| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
Patrol -
Meet Batshit Amy -
That Bush!!!! -
Mine is The Faceles- -
Those clever Brits -
this field cannot b- -
Time to Practice Yo- -
Dear Lord -
Clever Mark -
Religion =/= Peace -
Fist motherfucker ,- -
Well, My mind explo- -
I was high the othe- -
jeff and pete 6 -
Kawaii n' Shit -
Evil Teapot -
Age -
Dave -
Bright side Ben -
Awesome nature again
#391
-
hunterdubb (11/16/2012) [-]
Can someone please tell me if Ron Paul is or is not running again.. I heard that he is not going to run again but that his son will? Can some one please clear this up for me. Thank you
inb4 red thumbs for asking a question..
inb4 red thumbs for asking a question..
#388
-
Wumbologist (11/16/2012) [-] 
Ok, before you guys thumb me down, hear me out.
*takes a deep breath*
I disagree with Ron Paul.
I have the utmost respect for him and his opinions, and I think that politicians who sincerely want to do good with their position come around once in a lifetime. He's cordial, and not afraid to speak his mind, even when people disagree with him or its an inopportune moment politically.
But, in my view, his policy ideas are WAY too radical.
Firstly, anyone who openly calls themself a "strict constructionalist" should be viewed with suspicion. According to the Constitution, the federal government ONLY has the delegated powers, the rest are left up to the states. Without an elastic clause, we'd be SO FUCKED. Federal consolidation of power was necessary in order to protect African-Americans from slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, for example; which wouldn't be feasible in a state's-rights model of government. Strict constructionalism gives the federal government little coercive power to do things that need to get done.
Second, Paul has said that he would ELIMINATE, not cut, ELIMINATE, the departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Education. Meaning you can say goodbye to any environment regulations and hello to smog, almost any sort of regulation to speak of, and well-funded education, during a time when our schools need a jumpstart, not another cut. I live in Texas, in which there is no state income tax, so if Dr. Paul's wish came to fruition there would be NO WAY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION.
To conclude, he looks really good on paper, and kudos to him for his progressive views on gay marriage and foreign policy, but the bottom line is that we have to assess our ivory tower political theory before we support it as policy.
*takes a deep breath*
I disagree with Ron Paul.
I have the utmost respect for him and his opinions, and I think that politicians who sincerely want to do good with their position come around once in a lifetime. He's cordial, and not afraid to speak his mind, even when people disagree with him or its an inopportune moment politically.
But, in my view, his policy ideas are WAY too radical.
Firstly, anyone who openly calls themself a "strict constructionalist" should be viewed with suspicion. According to the Constitution, the federal government ONLY has the delegated powers, the rest are left up to the states. Without an elastic clause, we'd be SO FUCKED. Federal consolidation of power was necessary in order to protect African-Americans from slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, for example; which wouldn't be feasible in a state's-rights model of government. Strict constructionalism gives the federal government little coercive power to do things that need to get done.
Second, Paul has said that he would ELIMINATE, not cut, ELIMINATE, the departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Education. Meaning you can say goodbye to any environment regulations and hello to smog, almost any sort of regulation to speak of, and well-funded education, during a time when our schools need a jumpstart, not another cut. I live in Texas, in which there is no state income tax, so if Dr. Paul's wish came to fruition there would be NO WAY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION.
To conclude, he looks really good on paper, and kudos to him for his progressive views on gay marriage and foreign policy, but the bottom line is that we have to assess our ivory tower political theory before we support it as policy.
#408 to #388
-
holdup (11/16/2012) [-] I see what you are saying but, in the words of john adams, "liberty will reign in america" or atleast thats what he said on the history channel, don't forget the jeffersonian ides that formed the constitution to begin with, and no harm will be done, the civil war was fought because of the constitution, I am not an american, but that document (the constitution) was a beautiful thing, american killed americans because they did not stand for the liberty that created that country, god bless you america, remeber your history for what it is, and when you vote, remember George Washington's hard work, and the violent labour it was. "Honest abe" did indeed, never tell a lie, I looked it up.
