Ron Paul could have won this election.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Person0
#101 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
[QUOTE="CongressManStan"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

I agree completely, his biggest flaw was that most people didn't know anything about him. If he were nominated, I think he could have won. This isn't naive, it's common sense because the word he spreads is common sense.

The more people know about him the less support he would get.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#102 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.Laihendi

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.

So how do you propose to fund the military without taxes?
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#103 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

chessmaster1989
I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.

So how do you propose to fund the military without taxes?

Donations obv.
Avatar image for Person0
#104 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

chessmaster1989

I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.

So how do you propose to fund the military without taxes?

eVeMe.jpg

Avatar image for dave123321
#105 Posted by dave123321 (35265 posts) -
Sponsorships are the way to go. Maybe give our soldiers Halo themed gear
Avatar image for Kickinurass
#106 Posted by Kickinurass (3357 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.DroidPhysX
So how do you propose to fund the military without taxes?

Donations obv.

Nah bro. We can just pray the wars away.

Avatar image for Guybrush_3
#107 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

Ron Paul doesn't even think the states should have to follow the constitution. He's a scumb bag and a liar just like everyone else in washington.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#108 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

Ron Paul doesn't even think the states should have to follow the constitution. He's a scumb bag and a liar just like everyone else in washington.

Guybrush_3

He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer

Avatar image for mingmao3046
#109 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Ron Paul doesn't even think the states should have to follow the constitution. He's a scumb bag and a liar just like everyone else in washington.

MakeMeaSammitch

He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer

he opposed MANDATORY vaccinations
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#110 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Ron Paul doesn't even think the states should have to follow the constitution. He's a scumb bag and a liar just like everyone else in washington.

mingmao3046

He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer

he opposed MANDATORY vaccinations

Which would have cured a form of cancer.

He opposed it.

It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.

Says alot about the ideology.....

Avatar image for mingmao3046
#111 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer

MakeMeaSammitch

he opposed MANDATORY vaccinations

Which would have cured a form of cancer.

He opposed it.

It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.

Says alot about the ideology.....

People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#112 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9104 posts) -
He's a crazy old man. For every idea that I agree with him on there's ten where I just have to think to myself, 'The fvck is wrong with this guy?'.
Avatar image for k2theswiss
#113 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.danjammer69
You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

he did refuse any company money.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#114 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] he opposed MANDATORY vaccinationsmingmao3046

Which would have cured a form of cancer.

He opposed it.

It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.

Says alot about the ideology.....

People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?

Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#115 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

He's a crazy old man. For every idea that I agree with him on there's ten where I just have to think to myself, 'The fvck is wrong with this guy?'.HoolaHoopMan
I completely agree.

He wanted to make it legal for businesses to reject employees based on race.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#116 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Ron Paul could not have won the election. Period. People might think that old people would vote for him until the fact that he wants to axe Medicare and Social Security gets mentioned. He wants to substantially reduce the size of the military. He also wants to legalize drugs. Right off the bat, you have a very sizable portion of the GOP constituency voting Democrat, third party, or not at all, which really takes quite some doing. There is nary a single issue economically where the Dems and he agree on, and considering that they already support gay marriage, the temptation to jump ship is practically non-existent.

Avatar image for mingmao3046
#117 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would have cured a form of cancer.

He opposed it.

It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.

Says alot about the ideology.....

MakeMeaSammitch

People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?

Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#118 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

Ron Paul could not have won the election.

coolbeans90
That's just what the liberal media wants you to think.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#119 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?mingmao3046

Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?

Not when they're an infant, no, they don't own their bodies and no, they don't have the right to refuse life saving medication.

Did you know that the whooping cough is making a comeback because some people aren't vaccinating their children? A cough so intense that children will sufficate and die as they cough so hard that they can't get enough air. I don't see how allowing them to die or at the very lease suffer horribly would make the world a better place.

You really need to stop mindlessly following this ideology, take a step back, and think.

