In 2011? It cost hundreds of thousands of jobs (job growth DIED with its passing and has never recovered) which has absolutely deeply harmed any hopes of generating revenue. The estimates for costs in the future keep spiraling higher and higher every time CBO revisits the issue (given that the only way it was scored as not exploding the deficit is to front load "revenue" and back load expenses with the expenses growing, exponentially, every year). The most recent revision has it up to about $1.1T between 2012 and 2021 (as opposed to $778B when first proposed). And if you look at the first real decade of the bill (in 2014, when its terrible provisions really kick in), it'll increase the deficit by $2T. A year. Only way to pay for it is to completely gut Medicare AND increase taxes by about a trillion dollars. And then you'd STILL have to severely limit care. And keep in mind, we are well aware of hundreds of billions in duplicate savings that CBO had to count, even though they don't actually exist. And that's assuming doctors accept the lowered payments required for the numbers to match these far-fetched numbers. If the "doc fix" is done (as has been done routinely), the numbers are markedly worse. If they don't pay doctors enough, they will simply refuse to accept the government insurance plan. The government lacks the power to require anybody to accept any insurance policy for payment.
1. You know you have no way to proving it was a cause for job growth supposedly dying (Nevermind that the numbers have gone up slightly, only to experience governments jobs being cut, hence why it all looks so abysmal). 2. You actually do start off well with the costs of the healthcare bill, with CBO estimates, and then veer off completely into totally not cited numbers you decided it was a great idea to pull out of your ass. Nice job trying to hide that though. 3. And final nail in the 3 nail coffin, you call it government insurance plan.
Research doesn't seem to be his strong suit. But that's cool, he now supports former democrat Rick Perry for president and I'm sure that guy will fix everything. Nothing says "integrity" like making a 180 in most of your views and values.
I'm not an american, s I wont vote. But if I was, I would probably re-elect Obama. He might have caused some shit, but I think he has good ideas and intentions, he just needs to stand up to the people in charge (cause we all know he's not) and say "I'm the president, this is what I want, fuck you".
In 2011? It cost hundreds of thousands of jobs (job growth DIED with its passing and has never recovered) which has absolutely deeply harmed any hopes of generating revenue. The estimates for costs in the future keep spiraling higher and higher every time CBO revisits the issue (given that the only way it was scored as not exploding the deficit is to front load "revenue" and back load expenses with the expenses growing, exponentially, every year). The most recent revision has it up to about $1.1T between 2012 and 2021 (as opposed to $778B when first proposed). And if you look at the first real decade of the bill (in 2014, when its terrible provisions really kick in), it'll increase the deficit by $2T. A year. Only way to pay for it is to completely gut Medicare AND increase taxes by about a trillion dollars. And then you'd STILL have to severely limit care. And keep in mind, we are well aware of hundreds of billions in duplicate savings that CBO had to count, even though they don't actually exist. And that's assuming doctors accept the lowered payments required for the numbers to match these far-fetched numbers. If the "doc fix" is done (as has been done routinely), the numbers are markedly worse. If they don't pay doctors enough, they will simply refuse to accept the government insurance plan. The government lacks the power to require anybody to accept any insurance policy for payment.
1. You know you have no way to proving it was a cause for job growth supposedly dying (Nevermind that the numbers have gone up slightly, only to experience governments jobs being cut, hence why it all looks so abysmal). 2. You actually do start off well with the costs of the healthcare bill, with CBO estimates, and then veer off completely into totally not cited numbers you decided it was a great idea to pull out of your ass. Nice job trying to hide that though. 3. And final nail in the 3 nail coffin, you call it government insurance plan.
1. You absolutely can demonstrate it. For Obama's term BEFORE April 2010 (when Obamacare passed), private job growth (note, no mention of public jobs) averaged 67,600 new jobs a month (mind you, that's still far too low to actually keep up with new employees entering the workforce each month). SINCE April 2010, the average has been 6,400 a month. A shade over 1/10 of what it was before Obamacare. It killed job growth dead as could be. For us to average 6,400 new jobs a month in a country of over 300M is pretty sad. That it is coming at the end of a severe recession, when new job growth tends to be MASSIVE is a horrifyingly bad sign.
Source: Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment Survey/Haver Analytics.
2. You start off well if you take 4 years of revenue before the expenses kick in? If you look at the first ten years where you have BOTH the revenue AND expenses (which is what matters), according to the CBO, the gaps are astronomical. And since that will be the situation for the remainder of the Act's existence, it is all that matters. Even the CBO said, in their initial analysis, that they can only analyze precisely what the bill says not the reality of what will likely happen.
