Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#388 - Wumbologist (11/16/2012) [-]
Ok, before you guys thumb me down, hear me out.
*takes a deep breath*
I disagree with Ron Paul.
I have the utmost respect for him and his opinions, and I think that politicians who sincerely want to do good with their position come around once in a lifetime. He's cordial, and not afraid to speak his mind, even when people disagree with him or its an inopportune moment politically.
But, in my view, his policy ideas are WAY too radical.
Firstly, anyone who openly calls themself a "strict constructionalist" should be viewed with suspicion. According to the Constitution, the federal government ONLY has the delegated powers, the rest are left up to the states. Without an elastic clause, we'd be SO ****** . Federal consolidation of power was necessary in order to protect African-Americans from slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, for example; which wouldn't be feasible in a state's-rights model of government. Strict constructionalism gives the federal government little coercive power to do things that need to get done.
Second, Paul has said that he would ELIMINATE, not cut, ELIMINATE, the departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Education. Meaning you can say goodbye to any environment regulations and hello to smog, almost any sort of regulation to speak of, and well-funded education, during a time when our schools need a jumpstart, not another cut. I live in Texas, in which there is no state income tax, so if Dr. Paul's wish came to fruition there would be NO WAY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION.

To conclude, he looks really good on paper, and kudos to him for his progressive views on gay marriage and foreign policy, but the bottom line is that we have to assess our ivory tower political theory before we support it as policy.
User avatar #447 to #388 - holdup (11/16/2012) [-]
"blink,blink" no statre income tax? rome had that for petty sake, during a time where people got outraged if taxes were 4%. what is the deal? why does texas not do that?
#428 to #388 - corundum (11/16/2012) [-]
How... eloquent.   
Nice work.
How... eloquent.

Nice work.
User avatar #408 to #388 - holdup (11/16/2012) [-]
I see what you are saying but, in the words of john adams, "liberty will reign in america" or atleast thats what he said on the history channel, don't forget the jeffersonian ides that formed the constitution to begin with, and no harm will be done, the civil war was fought because of the constitution, I am not an american, but that document (the constitution) was a beautiful thing, american killed americans because they did not stand for the liberty that created that country, god bless you america, remeber your history for what it is, and when you vote, remember George Washington's hard work, and the violent labour it was. "Honest abe" did indeed, never tell a lie, I looked it up.
User avatar #436 to #408 - ilovehitler (11/16/2012) [-]
okay, so what does that have to do with anything?
User avatar #438 to #436 - holdup (11/16/2012) [-]
the constitution has **** covered.
User avatar #440 to #438 - ilovehitler (11/16/2012) [-]
Alright, thanks, just couldn't quite understand what you were saying.
User avatar #441 to #440 - holdup (11/16/2012) [-]
it atlest deserves more credit then it is getting.
User avatar #437 to #436 - ilovehitler (11/16/2012) [-]
Not insulting you or anything, just don't understand your point.
#407 to #388 - mikepetru (11/16/2012) [-]
1. That fact that slavery was allowed to exist was a failure on the part of the Fed, not the states. The Federal Government is supposed to, under the Constitution, grant all rights to every human being. The Fed chose not to recognize blacks as humans with inalienable rights. They failed in their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and no state can use the nullification clause on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Federal Government was already in possession of this power, they simply chose not to use it.
2. You're assuming that if we eliminate these government programs, there would be no regulation. The fact is, he does not believe in FEDERAL regulation of these things. That's why the Constitution says all powers not delegated to the Federal government should be left up to the states. In other words, he believes it's up to the states whether they want to enact government programs in anything.
#401 to #388 - dwarfman (11/16/2012) [-]
You sir have summarized my entire opinion on the man nicely.
 Friends (0)