Avatar image for TrainerCeleste
#120 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1633 posts) -
Well, I could have had a sandwhich for lunch today, but I didn't
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#121 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Ron Paul could not have won the election. Period. People might think that old people would vote for him until the fact that he wants to axe Medicare and Social Security gets mentioned. He wants to substantially reduce the size of the military. He also wants to legalize drugs. Right off the bat, you have a very sizable portion of the GOP constituency voting Democrat, third party, or not at all, which really takes quite some doing. There is nary a single issue economically where the Dems and he agree on, and considering that they already support gay marriage, the temptation to jump ship is practically non-existent.

coolbeans90

This is all true, but there is also a liberal constituency that Ron Paul could tap into as well. Glenn Greenwald summarized what the choice in a Ron Paul vs. Obama general election actually looks like for a liberal voter:

"Yes, Im willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and Americas minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for espionage, and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)in exchange forless severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for Americas minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court."

But I don't think Ron Paul is a skilled enough politician to actually form a politically competetive coalition of civil libertarians and right-wing economic libertarians. And it says something about Ron Paul that he's aligned himself with the Republican party and implicitly prioritizing his fringe economic views over his views on civil liberties and foreign policy. Libertarians in general would probably be more effective at getting sh!t done through the democratic party than through the republican party. It is too bad they've ignored Barry Goldwater's warning about what the GOP was becoming.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#122 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

-Sun_Tzu-

While there is such a constituency that Paul could tap into there, I'm inclined to think that the majority of the Democratic Party is more in line with Obama's foreign policy, overall, than Paul's, which is quite a ways closer to the GOP's. As you said, it would be a trade off scenario for those inclined to support Paul WRT foreign policy that would take an extraordinary amount of other baggage. In short, I do not think that a candidate with the fragmented support of civil libertarians and full-fledged support of hard right-libertarians would be competitive against Obama - and this is all before Paul's shortcomings. It is an alliance that I do not really think that could work considering that these groups really are often on polar ends of economic policy, ranging from socialists to minarchists, with some progressives in between. I can't vouch for the statistics on this one, but IRL I've run into a substantial number of conservatives in the vein of Pat Buchanan who supported Paul on foreign policy, whose views on social issues (abortion, contraception, pornography, immigration, drugs, etc.) are also rather distant from the libertarians, paleocons I guess - notice how he wanted to 'leave it to the states' so that he did not have to reconcile any of this merely to keep together his already minuscule base of support. Goldwater's warning was quite correct, but I can't really see how there's a way out of it, which makes me a little unhappy.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#123 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would have cured a form of cancer.

He opposed it.

It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.

Says alot about the ideology.....

mingmao3046

People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?

Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?

Nobody with half a brain would care about your stupid appeals to emotion when deciding policies like these, so don't bother typing them. Vaccination works best when done en masse, since it severely curbs the ability of infectious diseases to spread. It's far more convenient and efficient for people to be vaccinated at their infancy than to make it voluntary and hope that parents will be willing and knowledgable enough to immunize their kids.

We know that some parents are stupid and are convinced that vaccines can give people autism and that this risk outweighs the fact that your kid has a much lower chance of being killed by tetanus. Knowing this, why should we not take as many steps as possible to prevent kids from dying due to vaccine-preventing diseases? Would you rather that idiot parents be allowed to needlessly expose and risk their children?

Avatar image for mingmao3046
#124 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

Barbariser

so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?

Nobody with half a brain would care about your stupid appeals to emotion when deciding policies like these, so don't bother typing them. Vaccination works best when done en masse, since it severely curbs the ability of infectious diseases to spread. It's far more convenient and efficient for people to be vaccinated at their infancy than to make it voluntary and hope that parents will be willing and knowledgable enough to immunize their kids.

We know that some parents are stupid and are convinced that vaccines can give people autism and that this risk outweighs the fact that your kid has a much lower chance of being killed by tetanus. Knowing this, why should we not take as many steps as possible to prevent kids from dying due to vaccine-preventing diseases? Would you rather that idiot parents be allowed to needlessly expose and risk their children?

bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal liberty
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#125 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?mingmao3046

Nobody with half a brain would care about your stupid appeals to emotion when deciding policies like these, so don't bother typing them. Vaccination works best when done en masse, since it severely curbs the ability of infectious diseases to spread. It's far more convenient and efficient for people to be vaccinated at their infancy than to make it voluntary and hope that parents will be willing and knowledgable enough to immunize their kids.

