Replies

Let’s try this point by point:

>Are you in favor of abolishing the Fed?

Maybe is the most I could say on that. I’m not sure our system can really do without it. It just needs to be better run. In any case, there is no way the Fed is likely to be going anywhere and it isn’t a decision by the president anyway, so even vaguely claiming it as a possibility is bunk.

>Are you in favor of a non interventionist foreign policy?

That’s not even close to what Paul proposes. He favors a isolationist fantasy foreign policy where the whole world will love us if we just stay home. That’s utter nonsense.

>Are you in favor of an honest monetary system?

Considering the monetary system is an issue of the Fed and you already went there, this is redundant. It’s not within the powers of the office in question anyway so moot.

>Are you in favor of spending less than we produce?

Yes, but I don’t need an isolationist (America blaming at that) loon to get there.

>Are you in favor of minimum government involvement in your >daily life?

Again, I don’t need him for that, and without a complete overhaul of congress this is again a pie in the sky, not something he can actually do.

>Are you in favor of maximum personal freedom?

Yes, and I’m also in favor of cookies and puppies, but what does that actually have to do with a choice of presidents? If this is what passes for an argument with you, then give up.

>Are you in favor of abolishing the sixteenth amendment and >the income tax?

Again, nonsensical overreach of the office. We’re electing a president not a dictator. You want to change the Constitution then you have to change both congress and the state legislatures. The President has nothing to do with it. Learn some civics for a change.

>Are you in favor of the US leaving the UN and acting like >an independent and sovereign nation again?

Are you actually claiming the U.S. is not sovereign? We ignore the UN when it suits us and use it for political cover when it suits us as well. We’re still sovereign.