I need to knock this reply to my friend OUT OF THE PARK - help!

[matratzac]

Him
Today at 1:43pm
Just curious if you support Ron Pauls proposed relief package to boost the economy since you seem very concerned about the deficit

___________

Me
Today at 2:32pm
yea he released it today... i am sure because the debate is on tonight and he will bring it up (9pm on msnbc if u want to watch). you should check out his 6 books on the economy that you can find on amazon. also if you youtube some of his speeches that he has made in congress speaking to that dickface bernake you can see that he is extremely intelligent. u might disagree with him but its defintely work looking in to.. thats what got me liking him so much in the first place. I think the campaign has told him he needs to essentially "dumb" down his speech so more people can understand it and this is a step in that direction.

by the way he got 2nd in nevada caucuses
and he either get 1st or 2nd in louisiana caucuses

if he got 1st in louisiana he is now in 2nd total for delegates, behind only romney :)

________________________

Him
Today at 3:39pm
well... I dont question that he is intelligent I just have very different views on almost all issues other than iraq. He may be the best candidate when it comes to the economy, I dont claim to be an economist so I really cant argue one way or another on that issue, but its the civil liberty issues that are of the most concern to me and that is where my views clash with those of Ron Paul and the rest of the republicans seeing as how I have very liberal views on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, ect. Also I think that we desperatly need a president that can bring people together and create less of a partisanship since the bush administration created a such a huge divide between the democrats and republicans and nobody will be as succesful at that as Obama.

________________________

Me
Today at 5:43pm
You have good points however I will still disagree with you and here is why:

On the subject of civil liberties, Ron Paul has very libertarian views. He ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian, and his libertarian background plays a large part in his republican points of views even today. The republican party today has become a mesh of new values completely different from what it has been/should be. Ron Paul is an old version of a "proper" republican. Remember, Ron voted AGAINST the patriot act, whereas Obama voted in FAVOR of it. This is THE largest infringement upon the civil liberties of the American people. Next is the national ID card. Ron Paul is heavily against it. I don't know Obamas stance on it, but from my knowledge I believe he is in favor of it. Ron Paul will end the war on drugs, the most racist policy endorsed by the government. Obama doesn't talk about that at all.

On the subject of immigration, Ron Paul's ultimate goal would be to let almost everyone come freely. However, due to our problematic economy, immigrants are not welcome. If we had a much stronger economy, then illegal immigration would not be a problem. Right now they are a "scapegoat" because of financial reasons, and, whether or not you support free immigration, does not mean that the issue can stay unadressed because illegal immigrants have a huge impact on the economy.

Ron Paul is a great choice if you support gay marriage, because he doesn't want to have anything to say on the matter. He opposes constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, and believes that the issue should be left up to the states. Also, Ron Paul is very strong on individual rights, which means that gay rights and such are much less of a problem. Dr. Paul advocates equality among everyone because the libertarian views of civil rights is that everyone gets their rights because they are an individual and not because they belong to a certain group.

On Abortion, Paul will not have any say in this on the federal level. He wants the controversial issue to be left up to the states, as per the Constitution (something everyone else seems to ignore).

Don't forget that I am an advocate, like you, of pro-choice and pro-gay rights. As we both say, "I dont give a FUUUCCCKK." And I know I can trust Ron Paul because he has the record to back up his stances better than anyone else running, and that is even something any Obama supporter cannot deny.

Lastly, I would disagree with you when you say Obama can bring people together moreso than anyone. I don't want to get into my opinion on Obamas speeches and rhetoric because you would probably get mad at me. Ron Paul's message spans both parties, and, in fact, one of the reasons why he is not doing any better than he is is because many think he would fit better in the democratic line up of candidates. There would be much more crossover of democrats voting for Paul than there would Republicans voting for Obama. Don't forget than Paul is the only anti-Iraq candidate in the republican line up, and the entire basis of his platform is to bring back rights to the american people.

___________________________

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners. Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of. Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period. Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.




His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?

