Does Ron Paul support the people, or just the message?

[carpe liberatis]

Arguably every RP support I've seen/heard/spoken to accepts that there are a number of issues they don't fully support when it comes to RP, but they support the man and his message of liberty. And statistically (or so I've heard) the majority of RP supporters were or have been virtually void of political involvement due to the lack of faith that government has any reservations listening to the people as opposed to getting cozy with lobbyists and running the country in the favor of the Good Ol' Boys.

That being said, it has come up several times in discussion regarding some of the 'off-beat' funding programs that we have or should have and what affect a Ron Paul Presidency might have on those programs. NASA for example, and the possibility of socialized health care. Even if the American people voted against it, I would be happy with that so long as I had confidence that it was, in fact, by favor of the people and not in favor of the pharmacy industry. So as President, would Ron Paul finally give the people the opportunity to have a say in what they feel is important, and worth spending tax payer dollars on, or would he conduct his Presidency with a continued dedication to strict Constitutional interpretation without consideration for the "changing times."

 

[snaFU]

obviously both if he is being tireless trying to repair our country.

 

[jclay2]

He would make sure that the government stayed in its true purpose. Socialized Healthcare and Nasa are mostly not the true purpose of government.

 

[Thumper]

This isn't the first election that I've voted in or followed. This IS the fist time I have ever donated to ANY campaign. I always KNEW that with other candidates they wouldn't pay attention to the voters once they got elected. I don't feel this way about Ron Paul.

I believe that the free market, and adherence to the constitution will give the people more of a voice in government than we have had in the last 50 years. I also believe that the lack of attention paid to costituents by our elected officials has more to do with the fact that the majority of people remain silent on important issues. Ron Paul has cured my apathy and I feel like I have a voice again. I realize that part of the problem with our current situation is that I and millions of other Americans have let it happen and said nothing in any unified voice. We have let the politicians confuse the issues and divide us so that there was no clear majority on any one issue. I think those times are changing fast.

 

[Eponym_mi]

he conduct his Presidency with a continued dedication to strict Constitutional interpretation without consideration for the "changing times."

I believe this is what most of us want...government that adheres to the Constitution, not government that changes based on mob rule and whims. If amendments are needed to authorize new powers, so be it, provided those amendments are debated thoroughly and passed IAW with the Constitution.

 

[carpe liberatis]

I believe this is what most of us want...government that adheres to the Constitution, not government that changes based on mob rule and whims. If amendments are needed to authorize new powers, so be it, provided those amendments are debated thoroughly and passed IAW with the Constitution.

This is about where my conclusions lie. However, I have to say that the "mob" you speak of has a tendency to be lobbying corporations, frivolous government contracts, or completely corrupt individuals. I've also heard Ron Paul say things like, "That isn't really at the top of my list." about certain Federal programs, but no real discussion or talk about his consideration for what the people want or may want in the future. To clarify: I have no question that as a President Ron Paul would make 'sound' decisions but putting a man on the moon was a bold move in many many ways and had an incredible impact. So, in the spirit of progress, what about things that can only be backed by the nation as a whole?

Am I making any sense here?

 

[Crickett]

Another thing you must remember is that, if necessary, ammedments CAN be made to the constitution. NASA could fall into a defensive program, anyway, and constitutionally would be fine. Socialized health care is socialism and is NOT cool anyway. The govt. runs most of these federal programs very badly and their quality goes down. We don't need that in health care. Also please remember Congress plays a large part in a Ron Presidency..

 

[lbadragan]

would he conduct his Presidency with a continued dedication to strict Constitutional interpretation without consideration for the "changing times."

A strict constitutional interpretation is what the people want. The people can always amend the constitution if we want to. We don't want a President to do what he thinks the "changing times" call for. Let the people decide that. We need a President to do what we tell him to do and the instructions are in the constitution.

 

[Corydoras]

You use the phrases "off-beat" and "changing times" in a very peculiar way.
Just what is it that you are trying to avoid saying?

 

[FreeTraveler]

To cut a long explanation short, I recommend ronpaullibrary.org After a bit of reading, you'll find that asking this question about Dr. Paul borders on an insult to his stance on the Constitution. I find it really interesting that someone with such a limited understanding of the good doctor's philosophy would take the time to join the grassroots support forum for him without at least visiting his website, ronpaul2008.com, where you'd find more than enough evidence that this question is not worth asking. (Note to all other members... I did not use the "T" word.)

Arguably every RP support I've seen/heard/spoken to accepts that there are a number of issues they don't fully support when it comes to RP, but they support the man and his message of liberty. And statistically (or so I've heard) the majority of RP supporters were or have been virtually void of political involvement due to the lack of faith that government has any reservations listening to the people as opposed to getting cozy with lobbyists and running the country in the favor of the Good Ol' Boys.