3. In a study by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith, the number dropped will dwarf the CBO estimate of 3M workers losing their policies. Major employers have already been looking at dumping their coverage. 1/8 of small business will dump their policies as well, according to Nat'l Federation of Independent Businesses. When this happens --- they go to the government mandated plans. It's a government plan in every sense of the word.
@mullen: Well, the Repubicans are probably going to nominate someone who loves Jesus, the very rich and American nationalism, so I'll probably end up voting for Obama.
Yes, Obama gives the first iota of a rat's butt about you. That's why he is trying to raise a trillion from the rich, bailed out corporations and unions while leaving students like you in EVEN WORSE condition when it comes to your student loans (you'd think with all of your affection for Obama, you'd have noticed how little he cares about any of your concerns). Obama is fighting hard to keep us in Iraq after Bush's negotiated departure plan of this year (Panetta announced Iraq has asked to say --- though Iraq says they have not). He is less fond of transparency than Bush was, less fond of your privacy rights than Bush...he is, amazingly, WORSE than Bush in every conceivable manner. Heck, the Arab World likes us LESS than they did under Bush, stunningly enough.
@Doctorchimp: From Ron Paul's website http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ "I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe vs. Wade"..."Abortion leads to euthanasia". On a completely separate topic, I strongly support medically assisted suicide.
Reading further, he doesn't actually think the constitution allows the Federal government to ban abortion (which is also what the SCOTUS said in Roe v Wade). Of course the solution for an anti-choice president would be to sign a constitutional amendment to give the government that power. He clearly thinks that it should be illegal, just at the State level. He also thinks that the doctors who preform abortions (once they're illegal) should be tried. He thinks the president should decide what the punishment should be...makes sense right? Not at all. If the Fed shouldn't/can't regulate something but the States can...why is the president involved the punishment phase? He obviously wants his cake (making abortion illegal) and to eat it too (getting to set the punishment).
So in more simple language, Ron Paul doesn't think that the Federal government CAN make abortion illegal, but the state governments can and should. End result is the same though right? Not quite. Most abortions are performed for poor minorities. So lets say NY allows abortions, but none of the other states do. A person with money could just go up to NY for the procedure. A poor person who lives in Mississippi is just out of luck. That means that a kid from a poor neighborhood who accidently has a child (and who hasn't had a condom break or ridden bare?) isn't getting out of the hood to take advantage of that scholarship...because she has the expensive of a child (and trust me, I've got 2..they are expensive as hell).
Interestingly enough, you've caused me to dislike Paul more than I did before.
I'll be voting for the first time in November 2012 (turn 18 in September 2012). I won't vote to re-elect Barack Obama, though I'll go with a conservative party member in the end.
@Doctorchimp: From Ron Paul's website http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/"I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe vs. Wade"..."Abortion leads to euthanasia". On a completely separate topic, I strongly support medically assisted suicide. Reading further, he doesn't actually think the constitution allows the Federal government to ban abortion (which is also what the SCOTUS said in Roe v Wade). Of course the solution for an anti-choice president would be to sign a constitutional amendment to give the government that power. He clearly thinks that it should be illegal, just at the State level. He also thinks that the doctors who preform abortions (once they're illegal) should be tried. He thinks the president should decide what the punishment should be...makes sense right? Not at all. If the Fed shouldn't/can't regulate something but the States can...why is the president involved the punishment phase? He obviously wants his cake (making abortion illegal) and to eat it too (getting to set the punishment). So in more simple language, Ron Paul doesn't think that the Federal government CAN make abortion illegal, but the state governments can and should. End result is the same though right? Not quite. Most abortions are performed for poor minorities. So lets say NY allows abortions, but none of the other states do. A person with money could just go up to NY for the procedure. A poor person who lives in Mississippi is just out of luck. That means that a kid from a poor neighborhood who accidently has a child (and who hasn't had a condom break or ridden bare?) isn't getting out of the hood to take advantage of that scholarship...because she has the expensive of a child (and trust me, I've got 2..they are expensive as hell). Interestingly enough, you've caused me to dislike Paul more than I did before.
Dude I honestly don't know what you want that guy to do.
What did you expect? As I said he delivered thousands of babies, what did you think he was going to say?
He still thinks the state should vote on it though, I'm sorry some states are terrible. I'll stay out of those.