We know that some parents are stupid and are convinced that vaccines can give people autism and that this risk outweighs the fact that your kid has a much lower chance of being killed by tetanus. Knowing this, why should we not take as many steps as possible to prevent kids from dying due to vaccine-preventing diseases? Would you rather that idiot parents be allowed to needlessly expose and risk their children?

bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal liberty

Isn't mooching off of a population's herd immunity a violation of personal liberty? Why should I have to subsidize the wellness of people who don't get vaccinated?
Avatar image for Barbariser
#126 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.

You really need to take a step back from being a paulbot, and use critical thinking.

This policy would spread desieses and kill thousands of people, while the current (intelligent) one would save thousands of lives.

It's simple logic.

mingmao3046

so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?

Nobody with half a brain would care about your stupid appeals to emotion when deciding policies like these, so don't bother typing them. Vaccination works best when done en masse, since it severely curbs the ability of infectious diseases to spread. It's far more convenient and efficient for people to be vaccinated at their infancy than to make it voluntary and hope that parents will be willing and knowledgable enough to immunize their kids.

We know that some parents are stupid and are convinced that vaccines can give people autism and that this risk outweighs the fact that your kid has a much lower chance of being killed by tetanus. Knowing this, why should we not take as many steps as possible to prevent kids from dying due to vaccine-preventing diseases? Would you rather that idiot parents be allowed to needlessly expose and risk their children?

bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal liberty

Why the f*ck not? The government can force me not to kill other people or steal from them, why shouldn't it be able to force parents to make sure their children are immune to tetanus? You have offered nothing to suggest that mandatory vaccination is a bad thing except some arbtitrary moral axioms from your idealogy, and if your idealogy will result in children dying due to a lack of immunity to easily preventable diseases then what merit does it have for human society?

Avatar image for DeadlyRavenKing
#127 Posted by DeadlyRavenKing (41 posts) -
Ron Paul is an idiot, he could never become President.
Avatar image for scoots9
#128 Posted by scoots9 (3473 posts) -

I don't think he could win. I would've voted for him over Obutthead, but Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnson, and at one point I was hoping it wouldn't be Romney, though I started to like him better as time passed).

whipassmt

And that's why Johnson, Paul or Huntsman could have won. Republicans would vote against Obama and they would draw in some independent and democratic support.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#129 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]so you support government enforced injections. so people no longer have the right to refuse someone sticking them with a needle and injecting chemicals into it? you no longer have the right to your own body?mingmao3046

Nobody with half a brain would care about your stupid appeals to emotion when deciding policies like these, so don't bother typing them. Vaccination works best when done en masse, since it severely curbs the ability of infectious diseases to spread. It's far more convenient and efficient for people to be vaccinated at their infancy than to make it voluntary and hope that parents will be willing and knowledgable enough to immunize their kids.

We know that some parents are stupid and are convinced that vaccines can give people autism and that this risk outweighs the fact that your kid has a much lower chance of being killed by tetanus. Knowing this, why should we not take as many steps as possible to prevent kids from dying due to vaccine-preventing diseases? Would you rather that idiot parents be allowed to needlessly expose and risk their children?

bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal liberty

Bottom line: that's stupd because it would cause thousands of deaths.

Take a step back and think about it.

Which policy is right? The one that saves lives or the one that doesn't.

Here's what you're promoting.

Avatar image for Strakha
#130 Posted by Strakha (1824 posts) -

I doubt it because the media would have done it's best to make sure it didn't happen. They like divide and conquer as do the majority who hold power. Though I do agree Paul is the sanity America needs, that the world needs. By example is the best way to lead.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#131 Posted by Laihendi (5871 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

chessmaster1989

I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.

So how do you propose to fund the military without taxes?

You deny the benefits of citizenship to anyone who refuses to pay taxes. Just to clarify, I advocate voluntary taxation, not ending taxation.

