On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism:
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
I really don't get the logic behind the notion that if the states decide something, it is instantly better than if the federal government decided something.
Its like people saying that sovereignty means you can literally do whatever you want.
Just because we drew an imaginary line on a map doesn't mean bad things stop being bad beyond the line.
And it isn't just gay rights, I have seen people argue that segregation is just fine if done on a state level.
On February 11 2012 20:17 zalz wrote: I really don't get the logic behind the notion that if the states decide something, it is instantly better than if the federal government decided something.
Its like people saying that sovereignty means you can literally do whatever you want.
Just because we drew an imaginary line on a map doesn't mean bad things stop being bad beyond the line.
And it isn't just gay rights, I have seen people argue that segregation is just fine if done on a state level.
YOur right, its not nessacary better to decentralize. Its definitely not a libertarian utopia. However it does add some competition between the states, and make it possible for the people to move to another style if they don't like the policies in that country.
The main reason for delegating responsibility to the states for most issues is so states can regulate themselves on most important issues. The main reason being that the further a bureaucracy gets from the people it is representing the less efficient it will become. The founding fathers were quite practical and sensible people and if they thought a more centralised government would make a bigger difference, they would've written it into the constitution, but they didn't and with good reasoning.
There are millions of other hilarious positions he holds. I dont care if he lops off his legs, and pushes his torso around door to door on a skateboard to get votes. The guy is ridiculous. His entire social policy is archaic, and has no place in the modern world. The guy is a straight up fundamentalist nutjob.
Who couldn't post 3 slanderous VOD's about any other candidate in this race? Seriously? You mean to tell me since you can throw a few negatives at the feet of the bigger picture that it may change the fact he would still be the least corrupt, politically sound, and most reliable candidate for the job? His accomplishments far outweigh his failures no matter what way you look at it. And to tell you the truth I would rather have him as my president than Barakk Obumer, Newt who's literally a crook, Romney who couldn't pinpoint iraq given a globe, and Ron who is the real nutjob you are refering to.
B.T.W. - The college video is so funny because the hosts of the show are so arrogant that they didn't even address what his speech revolved around. He talks about how colleges have no choice if they teach evolutionist theory or not if they wish to get government financial aid yearly. And since every teacher has to force the students to learn this beyond their will or said student gets a negative grade reflected upon them they feel as if they have no right to a religion having left college. The science FACT part is funny because science can only explain so much until there is the inevitable answer of "uh... I don't know." and THAT leaves room for religion. Now don't go walking away all butt hurt, it's okay.
Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of today's scientific understanding. Neglecting to teach it within the relevant disciplines would be a complete educational failure.
On February 11 2012 20:54 nebffa wrote: The main reason for delegating responsibility to the states for most issues is so states can regulate themselves on most important issues. The main reason being that the further a bureaucracy gets from the people it is representing the less efficient it will become. The founding fathers were quite practical and sensible people and if they thought a more centralised government would make a bigger difference, they would've written it into the constitution, but they didn't and with good reasoning.
They tried it, and it was called the Articles of Confederation. The only reason it wasn't more centralized in the end is because states wouldn't accept it.
The initial idea that the states could do everything in a more tailored way is a good idea in theory as well. However, the corruption just gets even worse. You have multi-million dollar corporations and people able to put out a lot more "information" in key areas to get favorable legislation and exemptions. Without the attention (and grandness) of a national stage, "buying" the legislature becomes a much easier objective of industries.
On February 11 2012 20:17 zalz wrote: I really don't get the logic behind the notion that if the states decide something, it is instantly better than if the federal government decided something.
Its like people saying that sovereignty means you can literally do whatever you want.
Just because we drew an imaginary line on a map doesn't mean bad things stop being bad beyond the line.
And it isn't just gay rights, I have seen people argue that segregation is just fine if done on a state level.
YOur right, its not nessacary better to decentralize. Its definitely not a libertarian utopia. However it does add some competition between the states, and make it possible for the people to move to another style if they don't like the policies in that country.
If states had all the rights they could deny you from leaving or going to other particular states, couldn't they?
On February 11 2012 20:17 zalz wrote: I really don't get the logic behind the notion that if the states decide something, it is instantly better than if the federal government decided something.
Its like people saying that sovereignty means you can literally do whatever you want.
Just because we drew an imaginary line on a map doesn't mean bad things stop being bad beyond the line.
And it isn't just gay rights, I have seen people argue that segregation is just fine if done on a state level.
