Snoop Dogg Endorses Ron Paul

January 31st, 2012 // 112 Comments
Snoop Dogg

Ron Paul might want to peel back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and basically turn the United States into a boner-inducing fiefdom for rich, gun-toting white property owners, but he also wants to legalize weed so, really, how hard can that other shit make it for brotha? Mediaite reports:

Snoop Dogg — the undisputed voice of the people — has voiced his support for a GOP candidate. On Sunday, the rapper and actor posted an image of Ron Paul to Facebook, accompanied by the gentle suggestion to “Smoke Weed Everyday.” Snoop captioned the image with a simple “because I said so.”
“He’s always high,” responded one commenter. “That’s why he makes so much sense.”
“Substance,” replied another. “What Ron Paul speaks and Snoop Dog smokes!!! Ron Paul/Snoop Dog in 2012!”

But before everyone rags on Snoop Dogg, keep in mind, there are actually liberals going apeshit for Ron Paul because despite envisioning a U.S. free of any and all social services, stop lights (True Story: Libertarians hate traffic signs.) or laws against using your cellphone while driving because if our forefathers didn’t want us texting they would’ve put it in the Constitution 200 years ago, he said some legitimate things about 9/11 and is against the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. So, wants to take us back to the Wild West where you’re basically fucked unless you own land, but hey man, he’s against drone missiles and lets you smoke the sticky icky, so how bad can it be? The current state of American politics, ladies and gentlemen.

Adding… Ayn Rand enrolled in Medicare and Social Security after she got lung cancer. Eat a dick.

Photo: Getty


  1. catapostrophe

    Ron Paul is the only real candidate in the race. No need to feel as if you need to make excuses for him.

  2. cgd

    Ron Paul doesn’t want to peel back the Civil Rights Act, though he disagrees with the notion of the gov’t telling private businesses what they can and cannot do (as long as individual rights are not infringed). He also doesn’t want to make weed legal, but wants that decision left to the States – since it’s not in the jurisdiction of the Federal gov’t. Assuming there wouldn’t be social services without the gov’t is a bit of a stretch. Private charities are much more efficient.

    • ktulu

      Your trying to point out facts to the liberal whack job that runs this site-save your breath

      • Alex

        Exactly what I was thinking. Albeit a Christianity-damaged liberal whack job that has a great sense of humor. Although I would have never thought to be politically correct according to Fish, I must be a broke-ass non-entity apartment dweller that would rather lease an Accord rather than buy a Civic.

    • And, I’m assuming Rand must have paid into Social Security and Medicare in order to be entitled to “enroll” — this was of course back when it SS was merely a bad idea as opposed to a bottomless money pit — but decided it was worth abandoning a stance based upon principle in order to try and stay alive and out of hellish pain. A true moment of sociopolitical observational triumph, there, Fish. You can be fucking hilarious; why don’t you just do that?

    • mpath1

      Ummm….Ron Paul calls the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “…massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, ..” This, among many other things, is a direct quote from his own website. (It’s there right now. Google is your friend.) True, he doesn’t say “peel back the CRA” because then not even his apologists could make excuses for his stupidity…or naivety… or both. But c’mon. Read between the lines: if there were a CR violation (and there sometimes are), he’d let it go unchecked. And, given the opportunity, he’d weaken the laws. That IS peeling the CRA back.

      I’ll add that the “free market” had it’s way for a *century* after the Civil War to work its magic. We added three Constitutional Amendments in the 1800s–well before the CRA even came up for chrissakes–that should have made the CRA completely unnecessary. We even needed the 19th just to let women vote and CRA was still needed to help protect discrimination against women too.

      Ron Paul would’ve likely opposed even those four amendments as being “too much govt”. His vision for America–foreign policy included–is clearly rooted somewhere in the mid 1800s, where true liberty was afforded to very few Americans.

      • Felonious Monkey

        Thank you, mpath1. I’ve been saying this to people all along. Ron Paul’s so conservative, he wants to roll back the country not to the repressed, bullshit 1950′s but to the backward 1850′s.
        This doctor is for legalizing drugs or at least having each state make that decision but the AMA doesn’t want to have acupuncture or other forms of energy medicine to be covered under insurance.
        We’d have people dealing with pain and other illnesses w/o the brain damage done by drugs.
        I suppose conservatives need more brain damaged people as voters.

