why is it a good thing that Ron Paul has never compromised?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Let's say you had a family member who was hopelessly addicted to dangerous drugs to the point they were jeopardizing their own life and the people around them. Would the best course of action be to get them to rehab as quickly as possible before they died or killed somebody, or reach a compromise, permitting them to keep using but on a lesser scale?

Paul's surrounded by people dangerously addicted to money and power. He believes, and I agree, that without a serious turnaround, the outcome is disastrous and inevitable. Compromise can do no more than slow it down. If we can get out of this mess, and I'm not so sure we can at this point, there can be no compromise on the core ideals. Doing what we've done, only less of it, maybe slows down but does nothing to prevent eventual disaster.

When you've taken a wrong turn and someone wants you to correct the course, does it make sense to compromise by driving slower?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I think we all probably miss parts where he has tried to compromise because they are person to person and not in the news. He does talk politician to politician but he hardly gives the LOBBYISTS the time of day. I think he talks to the other politicians but when nothing changes in the laws presented, he votes no. It's up to you whether you want someone who is all about principle or someone who "compromises" to the point where it becomes a trade deal of benchmarks and political bribes state to state. I believe in principled leadership, and that may have it's own faults, but I prefer it to this notion that we are powerless against reality, and ideals hold no bearing.

He does believe in the idea of representative government. I think if our system were truly allowed to act as it should, he would go along with the democracy (representative republic) side of things. If congress had actually declared war on Iraq, it seems clear his stance would be different. It would be more of an opinion thing, but since things were done unconstitutionally, he feels it's his job to come down hard on our leaders for letting this invasion and policing happen. I don't really think he thinks his opinion is superior, I think he appreciates other's opinions and is happy to let decisions be made as long as the checks and balances are in place (and it's clearly the will of the people), and he feels the people are represented.

But what do I know. But with that said, if he was a hardcore fundamentalist constitutionalist type who didn't know how to comprimise and he was an extremist? He would have lost his sanity years ago... Trust me the man appreciates others opinions and the results of democracy, and he has a sense of humor about himself.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
You have all proven my point...
It's lord Paul or bust.
He is the only man able to interpret the constitution.
Please look to history. It's my last plea.

He's not the new messiah,

And like I said, he has never tried to compromise. And do you question any o his policies?
According to the response. Tough feces.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear
 


If a bill is unconstitutional he votes "no" automatically.

Doesn't that make you ask the question as to how many bills they try to push through that are unconstitutional?

I'm sure Ron Paul would be happy to compromise as long as the outcome is constitutional. Which is the job of the president to a 'T' actually.. He vows to protect the constitution and is able to do that through veto.

He hasn't always voted no to everything. That is a common misconception.

Another common misconception I've found is his ideas of re-empowering the states causing the federal government to have less power.

The only argument people can seem to come up with is he will let the states do whatever they want..

The real reason he wants this is because the 10th amendment states that all powers not "Specifically" granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

He is a pure constitutional candidate and that is a good thing!
edit on 17-8-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


You are not in Ron Paul's head...and you cannot tell me every vote in the US House of Representatives has to deal with the constitution. You have the burden of proof there chief, I'm not gonna look up every vote because I'm sure he's already cut his own throat with his own arrogance. No offense, but you guys are no better than the cult of Obama. And you all issue ultimatums, vote Ron Paul or play Fallout 3 for real, but Ron Paul is 74 year old Jesus and will ressurrect your character.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear
 


You obviously didn't read my post.. If you did you wouldn't be arguing anymore..

Not every bill is about the Ron Pauls interpretation of the constitution. And if you think it is...do you remember a few papers called the articles of confederation?
I said I respected the guy, but felt like he wants to dictate opinion on his interpretation on liberty and the constitution for all rather than try to kill the rhetoric that you all love of "Ron Paul or revolution.". He's one man. Pick up your guns and hold congress hostage to pass HIS law. Liberty at last.