That being said, it has come up several times in discussion regarding some of the 'off-beat' funding programs that we have or should have and what affect a Ron Paul Presidency might have on those programs. NASA for example, and the possibility of socialized health care. Even if the American people voted against it, I would be happy with that so long as I had confidence that it was, in fact, by favor of the people and not in favor of the pharmacy industry. So as President, would Ron Paul finally give the people the opportunity to have a say in what they feel is important, and worth spending tax payer dollars on, or would he conduct his Presidency with a continued dedication to strict Constitutional interpretation without consideration for the "changing times."

 

[ErikBlack]

There is no group called "the people". There are only some people. If enough people get together they start thinking they represent us all. They don't. I don't want those people making decisions for me. I don't want medical insurance, whether free market or socialized. I don't go to doctors and I don't believe in modern medicine. Other people are free to do what they like with their bodies. But do not involve me. Apparently I am not one of "the people". Luckily, Dr. Paul respects individuals ahead of groups and his strict interpretation of constitutional limits on federal government will keep "the people's" hands out of my wallet and out of my life.

 

[Sandy]

You use the phrases "off-beat" and "changing times" in a very peculiar way.
Just what is it that you are trying to avoid saying?

I was thinking the SAME thing. What the people want? This isn't supposed to be a democracy/majority rule, but a Republic. In a democracy, the people will vote for getting what they think they can out of the public treasury, which leads to fiscal irresponsibility and bankruptcy, followed by dictatorship.

We were not founded as a socialist country, and gov't funded health care is causing major problems as it is......Medicare is one of the main reasons health care costs are so high. Socialism is dependency on the government, is THAT what you want? Or would you rather have the gov't and corporatism get out of managing and regulating health care so the free market can work, competition will return, care will get MUCH better, and costs go WAY down? Which one do you want? Do you want the gov't to decide what kind of treatment you get, or do you want that to be decided between you and your doctor?

By the way, are you a child looking for a nanny? Sorry to sound so harsh, but being your 3rd post your thread is suspicious and your wording way too obvious.

Changing times???? RP is not going to push any new socialist programs, because he knows it leads to slavery and oppression and is NEVER about helping the people. Look what has happened with Social Security. HA!

I don't want my taxes increased, and RP wants to get rid of income taxes and the IRS. Do you?

 

[carpe liberatis]

You use the phrases "off-beat" and "changing times" in a very peculiar way.
Just what is it that you are trying to avoid saying?

Not avoiding anything, trying to find a word that umbrella's some of the social concepts and global concepts that would be more destructive to us now than, say, once we clean up our government.

I don't like to assume I know things that I don't know, so for example, we get rid of the IRS. Suddenly people have more money. The dollar value goes up after a few other changes. Now we're looking an America much more capable of providing some of the things that our government is too inefficient (ie. corrupt, greedy, and unaccountable) to do properly.

If you're a fan of the Mayan calendar you'll know what I'm referring to when I say global consciousness. I wouldn't presume that our forefathers ever imagined that information could travel as fast as it does today. That people would be as connected as they are. And, because of this, we can work together as a much more complex organism. I personally believe there is a global consciousness movement, with the advent of things like digg and youtube the people are getting the news before the newspapers have a chance to print it. Which DOES change things, including the exponentially decreasing power that the governments of the world have of abusing their citizens. And I would like to entertain the idea that if American's weren't being shafted left and right that we as a people would be -much- more open to federal programs that promote progress. Again, trying to stay vague so that we don't debate specific issues, but the mere possibility of.

Maybe it's just the Trekkie in me.

 

[carpe liberatis]

I was thinking the SAME thing. What the people want? This isn't supposed to be a democracy/majority rule, but a Republic. In a democracy, the people will vote for getting what they think they can out of the public treasury, which leads to fiscal irresponsibility and bankruptcy, followed by dictatorship.

We were not founded as a socialist country, and gov't funded health care is causing major problems as it is......Medicare is one of the main reasons health care costs are so high. Socialism is dependency on the government, is THAT what you want? Or would you rather have the gov't and corporatism get out of managing and regulating health care so the free market can work, competition will return, care will get MUCH better, and costs go WAY down? Which one do you want? Do you want the gov't to decide what kind of treatment you get, or do you want that to be decided between you and your doctor?

By the way, are you a child looking for a nanny? Sorry to sound so harsh, but being your 3rd post your thread is suspicious and your wording way too obvious.

Changing times???? RP is not going to push any new socialist programs, because he knows it leads to slavery and oppression and is NEVER about helping the people. Look what has happened with Social Security. HA!

I don't want my taxes increased, and RP wants to get rid of income taxes and the IRS. Do you?

You're taking my question out of context and applying it to today's current financial circumstances. Read my above post. :]

 

[Battlecruiser]

The constitution was written to protect the people. That was his purpose. If Paul follows the constitution, he will be protecting the people.