      • godhatesleftist

        Or you could subscribe to the Progressive ideology that originated in the early 20th century. A movement that not only advocated for the forced abortion of blacks, the mentally retarded and handicaped but also admired many Hitlers’ policies,

        Yea, I come to this site to get away from the politics only to be bombarded at times with fucked leftist whos lips are permanently connected to Obama’s impotent cock.

      • me

        This must be why the head of the NAACP endorses Dr. Paul

    • that1guy

      Whoever wrote this article is so far behind that they think they’re ahead…. The Superficial is a very good name for whatever this site is.
      I got ONE acronym for ya… NDAA. Explain how that’s NOT going to eventually ruin us and I’ll cast my vote for Obama.

    • Dan

      the state would or could still tax and have there own STATE services Ron Paul is trying to give people the right to choose. I am sure some states would have big government it is whatever the people vote for at a state level. If Ron Paul were elected it isn’t like every drug would be instantly legal. STATE LAW would still apply it would allow each state to choose for its self hopefully by public vote giving the people the power not one entity setting rules for all states and all people, that is not freedom. State taxes could build roads and bridges, businesses seeking to improve shipping routes etc…

  3. hate myself and want to die

    i’ll be way too high to vote on election day and but not high enough to vote for ron paul.

  4. Marion DingleBarry

    It was those rich, gun-toting white property owners that founded this country! Unlike this punk-a– b-tch that now sleazes around every single white event he can get his ignorant self into.

    And of course this is the same PAB that along with all his NWA buddies talked about killing white people and Jews and their children.

    Guess you forgot about that.

  5. Before this post becomes another shitstorm of political debate, let me just say something that’s been on my mind for a while. (Even though it has no bearing on Ron Paul.)

    You know what amazes me about the conservative Republicans who frequent this site? It’s that if their party had their way 15 years ago, the Communications Decency Act would have remained good law, and this site and others like would not be allowed to exist.

  6. Superficial Unsubscriber

    Also, Ayn Rand didn’t enroll. All american’s are automatically enrolled in those programs. Regardless, why should she not be entitled to something she paid into with taxes she paid? The tax is the theft, not the service forced down our throats.

    Failure to understand what it means to be a libertarian is no excuse for the crap you wrote in this post.

    You’re losing readership, populist twat.

    • JPC

      I’m sure he’s really broken up over losing you, humorless libertarian (I think that’s redundant.)

    • Lemmy

      Perhaps Ayn Rand shoul’ve stuck to her guns (and convictions) and refused to use it. You know, practice what you preach and all that jazz. You can refuse it if you don’t want it.

      “I paid taxes” is not an excuse if you’ve been shitting all over government healthcare your entire professional life. That’s called “cognitive dissonance” and makes you look like an dumbass.
      Have some character and strength in your convictions. Same thing with all those Cons and Teabaggers who were vehemently anti-bailout, but at the same time, willingly and without skipping a beat, took stimulus money to help the small and medium businesses they ran.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      • As I said above, of course you can if painful death is on the table. What part of “lung cancer” did you miss? She paid into a system she was forced to join, and had every right to HER OWN MONEY.
        How desperate to tear someone down do you need to be to ignore cancer?

      • Superficial Unsubscriber

        Right… “cognitive dissonance” is an internet meme that has lost its meaning, especially with such a pathetic evaluation. How’s about another meme instead. Let’s compare the number of comments before you compare Ron Paul to Hitler.

        Taxes are forced from us at gunpoint (government force). Services are rendered upon us at gunpoint. It’s not a choice. Was her choice then to die because of a corrupt government system? That’s just silly.

        Obama signed NDAA 2012, and backs PIPA and SOPA. It is logical to fear government, especially large government. You fear power in corporation (which you can solve buy not purchasing), but credit large oppressive governments when it’s your team at bat.

        THAT is cognitive dissonance. Republicans and democrats have been the same for years. The alternative is less government. That is “radical” by today’s ideologies. You people defending this crappy article just refuse to put power in perspective.

