The state has no business regulating religious ceremonies. --SNIP--
If he chooses a vp who will reflect his values, I would say this is a non-issue. The only problem is that there are few who reflect his values haha.
While i like ron pauls small government campaign, i cant say i agree with his opinion of legalizing cocaine, heroin, and prostituion. I also disagree with allowing the states to decide about gay marriage. We are one country, if one state allows it i think all should and vice versa. This is really making me question him. Maybe someone can help me see the light?
Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid - FoxNews.com
You'd still for him, even after he would have had him in his sights???
Why are we putting people in jail for smoking something that grew up out of the ground?
"Let the states decide" is exactly the right answer.
We are supposed to be a Union of sovereign states. We are not supposed to be controlled heavily from the top; from an all-powerful central government. Give the power back to the states, and you don't have to worry about things like Obamacare, national gun control laws, Centralized banking, Department of Education, etc. All these national bureaucracies and regulators must go. We are not supposed to be ruled by the White House.
Otherwise, ask yourself: what is the point of having States and Governors, if the Feds are going to make all our decisions for us? Yes-- marriage and drug laws should decided at a state level, at most. Personally I would get all levels of government out of the matter.
I did not either, but then if finally clicked after studying history and comparing drug laws to gun laws. All drugs used to be legal, but we don't have the same problems we have today. Do you see gang members selling and killing people over alcohol? No. Why? Because it is perfectly legal, although there are still the idiots that do bad things while under the influence.
The same thing goes for drugs. When banning drugs, it creates a black market for the drugs, so somebody has to provide it (i.e., the drug cartels in Mexico). This is whey there are all the border problems (not talking about illegal immigration). Whether you have it illegal or legal, the same idiots will still be doing the same stupid things while under the influence of the substance, however, the incentive to kill people, etc. is gone because the black market has dried up.
The same thing with gun laws. Does a background check really prevent criminals and murderers from obtaining guns? No, however, it creates a black market for the guns; which people who purchase through do not go through a background check.
Legalizing drugs does not mean that you approve of the drug use; it means that you are allowing people to make their own choices (which they already do even if it is illegal). U.S. Congress also does not have the authority under the Constitution (it is not a living document!!!) to regulate drug use, abortion, etc. These decisions were left to the states to regulate themselves and to the extent that they deemed necessary.
Although I am pro-life, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion; nor does the Supreme Court have the authority to strike down state laws prohibiting it. The greatest part of the United States was the ability of the states to experiment with different laws and beliefs so that the citizens could choose which state they wanted to reside in and change the laws through a state level.
Would I look like a tool if I put my 2008 RP signs out?
Like a man of the people. A fair chunk of the voting block are fools.
Nailed it @ 2:56.
"We're liable to have more attacks on us by terrorists" - Ron Paul 1998
What a goofy, unelectable kook!
I love how he keeps predicting things, and then they happen, but he's still labeled a kook.
He may be right on a lot of issues, but his personality is not one people are willing to follow.
He lacks that presidential air. Sorry.