This topic is locked from further discussion.
[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?[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="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.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
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="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?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
[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.DroidPhysXSo how do you propose to fund the military without taxes? Donations obv.
Nah bro. We can just pray the wars away.
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.
He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancerRon 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 he opposed MANDATORY vaccinations[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
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer he opposed MANDATORY vaccinationsWhich would have cured a form of cancer.[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 opposed it.
It's really sad when you put ideology over people's lives.
Says alot about the ideology.....
he opposed MANDATORY vaccinationsWhich would have cured a form of cancer.[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]He's worse, at least other politicians oppose cancer
MakeMeaSammitch
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?[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.danjammer69You 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.
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would have cured a form of cancer.[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] he opposed MANDATORY vaccinationsmingmao3046
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.
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?'.HoolaHoopManI completely agree.
He wanted to make it legal for businesses to reject employees based on race.
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.
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.[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
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?That's just what the liberal media wants you to think.Ron Paul could not have won the election.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]Which would cost lives as the process of cancer development starts in the teenage years.[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] People could still get the vaccination if they wanted to, but they wouldnt be forced to. see the difference?mingmao3046
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.
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: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
"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.
-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.
[QUOTE="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.[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
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?
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?[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
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[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?[QUOTE="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?[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
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 libertyWhy 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?
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.
[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 libertyBottom 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.
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.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="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.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
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.
[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.....[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.
It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....[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
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.
[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.
It's embarrassing how stupid libertarians are.....[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
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.Cause people would die? Many of them children.[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
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.[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.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.[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 see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.chessmaster1989lol. lalhendi has been torrid in his objective to make up for hokie
[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]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[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
I remember watching I Am Legend too.
If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans. lolque[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.
-Sun_Tzu-
I remember watching I Am Legend too.
that movie was overrated.If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans. lolque[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.
-Sun_Tzu-
I remember watching I Am Legend too.
There's no way he's that stupid.Fakeboy?
If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans. lolque[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]No I'm just against people dying of cancer and whooping cough.
-Sun_Tzu-
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.I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.chessmaster1989OT libertarians > OT liberals
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I see that my comment in the other thread about OT libertarians getting stupider and stupider is equally applicable in this thread.kingkong0124OT libertarians > OT liberals
What alternate universe are you referring to?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]lolque[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If vaccinations are mandatory, then all it takes it one bad vaccination to screw over an entire generation of Americans.Laihendi
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?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment