Palin: Ron Paul is the "Only One" Willing to Rein in Spending

Who cares if Dr. Paul has only gotten one piece of legislation passed? It's because he's not a bought-and-paid-for corporate/special interest sock puppet like 99% of the corrupt pieces of shyte in Washington. He's actually a good person. Hey, imagine that!

 

While that is admirable, most Americans are willing to concede on principle (like politicians) in the name of results.

 

Here is a prime example. Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill even though he agreed that it was a good bill. His reasoning was that it should be a States responsibility to do this and not the Federal Governments.

That's fine but as President you sometimes have to say that even though you don't like everything in a bill you have to vote for it for the good of the country overall. Paul will not do this.

If there is anything in a bill he does not like the veto pen will come out. We cannot run a country effectively like that.

 

Do we have an educated electorate? The answer would appear to be no, judging by the past 11 years. I can't say that I'd call these last few admins stagnant... there has been plenty of change.

 

Its true Ron Paul is not about compromise or majority rule. He wants to protect the minority vote and so did our founders. It’s why we are a republic and not a true democracy.

There is room for common ground and ending the gridlock we see today. Ron Paul's foreign policy is something the democrats can work with and being fiscally responsible is something the republicans can work with. One great thing about Paul is he appeals to both sides because of his libertarian beliefs. Right now our country and our representatives are so far apart it’s doing more harm than good. Romney, Newt, Obama represents a continuation of this. Things can get done under Paul but if you fully depend on the government for your wellbeing then yes, Paul is something to be afraid of.
Here is a video of him talking about compromise.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh9OzjECfaY"]Ron Paul on compromise and democracy - YouTube[/ame]

 

Our electorate is educated enough to elect leaders that will institute change. The actions of our leaders have been detrimental, yet we continue to elect those same people. Why? Because, in the general sense, Americans want results, not principles.

 

What's sad is that we've elected 8 years of Bush, nearly 4 of Obama, possibly another 4 of Obama... if not more Obama, then likely Newt or Mitt who have a ton of dirt on them both. These are the 'reasonable choices'!

Ron Paul 2012...
Because sometimes doing little, is better than 'progress'

(Hey, there's a reason why I don't get paid to do campaign slogans )

 

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day..."

 

There is a definition for that.

Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that positive change (even if that means a slowing of 'progress') couldn't come from an RP presidency.

 

A really bad argument, in fact most of all of Paul's Domestic Agenda is very well recieved with the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. Sure the Foriegn Agenda might be a strain but the President can do a lot with no Congressional Support in Military and Foriegn matters.