Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I find the hysteria around Ron Paul by socialists greatly amusing.
If he were just a kook why all the vitriol? Its not like we are doing the same to Kucinich.
So is it a fear that he could get elected, and the response is belittling him as 'unimportant'?
If he is such a long shot and has so little support, why even bother?
I have to wonder if voting for what I think would be a mistake in Iraq and the like would be worth just seeing the horror in the nanny state types.
I'm starting to think it would be.
|
Why do you even bother with many of your inane posts (particularly your oft-posted commentaries through pics)?
I guess we're both easily amused
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sprocket
I realize that as well. But man, it would be great to have someone like Ron Paul in the oval office with veto power.
|
I suspect nearly every veto would be overridden...so what would be accomplished?
I am all for reforming and downsizing the federal government. One of the few positive things to come out of Reagan's domestic agenda was the program of "new federalism" and "devolving" numerous federal categorical grant programs (mostly social programs) to block grants to the states, with less federal regulation and more state flexibility and control. Clinton's "reinventing government" and cutting numerous federal regulations also made sense.
For those who truly want to see government reform, I would suggest it will be far more likely to come about as a result of someone in the WH who would take a practical approach and expand the Reagan "new federalism/devolution" to more grant programs and the Clinton "reinventing government" with more regulatory reform rather than the Ron Paul approach of trashing the entire federal government infrastructure (through the misrepresentation to the American people that most federal programs are unconstitutional).