Heads For Ron Paul pres 2008

polecat


I dont think a president Paul would be bad for gays. he would leave issues like gay marriage and gays adopting to the states where the issue belongs, just like abortion and drug laws.

Now a lot of folks say that's a bad thing, but i don't think so. Who cares if Alabama bans gay marriage, you could always go to a state where it isn't banned or work within alabama to overturn it, how many gays are comfortable living in alabama to begin with? that's way better than a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If your state wants to allow a gay couple to be legally married then the feds should have no say in the matter, just like if your state wants to allow medicinal marijuana or pro-choice(or pro-life) legislation. Let the people decide what's best for their own communities. If your community wants to acklwoledge gay marriage it should be free to do so. I'm not against gay marriage, i'm against the federal government having a say in the matter.

and i think Dr. Paul brought up a good point in the last debate. Why does marriage need to be legislated at all?

 

Is he calling for eliminating it all together? maybe eventually, but isn't that everyone's goal anyway? Besides they said the same kind of stuff when they were passing reforms in the 90's and that hasn't exactly led to the end of the world has it? Paul has stated that he wouldn't gut social programs like medicare and social security, we made a promise to people and we took their money to back it up, it's only fair that government make good on it's side of the bargain. We should also start reforms that allow younger workers to opt out of those social programs and start reform with elimination an eventual goal.

Instead of asking ourselves how to "fix" the welfare state(as if the problems are not inherit in the system itself), we need to ask ourselves how can we bring about conditions that make a welfare state unnessecary and impractical. I want to end poverty, not subsidize it.

 

How is local control going to work in school districts with significantly less money.

Are you telling me you think students in an impoverished school with books that mention evolution as a quaint new idea stand as much chance of going to college or even graduating as students in an affluent school?

 

In this sense, you're arguing that America should be a loose collebaration of States, rather then centralized power.

That's fine. But at what point does that stop. We all agree slavery was wrong. Federal power stopped that.

Segregation of schools and universal sufferage were both allowed because of the fact that as a nation, perhaps our collective heads are more rational then local sects.

Not everyone has the option of leaving their lives behind and moving somewhere else. That, again, I would say, favors the affluent. Which do most of Ron Pauls policies.

 

No i'm not.

First let me state that i'm not a religious person and anyone who challenges the theory of evolution should have a better theory to replace it with than "maybe something smarter than me made it..."

I'll have to get back to you on the rest, ron paul is on with Jay Leno right now.

 

But he's talking about ending all federal funding for TANF, a program which spreads federal welfare money between the states and then lets them use it as they see fit. This program makes the richer states help the poorer ones. Ron Paul wants to get rid of this program because by having the federal govt pay for the program, the federal govt then has control over how the money is spent(a valid point). But instead of reform he's advocated eliminating federal funding altogether and making welfare a state's problem. I think this is a bad idea as I said before with the Mississippi example.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with the social security reforms he's advocated. I would like to be in control of my social security money, instead of throwing it into a universal pot and hoping that it won't all be spent by the time I need it.

And I have to agree with Lode on the issue of gay rights. Segregation would still be going strong in the south if civil rights were left up to the states. I beleive that when dealing with how groups of people are treated you need national laws. And saying gay people should leave a state that is intolerant to them is a horrible statement. A US citizen should be allowed to live anywhere in the US and be treated the same no matter where they are.

 

Oh no, what ever would we do without big daddy government?

Funding education would be more properly referred to as funding indoctrination... that's what the Department of Indoctrination (I mean, education) does. After all, if it wasn't for the Department of Education, people might actually start thinking for themselves and question whether we need all these massive bureaucracies to lord over us.

 

but but i need the government to decide whats best for me