A very small one that doesn't have any power, much less the ability to provide certain public programs.
He wants to eliminate the IRS because he feels that mandatory taxes are a way of the government owning the citizens. But that fails to take into consideration that the government is owned by the citizens.
I'm all for the elimination of the military industrial complex. He's got all my support for that. The MIC basically is the government. It has been since the end of the 2nd world war. That's why George Carlin says the Germans lost the war, but fascism won it.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't like Ron Paul because he (I would assume) follows the ideology of the statement "The government that governs best governs least." And I agree with Devil King, that's just a naive line of thinking, whether in foreign policy or the federal bureaucracy.
To believe what you believe about that statement is to miss the point of the statement to begin with.
Originally posted by Schecter
i just find it funny how giuliani is in first place in this particular poll, given the knowledge that not only is his entire campaign completely focused on the invocation of 9/11, but also that he only served to add to the casualties to it with his neglect.
Sadly, the lesson to take away from that is that it isn't common knowledge. I mean, we can't hold him responsible. He's America's Mayor.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To believe what you believe about that statement is to miss the point of the statement to begin with.
How so? (And not just because he agrees with me.)
Originally posted by Devil King
Sadly, the lesson to take away from that is that it isn't common knowledge. I mean, we can't hold him responsible. He's America's Mayor.
Who happens to ask for $9.11 donations at fundraisers.
If Guiliani actually manages, by some miracle, to win the nomination...his record on 9-11 will be shreaded to the tiny pieces it actually is.
However, there will still be that 30% of america that doesn't know the difference anyway.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't think you know what you're talking about.I'm a political science major, I know what the statement means.
If you had a philosophy degree AND a Poli Sci major...then we could talk about your credentials. Until then...studying it doesn't mean jack diddly squat...I have been studying Political Science for over a decade...What about you?
First, tell me what you think Ron Paul means by his statement. I may revise my opinion based on your assessment.
Originally posted by dadudemonI never said that Ron Paul actually uses the phrase himself. I said that as a limited government libertarian, he probably adheres to such a philosophy. And from what I've read and seen Ron Paul say, I'm guessing he does.
If you had a philosophy degree AND a Poli Sci major...then we could talk about your credentials. Until then...studying it doesn't mean jack diddly squat...I have been studying Political Science for over a decade...What about you?First, tell me what you think Ron Paul means by his statement. I may revise my opinion based on your assessment.
I'd like to know what you think I meant, since you reacted so negatively.
Originally posted by AllianceHis official campaign has actually denounced that tactic.
Who happens to ask for $9.11 donations at fundraisers.
Originally posted by Bardock42Your as$hole remark aside, I'm aware that credentials do not trump facts. I was simply reacting to dadudemon's implication that I don't understand the meaning behind the aforementioned phrase
You showed him.Though, some say facts can sometimes beat credentials.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I never said that Ron Paul actually uses the phrase himself. I said that as a limited government libertarian, he probably adheres to such a philosophy. And from what I've read and seen Ron Paul say, I'm guessing he does.
I would agree with you there. I get the distinct impression that he wants to downsize the government in more than one way.
You are a political science major, right? Why would anyone think that a limited government is a better form of governing. Why do you also call that "naive"?
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'd like to know what you think I meant, since you reacted so negatively.
I didn't react "so negatively" at all. I said you missed the point of the statement. BTW, hyperbole doesn't win a debate either. (Sadly, it wins votes though.)
Actually, at this point, I think you literally meant that it was "naive" to limit government. However, I don't know your reasoning behind that yet and I am trying to dig deeper into your train of thought. Who knows, your post may change how I think. (Egads!!! Politicians are never allowed to change their mind or they will get called "flip floppers".)
Originally posted by Strangelove
Your as$hole remark aside, I'm aware that credentials do not trump facts. I was simply reacting to dadudemon's implication that I don't understand the meaning behind the aforementioned phrase
No, you were trying to play up your abilities beyond reproach by saying you were a political science major. Bardock42 appropriately called you on it. You avoided a chance to make a nice rebuttal by explaining perfectly how you interpret that statement and then explaining why the statement is flawed. Instead, you indirectly said you were beneath any of that because you are going to school for a degree in political science.
If you want to successfully enjoy your major, I suggest improving your debating tactics. (I am serious. This is constructive criticism and I do not mean insult by it.)
Originally posted by dadudemonBeing a quote unquote "big government liberal", I find it difficult to answer your question. But from what I can tell, those who want smaller government assume that the less government gets involved, the safer our rights and individual liberties. And I call it naïve because limiting government isn't always the best solution. In fact, running to any solution 100% of the time, whether it be small government or big, I would consider that naïve.
Why would anyone think that a limited government is a better form of governing. Why do you also call that "naive"?
Actually, at this point, I think you literally meant that it was "naive" to limit government. However, I don't know your reasoning behind that yet and I am trying to dig deeper into your train of thought. Who knows, your post may change how I think. (Egads!!! Politicians are never allowed to change their mind or they will get called "flip floppers".)As you can see above, that's not what I said.
No, you were trying to play up your abilities beyond reproach by saying you were a political science major. Bardock42 appropriately called you on it. You avoided a chance to make a nice rebuttal by explaining perfectly how you interpret that statement and then explaining why the statement is flawed. Instead, you indirectly said you were beneath any of that because you are going to school for a degree in political science.It's pretty difficult to rebut "You don't know what you're talking about" without getting a little defensive. So if you think that I was trying to place myself above the debate, I apologize, because that is not the case.If you want to successfully enjoy your major, I suggest improving your debating tactics. (I am serious. This is constructive criticism and I do not mean insult by it.)
I'm actually a pretty good debater in real life, I swear. I just fall back on bad habits while on the internets 😆
Mr. rape victims shouldn't have abortions is out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_po/brownback;_ylt=Aqb0jxf2cDMxGa1XicOBCz.s0NUE