[LBT]

Tell him Ron predicted the 1987 market crash as well as this one, along with much warning about the depreciating dollar.

He's a known economic author and famous for drilling Bernanke and Greenspan when they go on the stand.

To think that these other economically ignorant candidates have smarter economic solutions than Ron Paul is like thinking your Aunt Betty can fix your car better than a professional mechanic.

[matratzac]

Tell him Ron predicted the 1987 market crash as well as this one, along with much warning about the depreciating dollar.

He's a known economic author and famous for drilling Bernanke and Greenspan when they go on the stand.

To think that these other economically ignorant candidates have smarter economic solutions than Ron Paul is like thinking your Aunt Betty can fix your car better than a professional mechanic.

i dont want to involve the economy in my reply, he knows paul is a smart economist

[Soccrmastr]

Get a new friend. You can't convert a hardcore liberal if he's reluctant. If you think hard enough and look at Ron Pauls positions you can provide a rebuttal to everything that guy said.

[sharpsteve2003]

It sounded like he didn't read the relief package. That was what his Question was about. If you had stuck to that issue you could have gotten somewhere. Ron Paul' s Relief plan doesn't add to the debt but would help stop it from growing and moves us in a direction towards being able to pay it off by creating stability and growing the economy.

This is the 4 points from the front page of ronpaul2008.com

1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

3. Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness with the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

4. Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

more details can be found from there, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity but that puts it simple in just four points that make sense.

Nothing in that increases the debt unlike the others plans for stimulating the economy. handing checks out when you have no money just adds to the problem. it's more of a bribe to the American people paid for by the American people. doesn't make much sense.

As far as the last part that seemed to piss you off, I'm assuming that was the "why are you rep", My answer is "I don't vote by party, I vote for the person, and Ron Paul is the only one with Integrity and a record to back it up."

It also sounds like the immigration issue is getting muddled. Ron Paul is not for just letting anyone and everyone come and stay. people should be free to come visit but if they are wanting to live here they need to do it the right way, Legally. He also is not for building a big ass fence per say, that i know of. But he wants to secure the boarders using a variety of ways, so that people are not just walking on in. this is from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


Hope this can help. I find the best way to explain most any position is to just go right to the source, then copy and paste. I try and stick to the bullet points of things be cause those are short and to the point. Then I give links to the site and let them further educate themselves. Most are not going to read books and do to much research. They just want it explained in a paragraph or two and Ron Paul does that on his website.

[matratzac]

the argument drifted away from the package towards him arguing a bunch of other stuff though, i need a reply to that

[idiom]

He is an absolutist. He thinks everyone in the world should follow his morals. But he doesn't think he is.

[sharpsteve2003]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

[JAlli41]

because dems dont respect property rights

[WarningSLO]

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing.

The constitution can be amended. If you want to change it, amend it. But don't break the law by ignoring it.



Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of.

Well we can't defend the border if our troops are overseas. So some sort of fence may be a back-up plan. Welfare is Paul's strongest point on immigration though.



Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period.

Libertarians believe in states rights. That's just a difference in philisophy.



Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

States rights. Difference of opinion. For slavery: could have been a constitutional amendment.



Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.


Maybe democratic on civil liberties, but not on fiscal responsibility and the welfare state. No to Universal Healthcare and continuing SS for our young people.

[Yom]

Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."



RP isn't for building a big fence, but for border security - put those who should be defending the border there instead of Iraq and give them the ability to actually do their job.


The gun control thing, you can't really make appealing to him, but RP is anti-death penalty, he just doesn't think the federal government should control it.

The black comment is just a cheap shot and unwarranted.

[sharpsteve2003]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

This page is great it has a short video on the main page with Ron Paul talking, and you can tell he's not reading from some script. It just him talking briefly, and when you go to the different issues each page it has a short clip of him again talking about that issues not reading from a script. Very well done because It's just him talking from the heart not some rehearsed politician spewing nonsense and never actually saying anything. I find the less I try and argue the points and just guide them to where they can find the answers themselves they don't feel like your trying to win the debate but letting them find out on their own. None of us like feeling someone is trying to prove us wrong. It becomes more of, I just want to share this info with you, instead of this is why we are right and your wrong. Even though that may not be our intent, we all get defensive when we feel like someone is pushing us to admit they are right.