        Grow up and think.

  7. Devo

    Thank you, Mr. Fish. You are spot on with this one.

    • jenyjenjen

      Agreed. Also Ms. Rand was a delusional speed addict who died alone, totally friendless having isolated everyone with her baseless vitriol.

  8. Tanara Lynn

    Ron Paul isn’t directly supporting drugs or prostitution. He thinks each individual state should enforce the laws it decides upon, thus removing that power from the federal government level. I support this because our government was designed solely to protect American citizen’s freedom, yet our government has become so vast that it now has the power to do ANYTHING. They’re currently abusing this power by undermining the constitution and stripping the people’s god given rights. Imagine life with Ron Paul as president or imagine life without the Constitution – the only safeguard to our liberty.

    • Felonious Monkey

      Tanara Lynn, what the hell are you writing about? Conservatives are the only ones undermining this country. The undermine working class and middle class people with disproportionate taxes. They undermine jobs by outsourcing. They undermine the health of Americans by supporting/implementing crappy food and health legislation. The list goes on and on…

      • Chris

        Felonious Monkey…Once again, you haters only prove you know nothing of Ron Paul. He is a man of principle. Dr. Paul is not a Neo-Con…This is who you are refering to. There is a reason the MSM, the GOP and the Establishment in general fear Ron Paul. This is because he will stop the lobbyi$t, stop the war$, stop the sweetheart deal$, stop the bailout$ and stop arresting fools like you for simply being an idiot($$). Any other GOP candidates or your boy Barack saying anything like this? I know your boy Barack has started more wars than any other Presidents in history. Of course he waited until he got his Noble Peace Prize before he started all of his killing…Now were about to go into Iran??? And your boy Barack and his pals are using the same BS Propaganda the GOP used as an excuse to invade Iraq? They cant even come up with something new???? And if you seriously believe the Federal Govt is better at handling State issues than the States themselves…..I am simply wasting my typing… Wake the fuk up before its to late.

  9. LJ

    Right Wingers and Libertatians are all wired for the attack (them superpacs spread the money out through lots of blogging entities for paid poaters).

  10. R Paul

    puts gun in mouth.
    pulls trigger.

  11. speaking for rich, gun-toting white property owners everywhere, I find this post offensive.

    Seriously, i’m rich bitches!!!

  12. Ron Jeremy in 2012.

  13. nate

    However, Ron Paul DOES want to make abortion a federal crime! He’s funny that way.

    • stratacat

      nope. wrong. he believes abortion is wrong because he’s delivered like 5 million babies but doesn’t want the federal govt to have any say whatsoever on what rights you have concerning your body.

      • me

        I read in his book that during his training he was required to observe an abortion. They literally removed the baby, put it in a bucket and sat it in the corner of the room. He vowed then never to perform an abortion. He’s also stated they are rarely necessary to save a mother’s life. I don’t know, he’s the ob-byn, not me.

  14. Mark

    Ron Paul must be so proud! Incidentally, his ratings also just dropped 10 points in every voter group.

  15. krutboo

    Here is a cogent explanation by Ayn rand regarding people accepting govt benefits. Basically, she argues that since her property (in the way of the output of her work or money)was taken to pay for govt benefits like medicare and SS, then she has every right to take those benefits.

    She is 100% right! Why should she deny those benefits thereby screwing herself after being screwed by the govt in the first place.

    As usual Fish offers the typical liberal approach to anything political. An intellectually lazy drive-by comment!

  16. dakjshjkh

    go to, where he speaks out AGAINST the civil rights act on his own page. its not a secret–hes made that clear many times. he is against the civil rights act. as it happens, hes not against creationism in science class, not against bans anti sodomy (oral/anal sex) laws. basically, he is ok with oppression so long as the federal government isnt the oppressor. state = oppressor? no problem. arrested for getting a blowjob because of state law? no problem. federal government that stops restaurants from having separate eating areas for coloreds? OH NO, THATS WRONG. thats ron paul.

