admit it: you have felt the Ron Paul temptation, havent you? And its not just the thrill of imagining another president named Ron, is it? Ron Paul believes a lot of what you believe, and what I believe. Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups! Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers! Aint gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
And throughout the whole of human history, the dreamers have charted the course and led us to our greatest achievments, while those concerned with "the art of the possible" consistently say, "It can't be done."
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
{Kermit voice} Why aren't there any songs done about Ron Paul And what's on the other side? Ron Paul has visions, not merely illusions, And Ron Paul has nothing to hide. So we've been told and some choose to believe it Ron knows they're wrong, wait and see. Someday we'll find it, the Ron Paul connection, The lovers, Ron Paul and me.
Who said that every wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star? Ron Paul he thought of that And someone believed it, And look what it's done so far. What's so amazing that keeps him stargazing? And what does he think we might see? Someday we'll find it, the Ron Paul connection, The lovers, Ron Paul and me.
All of us under his spell, We hope that it's prob'ly not magic....
Has he been half asleep And has he heard voices? I've heard him calling my name. Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors? The voice might be one and the same. I've heard it too many times to ignore it. Is he someone I'm supposed to vote for? Someday we'll find it, the Ron Paul connection, The lovers, Ron Paul and me. La, la la, La, la la la, La Laa, la la, La, La la laaaaaaa
{/Kermit voice}
Disclaimer: This unauthorized parody meant in spirit of light hearted humor... no mean-spiritedness or putting of a candidate down intended. No offense intended towards Kermit the Frog, The Muppets, Jim Henson, Disney, Paul Williams & Kenny Ascher, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the 1979 Oscar committee, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, The 1979 Golden Globe nomination committee, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Ron Paul, or supporters of Ron Paul.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I dispute your assertion, Roper. Or maybe I at least dispute that the two are exclusive.
Sticking to politics, I would assert that the Founding Fathers were supremely concerned with the possible. Sure, they had the dream and the vision to attempt a Republican form of government when none such had been successful on such a large scale. But they had the concern for the practical and the possible enough to balance the interests of both the slave and non-slave states, and both the large and small states. They didn't dream that they could perfect men--as Madison famously noted, "if men were angels, we would have no need of government."
Lincoln was another very pragmatic politician who worked within what was possible. Though he personally was against slavery, he came into office only hoping to limit its expansion into new territory, and not seeking to emancipate. He held off on any emancipation action until the political and military climate was ready, and even then he was very careful in how he proceeded. He was a master at balancing the factions in his Cabinet and in the nation as a whole. His dream was to preserve the Union--and he did everything that he could, within the realm of the possible, to do that.
Political dreamers and utopians have usually been more dangerous than such pragmatic men.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
I guess we understand the continental congress differently, Shiz. My understanding is that there were many champions for idealistic causes and that many concessions were made to accomodate at least some of their vision. The founding fathers hammered out what they did because of a collective vision of what this nation could be, and with a whole lot of inspiration from God.
I'm not saying our entire government should be filled with visionaries. Nothing would ever get done. What I'm saying is that we need at least someone with the same vision as those founding fathers. That someone is Ron Paul. We have more than enough bureaucrats concerned with the art of the possible. And I'm not interested in more of the same.
-- Edited by Roper at 14:29, 2007-07-31
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
The Art of The Possible... that would make a great band name...
Possible and Impossible are both relative to the foresight of the individual(s) who are even in a position to effect a change.
So, if one is not in a position to effect change, it is impossible and remains an improbable vision.
If one is in a position to effect change, it may be possible or impossible to actually do. That is where vision hits reality... the rubber hits the road... the proverbial fecal matter meets with the rotating air movement device...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Re: circle of influence / vision that inspires others who will make the change...
Unless that is your goal, that is not the same thing as actually doing. That is idealism at it's best / worst. It is pretty risk free and doesn't need to look at the reality or expediency of the current situation. If someone who is a position to make a change does, even with the inspiration of someone else, it is they who get the credit for making the change.
For example, if I just set the goal as a new Scoutmaster to put the idea in the boys minds that participating in Scouts is fun so that down the road they will like it, that is a far different thing than actually doing things that will make Scouts fun.
If all the goal of The Lord was in inspiring the signers of the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution to consider the idea, then the action probably would never have happened. But, and I don't know if this is / was a FPR or documented someplace (have heard the story but don't have a source), if The Lord sent a special messenger to the closed room they were holding session in with the express purpose of getting the assembled men to get off their complacent butts and stop arguing and get the task done... well, that is where change was actually effected. Nevertheless, it wasn't the messenger, but the assembly that did it.