[JonathanR]

I don't understand this argument that the Constitution is somehow outdated. Liberty and protection from tyranny are timeless concepts which ring just as true today as they did 200 years ago, and will continue to ring true for all time! The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is crucial to a truly free society as it is the right which is the last line of defense for every other right!

[wstrucke]

blatantly ignoring the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, amounts to Treason against the United States. nuff said

[Psych0t]

Since he is responding to you, that means he is considering Paul to get his vote. People can be converted, especially if they have superficial liberal views.

[sharpsteve2003]

Leaving things up to the states to decide forces Issues to be dealt with on a more local level. when it becomes more personal and closer to home it can change the way people think sometimes. Like the Gay issue for example. It's very easy for people to just say they are against something but when it's close to home and in their family is becomes more real to them. Many who are against "gay rights" for lack of a better term, can change their minds when it's their son or daughter. I look at letting states decide on these matters brings it closer to home.

[slamhead]

Will take on this part of his concerns


oncern to me and that is where my views clash with those of Ron Paul and the rest of the republicans seeing as how I have very liberal views on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, ect. Also I think that we desperatly need a president that can bring people together and create less of a partisanship since the bush administration created a such a huge divide between the democrats and republicans and nobody will be as succesful at that as Obama.

Tell him where gay marriage and abortion is concerned...Dr. Paul reserves those issues to the state, so if he lives in a liberal state he has no worries. In fact Dr. Paul would be the best choice for anyone who supported domestic partnerships. He has publicly stated that he supports domestic contracts and has said that the government should get out of the marriage business as it only got involved way back when because of health issues..mainly the spread of syphylus.

As for the divide tell him that RP supporters are 32% republican, 11% Democrats, 9% Independents, 17% Libertarian, and 27% frist time voters or disenfranchised voters. Ask him if Obama's support is that diverse.

[Highstreet]

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners.

Gun ownership is in the constitution because of the need for the populace to keep a check on the Government. The genius of the Constitution is the checks and balances. This includes those between the Branches, and those between the FedGov (it's enumerated powers) and the State Govs (assured by the 10th Amendement).


Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of.
He has stated he voted for that bill because we need to strengthen border security, but that he didn't agree with the Fence portion of the bill. He knows it won't help. He wants to eliminate the incentives to immigrate illegally and encourage legal immigration.


Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too.
He is pro-life personally, but always defers to the constitution. This is one of the most divisive issues of our time. He has said neither side will have it completely their way. The more divisive, the more local the decision should be made. Anyway the chance of Roe v Wade being reversed is very unlikely.

He explains it in depth on The View clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8


Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period.
Paul has said that the Death Penalty shouldn't be carried out on the Federal Level. But that States have the right to decide their own punishment. Most have moved away from it anyway.


Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.
Paul would like to take the word "Marriage" out of the control of all Govt. Allow Govt to license Unions between two willing people, and let churches hand out that Marriage label if they wish. Thus all rights and benefits are equal under the law, and Separation of Church and State is consistent.


I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.




His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?

Just ignore the things that make you upset.

BTW, this friend sounds like they are now nitpicking because they can't argue the most important issues of the day. Obama's record is pitiful on the War and Civil Rights, and the idea that we could afford another huge Govt Program in the Economic state of our nation is why he is sidetracking you. Be sure to come back to these most important points.

I still end every conversation with my Obama supporter friends with this:

"I just can't trust anyone who would vote for Bush's Patriot Act"

[WATYF]

He is an absolutist. He thinks everyone in the world should follow his morals. But he doesn't think he is.

Exactly... he's against the government forcing its will on people... UNLESS it matches HIS will. Then it’s OK to force the whole country to live by morals that they don’t agree with.

