rb336: now read carefully what I'm saying, not what you THINK I'm saying:
1) The way things are now, allowing giant banks to fail would have a devastating impact on the broader economy from which it may take tens of years to recover. Would you like that outcome? and no, you can't answer with your fairy tale of smaller banks just picking up the pieces, because, well, it's a fairy tale

2) The way to prevent a broad economic disaster is to break up those giant banks and enforce anti-trust laws. How would Paul feel about that?

3) Paul's anti-regulatory stance would be the ultimate preferential legal treatment
.
Once again, You make the “too big to fail argument.” More consolidation will continue with such thinking. Those mega-banks could also be regulated at the state level as are insurance companies. I think that Ron Paul would be fine with that. Ron Paul would probably also be fine with the Bank of North Dakota owned by that State. There are more ways to skin this cat than to centralize even more power at the federal level. The FDIC does not even insure N. Dakota bank accounts and the Bank of ND even handed out interest free student loans until Obama nationalized student loans. Now, ND students have to pay interest on student loans to the federal government. It probably wasn't the change they had hoped for.

To quote Reagan "there you go again" with your fairy tale. Smaller banks wouldn't be able to cope with the financial issues that would come with the pieces of a failed mega bank. A mid-sized bank might decide to try, mostly to bump themselves into the upper realm, but would likely then fail again. A failed mega bank wouldn't send ripples through the economy, it would send a tsunami across it.
Interesting that you are quoting Ronald Reagan and defending Wall Street these days.

So he would FORCE the monopolies to give me equal access to the airwaves? that is a very un-libertarian stance. What rules would he oppose? [[and don't just regurgitate the BS about the bailouts like you usually do. It seems to be your only argument)

What gives you the idea that I like lobbyists? Or wars? Wars are sometimes a necessary evil. You still mistake my arguments for the constitutionality for support of the action, although I DO think supporting people trying to overthrow tyrants is a good thing.
You must like wars enough to support Obama and defend his executive order to bomb Libya and disregard the opinions of Nader and Kucinich opposite to your own. You support the mega banks as if you were a lobbyist telling us those banks are too big to fail and support politicians who created that situation.

“Force” is a word from the authoritarian lexicon. Authoritarians are the opposite of libertarians. I suspect that where possible, the air waves could be opened up and at lower prices. Government need not be protecting the exclusivity of Murdoch’s enterprise as it does with artificial barriers and financial barriers to play in the game. Why shouldn’t someone even start broadcasting without a license if they didn’t interfere with their neighbors on the broadcast spectrum? If some regulation is needed, and it probably is, to sort some of this out, why couldn’t it be done more at the state level?

specifics please. Dodd did a number of good things and a number of not good things. You merely gave a blanket comment which I showed was not warranted.
Countryside and headlines like this:
Sen. Chris Dodd took millions from now-failing finance firms he oversees

Chris Dodd tries to gut derivatives proposal

Isn't Dodd's latest gig trying to promote SOPA/PIPA? If there is an 'enemy of the people', Dodd pretty well meets it's criteria.

Probably because you looked for the exact phrase instead of inference.
Your quote was, “As I said before, that quote from Paul is true”. I hadn’t realized that inferring and saying something are the same in your mind.