I appreciate that and I agree. I don't always agree with all of his positions either, but I highly respect his firm stance not to do the wrong thing just to do something. I believe in compromise and consensus. But compromise and consensus can lead to the wrong conclusions as easily as the right ones. I am quite certain Rep. Paul is not in congress to lead his collegues at all. He is there to give a voice to principles and ideas concerning liberty and the Constitution that could help us progress and prosper. He is a voice. I once told him I thought he was wasting his time in Congress and he told me that ideas are more powerful than armies. And that is his agenda- give people and congress something to think about other than politics as usual. It may be a waste of time, I kind of think it is IMHO.
Didn't he vote against giving his constituents aid after hurricane ike tore up galveston? What was that about?
to be fair, I don't know if that was reported accurately, i think the aid was tied to the budget, but maybe not.
But that's how democracy functions. You can't win by taking your ball and running home, especially when there are 434 other balls to play with. A voice is nothing but an annoyance unless it's attached to somehting capable of listening to other voices.
I don't care for democracies, I lean towards a constitutional republic (simply put- A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. link ) Cuba calls itself a grassroots democracy and Venzuala is a democracy Listening to your constituency and listening to lobbyists and party politics are different things. I still don't fault him for disagreeing with 90% of the garbage of politics in Washington. He was one of the few republicans that raised his voice against the invasion of Iraq. You would be surprised how many people in his district like the fact they know exactly where he stands and they know he won't waffle. But, I agree whole hearted that he is a sorry politician and doesn't accomplish squat in Congress. I just admire him for it.
You're joking, right? Congress is a democratic body. Each representative gets one vote. People with different points of view come together to act as one. E pluribus unum. And since you seem to fancy yourself an expert on republics, would you mind telling me how one could work without compromise and consensus building? People always have and always will disagree. It's much harder to come to agreement. Ron Paul takes the easy way out.
I'd like to be serious and read everything here, so I will, but I must first post this interview of Dr. Ron Paul. What the hell is going on with his right eyebrow? Does he wear fake eyebrows? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NMb0i_5xLKQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NMb0i_5xLKQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
OK, now I know you live on Earth with the rest of us. IMO, isolated congressmen that don't accomplish anything are worthless. Living and voting by principles is admirable, and Ron Paul may indeed be a high-character guy. But he is in the wrong profession and is a waste of a congressional seat (thanks to the flip-flopping Greg Laughlin).
I agree, he should be practicing medicine. Politics is no place for high character and worthy principles.
Voting is an important part of a republic and so are elections but the word 'democracy' can mean anything from representative governance to a social democractic dictatorship. Mob rule can be a democracy. Republics run by rule of law. Constitutional protections of basic individual rights/ liberties. Our Constitution is ignored or abused more and more. We've had 4 major wars in the last 50 years without the Congress making a Constitutional declaration of war.
The US is a constitutional republic, so I am not sure what your point is. I think we can agree on many of your complaints wrt to pure democracy - but I am not sure where you are going with it.
rhadamanthus- my point is simple- I think we are moving away some from being a true constitutional republic, just an opinion and the move towards a pure social democracy or military democracy is bad... I think we aren't so high and mighty that we can't make mistakes that result in terrible goverance. Mexico for years has been a sham of a democracy run by party politics I think because of our history and the strength of our constitution we think it could never happen to us. The executive branch has too much power imo The congress is lame and controlled by money and the power of party politics I don't know where it is all going but our lives are more federally regulated and civil liberty is more at risk today than ever imo
