<p>Save your breath, momfromme. You are trying to talk sense to True Believers. It can’t be done. The best thing that can be said for the Ron Paul idolatry is that it will fade away pretty quickly once the real voting in the primaries starts.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t classify myself a believer. I think Dr. Paul’s ideology is way too far fetched. Let’s be realistic even if elected getting rid of the IRS, FDA, or whoever else he has in mind is very unrealistic.</p>
<p>Momfromme:</p>
<p>Yes, just like the Judicial system was established BY LAWYERS, FOR LAWYERS!</p>
<p>Why do you put so much faith in authority? Our country’s policy of over-representation, contradicting laws, and financially unbalanced services have a created a government where people are no longer part of the equation. Every “positive” law past is almost always attached with a billion other laws as a result of compromise. </p>
<p>I’m being general here, but the optimistic text being shoved down our oh-so-easily influenced children contributes nothing. In fact, all it does is create more zealots for the authority to manipulate.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m sounding pretty emo here. lolz.</p>
<p>^^You sound as though you consider balanced approaches and compromise to be bad things. Heck, the whole, pure US Constitution that Paul wants to “restore” is one huge compromise. Read the history of the debates at the constitutional convention and you’ll read about one compromise after another, on nearly every point. Compromise was needed to balance the interests of the various competing regional and economic factions in order to get a document that more-or-less everyone could live with and that could garner enough political support and votes to be ratified.</p>
<p>Compromise works the same way today. You give and take until you hammer out a law that can pass. It’s not perfect, but it works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My post isn’t subject for interpretation. I said exactly what I meant, and I did not mean balanced approaches and compromise are bad things.</p>
<p>To pass a law in congress, it takes much advocacy and effort to persuade fellow legislators. However, since all legislators have their own agenda - whether it be party loyalty, committee loyalty, or personal gain - the likelihood of passing a law just on its on merit is very small. These days almost ALL laws passed come with a package, sometimes little amendments or
finance boost for x department. This is a BAD thing. Having to include compromise to every law passed defeats the purpose of making laws. We propose laws to begin or end a mechanism. Adding more variables just complicates things, so much so that 5 years down the road another compromise is necessary to fix/continue/reform a previous established law.</p>
<p>Basically, the flawed and corrupt process in which laws are passed needs to be recognized or else this generation will continue to praise teh awsome g0evrnment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t know much about Ron Paul other than everyone seems like to him.<br>
</p>
<p>The application of compromise clearly isn’t appreciated here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh. I’m not debating this.<br>
</p>
<p>Well now you’re just downgrading the situation. Our current process of compromise is beyond that of the founding fathers and ancestors blah blah blah. Every law, movement, and proposition is forced to compromise. If you don’t meet the needs of everyone, you get nothing. I cannot stress anymore how much of a bad thing this is.</p>
<p>HS, I’m not sure where you’re going with that.</p>
<p>Ron Paul isn’t against compromise, so long as none of the compromises end up compromising the authority of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Sill waiting on the part where Vyse tells us all how the FDA is somehow operating under a warped version of the interstate commerce clause. Not holding my breath, though.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing against Ron Paul. XD</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Welcome to the real world. If you want to get something done – In a household, club, congregation or government, there will have to be some compromises.</p>
<p>Compromise is more just than having an overweeing majority dictate all policy. Read [The</a> Federalist #10](<a href=“http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm]The”>The Federalist #10)</p>
<p>I’m with Winston Churchill, “Democracy is the worst system in the world except for all the others,” and James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ron Paul objects to Food? I hope you didn’t bet your house on that point, because I’m guessing that Ron Paul is in favor of food. The F in FDA does not stand for Federal.</p>
<p>The GOP platform in 2000 = RP’s.
RP’s = GOP’s platform in 2000. </p>
<p>[CNN/AllPolitics.com</a> - Election 2000 - The Republican National Convention](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#5]CNN/AllPolitics.com”>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#5)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not good enough. I’m not debating the existence of compromise and why it is necessary. However, the role of compromise in today’s politics is very tainted - to the point where compromise often defeats the passing law. There are remedies to this, but many citizens feel compromise (no matter the degree) must be accepted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah.</p>
<p>The kind of compromise we get in the legislature is the unacceptable game-theory type compromises that cause the left to give in on the Patriot Act, the Thought crime act (H.R. 1955), sneak and peak, NSA wiretaps, etc so long as the right gives in on welfare, illegal immigration, social programs, etc. The right wants less domestic policy, but more foreign policy, while the left wants less foreign policy (well, sometimes they do), but more domestic spenbding on social programs. Each side gives into the other’s pet projects, so long as their side’s pet projects aren’t attacked. </p>
<p>So what ends up happening is the creation of a false left-right paradigm, where we have an inept and expensive bureaucracy both abroad and at home.</p>
<p>The intro to the bill says .Make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans</p>
<p>Typical right wing stuff … only helps those who have a high enough income to itemize their taxes does nothing for low income people and helps upper middle class taxes payer by lowering their taxes .</p>
<p>I am not impressed .</p>
<p>The claim that we used to live in a time when there were fewer compromises or less, shall we say, less compromised compromises, is just not backed by any evidence.</p>
<p>Based on my knowledge of history, there have always been compromises in American politics. The ones that preserved the union before the civil war were highly controversial and seen as corrupt by both anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces. </p>
<p>There was no golden age from which we have fallen.</p>
<p>^ That’s a good point, once I wish History textbooks would still discussed. Bush’s civil rights abuses have been CHILD’S PLAY next to some of the things Lincoln did.</p>
<p>[Damon</a> and Vedder to teach People’s History | Entertainment | Reuters](<a href=“http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN1145866520071211]Damon”>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN1145866520071211)
you’ll love this :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1of42, I’d love to get the answer to that, too! Also, what does Paul have to say about our totally useless, money-draining NIH and NASA?</p>
<p>“^ That’s a good point, once I wish History textbooks would still discussed. Bush’s civil rights abuses have been CHILD’S PLAY next to some of the things Lincoln did.”</p>
<p>I have to respond: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a time of rebellion-the Civil War. The Constitution specifically allowed Lincoln to commit said actions. Congress agreed that it was necessary. The courts upheld the legality of his decision. What Lincoln did was LEGAL and done in the context that the writers of the Constitution specifically thought of-an open, violent rebellion on home soil. This has no comparison to Bush’s current actions-his suspensions of habeas corpus are still being fought in court (with mixed results), and we have yet to see a violent rebellion occur on our home soil.</p>
<p>And if you go back and see what I wrote about earlier times in American history, you’ll see I referred to compromises BEFORE the civil war that were intended to preserve the Union.</p>
<p>There are many examples, with the most prominent perhaps the [Compromise</a> of 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850]Compromise”>Compromise of 1850 - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Just one part of that compromise – the Fugitive Slave Act – was extremely controversial. </p>
<p>There’s just no evidence that we make more compromises now than in the past or that today’s compromises are more problematic.</p>