Originally Posted by Xcaliber

The point is he wants to eliminate Social security .. period. The fact he wants to " transition" to a state run system is the most foolish part, he is assuming that every state wants or has the capability to do so.

If the federal government can supposedly do it why can't the state governments?

He also wants to turn over the department of energy to the states.. so what he seems to be trying to sell is smaller Federal government for bigger State Governments.

Federalism? Gee, I can't imagine who would want such an idea. If only we knew a country that was created on such a concept. Maybe one that had various states who were united. It only...

For the record, I believe Paul just wants to eliminate Energy altogether. Not sure why that's a big deal. Two-thirds of the department is defense related and the remaining are mostly just grants. The beneficial parts of the department are small enough that they could be combined into another department (such as Nuclear safety).

Actually it's opposite.. the more Media exposure he gets the more he will fall on his face. The Reason he has a small following now is because the Media doesn't take him serious so they rarely report on him at all.. now that he's leading in Iowa he'll get the scrutiny of the position and he will be exposed for who he really is... and I don't Lie.. I tell it like I see it.

so far all they've come up with is a borderline racist newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it but one that he didn't write. And yeah, you do lie.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

If the federal government can supposedly do it why can't the state governments?

Because not every state can afford it, it would create imbalance across the country, Citizens in one state might benefit more than those in another state,there's three reasons .....

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Federalism? Gee, I can't imagine who would want such an idea. If only we knew a country that was created on such a concept. Maybe one that had various states who were united. It only...

Yeah it would be nice if there were a country created under that concept, but the U.S. was not. The Idea of Uniting the States under one Constitution did not include allowing every state to decide everything for itself. If the Founders had intended this there would be no need for a Federal Government... but there is.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

For the record, I believe Paul just wants to eliminate Energy altogether. Not sure why that's a big deal. Two-thirds of the department is defense related and the remaining are mostly just grants. The beneficial parts of the department are small enough that they could be combined into another department (such as Nuclear safety).

I remember him saying in a speech that he wanted to turn over the DOE to the states to run. But I could be mistaken... Eliminating it all together is even a more ignorant plan...

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

so far all they've come up with is a borderline racist newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it but one that he didn't write. And yeah, you do lie.

I don't remember mentioning the News Letter but since you bring it up.. It wasn't one news letter it was a series of publications and quotes in his news letter and they were blatantly racists and homophobic remarks, some of which he had previously admitted to writing. Not to mention that over the years he has stated several defenses for the Remarks, and is now conflicting his own previous( recorded) statements and saying he didn't even read the letters . It's not some conspiracy against him that has just sprung up, this has been haunting him for the last 20 years.

But that wasn't what I was talking about when I said he was being exposed in the Media... I was talking about the level of scrutiny he will now get and people seeing him for what he really is...

And no, I do not Lie...

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Because not every state can afford it, it would create imbalance across the country, Citizens in one state might benefit more than those in another state,there's three reasons

Can't afford it? Why not? Every state can afford other activities they do. An imbalance across the country? As opposed to the current imbalance? Citizens might benefit more in one state than another? So? Move to the other state.

Pretty pathetic reasons on your part.

Yeah it would be nice if there were a country created under that concept, but the U.S. was not. The Idea of Uniting the States under one Constitution did not include allowing every state to decide everything for itself. If the Founders had intended this there would be no need for a Federal Government... but there is.

Actually..the US was created under that idea. You say there is no need for a federal government. If only we had a document that spelled out what powers each type of government would have. Maybe we could call it a constitution or something. Maybe this document would have federal powers be the ones that are not effective to have at the state level like military and resolution of disputes between states. And at the state and local level we could have the powers relating to every day life since that is the most direct representation of the people.

If only someone would think of such an idea!

I remember him saying in a speech that he wanted to turn over the DOE to the states to run. But I could be mistaken... Eliminating it all together is even a more ignorant plan...

Because you have no idea what the department of Energy does kinda like how you had no idea what the Department of Education does, how Social Security works, what federalism is, what the 14th amendment says, etc etc.