#407 to #388
-
mikepetru ONLINE (11/16/2012) [-] 1. That fact that slavery was allowed to exist was a failure on the part of the Fed, not the states. The Federal Government is supposed to, under the Constitution, grant all rights to every human being. The Fed chose not to recognize blacks as humans with inalienable rights. They failed in their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and no state can use the nullification clause on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Federal Government was already in possession of this power, they simply chose not to use it.
2. You're assuming that if we eliminate these government programs, there would be no regulation. The fact is, he does not believe in FEDERAL regulation of these things. That's why the Constitution says all powers not delegated to the Federal government should be left up to the states. In other words, he believes it's up to the states whether they want to enact government programs in anything.
2. You're assuming that if we eliminate these government programs, there would be no regulation. The fact is, he does not believe in FEDERAL regulation of these things. That's why the Constitution says all powers not delegated to the Federal government should be left up to the states. In other words, he believes it's up to the states whether they want to enact government programs in anything.
#387
-
satexas (11/16/2012) [-] I might actually like Ron Paul if it wasn't for Ron Paul supporters. The guy has some good economic policies, but I just can't get behind his foreign policy ideas. But it's impossible to argue that with a Ron Paul supporter because they refuse to listen to logic or reason and just call us idiots for disagreeing with them.
#383
-
fuckyosixtyminutes (11/16/2012) [-]
> "Fuck yeah, Ron Paul! Down with government oppression!"
> Endorses big government party and president
Brilliant logic funnyjunk
> Endorses big government party and president
Brilliant logic funnyjunk
#381
-
N. Korean citizen (11/16/2012) [-]
has been in Congress since 1976.... and has ties to Neo-Nazi groups....
#379
-
N. Korean citizen (11/16/2012) [-]
Paul is a joke, the only reason anyone likes him is because he wants to legalize drugs.
#375
-
N. Korean citizen (11/16/2012) [-]
Let me save you a trip into the comments. Below this comment there are about 400,000 people whining about how the country is going to burn because Ron Paul wasn't elected (in other words, the Ron Paul version of Romney-tards), and of that 400,000, only 100 may actually know enough about politics to really have any right to say anything. The other 590,000 are either bandwagon followers that blindly repeat what reddit was saying 5,000 years ago, or are the "HUR DUR HE WAS GON LEGLIZE WEED! SKUNK 4 LYF BICH" types.
#373
-
walkingdisaster (11/16/2012) [-] Just because Ron Paul is on the right side of the drug war and wars in the middle east doesn't mean he'd make a good president.
#371
-
messager (11/16/2012) [-] ron paul is the best of both worlds, really. it's such a shame he didn't get very far in this year's elections. i hope rand paul runs in 2016 if his dad doesn't.
#359
-
BLKNED (11/16/2012) [-]
Ron Paul may not have won but he has started a revolution that will not stop!
#357
-
pepemex (11/16/2012) [-] **pepemex rolled a random image posted in comment #57 at BFFE....for eternity ** Their faces while listening to his speech
#361 to #357
-
freenarative (11/16/2012) [-] **freenarative rolled a random image posted in comment #53095 at Social Board ** nah man it was more like this.
#351
-
benighted (11/16/2012) [-] This man was the last hope this country had, this man is a real American.
#346
-
malizlewaa (11/16/2012) [-] "This land can offer something else than pain. You will give people hope. You will give people faith. They will fight and they will fall. But in time, they will rise for their freedom"
Fucking Templars ruining America and shit.
Ron Paul was the chance America needed to change the country for better...
Fucking Templars ruining America and shit.
Ron Paul was the chance America needed to change the country for better...
#343
-
wewilldinealone ONLINE (11/16/2012) [-] His farewell address www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk
