Ron Paul cheated again during CNN "Debate"

[Paulie]

The basic premise of conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Not allowing "tradition" and "rules" to be changed in any way. That IS definitely conformity to a set standard.

That's way too vague a definition of conservatism. Some conservatives favor the status-quo, some favor status-quo ante.

And status-quo changes all the time. The status-quo of today is obviously broken, and that's why "change" is such an overwhelming factor in this election.

People CLAIM to want change, even Conservatives, but they sure don't seem to want it bad enough, judging by who they're supporting in this election.

Average everyday joe's don't know what's best for them...what a treat, for status-quo big brother, to be able to step in and provide just that...what is best.

 

[pegwinn]

All depends on your particular definition of "conservative." I'm not voting for anyone who's idea of an exit strategy is to just pull the plug regardless the consequences.

Not to mention the very thing he seems to be admired for by those who do would be his greatest failing as President ... his unwillingness to compromise.

Actually I don't bother to define the labels. I'm an independent who bleives the letter of the Constitution is how it is supposed to be. If we want to change it, then amend it.

Compromise is fine if it doesn't compromise your principles y'know. Sometimes you have to stand and deliver. I don't think he'd pull the plug. I do think that we can do better in the WOT. Taking out contracts on key terrorists is a great idea.

Paul aint perfect, but he's more perfect than anyone else who's running.

Just my two cents.

 

[Gunny]

Ummmmm... he wouldn't be the first. It's been that way for the last 7 years. But you are correct that by definition conservative means maintenance of the status quo.

Just can't pass an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Bush, huh? Well, the opposite holds true as well. One can compromise too much, as can be seen in both the Carter and Clinton administrations.

A happy medium would be nice.

Besides, even though you liberals are in denial about it, Bush began his Presidency trying to do exactly that with Congressional Democrats. That lasted until the first time he said no.

 

[Gunny]

That's way too vague a definition of conservatism. Some conservatives favor the status-quo, some favor status-quo ante.

And status-quo changes all the time. The status-quo of today is obviously broken, and that's why "change" is such an overwhelming factor in this election.

People CLAIM to want change, even Conservatives, but they sure don't seem to want it bad enough, judging by who they're supporting in this election.

Average everyday joe's don't know what's best for them...what a treat, for status-quo big brother, to be able to step in and provide just that...what is best.

The definition is hardly vague. Matter of fact, looks pretty specific to me.

Sure the status quo changes; however, it is not conservatism that changes it ... it's liberalism.

Your allegation as far as "change" goes holds no merit. Now who's being "vague?" Change for the sake of change is pointless. Change for the worse doesn't fix anything you claim is broken.

Regardless who you support or what political idealism you embrace, you are in fact telling others what's best for them with your vote, and your support.

 

[Gunny]

Actually I don't bother to define the labels. I'm an independent who bleives the letter of the Constitution is how it is supposed to be. If we want to change it, then amend it.

Compromise is fine if it doesn't compromise your principles y'know. Sometimes you have to stand and deliver. I don't think he'd pull the plug. I do think that we can do better in the WOT. Taking out contracts on key terrorists is a great idea.

Paul aint perfect, but he's more perfect than anyone else who's running.

Just my two cents.

I'm more Constitutionalist than anything else as well. I think is has something to do with the oath to the ideals it embodies rather than a political party with everchanging ideals as they appeal to the public.

The Constitution has however, been amended more than enough, enabling the bureacracy to use it to protect the status quo. It's principles have been compromised more than once, or attempts have been made or are still being made, to suit political agenda.

If one's principles do not reflect the principles of the majority of one's constituency, then one is obviously not ideally suited to the job.

It's a sad state of affairs if and when Ron Paul is "more perfect than anyone else running." Now who is compromising? If I had my 'druthers ... everyone currently running would be told to pack their trash and the parties told to try again after a lengthy visit to the PIT.

 

[pegwinn]

I'm more Constitutionalist than anything else as well. I think is has something to do with the oath to the ideals it embodies rather than a political party with everchanging ideals as they appeal to the public.

The Constitution has however, been amended more than enough, enabling the bureacracy to use it to protect the status quo. It's principles have been compromised more than once, or attempts have been made or are still being made, to suit political agenda.

If one's principles do not reflect the principles of the majority of one's constituency, then one is obviously not ideally suited to the job.

It's a sad state of affairs if and when Ron Paul is "more perfect than anyone else running." Now who is compromising? If I had my 'druthers ... everyone currently running would be told to pack their trash and the parties told to try again after a lengthy visit to the PIT.

I hear ya. The Constitution itself is still fairly pristine. It has been compromised to the point of virtual irrelivance by those who read the "interpretive" version allowing them to get anything they want out of it.

RP is waaay out of touch with the people. But, that doesn't mean he's wrong. It means the people are uneducated, lazy, apathetic or all three.

Pit, heh, flutter kick until I get tired.... yeah that's the ticket.