There is no interpretation of the Constitution needed as it was well-written and means exactly what it says. When someone comes along to attempt to undermine it, he votes no. And you should be glad, because otherwise we would have brown-shirts running around.

But let's talk about compromise. Your argument is that he never tries to reach middle ground. Why won't anyone meet him on his terms? Compromise doesn't necessarily have to be middle ground. Compromise is a give and take process, but nobody is willing to even listen to him. Isn't that also a refusal to compromise?

I doubt you'll agree because you have an absolute conviction that you're right, even though you obviously have no idea what the Constitution is, why it was written, or who it was written for. You try to make yourself look learned by mentioning the Articles of Confederation, but you give no context for their addition to the thread, thus rendering that subject useless to this argument.

Ron Paul has no "interpretation of liberty" as you put it. His opinion is based on over 30 years of work in Congress under the law of the Constitution, so he has a pretty good understanding of what's constitutional and what's not. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be more flexible, but thus far nothing has come along that has required flexibility, because his compromise would come with a high cost to America.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Youre right

RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR.OF.THE UNIVERSE

HAWKMEN.....DIIIIVEEEEE!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Why should he compromised with the scum running congress? Why should he compromise and sign bills that CORPORATIONS AND LOBBYISTS HAVE WRITTEN?

Sorry but only 13% of the american people support congress, they know it's full of corrupt bastards that work 24/7 against them.

Ron Paul should never compromise on what the US was founded on, especially in front of these corporatists and big government types who want to destroy freedom.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
This is getting ridiculous but all the people who are making these threads don't even care when someone tries to explore their idea and give them the benefit of the doubt. Ron Paul doesn't play along with LOBBYISTS. LOBBYISTS are writing these dictionary thick bills. Like the bailout bill (and/or the healthcare bill moreso) that was too thick for anyone to read and Ron Paul was practically the only congressman who actually read it through. You are confusing talking with politicians, to talking to lobbyists - corporate america, the good ol boys club. It's that simple. He's not comprimising with lobbyists, he talks to other politicians DAILY.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Novise because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by the owlbear
You have all proven my point...
It's lord Paul or bust.
He is the only man able to interpret the constitution.
Please look to history. It's my last plea.

He's not the new messiah,

And like I said, he has never tried to compromise. And do you question any o his policies?
According to the response. Tough feces.


WRONG. We do not think that Ron Paul is the messiah.

We think the CONSTITUTION is what will save us. We believe in that old document.

We like Ron Paul because he's the only one who seems to be defending it.

But HE won't save us. The Constitution will. IF we follow it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 


Because only the pure of heart may enter the lair while the dragon is drunk on its own vapors and slay the beast.

The creature from Jekyll Island.

All the other knights have fallen by the wayside and yet one remains still standing unblemished by the years of toil it has taken to get to this point.

Poised to deliver the coup de grace upon the beast he awaits your vote.

Vote Ron Paul no compromise just kick-ass.

Cosmic...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by the owlbear
You have all proven my point...
It's lord Paul or bust.
He is the only man able to interpret the constitution.
Please look to history. It's my last plea.

He's not the new messiah,

And like I said, he has never tried to compromise. And do you question any o his policies?
According to the response. Tough feces.


WRONG. We do not think that Ron Paul is the messiah.

We think the CONSTITUTION is what will save us. We believe in that old document.

We like Ron Paul because he's the only one who seems to be defending it.

But HE won't save us. The Constitution will. IF we follow it.



Applause.!
edit on 18-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 


The corrupt Congress compromises all the time....they compromise freedoms, compromise truth, compromise morality, compromise people's safety, compromise people's well being, compromise everything EXCEPT one thing - they NEVER compromise their wallets..

Self-interest reins supreme in Congress, and you want Ron Paul to become more like them?

Utter nonsense.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


the constitution has been twisted/interpreted for a couple hundred years

with all the add ons and stuff, lol, right?

it's like america's bible.

how does one straighten that out?

in today's style it would be 2million pages long.

or just let a small group of people dictate the official version.


and when will that be finished and implemented?

i don't think it could be whittled down to something like the 10 commandments.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear
 


One man can change the world..

