcomes... I concede that this is very difficult to study with many confounding factors when attempting to compare different populations. Also, when studying this longitudinally, it is very difficult to separate out the effects of medical advancements. To my knowledge, there are no randomized controlled trials that compare universal access to our current system... though, these would be very difficult to do...

B.) Yes, we could, but when resources are limited, we should focus on the best return on our investment.

#53 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6196 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:09 AM

Simply having access to healthcare is but a small component.


It is life or death for many people and a huge quality of life issue for millions more.

A.) Based on what data? I challenge you to provide evidence that universal healthcare improves outcomes... I concede that this is very difficult to study with many confounding factors when attempting to compare different populations. Also, when studying this longitudinally, it is very difficult to separate out the effects of medical advancements. To my knowledge, there are no randomized controlled trials that compare universal access to our current system... though, these would be very difficult to do...


I remember there being roughly a dozen links with stats for countries with UHC in the "obamacare" thread. I am not going to bother proving to you that increasing access to healthcare increases aggregate healthcare outcomes... again.

In a system where your access is tied to employment and only healthy people can obtain insurance people go through periods where they cannot see a doctor.

Edited by Msut77, 22 February 2012 - 03:29 AM.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#54 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15220 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:53 AM

BigT, I think we desperately need to put the focus back on healthcare instead of profit.

I heard a report on how penalizing hospitals for readmissions led to hospitals actually caring about the patients well-being instead of patching them up until the next ER payday.

If this doesn't make sense to you, read on.

One of the examples was a guy who was trying to commit suicide by smoking himself to death. He would leave the door open and call 911, because he didn't want to die alone.

Anyway after the hospitals started getting penalized for readmissions they were forced to think outside the box. Instead of the tranditional psyche counsel services recommendations that hadn't been working, they got the guy some nontraditional counseling (with a generous activist church lady in his area who shared his background) and it really turned his life around. No more readmissions.The policy worked like a charm.

We need to find these win-wins. The lure of profit only encourages waste like readmissions. The only way to fix the system, the only way to get the focus back on healthcare and away from the balance sheet, is with good policy.

#55 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37008 Posts   Joined 13.5 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:08 AM

I think BigT does see the writing on the wall insomuch as he recognizes how the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry puts people in his office who don't need to be (but they saw the commercial!) and puts patients at risk because we're fucking overmedicated on the whole, and lord knows what interaction effects our meds are giving us (hypertension!).

It's a matter of recognizing that the profit motive is a source of problem in health care - which you see, BigT, in pharmaceuticals. Just extend it a bit further to the intersection of health insurance companies and care providers (your institution, for example). The two are inseparable, and I most certainly hold insurance far more responsible than care providers. But that does not mean there is a saint in the bunch.

Speaking of which, we do need to recognize that Americans treat themselves like shit in terms of what we consume - tobacco, engineered foods teeming with salt and fat, and massively lethargic activities (playstation!). Our lifestyle does undoubtedly have an impact on the cost of care, and we do need to recognize how we have contributed to that burden. Changing culture is going to be the largest obstacle of them all - but it can't be impossible. The average American did not consume 24oz. of soda per day half a century ago, yet they do today. That's a factor to be considered that we can't legislate away (except in cases like not allowing people to spend their EBT at Burger King and the like, but that's another issue almost entirely separate from health care).
Posted Image

#56 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6836 Posts   Joined 8.4 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:33 AM

Fair enough, but I disagree. Simply having access to healthcare is but a small component. For those under 50 (aside from accidents or self-induced problems), it's not very important to have access to routine care. The efficacy of screening programs is overestimated in general, and largely useless for the young. Prostate cancer screening is useless in people under 50 and of questionable utility in those older than that (a cochrane review has shown that it leads to 50 men getting treated unecessarily in order to save one life). Breast cancer screening is of questionable utility under age 50. From 50-75, it seems to reduce mortality, but still 10 ppl get treated unnecessarily to prevent 1 death (not to mention the DCIS epidemic). Cervical cancer screening has better data... but it is quite rare to start off with and has a long latency... so screening every 3 years is likely reasonable...

I would define "fix" as developing a health care system that provides appropriate healthcare and interventions to those that would benefit from them, such that morbidity and mortality are minimized while quality of life is maximized to the extent possible given our current knowledge base. This would ideally contain a strong component of palliative care, while avoiding unnecessary and often harmful procedures and prescribing practices.

A.) Based on what data? I challenge you to provide evidence that universal healthcare improves outcomes... I concede that this is very difficult to study with many confounding factors when attempting to compare different populations. Also, when studying this longitudinally, it is very difficult to separate out the effects of medical advancements. To my knowledge, there are no randomized controlled trials that compare universal access to our current system... though, these would be very difficult to do...

B.) Yes, we could, but when resources are limited, we should focus on the best return on our investment.