He wants more restrictions on guns... probably to outlaw guns. That's great... for him. But guess what... not everyone wants to live without protection. Not everyone wants to relinquish their right to defend themselves to the police only. Anti-gun laws are incredibly racist and biased against poor people. Try getting a cop to show up in minutes when you live in the ghetto or the projects. It's not going to happen. Yeah, he can sit in his nice suburban house in his nice suburban neighborhood and think, "gee... I'll never need a gun, so why should anyone else have one." But that's completely selfish. I have a friend who is very liberal on many issues, but the ONE issue that he sounds like a republican on is gun rights, and that's because he's lived in some very bad neighborhoods (not by choice) and guns have saved his life and the lives of his friends/family more than once.

Also, the constitution is not "out of date". Tyranny existed back then just like it exists now. The constitution was written so that no ONE entity would have the power to control the entire country and sway ALL of its people to its own whims. And that's what happens today. A democrat gets into office and all of a sudden the WHOLE country has to subject itself to democrat morals and regulations (even though half of the country doesn't agree with them). Then a republican gets in office and the WHOLE country has to subject itself to republican morals and regulations (even though the other half of the country doesn't agree with them). What he should be interested in is freedom of the individual to decide how to live their lives, instead of the government deciding on morals for them (morals which change every four years or so). I'm guessing from his "they don't believe in evolution" slam that he's an atheist. Well ask him what difference there is between pulling a moral stance out of an old book and pulling a moral stance out of his ass. He thinks he's right... well whoopdee dooo... so do the people that disagree with him. Who is he to assume that his assumptions about what's "right" are universally unquestionable? He thinks the nation will be better if his moral were forced on everyone... surprise, surprise... so do they!! And who's "right". On some issues we may never know. The point is, the idea that any one group can force their moral beliefs on an entire nation is fallacy, no matter what group it is. And that's exactly what Ron Paul is fighting against.

For example, Ron Paul is personally pro-life, but that's where he shines as an example of freedom. He has said over and over that he's pro-life, but he ALWAYS points out that he is not the least bit interested in FORCING his pro-life views on the entire country (since that would be unconstitutional). Look at it this way... it doesn't matter if Ron Paul believes in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny... his principles do not allow him to try to sway an entire nation to live by his beliefs... and that's something that no other candidate in this race (or any other presidential race in years) has been able to say. A president isn't there to tell us how to live... he's there to keep the government out of our way so we can live our lives how we see fit. And States are there to enforce criminal laws, so that "how we see fit" can't involve hurting another human being.

As for gay marriage, again... why should the government get to decide what's moral? One candidate says that it IS moral to marry gays... another says it ISN'T moral to marry gays... either way, the federal gov't is making a decision for an entire nation. That's never what it was intended to do. Even states should stay out of it. Ron Paul has personally said that he is for going back to when the government wasn't involved AT ALL with marriages (it was a church matter).

It's easy to pick an issue that you think is "black and white" and say that it shouldn't be up to that States. "Hey, slavery shouldn't be a state issue!!". But where do you stop? And who gets to decide what's a "black and white" issue? You can try to use an obvious issue like slavery to make the point, but there isn't a state in the entire union that would legalize slavery, so that's a straw man. The real issues that divide us are not nearly so cut-and-dry.

And the reason that more democrats would vote for Paul than Republicans voting for Obama is not "because Republicans are big fat doody heads!!" like he claims... it's because Paul’s message is one of PERSONAL FREEDOM. And people of ALL beliefs can stand behind that. Obama’s message is... uh.... "change". We don't know what change... or how... we just know it'll be "change". Come on... if I had a dollar for every time a presidential candidate ran on a vague platform of "change" I'd be able to start my own central bank. :P

Btw, the democratic party holds almost no "libertarian" views. I'm not sure what he's talking about, but the democratic party creeps closer and closer to socialism with every passing election. And that's the polar opposite of libertarianism. Hillary doesn't stand for a single thing Ron Paul stands for, including the war, since Hillary can't even commit to bringing the troops home by 2013 (which means she wouldn't even do it in her first term... which means if she didn't get a second term, she would have done absolutely nothing to bring them home).