 

[carpe liberatis]

There is no group called "the people". There are only some people. If enough people get together they start thinking they represent us all. They don't. I don't want those people making decisions for me. I don't want medical insurance, whether free market or socialized. I don't go to doctors and I don't believe in modern medicine. Other people are free to do what they like with their bodies. But do not involve me. Apparently I am not one of "the people". Luckily, Dr. Paul respects individuals ahead of groups and his strict interpretation of constitutional limits on federal government will keep "the people's" hands out of my wallet and out of my life.

That's the equivalent of saying that you want to cherry pick what taxes you pay, based on what you do with your life. If you don't have a car, should you pay taxes for the roads? You don't have cancer, so you could care less if we had the means to cure those who couldn't afford it. And you don't believe in modern medicine so, we should abandon research completely so that we don't infringe on you by spending money on it? I don't carry a gun, and frankly I detest the military. So, maybe I should have the choice of opting out of paying for national defense. If there's a national epidemic, and I don't get infected, well.. tough break, I don't want the government taking my money to develop a cure. And now that I think about it, the police have actually never done anything to help me. They just cost me money, more and more every year. Putting up camera's at intersections I never drive through and pulling me over for running a yellow light (that interestingly enough *I* didn't want put up in the first place). And all the times I've been robbed have never resulted in any sort of justice. I would *really* like the city to keep their grubby hands out of my wallet and my life.

I applaud personal liberties but that's probably the most selfish thing I've ever heard. Unless I was mistaken and you're completely okay with all of those things so long as the state decides to handle the matters. Me personally, I like the idea of having a unified people. Someday. :o

 

[ErikBlack]

That's the equivalent of saying that you want to cherry pick what taxes you pay, based on what you do with your life. If you don't have a car, should you pay taxes for the roads? You don't have cancer, so you could care less if we had the means to cure those who couldn't afford it. And you don't believe in modern medicine so, we should abandon research completely so that we don't infringe on you by spending money on it? I don't carry a gun, and frankly I detest the military. So, maybe I should have the choice of opting out of paying for national defense. If there's a national epidemic, and I don't get infected, well.. tough break, I don't want the government taking my money to develop a cure. And now that I think about it, the police have actually never done anything to help me. They just cost me money, more and more every year. Putting up camera's at intersections I never drive through and pulling me over for running a yellow light (that interestingly enough *I* didn't want put up in the first place). And all the times I've been robbed have never resulted in any sort of justice. I would *really* like the city to keep their grubby hands out of my wallet and my life.

I applaud personal liberties but that's probably the most selfish thing I've ever heard. Unless I was mistaken and you're completely okay with all of those things so long as the state decides to handle the matters. Me personally, I like the idea of having a unified people. Someday. :o

You don't applaud personal liberties. You don't even know what that means. Its just a catch phrase to you. Personal liberty is the right to do what you want with your life as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. It is the right to customize your life to your own preferences without regard to anyone else.

If I don't have a car I certainly shouldn't be forced to pay for roads. If I don't have children I shouldn't be forced to pay for education. If I don't have a disease I shouldn't be forced to pay for a cure. That is not to say that I won't do so voluntarily. If I believe those things have some intrinsic value to society which would benefit me in a roundabout way or if I am just feeling charitable I would support them without being threatened by the government.

There are a few functions of government that I feel are necessary. National defense, law enforcement, running the courts, coining money, etc. These are the functions outlined in the constitution. No social programs. The government should not be robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Peter and Paul should take care of themselves. The governments only job is to protect them both from becoming violent toward each other, defrauding each other, or falling victim to foreign attacks.

The flip side of personal liberty is personal responsibility. You can't have one without the other. If you want the government out of your life you have to take full responsibility for yourself and those close to you. No more government handouts. That is a trade-off I'm willing to make.

 

[jabrownie]

The two different things you suggest, if I understand the concern correctly, are not mutually exclusive.

1. Ron Paul wants to strictly follow the constitution.
2. It is possible that a majority of citizens might want something like NASA or universal health care.

You present the question of, given this potential conflict what would Dr. Paul do.

Answer: This is premised upon an assumption; that there would be a conflict between the two. That's not the case. Here's why:

The constitution limits federal power, and leaves the rest to the states and people. If the people in a state want to pay additional taxes to get universal health care in return, they are free to do so. If the citizens of another state don't want to, they are free to do so. If the citizens of several states want to get together and have their states form a partnership to build a giant dome on the moon, hey, that's a.o.k. too.

This is actually a better system if for no other reason then the off-chance that the needs, wants and desires of Iowans are different from those of Californians. It simply lets all people get more of what they want, in a more representative way. (It's easier to drive to your state capital and get someone to listen than to go to D.C. and try to get anything done there).