@Doctorchimp: From Ron Paul's website http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/"I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe vs. Wade"..."Abortion leads to euthanasia". On a completely separate topic, I strongly support medically assisted suicide. Reading further, he doesn't actually think the constitution allows the Federal government to ban abortion (which is also what the SCOTUS said in Roe v Wade). Of course the solution for an anti-choice president would be to sign a constitutional amendment to give the government that power. He clearly thinks that it should be illegal, just at the State level. He also thinks that the doctors who preform abortions (once they're illegal) should be tried. He thinks the president should decide what the punishment should be...makes sense right? Not at all. If the Fed shouldn't/can't regulate something but the States can...why is the president involved the punishment phase? He obviously wants his cake (making abortion illegal) and to eat it too (getting to set the punishment). So in more simple language, Ron Paul doesn't think that the Federal government CAN make abortion illegal, but the state governments can and should. End result is the same though right? Not quite. Most abortions are performed for poor minorities. So lets say NY allows abortions, but none of the other states do. A person with money could just go up to NY for the procedure. A poor person who lives in Mississippi is just out of luck. That means that a kid from a poor neighborhood who accidently has a child (and who hasn't had a condom break or ridden bare?) isn't getting out of the hood to take advantage of that scholarship...because she has the expensive of a child (and trust me, I've got 2..they are expensive as hell). Interestingly enough, you've caused me to dislike Paul more than I did before.
Dude I honestly don't know what you want that guy to do. What did you expect? As I said he delivered thousands of babies, what did you think he was going to say? He still thinks the state should vote on it though, I'm sorry some states are terrible. I'll stay out of those.
I'm a bit nervous about Ron Paul, as he just turned 76. I might vote for him if he is the nomination, because he's the only good GOP candidate, in my opinion.
I will vote again when the day comes that I can select the candidate of my choice. I want to look at a ballet and see the best Republicans, the Democrats, the best of all the Libertarians, and the independents. When I go to a restaurant I can choose from this big menu. If I want steak, not only can I choose steak I can choose rare, medium or well done. I can even choose just a damn salad. When you go to vote for the most important leader in the free world my selection is dickhead one or dickhead two. And don't tell me I can write in a name. That's just a waste of time unless Americans stood up to right in someone other then the 2 parties to break up this system.
Ron Paul is the only guy that will fix the bullshit in our country.
I thought the Ron Paul hype on the internet was kind of weird for a while but now that i've seen some clips of him and what he stands for and his attitude i would totally love for him to be president.
yeah let's elect some idiot who will allow creationism to be taught in school! No thanks.
Ron Paul is the only guy that will fix the bullshit in our country.
I thought the Ron Paul hype on the internet was kind of weird for a while but now that i've seen some clips of him and what he stands for and his attitude i would totally love for him to be president.
yeah let's elect some idiot who will allow creationism to be taught in school! No thanks.
I am an atheist, skeptic, and I have a great interest in the science of evolution, and I have no problem with Paul becoming president. The reason is that I understand what the focus of his presidency would be. In his years in Congress, Paul has not championed any creationist bills. Ron Paul does not campaign on a "let's bring Jesus back to school and government" platform. You will notice in the clip that he didn't even like the question being asked because it's not what he believes he should be doing as president. His focus has always been consistent. What Ron Paul wants to do with the government would be too big and radical to spend time debating evolution and creationism. He wants to end all the wars and remove all the bases the U.S. military has all over the world. He wants to completely remove the Federal Reserve and the IRS from power and return to the gold standard. He wants to bring industry back the U.S. Even if he became president he wouldn't be able to accomplish all of these things, yet you think he's going to start ramming creationism into public schools? Even if he had all the power and time in the world he wouldn't do this. He is clear on his stance that such matters should be left to states because that is what the constitution allows for.
Is there a specific point you would like to make? Just throwing Amazing Atheist videos at me isn't an argument. Shit, I can't believe TTA is still around and people watch his videos. There are much better and more informative atheists on YouTube.
Just once I wish a country would unite and say -"You're all assholes, give us someone else". I've tried voting for "no one" a couple of years but to no avail since everyone else seemed so inclined to actually place a vote. I guess all the talk about people being fed up with politicians is bullshit since everyone keeps voting for 'em.
how did the majority vote to re-elect obama!? how can you not see how shitty america is becoming?
Most GB users are entitled enough to lean left yet stupid enough to not understand that a poor democratic president can be replaced with a better candidate through primaries. Its not just "re-elect or vote right" unless you're just completely ignorant.