Anyway... that's the reply I would give.


WATYF

[rmholla]

As to gun control I would point out that our founding fathers didn't give us the right to bear arms so we could hunt, we were given the right to bear arms to protect us from our own government!

The first thing Hitler did when he took power was to grab guns from the German citizens so they had no way to rise up against him. History repeats itself!

Also point out that when England took away everyone's guns that gun crimes went through the roof, and law abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

-

[matratzac]

bump 1 more time

[slantedview]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity

there it is

[Gimme Some Truth]

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners. Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of. Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period. Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.




His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?


Being a strict constitutionalist just means that you follow the law. The constitution is the law of the land is it not? It is constitutitonal to ammend the constitutiton. It is UNconstitutitional to ignore it.
To say that the constitutiton has little bearing today is ludicrous. The constitution guaraantee's you your freedom. It restricts the Federal Government from taking your rights (when it is followed!)

About guns - I dunno what to say.

Ron has always said that he'd like to have lots of immigration and that the illegals are scapegoats because of the economy. Its abit of a vicious circle. Illegals put a strain on the economy ,and come here, because they get welfare. Hospitals close etc etc.
Dont forget 911. The US should have some tighter boarder security with the threat of terrorism.
Ron said he voted for the bill that required a fence being put up , but that it was the weakest reason for why he voted on the bill. He said this in one of the earlier debates.

Ron Paul is against the death penalty.

Marriage began as a religious celebration between a man and a woman. Paul doesnt want the Government involved I believe. Therefore why should a gay couple be allowed marriage?. I dunno what Paul's view is of a gay unionship. Look on his site. It doesnt matter to me in the slightest.

Slavery would be unconstitutional. So even if a state went back on its own state constitution , it could not over-ride the US constitution. Period. Slavery aint comin back. Anyone who thinks that slavery could make a comeback is insane.

Not all republicans are closed minded. Your friend is showing his/her collectivist viewpoint. No wonder he/she is a Democrat.

LOL at his/her final paragraph. Democrats are about individual rights? lol yea right..

.

[Akus]

Him
Today at 1:43pm
Just curious if you support Ron Pauls proposed relief package to boost the economy since you seem very concerned about the deficit

___________

Me
Today at 2:32pm
yea he released it today... i am sure because the debate is on tonight and he will bring it up (9pm on msnbc if u want to watch). you should check out his 6 books on the economy that you can find on amazon. also if you youtube some of his speeches that he has made in congress speaking to that dickface bernake you can see that he is extremely intelligent. u might disagree with him but its defintely work looking in to.. thats what got me liking him so much in the first place. I think the campaign has told him he needs to essentially "dumb" down his speech so more people can understand it and this is a step in that direction.

by the way he got 2nd in nevada caucuses
and he either get 1st or 2nd in louisiana caucuses

if he got 1st in louisiana he is now in 2nd total for delegates, behind only romney :)

________________________

Him
Today at 3:39pm
well... I dont question that he is intelligent I just have very different views on almost all issues other than iraq. He may be the best candidate when it comes to the economy, I dont claim to be an economist so I really cant argue one way or another on that issue, but its the civil liberty issues that are of the most concern to me and that is where my views clash with those of Ron Paul and the rest of the republicans seeing as how I have very liberal views on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, ect. Also I think that we desperatly need a president that can bring people together and create less of a partisanship since the bush administration created a such a huge divide between the democrats and republicans and nobody will be as succesful at that as Obama.

________________________

Me
Today at 5:43pm
You have good points however I will still disagree with you and here is why:

On the subject of civil liberties, Ron Paul has very libertarian views. He ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian, and his libertarian background plays a large part in his republican points of views even today. The republican party today has become a mesh of new values completely different from what it has been/should be. Ron Paul is an old version of a "proper" republican. Remember, Ron voted AGAINST the patriot act, whereas Obama voted in FAVOR of it. This is THE largest infringement upon the civil liberties of the American people. Next is the national ID card. Ron Paul is heavily against it. I don't know Obamas stance on it, but from my knowledge I believe he is in favor of it. Ron Paul will end the war on drugs, the most racist policy endorsed by the government. Obama doesn't talk about that at all.

