Ron Paul For President in 2008

[cdude1034]

white devil said:

cdude1034 said:

loadedstatement said:
stof and Jspence, I have read up. He wants to do away with a lot of the government. It sounds scary, yes. But guess what? 10 years ago we had no Dept. of Homeland Security. Department of Education was less than 30 years ago (Keep in mind, US education is horrible in most places). Dept. of Energy is nearly 30 years old (Gas prices are horrendous). What good are they doing really. Taking our money and wasting it. It would be much more beneficial to leave the money with the consumers. A lot looks good on paper, like I am sure many of these departments did. But in practice, some fail. Communism looked good on paper as well. We all know how that turned out.

Seriously now, do you honestly think we'd be better without any of those?

Especially the Dept of Education. Yes, let's make sure none of our schools have any accountability for anything. Gas prices would be horrendous even without the dept of energy.

The bottom line is that these departments make sure things go where they need to go and that they get there in a timely fashion. (Minus FEMA, they've been nothing but trouble

@ White devil - I wrote in my post he wants to delegate that to the states. But here's the thing, do you think our country isn't Christian enough that they wouldn't ban abortion in EVERY state? Please. It essentially means it will get banned. Do you think segregation is left better to the states? Mississippi still/would have thought so. Does that mean that leaving that decision up to the states is the best of decisions? Naw man.

No, it doesn't. For one, I know for a fact that there isn't much of a chance of abortion getting banned, for example, California, most if not all of New England, and a number of Great Lake states. I agree it's risky, but I'm tired of every new Congress or President talking about blanket banning it. Do you think if Huckabee becomes president, he wouldn't try to federally ban it? It's not like the choices are all that great, but at least at the local level I don't have some douche bag from Arkansas in DC telling Californians how to live. As far as things like segregation, such basic rights are covered in the constitution, which is NOT up to the states to follow or not.

 You know for a fact eh? So you've got it down to a science what voters will do? Please, tell me, who will win the parties' respective primaries (in each state, too)?

I agree that it probably won't get banned in CA, but that's the only place I feel even remotely confident in.

You see though, I don't like huckabee either. I don't like any of the Republican candidates. Almost all of them are trying to separate themselves from Bush, but the bottom line is, they're still from the same party and support the same basic ideologies.

Here's something to chew on; If states could individually decide what Federal laws they chose to follow, wouldn't that lead to both 1) Mass immigration from state to state, depending on ideologies (for instance, if abortion was banned in Arkansas, but not Tennessee)? and 2) Hatred for certain states by other states (well, a degree even further than what we have now.)?

Instituting that kind of policy only separates the United States further from eachother. We're different STATES of the same UNION, not separate countries. We need federal laws to keep us all together.

@N-Syte - I quoted the guy from Digg because his opinion closely mirrors my own.