Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes, too much of states' rights person as well, whereas I'm for people's rights.
Ummm, the opposite of states' rights is NOT people's rights. I don't know where you got that idea from. States' rights is a lot closer to 'the people' than federal intrusionistic takeovers and power grabs.
Their slogan on their website is "Less government, more responsibility and with God's help, a better world". I can see how that would **** off a lot of rabid liberal idiots.
Do you drive much through states that have toll roads?
I have.
Here's what I've noticed.
The roads are NOT in better shape than public roads. Matter of fact, they oftentimes have MILES of multilanes blocked down to single lanes. Of course, the tolls aren't reduced when they have traffic clogged up the wazoo. You pay as much for a trip over a crumbly, constricted, under-construction roadway as you would when it's clear sailing.
<snip>
Yes, the Pennsylvania Turnpike is an excellent example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleMan
Reagan was old, he did alright.
Reagan was showing signs of dementia in his first term, according to his son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
Reagan was 70 when he began his term and 78 at the end of his presidency.
If elected, Paul would be 77 at the start of his presidency. I don't care who you are, 77 is too old be POTUS.
As for Reagan doing 'alright', that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?
He was interviewed on CNN yesterday, and he stated he's anti-abortion and wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. Have you heard a different stance from him?
If that's true it completely destroys his credibility as a libertarian. If he was a true libertarian he wouldn’t care one way or another and he would view it as a private matter.
The fact he would take this view is indicative that he would pander to social conservatives on issues even if those issues go against libertarian principles.
If that's true it completely destroys his credibility as a libertarian. If he was a true libertarian he wouldn’t care one way or another and he would view it as a private matter.
The fact he would take this view is indicative that he would pander to social conservatives on issues even if those issues go against libertarian principles.
Since you obviously don't know what a libertarian is and you'd rather spread manure than be bothered to check a fact:It's about individual rights and Ron Paul belief is a child has the same right to life inside the womb as a child would on the outside.
Ultimately he believes it is for the individual states to rule on abortion as the Constitution doesn't provide for it way or the other.
No. I'm a teacher and his stance on education alone is enough for me to never consider voting for him.
No one wants their gravy train to end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States' rights is a lot closer to 'the people' than federal intrusionistic takeovers and power grabs.
