rob

Are you an agnostic about the tooth fairy, too? I mean, you can't prove a negative!!!!

We're going the wrong direction with gay marriage. We should be abolishing straight marriage instead. EVERYBODY WINS!

Did that yesterday! How un-American. :[] Well, I just recently found out America is actually a fascist police state run by an Islamic Nazi dictator-commie -- so what do you expect? I'm gonna go out and invest in gold today, because they wouldn't let me subscribe to the Ron Paul newsletter without proof of my holdings.

Did that yesterday!

Jesus fucking Christ, bill. Just post a link and a small snippet, holy shit.

lol, you're super passionate about this, aren't you?

I didn't say he has no power. I just said he doesn't have the power to do a lot of the things he wants -- like abolish the fed, or force an audit. And sure, he can veto new crazy laws, but he can't repeal NDAA. He can also veto lots of GOOD laws, which he probably will (such as increased market or environmental regulations.) His power to pass NEW legislation is limited also, especially if he continues to alienate moderates with radical libertarian views on regulation. I like most of his foreign policy, too. I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist. But he's not worth it, for all of his other bad ideas. Not exactly right, kevin. Congress has the right to declare war or not, and the War Powers Resolution requires the president to get congressional authority to deploy troops, and the constitution splits war powers between the President and Congress. For example, congress also decides how much is spent funding a war. You're right, though, he could bring them back. Although, I suspect Congress could override him? I'm not sure what would happen if Congress declared war and he refused. Interesting hypothetical question. I guess he could veto the declaration of war, but they could override it. Then what?

You've hit the nail on the head -- the only power he'll actually have as President is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of regulations. He won't actually have any power to do any of the "good" things, such as repeal the Patriot Act or the NDAA. So, a Paul administration would basically be all of the bad, and none of the good. Congress will gridlock as usual anytime anything effective tries to happen, and I suppose he'll be able to veto some things, but I don't want his veto at the expense of environmental, pharmaceutical and market enforcement. Not to mention many of the things he will veto will probably be things I don't want veto'd -- such as health care reform, social services, increased environmental regulations, etc.

I could never vote for a candidate who promises to abolish environmental, pharmaceutical and market regulations. It's really too bad he has to ruin his pro civil-liberty platform (which I support) with such outrageous and radical anti-regulation libertarian ideology. It makes him completely unacceptable to moderate voters like myself.

How can you say you are bristled at the loss of civil liberties then turn around and vote for Obama who just signed away all your right when he signed the NDAA law? Obama is just more of the same. It's true, I am not a fan of Obama. But because all of the choices available to me are so bad, I am forced to pick the most practical and expedient route. You have to remember, I think Ron Paul is part of the establishment, too -- I don't like him like you do. In fact, I think he's one of the worst choices in the entire field. So what options are left to me? None. They are all bad, kevin. ALL OF THEM. There is no good choice. I'd have voted for Huntsman (maybe) but he won't win the nomination. So, it's gonna be Obama or Romney (probably) whether I like it or not and it would be grossly irresponsible for me to not do everything within my power to prevent another GOP president because, as bad as Obama is, they are much worse. Unfortunately, that's just the sorry state of the American political scene. In the meantime, I will continue to support organizations working to build positive change while using my vote in the most efficient way possible.

Actually, I'm quite "bristled" at the loss of civil liberties and the militarization of the police, so clearly you're not really getting me. Does that mean I have to admit America is a "fascist state" or whatever?

Lol, I see Bill doesn't know what "fascism" means

And that's assuming he could do all those things. You know, like all the things Barry promised to do. The FTC and the EPA are in the executive branch. True, he couldn't change the regulations, but he could get rid of the enforcers. I guess congress could bypass him and set up their own? I'm not a constitutional expert.

Yeah, but he's an isolationist and would cut military-spending, harming corporations who participate in the military-industrial complex... yeah but they could make up for it with the abolishment of insider-trading laws as well as environmental regulations and the corporate income tax.

Ron Paul is the most pro-corporate candidate out there, is that a joke? Explain please. he doesn't think the federal government should regulate business (or the stock market, for that matter). He opposes virtually all "market interference" by the federal government, and he was one of the original plaintiffs on the lawsuit that became the Citizen's United decision. His libertarian beliefs are obviously anti-regulation, which is obviously pro-corporation. Jeez, don't you even research the guy?

Ron Paul is the most pro-corporate candidate out there, is that a joke?

Sticks and stones will break my bones....... I tease because I love.

Well, I think you're wrong about it being a "police state" but there's no point arguing over political nomenclature -- I actually agree with you: our civil liberties have been steadily degrading. I'm really pissed off about it and don't have faith in any current political solution by any party. I think this stuff has to be fought in the courts, and at least you and I can afford to send $$ to people actually doing something about this. Personally, though, I think that you do yourself disgrace when you describe our condition as a police state. I mean, it's getting bad, but the police in Seattle DID admit the killing was wrong (though WA State law protected the officer from prosecution) and they DID pay money to the family. Things are plenty bad enough without resorting to hyperbole and bombast to try and make a point -- we still enjoy the rule of law (mostly). More than anyone else (probably). So it's just kinda lame to start whining that we're a police state, it seems insulting to the majority of the world that kinda is. I mean, just look at the fact that you and I are even allowed to talk about this at all, freely, and without risk. Anyway, give money, dude.

at least I have the balls to post my opinions under my real username, rather than creating an anonymous avatar like a cowardly pussy. Have you always been such a pussy, or is this a new development? I wish the board revealed posting IPs so we could see who you really are. My money is on kevbone or bill, cause they're both retarded, too. Or kimmo. Tough call.

loooooool

His heart's in the right place, tho