It's happened...

Would you compromise your own ideals?
edit on 17-8-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


I try my hardest to find where middle ground can be reached. I am mutable and have and will change my beliefs over time. That is how we grow wise. By holding onto the same beliefs and closing your ears to any other side for your entire life as the world changes around you and evolves, in my opinion makes one impossible to work with for change.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I'm not wanting Paul to abandon all of his beliefs...
That is what the majority of posters are not getting.
In your collective opinions, you view Paul as the only person out of five hundred and some who create our laws as infallible. I disagree, but I do see some sense in certain policies. That is called compromise.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
How many of you have been following the budget battle?

Now, imagine Ron Paul as president.

ANY budget that would cross his desk that wasn't EXACTLY what HE wanted, would be vetoed.
Since he doesn't compromise. The congress of course would not give him everything he wants. This would create an impasse that would shut down the government permanently. No welfare checks, no military pay, no funding for anything for as long as Paul doesn't get HIS way.

You all can be constitutionalists all you want, but the only "revolution" you will get with Paul is the next great American uprising peppered with the "liberty" of all of his executive orders.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear
 


If a bill is unconstitutional he votes "no" automatically.

Doesn't that make you ask the question as to how many bills they try to push through that are unconstitutional?

I'm sure Ron Paul would be happy to compromise as long as the outcome is constitutional. Which is the job of the president to a 'T' actually.. He vows to protect the constitution and is able to do that through veto.

He hasn't always voted no to everything. That is a common misconception.

Another common misconception I've found is his ideas of re-empowering the states causing the federal government to have less power.

The only argument people can seem to come up with is he will let the states do whatever they want..

The real reason he wants this is because the 10th amendment states that all powers not "Specifically" granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

He is a pure constitutional candidate and that is a good thing!
edit on 17-8-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


He is not an expert on the Constitution and only the Supreme Court can decide if something is unconstitutional. Alot of Pauls problems are his constitutional stances fall into the grey area that could be argued either way.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by the owlbear
 


The corrupt Congress compromises all the time....they compromise freedoms, compromise truth, compromise morality, compromise people's safety, compromise people's well being, compromise everything EXCEPT one thing - they NEVER compromise their wallets..

Self-interest reins supreme in Congress, and you want Ron Paul to become more like them?

Utter nonsense.



The utter nonsense must be signed into law by a president.
And since as I have stated, he doesn't want to find any middle ground, our country will be the Bunch of States that can do what they want Under Ron Paul or else, since he won't sign anything into law according to his track record of house votes.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by the owlbear
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I'm not wanting Paul to abandon all of his beliefs...
That is what the majority of posters are not getting.
In your collective opinions, you view Paul as the only person out of five hundred and some who create our laws as infallible. I disagree, but I do see some sense in certain policies. That is called compromise.




No, no-one sees him as infallible. But that statement of yours suggests you see things in absolutes. People are wholeheartedly supporting him and speak of his integrity and you see that as them saying he is infallible...which is not only totally inaccurate but indicative of a kind of 'absolutist' thinking.

The same thinking is reflected in your OP. Because he won't compromise on vital core principles, like the Constitution, you extrapolate from that to the toally incorrect and absolutist conclusion that he is unwilling to compromise on anything, EVEN though any proper observation of Ron Paul's actions would totally disprove your theory.

He is a man who IS willing to compromise and co-operate with others, but he will NOT bend to lobbyists, lies and corruption.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 


You are exactly right Mr. Owlbear and that is a point people often overlook. Ron Paul will have a very difficult time passing any of his ideas through Congress and he will not take a different position if it violates his view of the Constitution which to him is about 99% of the bills that he votes on.

Unless he can do it by executive order I don't see alot being accomplished and Congress will just have to wait out the 4 years to get anything done.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum