Trocisp

It's fashionable to support Ron Paul - and I understand that. Mucho coolio to have Ron Paul bumper sticker, etc.

But, did you know that Ron Paul support building a 700 mile fence along a 2100 mile border with Mexico? I'm not a mathematician but that doesn't add up to me. Not to mention that even if we did build it, chances are it could be easily bypassed. Go... around it! under it, through it, over it... They do have ladders in Mexico, you know. The plurality of illegal immigrants in our country are on expired visa's anyway, not just random guys who walked past the border and said "Yo, we're in america now sonny!"

• Ron Paul is against a womans right to chose.
• Ron Paul would abolish Federal Education - which is one of the most important things in advancing our country.
• Ron Paul is against net neutrality: (In ten years, without Net Neutrality, think about this as your new Hosting package. Alarmist? Yes. Unrealistic? Nope.)
• Ron Paul is Against the 17th Amendment. That means more power in the hands of less elected officials.
• Ron Paul is for the complete removal of any gun restrictions. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment, but so-much-so that I'm for for the completely removal of Gun-Free Zones (Schools, for instance)
• He's against Children's health care. Seriously, who isn't for an extra 3 dollars per year per person in taxes to fun health care for children? Not just the 2 kids/2 adults/20,000 yearly income that Medicare currently covers, full health care for children.
• Ron Paul is for the complete removal of the IRS, and in it's place wants nothing. He wants to completely remove the Income tax and reduce the size of government to account for it. I'm no mathematician, but once again - I don't think the math works out there.

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote Ron Paul - but if you do, know who you're voting for. Don't do it because it's fashionable.

Plainsman1963

Eh, I don't keep up with what is fashionable in politics, just what makes sense to me.
Well, I am not a Ron Paul expert by any means, but all I've seen from him about immigration seems to make sense. Secure our borders (was the 700 miles a bill he voted on or sponsored? Perhaps he considers it a start?) is one of the first things that should be done, imho. Not only the physical border to mexico but also canada and all our ports and airports. Seems kind of silly to keep wringing our hands about terrorism and folks can just walk or float in at any time.
Immigration and the Welfare State by Rep. Ron Paul
Yeah, he personally is. Not surprising being a baby doctor.
But again, I believe his position is it should be a states rights issue.
Ron Paul on Abortion
Well, that's your opinion. No Child Left Behind seems to be leaving a lot of children behind from where I'm at.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the federal board of education. I can see his point.
Ron Paul on Education
Yep, he voted against the bill. He is not a flip flopper. He means it when he says less government regulation.
Libertarians for Ron Paul
You say this like it is a bad thing?
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Gun free zones just means only the criminals will have the guns in that zone.
Anybody that is against socialized medicine or government run programs.
It's been shown that the government would have to go back to year 2000 spending...Oh, the humanity!!!
Measure would repeal 16th Amendment
I agree completely which is why I provided links to show the other side of the issues.

Jake

The 17th Amendment is horrible. Why do you think that states lost less and less power? It wasn't just because of a changing country, with new responsibilities added to the executive branch. There had to be something systematic for the states to lose as much power as they have.

The 17th amend. did that to the states. Before then, they had representation in Congress. Their state legislatures would elect the Senators. The intent of the bicameral legislature is to have one house for the people of the state (Reps) and another house for the governments of the states (Sens).

Take the senators away from the state governments, and give them to the people? NO wonder states haven't been standing up for themselves lately.

I'd like to see what would have happened at Virginia Tech if someone other than the gunman had a gun...

Plains hit it on the head. He is, but he isn't. He believes that abortion should be condemned, but he's not about to put a gun to the head of 16 year old and force her to have a baby...

__________________

fat_enchilada

Just do it at a state level.

Trocisp

Just do what at a state level?

This is the second, or third time I've seen you say this, with no direct link between the word "it" in your statements and any meaningful definition of what "it" is. What does "doing it at a state level" comprise of?

fat_enchilada

ANYTHING

Want to make sure all kids have insurance, or even better universal healthcare? Great, get it passed in your state. This is the great thing about Ron Paul's federalist nature - while he might not be keen on having many federal programs, these all can be done on a state level.

If people in one state don't want one program, then they don't have to. If people in another do, more power to them! As our 50 states - or better put, our 50 experiments - progress we'll be able to compare the results and see what programs work best.

If a program in another state works well, then people are bound to want to try it in their own state - the good stuff will spread throughout the nation, the bad stuff will ultimately fail and do less damage to the nation as a whole since it ain't forced on everyone at once.

steakii

I weak federal governmet would be worse than keeping most of the power in the federal level. Just think about it.

Trocisp

Yeah, well - too bad the United States doesn't work that way. Read a bit more into what the Federal Government can and can't do, as opposed to the state governments can and can't do. Also, read into how much revenue the individual states have, versus how much the federal government has.

Not to mention the efficiency difference that implementing something on a Federal Versus State level would have.
Yeah, it would be nice if kids didn't die from the flu, or pnemonia because their parents can't afford to take them to the hospital.

I would, if I was a magical gene who could just wiggle his nose (or is that witches... yeah, it's witches - my bad) and make things happen. Too bad efficiency would be greater if it were implemented on a federal level.

At a greater cost to the citizens. Federalism is a great idea, but not all things need-be federalist. Highways, for instance... before the federal government stepped in and standardized Highway names (70, 270, 33, etc), they were extremely confusing. With some roads having three or four names (Big Walnut Road, Main Street, Cut-across way, etc). Also, they were much more dangerous, because safety wasn't a standardized thing.

Ever heard of optional health insurance? Opt-out of the program if you don't want it, and don't pay the tax.

You're right! Lets make Alabama pay more because Arkansas doesn't want health insurance, when the people from Arkansas could just as easily opt-out.

At the expense of the citizens.

Or, we could put some of our best Medical, Economic and political minds in a room, lock the door, and tell them that until they figure out a solution, they're not allowed to leave. I like my way more. It costs less.

Unless the good stuff can't work at a state level, because it's to inefficient.

Federalism is not the end all and be all of politics. There's a reason we're a union, single country, and not 50 independent ones. Because some things work better in bulk.

And, once again, I'll reiterate. I'm not asking you not to vote for him, I'm asking you to know what you're voting for before you do it, if you read the original post - you'll see that. This wasn't meant as a "ron paul sux lolz" thread, it was meant, simply, to inform people that just because he's popular, and their friends support him - it doesn't mean that he's the end-all-and-be-all of political candidates.

fat_enchilada

No, a federalist structure insures that the actions of the govt are more in line with the will of the people. Think about it this way: Would you rather abortion be restricted in a few states, or have the religious right be able to screw over the entire nation at once?

fat_enchilada

Oh, because after all your highness I'm just a stupid shit who hasn't read anything.
Get real.

There's not a single thing that's done on a national level that you can't do on a state level.

Since when did the federal govt. know anything about efficiency?

That's funny. I still know of plenty of roads that have multiple names, or that change names half-way through.
I'm sure those areas are so dangerous.
Better call the ambulance, I'm sure people are dying just left and right because it has more than one name!



If it won't work at a state level, it won't work at a federal level. The money is taxed from the same source - teh people.

Nope, it puts it where it should be - on a local level, which also puts more power into the hands of an individual person. One vote on a state level is much more important than one vote on a nationwide level.

Well heck, why not just make a one world govt while you're at it. After all, if things are better in bulk.

You're delusional if you think he's popular.