@McGhee_the_Insomniac: Well as someone who says he is interested in science I am shocked that you are not disgusted by clips such as the one I posted. Ron Paul is foolish enough to dismiss the 'theory of evolution', because it's 'just a theory'.... anyone with half a brain knows that 'theory' in the scientific definition refers to something that has been proven time and time again and it is practically a 'fact' but scientists do not use this term as the smallest amount of caution is taken with every definition. So does this guy who wants to be president not 'believe' in the 'theory of gravity' also? He's a fucking idiot.
I dont live in the states, but i'd probably vote for obama. Or anybody who pledged to raise taxes on the rich and leave iraq and afgahnistan/cut military spending to help the debt crisis
@McGhee_the_Insomniac: Well as someone who says he is interested in science I am shocked that you are not disgusted by clips such as the one I posted. Ron Paul is foolish enough to dismiss the 'theory of evolution', because it's 'just a theory'.... anyone with half a brain knows that 'theory' in the scientific definition refers to something that has been proven time and time again and it is practically a 'fact' but scientists do not use this term as the smallest amount of caution is taken with every definition. So does this guy who wants to be president not 'believe' in the 'theory of gravity' also? He's a fucking idiot.
It really annoys me when people claim that someone is an idiot because of one misguided belief they may have. The guy has a degree in biology from a prestigious school and a doctoral degree. He also seems to possess a studious nature when it comes to understanding political philosophy and economics. Calling him an idiot just seems unfair, especially when it's a judgement based on [b]one[/b] belief he may have. One! If that the only qualification for intelligence we need, then I don't know why IQ tests are so damn long.
@McGhee_the_Insomniac: Well as someone who says he is interested in science I am shocked that you are not disgusted by clips such as the one I posted. Ron Paul is foolish enough to dismiss the 'theory of evolution', because it's 'just a theory'.... anyone with half a brain knows that 'theory' in the scientific definition refers to something that has been proven time and time again and it is practically a 'fact' but scientists do not use this term as the smallest amount of caution is taken with every definition. So does this guy who wants to be president not 'believe' in the 'theory of gravity' also? He's a fucking idiot.
It really annoys me when people claim that someone is an idiot because of one misguided belief they may have. The guy has a degree in biology from a prestigious school and a doctoral degree. He also seems to possess a studious nature when it comes to understanding political philosophy and economics. Calling him an idiot just seems unfair, especially when it's a judgement based on [b]one[/b[] belief he may have. One! If that the only qualification for intelligence we need, then I don't know why IQ tests are so damn long.
Exactly. I use to be one of these people that didn't understand evolution. I wasn't necessarily any less intelligent then than I am now. I just had a different focus and a world view that shaped what information I consumed. But nail1080 should pay attention to the end of the video where Paul says he doesn't think it can be absolutely proven either way. Which is technically true. It is possibly for a piece of evidence to come along and destroy evolution tomorrow. I don't think it's likely, but there it is.
I agree with Paul on most things, especially on the things he will be most active in accomplishing as president. If someone finds a candidate that they whole-heartedly agree with on every subject, they need to re-examine their judgment.
@McGhee_the_Insomniac: Well as someone who says he is interested in science I am shocked that you are not disgusted by clips such as the one I posted. Ron Paul is foolish enough to dismiss the 'theory of evolution', because it's 'just a theory'.... anyone with half a brain knows that 'theory' in the scientific definition refers to something that has been proven time and time again and it is practically a 'fact' but scientists do not use this term as the smallest amount of caution is taken with every definition. So does this guy who wants to be president not 'believe' in the 'theory of gravity' also? He's a fucking idiot.
It really annoys me when people claim that someone is an idiot because of one misguided belief they may have. The guy has a degree in biology from a prestigious school and a doctoral degree. He also seems to possess a studious nature when it comes to understanding political philosophy and economics. Calling him an idiot just seems unfair, especially when it's a judgement based on [b]one[/b[] belief he may have. One! If that the only qualification for intelligence we need, then I don't know why IQ tests are so damn long.
Exactly. I use to be one of these people that didn't understand evolution. I wasn't necessarily any less intelligent then than I am now. I just had a different focus and a world view that shaped what information I consumed. But nail1080 should pay attention to the end of the video where Paul says he doesn't think it can be absolutely proven either way. Which is technically true. It is possibly for a piece of evidence to come along and destroy evolution tomorrow. I don't think it's likely, but there it is.
I agree with Paul on most things, especially on the things he will be most active in accomplishing as president. If someone finds a candidate that they whole-heartedly agree with on every subject, they need to re-examine their judgment.
