[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why is it bad for your position to be flexible to changes in the will of the people? Isn't the whole point of democracy to give the people what they want out of government? If what they want today is different from what they wanted 4 years ago, why shouldn't they get it? What's so much better about "stay the course no matter what happens?"

Shhh. People don't want democracy, they want to be led!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

He wants to get rid of the income tax, but AFAICT has never called for the total elimination of taxes.

So he does have a problem with the Constitution in that sense. He is on the record as wanting the 16th Amendment repealed. However your assertion that he wants to bust the Federal government down to pre-Constitution levels, just seems... off.

I've always gotten the sense that it's the 20th century expansions to the Federal government that are the bees in his bonnet, not the 18th century ones.

My problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't actually seem to understand the constitution. This idea that the constitution advocated strong states rights... it simply isn't true. I'll agree that the federal government needs to be rolled back, but the entire point of the constitution was the promote a strong federal government, because a weak federal government didn't work. My problem with Paul is he doesn't seem to want to retool the federal government, he wants to tear the whole thing down, which goes against the spirit of the constitution.

History has already shown that a weak federal government gets nothing down. Maybe instead of looking at weakening the federal government, we should look at getting congressman in the house and senate who actually give a damn. Let's not dumb down the executive branch to the level of congress.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why is it bad for your position to be flexible to changes in the will of the people? Isn't the whole point of democracy to give the people what they want out of government? If what they want today is different from what they wanted 4 years ago, why shouldn't they get it? What's so much better about "stay the course no matter what happens?"

Eh, I don't believe being flexible is a bad thing.

However, one of the most unimaginably horrible things I can think of is the current general populace directly making all the decisions. When people are more fascinated with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton than they are with the important news of the day, I'm a bit skeptical as to how well they could lead a country.

That's why all modern politicians are demagogues. They don't say the most reasonable thing; they say the most emotionally appealing thing. Whatever outrage they can tap into becomes their main talking point for the day, and people are either too uninformed or too stupid (I searched deep for a better word, but I couldn't find one) to see it for what it is.

[Shaddim]

That's what you get in a remote control wielding, instant gratification driven society.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

However, one of the most unimaginably horrible things I can think of is the current general populace directly making all the decisions. When people are more fascinated with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton than they are with the important news of the day, I'm a bit skeptical as to how well they could lead a country.

Yeah, but this is what makes Democracy a double edged sword. You have to listen to everybody, even the "Leave Britney alone" folk. As sad as it is, you have to listen to those people, otherwise you start to head down the path of the few leading the many.

Although it makes it pretty easy to see why dictatorships worked better in places like Iraq.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Eh, I don't believe being flexible is a bad thing.

However, one of the most unimaginably horrible things I can think of is the current general populace directly making all the decisions.

That's called elitism. It's not necessarily bad, so long as you're in the elite. It's hard to make sure you will be though.

When people are more fascinated with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton than they are with the important news of the day

Do you ever wonder if the reason people don't care about politics is because of how far removed from it they are? Why should they make the effort when their changing opinions can't affect the moves made by their so-called representatives?

[Big Mac]

This thread well illustrates some of the reasoning behind the Founder's distrust of Democracy. People who don't really know what the Constitution is meant for or what kind of government it produces make moronic pronouncements about it and about how the country should use it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This thread well illustrates some of the reasoning behind the Founder's distrust of Democracy. People who don't really know what the Constitution is meant for or what kind of government it produces make moronic pronouncements about it and about how the country should use it.

care to qualify the remark?

i think ron paul does have some good thoughts about curbing the federal government's muddling in the business of the states. some of what he says is entirely reasonable. some of it not. his religious ideology does raise concern from where i sit.

[Big Mac]

The notion that the Constitution is so malleable that you can read things into it (without following the amendment process) that were never there to begin with, just to suit the whims of a current political climate.

The notion that a candidate who professes to return to Constitutional government is actually advocating a return to The Articles of Confederation instead.

The notion that the country will collapse if it is governed according to the Constitution.

The notion that Americans need big government to survive.

Those are all very dangerous, anti-Constitutional notions that are found in this thread.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The notion that the Constitution is so malleable that you can read things into it (without following the amendment process) that were never there to begin with, just to suit the whims of a current political climate.

The notion that a candidate who professes to return to Constitutional government is actually advocating a return to The Articles of Confederation instead.

The notion that the country will collapse if it is governed according to the Constitution.

The notion that Americans need big government to survive.

Those are all very dangerous, anti-Constitutional notions that are found in this thread.

yep, you nailed many misconceptions found in this thread. and some in the current administration.

[Big Mac]

You're right, art_director. But what about Ron Paul's religious beliefs bother you? I don't know much about him in that regard.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're right, art_director. But what about Ron Paul's religious beliefs bother you? I don't know much about him in that regard.

my understanding is that he believes in removing the separation of church and state, to a large degree. in my opinion, when you bring the two together you have a recipe for trouble.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by art_director 

my understanding is that he believes in removing the separation of church and state, to a large degree. in my opinion, when you bring the two together you have a recipe for trouble.

What gave you that idea? I haven't heard that at all, or anything that even vaguely suggested such a thing.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What gave you that idea? I haven't heard that at all, or anything that even vaguely suggested such a thing.

nor had i until the other day. then i saw this: The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul

[nonhuman]

Intersting, I hadn't read that before. This will require some pondering...

[art_director]

i thought the exact same when i saw it. what to make...

[nonhuman]

A little googling revealed this:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level.

Ron Paul on Principles & Values

So basically he's saying that it's a stat and local issue, rather than a federal one. I'm ok with that; the same is true about a whole hell of a lot of other issues that people seem to want the feds to take care of.

The only real question, of course, is how it would affect his decisions as president. His stated position is that there should be no laws regarding religion one way or the other. Presumably this means that he would veto any law that came across his desk that had anything to do with religion; I'm ok with that.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

A little googling revealed this:


Ron Paul on Principles & Values

So basically he's saying that it's a stat and local issue, rather than a federal one. I'm ok with that; the same is true about a whole hell of a lot of other issues that people seem to want the feds to take care of.

The only real question, of course, is how it would affect his decisions as president. His stated position is that there should be no laws regarding religion one way or the other. Presumably this means that he would veto any law that came across his desk that had anything to do with religion; I'm ok with that.

sounds like he's consistently inconsistent.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by art_director 

sounds like he's consistently inconsistent.

How so?