There are a number of things that each candidate, not just Ron Paul, throw out that sound great and have a rallying effect. And that is where it ends, because the reality is that once in office, the candidate will not have the ability or desire to actually do. Is the candidate a mover and shaker, or an opportunist who is part of the problem. I personally don't buy that any candidate, either party, at this point is overwhelmingly a mover and shaker, least of all some of the lesser known candidates.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
So I guess the LDSs who talked the Indians into slaughtering the women and children at Mountian Meadows weren't really murderers after all. Whew, that's good to know.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I think that the primary difference between the supporters of Ron Paul and others is that his supporters see the problems facing this country as imminent and potentially catastrophic, whereas those who think he is too impractical just think that there are a few things that are off course. I think, Shiz, that you trivialize what the founding fathers did when you call them practicalists. Sure, they made some concessions, but they started a unique nation against what seemed like insurmountable odds. They took on the greatest military in the world with an army barely worthy of the name. At the time they declared independence, it seemed certain that George Washington would be defeated. There were several occassions when only divine providence kept the English from overwhelming the new nation. You could have, and some did at the time, make the argument that to try for freedom against such insurmountable odds was stupid, especially when the situation with England wasn't really so bad (according to some people). Sure, the Crown had dictated that only one company could provide tea to the colonies. But since they had a monopoly, that company was able to provide tea more cheaply. Sure, they quartered soldiers in the homes of the colonists. but those same soldiers helped protect the colonies. Despite the lack of trial by jury in most of the colonies, the inhabitants still had many more rights than was typical of most countries during that period of history. So, the founding fathers were fighting insurmountable odds for questionable gain. Aren't we glad they did? Now we have a similar situation. Despite the dire circumstance we find ourselves in, there are many who say that it's not that bad, and that it would be too hard to change. Still, change is worth working towards, even if it seems certain to fail.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Well, Arbi, I was mostly referring to the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. But if you want to bring up the Revolutionary days, I'll address that, too. Most of the Founders were not starry-eyed revolutionaries at first (except a few like Sam Adams). They were not out to "start a nation" at all. They simply wanted their rights as Englishmen to be respected. They tried negotiations and pleas to the Crown for months before they felt that they had no other choice than to resort to arms. Read the Declaration of Independence. They felt that George III had pushed them too far. It was over a year between Lexington & Concord and the Declaration. It was a long year of pragmatic and measured effort.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
You should like Ron Paul, then, Ray, because as a Mormon, you're one letter removed from being the same thing!
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Most of the Founders were not starry-eyed revolutionaries at first (except a few like Sam Adams). They were not out to "start a nation" at all. They simply wanted their rights as Englishmen to be respected. True. They did not set out to found a new nation, by and large. They wanted the traditional rights of Englishmen restored to them. If you'll notice, Ron Paul has not advocated armed conflict with the US government, either directly or indirectly. He wants to restore our constitutional rights by working through the system. I'm not sure why you call that approach pragmatic and practical for the Founding Fathers, but impractical for our current day and age. They were facing seemingly insurmountable odds too.
They tried negotiations and pleas to the Crown for months before they felt that they had no other choice than to resort to arms. Again, how is this different from the approach Ron Paul is taking (other than the fact that armed conflict is not an option in our case)? They wanted a restoration of their rights. Ron Paul wants a restoration of rights. In the case of the founding fathers they didn't have much chance either. It wasn't like their discontent was a new thing. As you point out, they had a long list of quarrels with the King, The Declaration of Independence is far from a complete list of those grievances. They had tried the existing system time and time again, but they were still willing to try it to get their petitions addressed. The king wouldn't even read John Dickinson's "Olive Branch Petition" because he considered it an illegal document produced by an illegal congress. In fact, the founding fathers were much more drastic in their approach than Ron Paul. They started a congress which the reigning monarch considered illegal. They raised an army to defend themselves. They printed their own money.
It was over a year between Lexington & Concord and the Declaration. True. A year in which King George II declared them in rebellion (before the Declaration, mind you). Let's not downplay the radical nature of their acts in that year. If Los Angeles formed an army, printed it's own money, and started trying to drive the various officers of the federal government out of its borders, you would probably say that that was an extreme approach. And yet with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, you look back on the founders reactions and say that they were pragmatic because what they did is obviously logical to us, with our historical perspective.
Well, Arbi, I was mostly referring to the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. This one isn't so mainstream either. The Constitutional Convention was, technically, illegal. There was no provision in the articles of Confederation for a constitutional convention or amendments to the articles. And yet they met with the specific purpose of amending the articles of confederation. They didn't even start with the intent of creating a totally new government. That came later, as they fully realized that even if they amended the articles they really didn't form a good government. See what an "art of the possible" approach that was? They didn't like the current government. They created a new one. Ron Paul's aproach is much more simple and pragmatic than that. So, on the whole, Ron Paul's approach of a return to constitutional principles seems much more practical and pragmatic than forming a new governmental body (the continental congress), participating in armed resistance, and then creating two different and separate governments in quick succession.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
If he had any chance of being elected or being able to enact his ideas, maybe.
Sometimes when something is right to do, it should be done, even if it seems impossible.
Besides, he has more chance than any other candidate that I would actually vote for. He actually registers on polls. Bill Clinton was at one time the least popular candidate before the democratic primaries.
In addition, if you could somehow motivate the apathetic portion of the populace to vote, you could have a tremendous voting bloc. There are a great deal of people who won't vote either democrat or republican because they're the same bunch of thieves anyway. If you could get them to vote for you somehow, you'd be sitting pretty.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
arbilad wrote: Well, Arbi, I was mostly referring to the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. This one isn't so mainstream either. The Constitutional Convention was, technically, illegal. There was no provision in the articles of Confederation for a constitutional convention or amendments to the articles.
So, does that mean the Constitution is actually an illegal document, considering the convention that created it was illegal?
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