There are thousands of research papers published every day which prove time and time again that evolution is a 'theory' in the scientific sense, ie as I said before just like the Theory of Gravity! Yes he is an idiot for doubting the integrity of the scientific process which has lead us to this great age of technological advancement. So yes, he is an idiot. And a bad example to the American people for his arrogance and stupidity on that particular subject, which is the backbone to biological science.
@McGhee_the_Insomniac: Well as someone who says he is interested in science I am shocked that you are not disgusted by clips such as the one I posted. Ron Paul is foolish enough to dismiss the 'theory of evolution', because it's 'just a theory'.... anyone with half a brain knows that 'theory' in the scientific definition refers to something that has been proven time and time again and it is practically a 'fact' but scientists do not use this term as the smallest amount of caution is taken with every definition. So does this guy who wants to be president not 'believe' in the 'theory of gravity' also? He's a fucking idiot.
It really annoys me when people claim that someone is an idiot because of one misguided belief they may have. The guy has a degree in biology from a prestigious school and a doctoral degree. He also seems to possess a studious nature when it comes to understanding political philosophy and economics. Calling him an idiot just seems unfair, especially when it's a judgement based on [b]one[/b[] belief he may have. One! If that the only qualification for intelligence we need, then I don't know why IQ tests are so damn long.
Exactly. I use to be one of these people that didn't understand evolution. I wasn't necessarily any less intelligent then than I am now. I just had a different focus and a world view that shaped what information I consumed. But nail1080 should pay attention to the end of the video where Paul says he doesn't think it can be absolutely proven either way. Which is technically true. It is possibly for a piece of evidence to come along and destroy evolution tomorrow. I don't think it's likely, but there it is.
I agree with Paul on most things, especially on the things he will be most active in accomplishing as president. If someone finds a candidate that they whole-heartedly agree with on every subject, they need to re-examine their judgment.
Saying evolution is a theory seems to get misinterpreted. It is, by any measure, the most likely explanation. However, we're not 100% sure HOW it happens so the "theory" part is just explaining the process. Paul can oppose a lot of things --- he ALSO states that he doesn't want to run the world. He is pro-life...but does not want to ban abortion, either.
I can respect that. Somebody who doesn't force their personal views into the lives of others. Shame so few others are willing to do the same.
@Doctorchimp: Oh, he's welcome to his opinion, I just think that his opinion on this issue makes him somewhat hypocrite. The more I read about him, the kookier he sounds. Some of his positions: He thinks that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated in the ER automatically. While I can understand the $ side of that concept, I can't understand the humanity side of it. Plus, wouldn't the ER then need to check your immigration status prior to offering you treatment (assuming you don't have insurance)? Sounds like some people would end up dying and it would turn out that they were citizens. He doesn't think the president should have (and said he wouldn't have ordered it himself) ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. He wants to abolish the Depts of: Education, Commerce, Energy, FEMA, IRS, HHS, and the ICC. He wants to repeal the 14th and 16th amendments (re birthright citizenship and income tax). He supports a gold standard. GOLD! Also, he prefers shiny beads and bits of glass to take the place of checks and credit cards. He wants to allow people to opt out of social security (functionally eliminating it.) Prayer in public schools shouldn't be prohibited. He is opposed to internet gambling. He is opposed to efforts to protect children online. He is crazy progun. Not a fan of judges. He is against affirmative action. He is pro marijuana, prostitution and gay marriage (on a state by state basis of course), but he doesn't want the Federal government to set a standard on those issues. He is against DADT. He is anti-death penalty...but the states should get to decide anyway. No federal standards for education. He thinks environmental regulation should be handled on a state by state basis (things like emmisions or groundwater contaminants...of course those pollutants don't know boundaries, but whatever). He thinks we should end the "war on drugs" Doesn't think climate change is a real problem. He opposed the civil-rights legislation of the 60s. He doesn't want you to be able to vote for your senators. He thinks the electoral college is a good thing.
He does have some good ideas, but a lot more bad ones. Unlike some potential candidates, I don't think he's crazy..but I do think he wants a very different country than I do. It sounds to me like he would basically prefer to dissolve the USA and instead have a Confederacy of America with no central government and no standardized rules. I'm actually the opposite, I think we have too much fuss because of the states and we'd be better off with a single layer of government. If his views were to prevail, Interstate commerce and travel would become a disaster.