You know, it's all fun and games in regards to "limited resourcs" and ROI until you're the one or someone that you love has an aggressive form of cancer that went undiagnosed during that window that you deem redundant or a waste.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that that you think of someone elses life in terms of monetary value, but it takes a real special kind of person to think that way. And by special, I mean sociopathic.

#57 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15220 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:43 AM

Changing culture is going to be the largest obstacle of them all - but it can't be impossible. The average American did not consume 24oz. of soda per day half a century ago, yet they do today. That's a factor to be considered that we can't legislate away (except in cases like not allowing people to spend their EBT at Burger King and the like, but that's another issue almost entirely separate from health care).


Americans are positively psychotic about health. We glorify skinny models and actresses, we worship atheletes, and then folks in the middle are proud to be fat. That's psychotic.

I think our consumption of alcohol is also an issue. Historically Americans are way down from what they used to drink in the past and we wonder why everyone is stressed out. Plus crap beer is everywhere.

The only silver lining is that sales of crap beer are on a steep decline and craft beers are coming back. :beer::beer::beer:

#58 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:44 AM

I'll stand in as the uneducated CAG visitor, since I really only come here to post petty ethical opinions and such. Truth is I'm very uncomfortable speaking about subjects I know very little about. How my peers can rant about war, politics, and the economy without any sense of embarrassment fascinates me. I love debates on subjects I understand, but I hate losing or sounding stupid. This doesn't seem to bother others I know.

So I'll shoot some naive questions and present some stances, albeit uninformed ones. Any information I could learn here would be great:

Health Care:

Most of what I hear about Obama's attempt at changing health care is that it's unconstitutional, as it mandates people who do not have insurance to register with a private insurer. That seems to be where all the "get government out of my life" attitude stemmed from, and the big socialist scare. People also say the plan was hugely expensive and wasteful, and there's a lot of talk of "I don't want to pay for my neighbor's health problems."

I understand the initial plan was much grander in scope, so has this lesser version really been a disaster? I heard it extended coverage to millions, and eased the suffering of many in the system. Exactly how effective was it? Universal health care is in nearly all other developed nations, so what is the primary drawback to their method that makes it so hard to accept in the U.S.? Everyone agrees that what we currently have is prohibitively expensive, so what are the alternatives?

I don't have a stance here, all I know is the mainstream talking points.

Economy:

Really don't know shit on this subject. If you asked me in public I'd shrug my shoulders and if I had to answer, it would be something like "raise taxes, cut spending, isn't that what you do?" All this about taxing corporations, distribution of welfare, and where the jobs come from -- feels like I'd need to read ~30 related books minimum before opening my mouth.

Middle East:

To me it seems like it's a critical region in the world both in terms of the resources it contains, and the instability and potential threat it poses to the rest of the world. To isolate ourselves as the world's leading military power and to not have a presence in the matter, I think would have far more horrible outcomes than what we've done so far. I don't deny the innumerable blunders during the wars there, but I do feel they were unavoidable interventions. It's not that I want conflict, I just don't see a very optimistic alternative where the middle east isn't being closely monitored.

Is that a reasonable stance? Because I don't want to abandon the entire region, but I also don't want to carpet bomb all of Iran.

Gay Marriage/Abortion/Drug Legalization:

I bunch these together because I feel they're so easy to answer.

Gay marriage should of course be legal for reasons no one should have to explain, banning abortion is hugely impractical in a society not prepared for it (so talk about being for or against it seems irrelevant at this point), and I don't see the negatives of legalizing drugs, but I'm unclear on the financial benefits of taxing versus fining criminals in possession.

Ron Paul:

I'd also appreciate a run down on Ron Paul and why he is or isn't the answer. I hear a lot from pro-paul folks in day to day conversation and although they know nothing of what they're talking about, I'm too intimidated to form an opinion of my own at this point. What era is Paul referring back to with going back to the rights of States? Why is this considered impractical?

Right now, the only reason I'm not a huge fan is because he doesn't seem all to concerned with the middle east.








So yeah, I'm one of those wishy washy "I'll just stick with Obama to be safe" guys. Maybe I represent a sizable demographic that doesn't really understand a whole lot, so use this as an opportunity to enlighten. How does the common voter become an educated one? Book recommendation would be fantastic.

#59 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 12.9 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:35 PM

The only silver lining is that sales of crap beer are on a steep decline and craft beers are coming back. :beer::beer::beer:


I'll drink to that :beer:

It's awesome how quickly the craft beer movement has exploded. America went from having the worst beer scene imaginable to having one of the best in the world after the past 10 years or so.

#60 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6836 Posts   Joined 8.4 Years Ago  

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:24 PM

I'll drink to that :beer:

It's awesome how quickly the craft beer movement has exploded. America went from having the worst beer scene imaginable to having one of the best in the world after the past 10 years or so.

I blame Michelob and Budweiser.:lol:

And DAMN, Panzerfaust! Do you own damn homework!!;)

I kid...I'll write something up for you later this afternoon.:)