Reply #157: Something no one has really talked about...

[WarhammerTwo]

is something Disturbed listed in passing:
*Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)

I have a few libertarian acquaintances and, from they tell me, labeling Libertarians as anti-government is false. Libertarians, like Ron Paul, are anti-FEDERAL government. From what my acquaintances tell me (one is a neighbor, the other is a co-worker), Paul doesn't want to do away with government programs. He just wants to do away with FEDERAL programs. Universal health care? If a STATE wants it, a state can have it but don't look to the federal government. Social Security? If a STATE wants it, a state can have it, but don't look to the federal government. Gay Marriage? If a STATE wants it, a state can have it. The Federal Government wants nothing to do with it. And if Paul gets rid of Federal Income Tax, then the Federal Government won't even care who's married or who isn't. Sure, he voted against stem cell research and for banning abortions, but if the decision is left up to the states, his opinion won't matter.

See? Paul is all about shifting 95% of the legislative power away from the Federal Government and back to the states. That's what our Founding Fathers wanted. And so when these Libertarians that I know explained this to me, I looked it up and, yeah, from what I read, that's what Ron Paul is all about. And I don't see that as a bad thing. Plus, he's anti-big business which I am all over. Would I vote for him? Well, as I am a registered Independent I have no say in any primary. But if he won the nomination? I dunno. Maybe. If Hilary won the Democratic Nomination. I feel she's a corporate whore. I'm still very bitter over her husband passing NAFTA. Not if Obama or Edwards got the nod, though.

Anywho, I just wanted to clarify that. Paul isn't anti-social programs. He would just rather have the states handle that sort of stuff.