I'm going to vote for him. I like what he stands for, and I like the most that he's been consistent the last 30 years, not giving a single fuck what anyone around him says. The one thing I disagree with in his policy is his pro-life stance, but he wants to allow the states to make that decision....meaning that if you want to have an abortion and it's not legal in your state, you need to take a trip. That's it.

_________________

I'd vote for him if he makes it out of the primaries, but I don't see that happening.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Dude, I am right there with you. The United States in its entirety is larger then Europe. These countries govern themselves for the most part but have a European Union that is a sort of safety net. They each have their own rules, laws, regulations, and languages. Why should we think that one general law makes sense for the United States as a whole. Our government should be fragmented into a state run entity. This would take pressure off the central government and allow laws and regulations to adhere to their citizens rights in a more reasonable fashion. If Vermont wants to allow abortions or California would like to counter their debt by selling marijuana they should be allowed to.

I hate this thought that if states were to govern themselves with smaller social issues that our country would fall into complete and utter chaos. If one states social program fails while 49 other states maintain a balanced budget it's a lot easier to clean up then if 50 states under one universal program fail all at once.

Totally! If I want to, for example, take a ship over to africa, 'acquire' some savages, bring them over here and 'encourage' them to work for roughly 8 dollars less than the minimum wage, who is this damned socialist OBAMA to tell me I cant? (spits chaw juice onto ground)

When did basic civil liberties get thrown by the wayside?

I think the best answer in the state vs. federal argument lies, like most things, with balance. Certainly there are some laws that do make sense to apply to the country as a whole, and perhaps there are others that don't.

One of the things I like about Paul is that he's willing to suspend his personal beliefs in favor of what's right. A good example is believing in traditional marriage, but being willing to allow individual states to legalize gay marriage. I think I could be okay with him getting elected (a long shot as has been pointed out), but I probably would never vote for him.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

You trust your peers in a court of law with what could potentially be your life, right? But you don't trust them to not buy and sell slaves? We have a strong central government that is basically allowing slave labor to begin with(migrant workers).

Where in the HELL did this argument come from? Like, it doesn't make ANY sense to me, and doesn't even really logically respond to ksquier's post...

_________________

I understand what he was saying. He thinks that any and all people who may have libertarian viewpoints would like nothing more than to dump toxic chemicals into Gerber baby food and sell it to children. He thinks that without central government interfering with everything we do that we will fall into complete and utter chaos.


What he fails to realize is that this factioning going on could be solved on a smaller scale, state by state,and could ultimately unify this country and make us more productive. Your far fetched excuse of an example just makes you look like an ass and undermines the citizens that comprise this country. A small arguement is easier to resolve then a gang fight.

Ha, and the name is Kevin if you would like to be a bit more formal or feel awkward calling me by me ksquier89.

Of all the crazy people running for the GOP nomination, Ron Paul is the most entertaining.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

Yet the man gets almost no television air time. You would think if the GOP thinks he is so crazy that they would give him more air time and watch the ship burn and sink.

They don't want to give him air time, because if they did, he would win.

_________________

Seriously dude? Am I the only one here who equates "states rights" to the argument surrounding slavery? That was one of the main focuses of the civil war, states rights vs central government. I find decentralizing control of basic laws like this a fucking terrible idea, for the reason stated above. I didnt think i'd have to spell it out like this. I dont trust individual states to 'do the right thing', I'm surprised anyone does. You guys all talk such shit about the south whenever we play the hurricanes, but now you'd trust them to make the right decisions regarding things like basic human rights?

I don't live there, but I've been to a lot of cities in the south, and they are pretty nice well educated people. Sure, you've got weirdos and racists in the sticks...but we do in the north, too. I could take you to places in Jersey, PA, NY, and Ohio that would make you think you were in the South in the 1950s but with snow.

I don't mind the states being able to control a lot of things, but yes, there needs to be some federal regulations and oversight. unless i misread something, i don't think anyone said "get rid of federal government" altogether. how strong and centralized the federal government is has been an argument since the Articles of Confederation and will be long after Brawndo takes over the country.

I really cannot believe you are bringing up the civil war. I mean, really? And associating shit talking during games to social issues is about the dumbest thing anyone could do. I say that West Virginia fans fuck their cousins after college football games. This does not mean they actually do it. And I do not think that if the state were to govern itself that there would be cousins banging each other out in the streets. BTW I am south of the Mason-Dixon so your southern bullshit examples can stop.

Your lack of faith in humanity is truely astounding.

I do not want to ge rid of the federal government but downsizing its role could be beneficial. And he's right you can find nutjobs everywhere you go. They are a very small minority that would not lead to some type of pre-civil war plantation lifestyle. By downsizing the feds could focus their attention to more important issues. Drug war, border patrol, infrastructure, and balancing their budget.

You "Cannot believe i'm bringing up the civil war"...really? We're talking about the issues WE FOUGHT A FUCKING WAR FOR....why would I NOT bring that up? This shit has already been decided, I dont know why you think those lessons no longer apply, has basic human nature changed so much that we're just better people now? I dont think so, and i'm not seeing much evidence for that stance from the people around me.

Lets use the recent Listeria outbreak as an example. Without a centralized government to identify the bacterium responsible, track the outbreak and take punitive action against the people responsible...we'd have no reliable food supply. You think we could just leave something like that to the states? Which states? What if multiple states produce the melons in question, who would handle what? How would that even work?

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding your original premise of decentralizing control and letting the states answer these questions, but I just dont see it as a viable alternative to what we have.

And really, my 'lack of faith in humanity is astounding?" People have died because manufacturers in china are willing to game protein assays by putting toxic substances in the food they ship here. They are willing to trade our lives for increased profit. Perhaps your faith in humanity should be the astounding thing here.

The fact of the matter is if you take the powers of the Federal government which are enumerated in the constitution and compare that to the powers it currently enjoys, there's no other conclusion to reach other than the Federal government has been usurping power from the states almost from the very beginning of the republic.

The tenth amendment exists for a reason.

I'll even give you the interpretations of the commerce clause...the Fed is still overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Do we need a Federal government which is capable for many reasons?
Of course.
Is it high time we put its powers back in check?
I sure think so.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Bingo.