    • Schmidtler

      what you’re missing in your hysteria over ‘he wants to repeal the civil rights act! ZOMG!’ is that once you’ve concede the power to the federal government to dictate to private citizens what they can and can’t do with their own private property, you’ve opened a door to the feds marching down that road endlessly. The theory that a single roadside diner in Tennessee somehow impacts interstate commerce because the owner decided he doesn’t want to serve this person or that for whatever reason is asinine, and so now you’ve conceded unlimited power to the feds to dictate what everyone an do anywhere with their own property. If the federal government wants to dictate the policies of every diner in the country, they should buy them all.

  17. Mando

    Because this california raisin said so.

  18. It’s too bad the notion of people being able to take care of themselves and respect others has become such an abstract concept, that people will embrace the government controlling their lives and love every second of it.

    In case you’re wondering, that was a slam against Dems and GOP’ers.

    • stratacat

      the thing about libertarianism, just like communism, is that it’s a good idea on paper, but requires EVERYONE’s participation, so in reality will never work.

      that’s unfortunate. because i like the idea of personal responsibility. if people didn’t constantly blame everyone else for all their problems, this world might not be such a shithole.

    • Lemmy

      Having the government help you with your $250000 cancer operation and treatment bill is not the same as “the government controlling your life”.

      Some things are out of your control. There’s no shame in admitting that.

      • albert pike

        Lemmy, you need to broaden your scope. Once the gov’t controls the system (1/7 of our economy, btw), they won’t hesitate in legislating everything we ingest.
        How is that Constitutional?

        I’ll wait.

  19. Marion DingleBarry

    Why are some of you mentioning Ayn Rand’s name in the present tense?

    This “Fish” guy needs to spend some time in East Oakland/Detroit/Compton-Inglewood/Houston…I’m sure he’s change his way of thinking really fast.

  20. So do Ron Paul supporters exist offline? I personally think he has just as good of a chance in the election as any other GOP candidate currently available but I never see his primary/caucus numbers match what I see online on various websites.

  21. cody

    This author is a morron. The Founders put the guidlines of societal freedom into the constitution. Essentially, it’s a blanket that covers all people with freedom. Limiting cell phone use in your car while you’re driving on tax payer roads is against the Constitution becuase the government can’t regulate you, your property, or you’re actions if they don’t enharently hurt others. People can’t pick and choose what is and is not free in a free society, other wise it’s no longer a free society!

    • catapostrophe

      Moron, guidelines, Constitution, taxpayer, because, your [actions], inherently, otherwise.

      Other than that–bravo, non-moron author!

    • I also like the part where talking on your cell phone while driving does not pose a harm to others. And the fact that of all the examples this guy could’ve come up with about government limiting people’s freedoms, that’s the one he decided to go with.

  22. dysko duck

    A golf clap for the man who pisses off the Ron Paul partisans and the peculiarly long-winded adherents to the emotionally stunted me-first-pseudophilosophy of Ayn Rand (a group which includes Ron Paul and his son).

    Well done, sir.

  23. ronpaulgetsit

    you’re an idiot if you think the civil rights act was unanimously a good law. im sure you thought everything about the patriot act was ‘patriotic’ as well.

    • mpath1

      Is there’s a such thing as a perfect law? Or a perfect anything?
      Without getting too philosophical here, how about you just describe some of the specific problems you have with the effects of the legislation as opposed to making blanket ad hominem attacks against anyone/everyone that might think the CRA was a good thing.

      • Chris

        mpath1…So does your retort imply you support the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/ PIPA and other such toxic pieces of legislation, simply on the premise that there is no ‘such thing as a perfect law’? Your argument holds no water. A non-perfect law is on the other side of the spectrum when compared to a TOXIC law.

  24. JPC

    That link, my friends, is to a video of Ron Paul giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate flag, stating that the South was on the “right side of the war,” and that slavery was not a reason for the Civil War (go read all the Southern states’ documents of secession, and notice how keeping slaves seemed to be their #1 reason for seceding)

    And in other parts of the speech (the video clip is just 4 minutes, but it was an hour long speech) he states that if the US wanted to get rid of slavery, they should have been required to pay whatever slave-owners wanted in order to buy the slaves and free them (as if the slave-owners would just part with their sole means of income cheaply).

    But hey…..he (sort of) wants to legalize pot. So he’s cool!