Avatar image for Strakha
#132 Posted by Strakha (1824 posts) -

bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal libertymingmao3046

The US government can force people to get vaccinations? I thought Australia was bad when it came to these things. Well it is but at least for now we still have this freedom.

Avatar image for TopTierHustler
#133 Posted by TopTierHustler (3894 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal libertyStrakha

The US government can force people to get vaccinations? I thought Australia was bad when it came to these things. Well it is but at least for now we still have this freedom.

It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

Avatar image for Strakha
#134 Posted by Strakha (1824 posts) -

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]bottom line im saying: you shouldnt be forced by the government to get a vaccination. that is absolutely ridiculous and a clear violation of personal libertyTopTierHustler

The US government can force people to get vaccinations? I thought Australia was bad when it came to these things. Well it is but at least for now we still have this freedom.

It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#135 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
I dont know why libertarians get butt hurt over government subsidies such as food stamps.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#136 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

The US government can force people to get vaccinations? I thought Australia was bad when it came to these things. Well it is but at least for now we still have this freedom.

Strakha

It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

Cause people would die? Many of them children.

Libertarianismseems like it's just choosing ideology over logic and common sense.

Avatar image for Strakha
#137 Posted by Strakha (1824 posts) -

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

MakeMeaSammitch

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

Cause people would die? Many of them children.

Libertarianismseems like it's just choosing ideology over logic and common sense.

No. It simply means that you get to decide what logic and common sense is rather than the government.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#138 Posted by Laihendi (5871 posts) -

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

The US government can force people to get vaccinations? I thought Australia was bad when it came to these things. Well it is but at least for now we still have this freedom.

Strakha

It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

I think people like TopTierHustler think the government should be forcing everyone to drink 3 glasses of milk per day. They believe that something can only be done if the government makes a law mandating it.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#139 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

Strakha

Cause people would die? Many of them children.

Libertarianismseems like it's just choosing ideology over logic and common sense.

No. It simply means that you get to decide what logic and common sense is rather than the government.

No, common sense is destroying a desiese and saving people's lives, many of whom are children.

Avatar image for TopTierHustler
#140 Posted by TopTierHustler (3894 posts) -

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....

Laihendi

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

I think people like TopTierHustler think the government should be forcing everyone to drink 3 glasses of milk per day. They believe that something can only be done if the government makes a law mandating it.

No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#141 Posted by Laihendi (5871 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Strakha"]

How so? I'm not against vaccinations only the government forcing people to have them. Heck I would be against the government forcing people to have beer if they made it a mandate.

TopTierHustler

I think people like TopTierHustler think the government should be forcing everyone to drink 3 glasses of milk per day. They believe that something can only be done if the government makes a law mandating it.

No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#142 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#143 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.chessmaster1989
lol. lalhendi has been torrid in his objective to make up for hokie
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#144 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I think people like TopTierHustler think the government should be forcing everyone to drink 3 glasses of milk per day. They believe that something can only be done if the government makes a law mandating it.Laihendi

No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.

lolque

I remember watching I Am Legend too.

Avatar image for kingkong0124
#145 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

-Sun_Tzu-

If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.

lolque

I remember watching I Am Legend too.

that movie was overrated.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#146 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

-Sun_Tzu-

If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.

lolque

I remember watching I Am Legend too.

There's no way he's that stupid.

Fakeboy?

Avatar image for Laihendi
#147 Posted by Laihendi (5871 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.

-Sun_Tzu-

If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.

lolque

I remember watching I Am Legend too.

Nice appeal to ridicule bruh. State-mandated medication is a dangerous thing. Do you remember the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? I don't trust the government with putting things in my body.
Avatar image for kingkong0124
#148 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -
I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.chessmaster1989
OT libertarians > OT liberals
Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#149 Posted by jimkabrhel (15623 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.kingkong0124
OT libertarians > OT liberals

What alternate universe are you referring to?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#150 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.Laihendi

lolque

I remember watching I Am Legend too.

Nice appeal to ridicule bruh. State-mandated medication is a dangerous thing. Do you remember the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? I don't trust the government with putting things in my body.

Who said anything about the government putting anything in your body?