YOur right, its not nessacary better to decentralize. Its definitely not a libertarian utopia. However it does add some competition between the states, and make it possible for the people to move to another style if they don't like the policies in that country.
If states had all the rights they could deny you from leaving or going to other particular states, couldn't they?
No, those are parts of your fundamental rights -.-. Giving more power to states =/= converting states into separate dictatorships
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
Just a quick question, do you understand how federalism works?
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No, states have to abide by the bill of rights just like the federal government (14th amendment Due Process Clause). We already have protections against "letting the states decide." No one is saying that states have the right to supercede federal power.
I never quite understood the idea of states' rights by itself. The way I saw it is that states can usually handle their money better than the federal government. Of course I'm not really sure if that's true, but whatever.
Libertarian doesn't really mean states' rights though, although that seems to be the way libertarians take it. It just means smaller government.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No, states have to abide by the bill of rights just like the federal government (14th amendment Due Process Clause). We already have protections against "letting the states decide." No one is saying that states have the right to supercede federal power.
I never quite understood the idea of states' rights by itself. The way I saw it is that states can usually handle their money better than the federal government. Of course I'm not really sure if that's true, but whatever.
Libertarian doesn't really mean states' rights though, although that seems to be the way libertarians take it. It just means smaller government.
There's no "protection against letting states decide," considering one of the founding principles of America was states' rights. A state cannot supercede the federal government however. The states' are supposed to have control over their own affairs, with a very limited federal government. It's really quite sad how the federal gov has gotten so massive, and now the Democrats want to make it even bigger by forcing us into socialism. Obama said it himself, his goal is to "fundamentally transform America," into what though? He didn't specify, but if past-form is anything to go by, a European style socialist state seems likely.
There are millions of other hilarious positions he holds. I dont care if he lops off his legs, and pushes his torso around door to door on a skateboard to get votes. The guy is ridiculous. His entire social policy is archaic, and has no place in the modern world. The guy is a straight up fundamentalist nutjob.
Who couldn't post 3 slanderous VOD's about any other candidate in this race? Seriously? You mean to tell me since you can throw a few negatives at the feet of the bigger picture that it may change the fact he would still be the least corrupt, politically sound, and most reliable candidate for the job? His accomplishments far outweigh his failures no matter what way you look at it. And to tell you the truth I would rather have him as my president than Barakk Obumer, Newt who's literally a crook, Romney who couldn't pinpoint iraq given a globe, and Ron who is the real nutjob you are refering to.
B.T.W. - The college video is so funny because the hosts of the show are so arrogant that they didn't even address what his speech revolved around. He talks about how colleges have no choice if they teach evolutionist theory or not if they wish to get government financial aid yearly. And since every teacher has to force the students to learn this beyond their will or said student gets a negative grade reflected upon them they feel as if they have no right to a religion having left college. The science FACT part is funny because science can only explain so much until there is the inevitable answer of "uh... I don't know." and THAT leaves room for religion. Now don't go walking away all butt hurt, it's okay.
Are you serious? There is no room for religion in college outside of religious studies. If you want to open up fairytaleschools which leave the factual world and the scientific process behind then go ahead but it wont be college. Nor will it be to the benefit of the individuals attenting such a school or, indeed, the country as a whole.
On February 11 2012 18:54 Njbrownie wrote: The science FACT part is funny because science can only explain so much until there is the inevitable answer of "uh... I don't know." and THAT leaves room for religion.
Actually, THAT leaves room for making up stories, whatever those stories may be. Last time I checked, saying "I don't know" is still a lot more objective and reliable than making stuff up and selling it as facts.
"We don't know... therefore it must be religion/aliens/ghosts/*insert made up story here*!". Talk about contradictions...
I laughed pretty hard at this comment. I only said that you cannot disprove any religion. It's impossible. Those who try are pathetic and feeble in character. If you get your rocks off by crushing somones hope in another life that is really sad. Before you comment on how I'm a religious looney your wrong I'm not religious in any way, but I hate how people "beat-up" on those who are.
This is actually untrue if you refer to religious texts rather than the belief in "a God".
I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
Especially under Ron Paul this would be necessary. It's a little unsettling (and ironic) to think Paul supporters would want to take their own hands off the country and let someone else fix everything.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado are three of the most libertarian states in the US, and he already lost the primaries/caucuses in all of those. With luck, he might win in Maine but he has no chance at the Republican nomination.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado are three of the most libertarian states in the US, and he already lost the primaries/caucuses in all of those. With luck, he might win in Maine but he has no chance at the Republican nomination.
Mind explaining how they are the most libertarian states?
EPT