    • JPC

      I’ve noticed, on other sites as well, that the Paul-bots never seem eager to respond when I comment about that speech. They have to respond to seemingly everyone else here who makes a negative comment about their idol, but they never seem to have a defense for this…..

      Guess it doesn’t fit into their whole “He’s not really a crazy old racist, he just doesn’t like Big Government!” routine.

    • About that “right side of the war” thing…it actually does fit into that “he just doesn’t like Big Government” routine – and quite nicely, too. It’s not too surprising that Paul’s being a pro-South apologist and pandering to the “(we) you were right” party line, since the Confederacy’s interpretation of the war has always been that the Union was split over “states’ rights”, not slavery per se. See, that way the South gets to portray itself as a righteous underdog, Valiantly Fighting Against Big Government For Your Rights Since 1861 – and totally ignore the slavery issue. (Which really didn’t become the major motivating force for the Union side until halfway through the war.).

      BTW, slaves weren’t a “sole means of income” for slave owners – the only person that would apply to would be slave traders. But the agricultural South’s stand was that it couldn’t have any sort of economy at all without slave labor, and that no damn Federal gub’mint was gonna tell them who they couldn’t own when the state Constitution of (fill in any slave-owning state) said it was perfectly fine.

      The pre-war South couldn’t reconcile itself to the fact that the 10th Amendment existed in the first place, which is why, 100 years later, it was still fighting the issue when George Wallace claimed segregation was a “states’ rights” issue and the Federal gub’mint wasn’t gonna tell them who they couldn’t let into white schools. Or lunch counters. Or the front seat of buses.

      • To clarify, I meant that freeing the slaves didn’t become a priority until halfway through the war, not that slavery, especially regarding new states entering into the Union, wasn’t an issue prior to the war.

  25. Hey Asshat – I come hear to read smut and only smut, goddammit. If I wanted to read an idiots opinion on politics, I’d be reading,…. kay?

  26. vekfan

    Well as a non-American I have to pay Ron Paul is a f**king whack job. Your country will go down the shitter even faster than it has if he’s elected.

  27. Obama

    Stick to titties, no one cares about your ignorant political views.

    • Marion DingleBarry

      I agree. I only come here to stare at Reese Witherspoon’s camel toe!

      Unfortunately, Mr. Soapbox who posts these articles likes to spew his liberal a—kising dogma in place of titties and camel toes.

      Look – The vast majority of the people who run these celebrity websites are little hipster douchebags in their late 20′s to 30′s
      that grew up in upper middle class surroundings. They are so guilt-strapped that they aligned themselves to the liberal agenda all the while masquerading as middle-of-the-road observers, attacking conservatives, republicans and religious people and institiutions in order to assuage the guilt they feel.

      And although they outwardly say unflattering things about celebrities, deep down they wish they could be one.

      Did I get that right?

      • mpath1

        Sorry Marion, but no.

        First, the author’s simply making fun of a black celebrity who’s endorsing a candidate (Ron Paul) who, if he had his druthers, would prefer a world where Snoop might’ve been lucky to get hired as a janitor somewhere–let alone become a mega-celebrity entertainer. It’s honestly completely absurd for any minorities (or women) to be pro Ron Paul since he (still) regrets the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–among other things. (Check his views on sexual harassment, ladies!) That’s just the truth. The author here is just expressing the same sentiment in a much more hilarious way.

        Also, there’s nothing inherently wrong about being a celebrity, or rich, etc. Hell, most of us would MUCH rather be one of the rich SOB’s sunning themselves on a yacht and having hot chicks throw themselves at us than sitting here, broke, ridiculing them online any day of the week. We do this as a little diversion…for fun. No biggie. No seriousness (should be) intended. We don’t know any of these folks personally and they’re probably not reading it anyway.

      • Marion DingleBarry

        Dear Mpath1,

        We didn’t need the civil rights act. We have the constitution. It guarantees rights and freedoms to everyone in this country. Unfortunately, a bunch of inbred “rich” southern “democrats” decided they didn’t have to abide by it.

        The civil rights act did nothing but give preferential treatment to people I never hurt or oppressed.

        My civil rights have been violated numerous times by quotas, affirmative action, race norming, etc.,…..

