Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Min comment interval: 14 seconds
Remaining character count: 4000
[ + ]
Image or Video File:
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Click to start recording.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to your comment?
Back to the content 'Liek A BAWS'
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
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 ******. 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
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.
"blink,blink" no statre income tax? rome had that for petty sake, during a time where people got outraged if taxes were 4%. what is the deal? why does texas not do that?
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.
okay, so what does that have to do with anything?
the constitution has **** covered.
Alright, thanks, just couldn't quite understand what you were saying.
it atlest deserves more credit then it is getting.
Not insulting you or anything, just don't understand your point.
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.
You sir have summarized my entire opinion on the man nicely.
Back to the content 'Liek A BAWS'
Top in 24 Hours
Talon's Counter Attack
based african woman BTFO murica niggers
GC: retro stuff.
Saying goodbye to FJ
The only mannequin challenge worth watch
/k/ sterilizes with lead
OVERWATCH IS DONE
Normal reaction to a catastrophic accident
S A D N E S S
CIA Releases 800,000 Declassified Files
Thursday's Cute Things - 19/1/2017
Winnie the Pooh Home Run Derby comp
Under the mask
Evisif Turruterly Busce
Friend showed me this gem.
VAPE NATION BRAH
Ichi Xistuck Imaklum
Touch the Cow
Love Vs Respect
Can we at least talk about it?
EVE Vs Elite
Random Facts #12
This is Why I Love the Flash