Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Agreed.

But the government is set up so that money does buy policy and laws are favorable to the corporate person over the person person.

Corporate persons are not held to the same account as person persons. Corporate persons do buy their way out of accountability.

I was referring to the theory of checks and balances.

Sadly, not too good for us.

I believed Obama’s rhetoric. I believe Obama believed his own rhetoric. Once he stepped into the position, he learned who’s boss. Of course nothing has changed.

Corporations are the source of the money; they are the puppet-masters; politicians are the puppets.

Are you saying it’s the other way around?

 

You shouldn't place ALL the blame on money and corporations. While it's true that money is used to buy a say in policy (laws and regulations), those same policies (laws and regulations) are used to buy voters.

 

No, you have it right. I'm just saying that the politicians don't have to be the puppets. And they should share the blame with the corporations for the mass corruption.

Drug dealers are puppet masters, and addicts are the puppets. Is it fair to put the blame entirely on the dealers? It's the addicts choice to keep going back. And it's the politicians choice whether or not to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

One of the reasons Ron Paul is so appealing, is that he's not for sale.

 

delete

 

LetLovin', you are correct. Politicians do appear to have more in common with prostitutes than with anything else, don't they?

 

No. Just dealers does not a crony capitalist system make.

 

What the fuck am i reading?

 

While the U.S. was NOT founded as a Democracy, but instead a Republic, it has been the intent of those who would rule to promote Democracy as the means in achieving their goals.
A full understanding of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended to be interpreted by both the governed and those who are allowed to govern is the only means by which the country can be restored to one which is both fiscally and socially sound and governed by all the people.
Currently we are ruled by not only money and corporations, but labor unions and numerous other special interest groups who our elected 'representatives' are more responsive to as they provide the funding for their campaign efforts, not to mention the fact that most of the political buying and selling occurs within the party apparatus who produces the candidates we are allowed to choose from in exercising what we have come to accept as the democratic process in our non-existent Democracy.
Ron Paul serves as an excellent example of how a candidate chosen by the people, rather than one of the parties is dismissed by both parties, including the one he belongs to.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" - Samuel Adams

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams

“… it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds …” - Samuel Adams

 

Here is a better picture

 

So essentially what we are seeing is that it costs more to buy a Democrat than it does to buy a Republican?

 

If you're going to be a whore, be a classy one:daisy:

 

It is fair to put some of the blame on us for not doing our due diligence and throwing the bums out of office when they take bribes.

I can't throw out politicians from other districts, but I can give my own the boot.
And yet, sometimes the most corrupt politicians know best how to bring home the bacon to their district. It is hard to think nationally rather than thinking exclusively for local benefit.

My congressman may be a scoundrel among a house full of scoundrels, but he is MY scoundrel!

 

The Source of Corruption:

Corporations are the source of the money; they are the puppet-masters; politicians are the puppets.

Are you saying it’s the other way around?

 

Think 16th amendment.

 

Don't you mean Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution?

16th just releases Congress from the duty to apportion the revenue.

 

Yes, I did, but I was only pointing out the problem, and thank you for recognizing the source of the solution, however the duty of Congress is to apportion the revenues collected from the States based upon the census, allowing the States to determine how their share should be collected from the citizenry of each State.

I believe it was a Democrat, Tip O'Neill, who once said "All politics is local", and that's exactly how it should be, although it hasn't been since 1913. You can add in the 17th amendment as another destructive element of change.

 

Capitalist masters of war:

 

Thats a great song but I don't see how it has anything to do with Ron Paul. Besides that he's the only candidate against war.

 

Individual,

Do you, or do you not, believe in supporting and upholding the Constitution of The United States of America?

This constitution describes a means of amending itself, and I feel certain that you've expressed that you're fine with changes to the constitution, so long as they're changes that the constitution itself allows.

So, these changes being conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in the constitution, and now being an actual part of the constitution.....

Oh right, you only support the parts of the constitution that appear to affirm your narrow worldview, and only when it suits you.

 

Yes I do, very much so.

I've pointed that out numerous times, and it is not changes that the Constitution itself allows, but changes that both the people and the States will allow.

"Like the 18th amendment."

In reality, my world view is much broader than yours and those supportive of Left wing governance. I don't look to government to produce faux equality where none exists, but only create, apply, and enforce laws equally upon all, regardless of outcome.

A free Nation is NOT a single society, but many societies, made up of many individuals who agree to live within a basic set of rules they they consent to at a National level. The States too, each have their own Constitutions and their citizens, as defined in the 10th amendment, are free to allow their States government additional powers as long as they don't break the rules of the Federal Constitution. e.g. No State could return to allowing slavery, deny the right to vote, etc.

A Constitution, which for all practical purposes is what the governed have given their consent as to the powers their government can impose upon them, should be clear and concise, and not open to interpretation by elected politicians or appointed judges, but only through amendment as approved by both the States and the people.

Ron Paul seems to be one of the very few who not only recognizes the source of todays problems, but would make the effort to resolve them once again giving the people the greatest voice in their government.

Would you enter into a binding contract with another if that other person had the power to amend or reinterpret the contract without your consent, yet it would remain legally binding upon you?