        Let my know when you have my check ready!!!

    • mpath1

      @ Marion. I think 100 years, 4 Constitutional amendments (13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th) and loads disenfranchisement, segregation, discrimination, etc. preceding the CRA of 1964 tell a different story. I know, I know….*eventually* right?? Maybe 200 years? 300?

      As a side note: It’s more accurate to say that it’s conservatives that opposed it than to say “Democrats” did since the parties have evolved over time. Most Conservatives were Democrats right up until the passage of that legislation. Look up something called the “Southern Strategy”. It’s well-documented how Republicans have successfully wooed the conservative vote ever since then using race as a wedge. Some say Gingrich subtly hints at it even today. But I that’s another story…

      Either way, I’m sorry that you believe that attempting to remove century-old obstacles from other Americans’ freedoms is an infringement on your personal “rights” to enjoy those same freedoms exclusively. But thankfully nowadays you, like they, can rest easy knowing that you may certainly plead your case to the highest court. Who knows…someone might just write you that check!

      • Felonious Monkey

        mpath1, you’ve been the main voice of reason on this post and, if I could, I’d shake your hand!

  28. sid

    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. zim

    Do not worry, if Ron Paul is elected you will not go back to the wild west days. The states have laws. The states have the power to regulate such things as Texting while driving. If Ron Paul is elected those laws will not go away.

  30. Stick to the tabloid commentary. You’re political commentary is moronic, at best.

  31. Just another dumbass

    Once again Fish takes the “but we all need the gubment’s checks to survive!” stance. Nobody cares about your liberal views, We come to read about stupid celebrities, keep your political views to yourself.

  32. Psycobiff

    Thesuperficial writer is a communist.

  33. Snoop-Hater

    Who the fuck cares what Pooper-Scooper has to say or who he endorses, does his “political” intelligence dazzle and amaze you? It sure doesn’t me, so he can keep on smokin’ & jokin’ ’cause I could give a shit less what spews from this pecker-heads mouth.

    • Harriscandoit

      The thing is if you “could give a shit less” then you would not be sitting in your tighty whites in front of your computer ranting about how much you dont care, you simply would not know.

  34. The Royal Penis

    It’s funny how terrified people are over the prospect of not having Big Daddy control so much of our lives.

    The whole country has Stockholm syndrome.

    • Km

      So true. I really debate whether to keep patronizing this site. I like the sarcasm, but every time I see one of these annoying and ignorant political posts, I second guess whether I want to click articles and put money in this person’s pocket.

      • POWW

        I agree. Been reading this site for years, maybe since it was close to starting. Used to make me laugh almost daily.
        Anymore, well, I’m getting more laughs from some of the commentary than the author of this site and somehow, man, I cannot believe this–I find myself commenting on the political stuff and that is not why I get on this site. It’s almost like the aurthor is bored or has writer’s block and it’s easy to throw out a political comment and know that you’ll get a ton of hits.

    • Marlin Perkins

      Any time you mention Ron Paul on the internets you get tons of hits, so you may have a point.

    • me

      AMEN!!!!! Obama is our curren captor. Mitt could be next….

  35. the drewness

    who ever wrote this is ignorant as hell. First Ron Paul has never EVER said he wants to repeal the CRA of 64. All he said was that he would have voted against it because people should not be forced to something they don’t want to do with thier own property. Yes you should have the freedom to be ignorant if you want to be that’s why this is the land of the free.All that needed to be done was a repeal of the Jim crow laws. Because even if a white business owner wanted to serve or do business with black people the JC laws prevented them from doing so. your comment about the traffic lights and signs show you have the intelligence of a fire hydrant! Paul and us libertarians don’t want the federal govt dictating things like traffic or drug laws that’s up to the states and local govt. read the tenth amendment any power not given to the federal Govt by the constitution is left up to the states and the PEOPLE!! because having a fix all solution for everyone just doesn’t work. If you like to smoke weed or drive with no seat belt and take care of yourself then you can live in a state or city that lets you do that and if you want to live somewhere where the govt holds your hand and wants to protect you from yourself then you can live somewhere where they do that. not a perfect solution but it’s the most fair.

