not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...
What does this even mean? Bush and Paul are nothing alike. Bush and Clinton and Obama and McCain are alike in their use of government force. Paul would take government out of the equation for many things. He'd get rid of the Patriot Act, will Obama?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...
His domestic policy is nothing like Bush's. Yes he might share the same opinion as Bush on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage but unlike Bush he doesn't wish to force his beliefs down the throats of the entire population.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
His domestic policy is nothing like Bush's. Yes he might share the same opinion as Bush on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage but unlike Bush he doesn't wish to force his beliefs down the throats of the entire population.
i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy
he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...
i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy
he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...
I do know what he supports and I still agree with a good amount of it. He still is nothing like Dubya. While Bush increases the amount of government and government influence in almost every aspect of our lives, Paul wants to reduce it. Nothing like Dubya.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I do know what he supports and I still agree with a good amount of it. He still is nothing like Dubya. While Bush increases the amount of government and government influence in almost every aspect of our lives, Paul wants to reduce it. Nothing like Dubya.
you are correct on domestic national security... i should have been more clear... i am talking all non security related domestic policies. which is the majority of domestic policy that has an affect on our day to day lives.
one of the bush legacies is the erosion of oversight, regulation, and social programs... and paul would shift that into hyper drive
no enviromental protection agency, no department of transportation, no department of education, no department of energy, no medicaid, no social security, etc... just money for the military. states rights. do we really need to regress nearly a decade?
i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy
he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...
Department of Energy and Education should be nixed. Complete waste of tax dollar. EPA should revamped or gotten rid of. NASA should be privitized. Social security partial privitization. He is not completely against spending money of social programs he just believes that they need to be worked on to reduce the large amounts of tax dollars that are misspent.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
you are correct on domestic national security... i should have been more clear... i am talking all non security related domestic policies. which is the majority of domestic policy that has an affect on our day to day lives.
one of the bush legacies is the erosion of oversight, regulation, and social programs... and paul would shift that into hyper drive
no enviromental protection agency, no department of transportation, no department of education, no department of energy, no medicaid, no social security, etc... just money for the military. states rights. do we really need to regress nearly a decade?
sorry, no thanks.
Ron Paul never stated that he would completely kill of social programs. He stated that in order to continue offering the programs we do we would need to trim the fat of said programs or eliminate other areas of spending, such as the Dept of Education, etc...
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Will the US regress a decade, century, or millennium, if something isn't done might be the question...
bring on the good ol colonial days...hehe
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Department of Energy and Education should be nixed. Complete waste of tax dollar. EPA should revamped or gotten rid of. NASA should be privitized. Social security partial privitization. He is not completely against spending money of social programs he just believes that they need to be worked on to reduce the large amounts of tax dollars that are misspent.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
not trivial at all to me... his domestic policy is like George Bush on steroids...
What does this even mean? Bush and Paul are nothing alike. Bush and Clinton and Obama and McCain are alike in their use of government force. Paul would take government out of the equation for many things. He'd get rid of the Patriot Act, will Obama?
His domestic policy is nothing like Bush's. Yes he might share the same opinion as Bush on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage but unlike Bush he doesn't wish to force his beliefs down the throats of the entire population.
i am not talking morals or "social issues" only... i am talking domestic policy
he believes in an uber-market based doemstic policy. think katrina times 10. he wants to get rid of the department of education, the department of energy, FEMA, enviroemtal protection agency, etc, etc, etc... the only thing he supprts speniding federal $ on is the military... he is against nearly all forms of regulation... anti gun regulation... the list goes on and on... . he is the ultra domestic conservative, which means "free market" corporations rule the day without any over sight or regulation and pull your self up by the boot straps social darwinism... he is essentially "dubya" on steroids as far as domestic policy and "free market" capitalism... take an honest look at what he really supports, forget the iraq stuff and the international isolationism for a second, and take a look at what he REALLY supports policy wise domestically. he is so far to the right it isnt even funny...
I do know what he supports and I still agree with a good amount of it. He still is nothing like Dubya. While Bush increases the amount of government and government influence in almost every aspect of our lives, Paul wants to reduce it. Nothing like Dubya.
you are correct on domestic national security... i should have been more clear... i am talking all non security related domestic policies. which is the majority of domestic policy that has an affect on our day to day lives.
one of the bush legacies is the erosion of oversight, regulation, and social programs... and paul would shift that into hyper drive
no enviromental protection agency, no department of transportation, no department of education, no department of energy, no medicaid, no social security, etc... just money for the military. states rights. do we really need to regress nearly a decade?
sorry, no thanks.
Department of Energy and Education should be nixed. Complete waste of tax dollar. EPA should revamped or gotten rid of. NASA should be privitized. Social security partial privitization. He is not completely against spending money of social programs he just believes that they need to be worked on to reduce the large amounts of tax dollars that are misspent.
Ron Paul never stated that he would completely kill of social programs. He stated that in order to continue offering the programs we do we would need to trim the fat of said programs or eliminate other areas of spending, such as the Dept of Education, etc...
Will the US regress a decade, century, or millennium, if something isn't done might be the question...
bring on the good ol colonial days...hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i totally disagree
just a thought...
He is not anti-government. He is anti- big government. Also he is in office and running for President so can change the government.
What purpose does say the Dept of Education serve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMDF92ZE7c
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")