Your ignorance on this forum is no secret.

some of which he had previously admitted to writing.

Please provide a source.

And no, I do not Lie...

We've discussed this before and I guess we do need to leave the possibility open that you are just an idiot.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Your ignorance on this forum is no secret.

lmao.. that is so funny coming from Mr. Know it all... Your arrogance is astounding.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

We've discussed this before and I guess we do need to leave the possibility open that you are just an idiot.

Yeah we discussed it, we disagreed, you never proved anything, and you call me the idiot... please you can do better than that.

It's laughable how you resort to " You're an Idiot" and " You're a Liar" every time you realize you cannot prove your position. Every time I show you wrong on any issue you resort to childish name calling...

Regarding your stupid Epicurus quote:

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicurus

God does away with the reign of evil in the Book of Revelation. So he is willing to abolish evil and able to do so. And he does so.

So you're busted.

Anyone that thinks the federal government should run everything must not be acquainted with the cluster flock of dysfunction there. This country sorely needs term limits for Congress. We should elect an intelligent peer to go represent US, then come back home and be able to look us in the eye. What makes you think that someone from say California can go to Washington DC and micromanage the lives of those in say Alabama?
Inbalance? Are you kidding? As it stands the electorial system has already done that.
You seem to think that States are incapable of managing themselves. Maybe your state, but not mine. I live in one of six states that can afford itself, without federal blackmailing. If your state likes to give handouts; then it's either going to go broke, have high taxes and bankrupt the middle class, or both. You see, the less the federal government "interveenes" (spends) the less it can tax. Therefore you have more money to spend. Therefore your state has more money... because you bought more stuff (sales tax), bought property (property tax -- and the long lost American Dream), you can buy more lottery tickets, tobacco, gasoline, etc. Your state, if it it's not ran by more-ons (joke), will be just fine. Better in fact.
It's not a hard concept. I would say that it is basic high school economics... but apparently you kids are now taught national socialism.

"Is Ron Paul electable? " -- well, that is an ambigious question. We should be asking "How retarded has America become???" - answer that and then we will know.
Let's try a survey:
A) Is free market capitalism better than socialism?
B) Is The United States of America a "republic", designed to decentralize power... regulated by a system of checks and balances?
C) Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land which can be amended, but not disregarded at whim?
D) Do you prefer personal responsibility over a police state?
E) Whould you trade security for liberty?
F) Do you have the intellectual capacity to seperate religion from politics?
G) Are you smart enough to doubt a vast majority of "news", scare tactics, and dog-wagging?
H) Are you more loyal to your country than a political party?
I) Do you act on your own intelligence, as opposed to going with the flow?
J) Are you familar enough with history to realize that "Isolationism" was not a cause of WWII?
K) Have you actually been to another country?
L) Do you only support wars that you yourself would fight?
M) ...How about your own children?
N) Do you have the capacity to see that trading tomorrow for today is a bad long term strategy?
O) Do you comprehend that in a free society, not everyone can be the same or equal?
P) Do you understand that unbacked money is only worth what they allow yours to be?
Q) Do you understand how the Federal Reserve System works?
R) Do you disagree with the current IRS tax code?
S) Do you understand the difference between Keynesian and Austrian Economics?
T) Do you see how the CIA assainates American citizens, perhaps even Presidents, and underminds the Constitution and our system of checks and balances - and is easily hijacked by special interest and the military industrial complex?
U) Do you understand how essential property rights are to freedom?
V) Do you think you are more honest than most politicans?
W) Are you old enough to remember that the "Ron Paul hate letters" were written by a disgruntled employee which was fired for being worthless?
X) Have you been unbiasedly following politics long enough to remember how big of a power hungry hypocrite Newt is?
Y) Do you have an attention span long enough to realize Mitt Romney changes his "views" later in the same day?
Z) Do you know enough about economics and foreign affairs to realize Obama is not a good choice?

If you an
*If the surveyed Americans answer Yes - then Ron Paul is electable. If "No", then I guess we are screwed.

(That was fun)