    • So…he’s saying he thinks it’s wrong and unconstitutional, and would have opposed it in 1964, but he *wouldn’t* repeal it now? Wow, way to have the courage of your convictions there, Dr. Paul.

  36. Kodos

    further proof why the stupid shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
    that being said, f*ck Calvin Broadus Jr….

  37. The sous-fish

    Re: Ayn Rand and Medicare: Medicare is *not* mandatory. You must choose whether to join, and once you do so, you have to pay a premium every year (granted the premium is heavily subsidized). If you really hate Medicare, you can choose to pay for private insurance, or pay cash for services.

    Ayn Rand, once she became old and sick, found out the real reason why Medicare exists: to correct a *market failure* where no private insurer is willing cover old and sick people; better to cover young and healthy people if your sole concern is the bottomline.

    While she may have been forced to pay into Medicare and Social Security, she certainly wasn’t forced to enroll in Medicare and pay its premiums. She could have easily checked out the private market and seen how many righteous, self-interested insurance companies were willing to cover her soon-to-become astronomical health care costs. My guess is none.

    I guess Ayn Rand found what what it feels like when you stop being an ubermensch and become one of the people they shit on every day and had to run to govt for help.

    One last quote:

    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    –John Rogers from Kung Fu Monkey

    We now return you to the sweet land of large-breasted and callipygian lasses!

    • Schmidtler

      you know damn well that no insurer will write you a policy for fire insurance if your house is already on fire, won’t write an auto policy if your car is already wrecked, so wtf would any insurer write a policy for health coverage when you’re already old & sick? that’s not insurance you’re asking for, it’s simply asking somebody else to pay your bills for you. that’s why so many people are opposed to ‘universal health insurance’ – I’ve paid for health insurance my whole life, now I should pay for insurance for everybody that spent their money on blunts and snoop dogg cd’s instead?
      fish is a moron that can’t get past the Michael Moore dogma and think for himself on anything more complicated than a dick joke.

  38. So a lot of you have issue with Fish sharing his political beliefs and your solution is to give this post more comments than any other post today? That’ll show ‘im!

  39. forrest gump

    you mean “Snoop Dog” for president?

  40. Grow-Up

    I wonder if the superficial writer realizes how much of a charicature/stereotype he is, while he’s trashing all the other stereotypes (christians/conservatives/people with actual jobs) that he thinks he’s got pegged so well. Well I’ve got you pegged too buddy, I’ve seen exact walking-talking replicas of you more times than i can count. I too can picture you perfectly, stereotype you, compartmentalize you in my brain, and disregard anything you say as sheeple ramblings. See ya!

  41. browny

    Um, Snoop Doggy is a middle aged man lviing in suburbia. Notice he isn’t toking the week, just holding it. He’s a superb self-promoter and good at projecting a badass image. All we ever hear from this douche lately is how much weed he smokes or that he was ‘cautioned’ by police for possession in some far away country. Yeah, right, he’s a middle aged ‘party’ animal who is probably sitting at home with his wife and kids drinking cocoa and playing with his wii. GO AWAY already.

  42. rob frost

    Ron Paul’s been making sense since the 70′s.

  43. POWW

    Ann Rand was also a devout atheist–you should love that about her fish. As far as Medicare goes–Most conservatives I personally know are more than willing to contribute tax money to care for our elderly, disabled and truly needy. It’s the freeloaders we have a problem with.

    • Felonious Monkey

      Most liberals I know personally give a good amount of money to the elderly and needy. The conservatives I know personally have literally said to me, “It’s not my fault (name a number of tragic situations). I’m not responsible for it. I can’t get involved.”
      Who are the freeloaders you have a problem with?
      The corporations who get tax breaks but outsource jobs?
      Wall Streeters who get bailout money?
      Wealthy people who get subsidies? Who are you talking about?

      • POWW

        That is sad for you that the conservatives you know personally say this to you. We obviously hang out with a different crowd.
        I did think that most people knew what the word freeloader meant but maybe it’s a generational thing and you are too young, so here’s a quick definition for you:
        free·load·ed, free·load·ing, free·loads Slang
        To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others Fee free to apply it to whoever you like. I am not going to be baited by you.