There is a reason why he doesn't get much attention from the press: Congress is the highest his star will ever rise.
im just gonna say that it really doesnt matter who's president in this country. i do however, think its hilariously awful that a country can have a political party built around Christianity whose official policy is the SEPARATION of church and state. i cant stand the stupid "moral high ground" that many conservatives take on non issues. who gives a shit if same sex marriage is legal? we're at war, our economy/the world economy's in bad shape, and our infrastructure is all messed up. why dont we focus on things that matter and not the legalization of marijuana?
I dont live in the states, but i'd probably vote for obama. Or anybody who pledged to raise taxes on the rich and leave iraq and afgahnistan/cut military spending to help the debt crisis
The ironic part is that Obama is trying to get out of Bush's agreement with Iraq to remove troops this year. And doubling down on Afghanistan...solid plan. Really. That never ends up poorly.
@lazy: "@Doctorchimp: Oh, he's welcome to his opinion, I just think that his opinion on this issue makes him somewhat hypocrite. The more I read about him, the kookier he sounds. Some of his positions: He thinks that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated in the ER automatically. While I can understand the $ side of that concept, I can't understand the humanity side of it. Plus, wouldn't the ER then need to check your immigration status prior to offering you treatment (assuming you don't have insurance)? Sounds like some people would end up dying and it would turn out that they were citizens. He doesn't think the president should have (and said he wouldn't have ordered it himself) ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. He wants to abolish the Depts of: Education, Commerce, Energy, FEMA, IRS, HHS, and the ICC. He wants to repeal the 14th and 16th amendments (re birthright citizenship and income tax). He supports a gold standard. GOLD! Also, he prefers shiny beads and bits of glass to take the place of checks and credit cards. He wants to allow people to opt out of social security (functionally eliminating it.) Prayer in public schools shouldn't be prohibited. He is opposed to internet gambling. He is opposed to efforts to protect children online. He is crazy progun. Not a fan of judges. He is against affirmative action. He is pro marijuana, prostitution and gay marriage (on a state by state basis of course), but he doesn't want the Federal government to set a standard on those issues. He is against DADT. He is anti-death penalty...but the states should get to decide anyway. No federal standards for education. He thinks environmental regulation should be handled on a state by state basis (things like emmisions or groundwater contaminants...of course those pollutants don't know boundaries, but whatever). He thinks we should end the "war on drugs" Doesn't think climate change is a real problem. He opposed the civil-rights legislation of the 60s. He doesn't want you to be able to vote for your senators. He thinks the electoral college is a good thing. "
Why should illegals be treated? Who would miss the loss of the Dept of Education, Commerce, Energy, Labor, HHS, etc? Who'd miss the IRS not existing? We already aren't part of the ICC. Has birthright citizenship worked out well? Is the income tax really a solid plan? If a system like Social Security would cease to exist if people had the choice to not be involved...it's rather stark evidence that the system does not work. At all. He does not oppose internet gambling. He is for legalization of it. He does oppose restrictions of free speech rights. Allowing bad is better than the alternative. He supports the 2nd Amendment. How dare he! Judges tend to make some truly terrible judges. I also doubt you'd vote against Obama who lied about the SCOTUS in a SOTU speech, so let's not pretend this is a major issue for you. Affirmative action is a terrible policy. Why punish current youth for actions they had no part in? He wants the states to determine their position on those issues. Again, darn him and his whole "Different ideas might work better" ideas! He opposes DADT? He voted for its repeal. You aren't terribly accurate here. He is personally anti death penalty but opposes making his beliefs the law? Yeah, THAT is a problem. He feels the Feds shouldn't be involved in the environment --- with evidence that they do a terrible job, why not? No federal standards for education? When has a federal policy IMPROVED anything? The more the Feds involve themselves, the worse things turn out. We absolutely should end the War on Drugs. Climate change isn't a problem. It's a rather pathetic ploy for money by busybodies. Given that it was bad government policies that CAUSED the "need" for civil rights legislation, his argument makes sense. Especially since the response to the problem has basically devastated the black community. I don't think direct election of Senators has done much to help the country. The electoral college, undoubtedly, is a very good thing. Minimizes the damage corruption in New Orleans, Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, and NYC can cause on the nation at-large.
I didn't intend to vote for Paul (his supporters are creepy) --- but you're making a compelling argument to support him.
I'll be voting for the first time in November 2012 (turn 18 in September 2012). I won't vote to re-elect Barack Obama, though I'll go with a conservative party member in the end.
Oh I see. You're one of those and this thread is one of those threads. Conservatives and Neo Nazis. You can't help but run into them on games websites.
Log in to comment