  44. Schmidtler

    think about this basic fact, all you who so loudly screech about your political opinions – the constitution specifically spells out those very limited powers granted to the federal government, all other powers are reserved to private citizens and the states. that is the basis of our form of government. where does the power of the federal government to dictate to private property owners what they can or can’t do with their private property come from? would it be ok with you if the feds decided you are obligated to open the door to your home and allow anyone who came by to come into your house, sit at your table, and share your dinner with you and your family? now how about if you open a roadside diner, the cra requires you to open the door and allow anyone who comes by in, and also you have to have a specially equipped bathroom and ramps and other accommodations, on the off chance the next person at your door is handicapped. the constitution simply does not grant this scope of power to the feds, and if we allow them to keep taking more and more unauthorized powers, where does that take us? RP is simply saying in plain english that the federal government has grossly overstepped the power granted to it under our constitution, and that this should be reversed.

  45. me

    Dr. Paul is ahead of his time. Some day, everyone will be quoting Ron Paul and playing by his book. We will all look back on this era as how stupid America was. Can’t wait for that day! US Constitution is the only way to go. Obama will have it shredded by the end of his second term and the sheeple will cheer. I totally see how Germany fell for Hitler. I see people falling for Obama the same way. Not that Obama is Hitler, but the massive hysteria over him is one-in-the-same. People are cheering for him to bypass congress and bypass our constitution, and he’s doing just that. But man, he’s got an incredible speaking style and a smile to match! Oh well, like I wrote, we’re just not in the right time yet. Wait for it….

  46. amster

    take back what you said about Ayn Rand. what evs, lung cancer!!!!

  47. what are those? feelings?

    that ayn rand comment made me have a little real crush on you.

  48. lace

    This guy is a true representative of the majority of America. Stupid and fed by the media. He doesn’t want FEDERAL laws. States can still keep laws against texting while driving, and frankly I hope the people that want to text while driving keep doing it, and drive right into a tree. Laws upon laws upon laws have been set in place over the past century, and they’re designed to keep the stupid alive. Do you need to be told that you should be paying attention while driving? Do you need to be told that it’s not right for the other people in the country to pay for your living while you lay around and pop out baby after baby after baby by different men? He’s not against all social services. He’s against federal social services. New Yorkers should take care of New Yorkers and make laws for New Yorkers. Ohioans should take care of Ohioans and make laws suited for Ohioans. See where this is going? What is right for one, is not right for all. The purpose of the revolutionary war was to make it so that the people of this country weren’t answering to someone too far away to know what life was really like for the people. And, when the US was mainly just the East Coast, having legislators there and there only made a little sense. But now, people in DC shouldn’t be telling those in California what to do. They don’t know what’s right for everyone, and most of them are out of date with what the people even want. Congress was put into place to keep the President from wielding supreme power, but now Congress tramples over the President, even if he has good and intelligent ideas. Congress is bought out by lobbyists and corrupted, thus the purpose of Congress has been nullified. The Supreme Court needs to exercise their branch of power and start putting Congress back in their place. Do you job ethically, or give up your seat to someone who actually cares about the welfare of the country as a whole.

  49. This one has SHARE written all over it!!! The Ron Paul campaign came forward Saturday claiming the establishment is purposely hiding Maine’s overall caucus results and delegate totals from the American people to prevent any potential surge or momentum from taking place as a result of the success he had in the caucus.
    Continue reading on Examiner com

  50. Ray

    The author of this piece is an idiot.
    “envisioning a U.S. free of any and all social services, stop lights (True Story: Libertarians hate traffic signs.)”

    What? Stop lights?!?! Ron Paul said he doesn’t like stop lights??! You’re an idiot. Ron Paul never said that.

    “if our forefathers didn’t want us texting they would’ve put it in the Constitution 200 years ago”

    What?? Texting wasn’t possible back then, idiot! Besides, texting is a state business, nothing to do with Federal government or the presidency. When did Dr. Paul say he’d make it legal to text and drive??
    Where do you pull this crap, dude! You’re smoking something seriously strong. You need to lay off the pipe, seriously! Gee, you are totally out of your f-ing mind!

Leave A Comment