On the subject of immigration, Ron Paul's ultimate goal would be to let almost everyone come freely. However, due to our problematic economy, immigrants are not welcome. If we had a much stronger economy, then illegal immigration would not be a problem. Right now they are a "scapegoat" because of financial reasons, and, whether or not you support free immigration, does not mean that the issue can stay unadressed because illegal immigrants have a huge impact on the economy.

Ron Paul is a great choice if you support gay marriage, because he doesn't want to have anything to say on the matter. He opposes constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, and believes that the issue should be left up to the states. Also, Ron Paul is very strong on individual rights, which means that gay rights and such are much less of a problem. Dr. Paul advocates equality among everyone because the libertarian views of civil rights is that everyone gets their rights because they are an individual and not because they belong to a certain group.

On Abortion, Paul will not have any say in this on the federal level. He wants the controversial issue to be left up to the states, as per the Constitution (something everyone else seems to ignore).

Don't forget that I am an advocate, like you, of pro-choice and pro-gay rights. As we both say, "I dont give a FUUUCCCKK." And I know I can trust Ron Paul because he has the record to back up his stances better than anyone else running, and that is even something any Obama supporter cannot deny.

Lastly, I would disagree with you when you say Obama can bring people together moreso than anyone. I don't want to get into my opinion on Obamas speeches and rhetoric because you would probably get mad at me. Ron Paul's message spans both parties, and, in fact, one of the reasons why he is not doing any better than he is is because many think he would fit better in the democratic line up of candidates. There would be much more crossover of democrats voting for Paul than there would Republicans voting for Obama. Don't forget than Paul is the only anti-Iraq candidate in the republican line up, and the entire basis of his platform is to bring back rights to the american people.

___________________________

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners. Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of. Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period. Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.




His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?

I think you should have asked what his important issues are that will make or break his support for a candidate and work from there. If it's guns, explain that guns and the right to keep them were not put in the Constitution "because those were savage backward times". It is about property rights and rights in general. They can't take away your rights with lead flying from you. Gun bearing was acknowledged as a right so people could protect themselves.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I think he's only going back on forth with you in hopes of converting YOU. I'd find a way to end it, saying that he obviously has some very fundamental differences, and that you can't convince someone if their core belief system is based on the premise that the Constitution "has little bearing." Then tell him to enjoy the coming U.S.S.A.

[Gimme Some Truth]

I think you should have asked what his important issues are that will make or break his support for a candidate and work from there. If it's guns, explain that guns and the right to keep them were not put in the Constitution "because those were savage backward times". It is about property rights and rights in general. They can't take away your rights with lead flying from you. Gun bearing was acknowledged as a right so people could protect themselves.

Good advise. Otherwise you could end up talking to your friend forever and getting nowhere.

[Thom1776]

This guy sounds kinda stupid.


The Constitution is EVERYTHING! He said it has "no bearing today". That's what leads me to believe that he's stupid.

Tell him that technology may change, but human nature doesn't.

[GoDrNo]

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.

His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?

If your friend actually believes this statement I am pretty sure he/she is a lost cause, no sane person would actually say that the Dem. party and Hillary are the new bastions of Libertarianism.

[micahnelson]

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners. Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of. Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period. Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.


Regarding the constitution. Ron Paul has offered up amendments to the constitution, such as updating acts of piracy on the sea to include the air. The constitution is a living document, in a sense. When the constitution grows, it must only grow according to the mechanisms put in place to allow slow but progressive change. Ignoring the constitution and increasing the size of government through creative reinterpretation has led to cancerous growth.

In short, respecting the constitution doesn't mean being stuck in the 1700's. It means you realize that the constitution is the law of the land, and it limits the role of the federal government. If the government wishes to expand, it must work to amend the constitution. To allow the government to ignore it is allowing the government to have control over every aspect of our lives.

[mcgraw_wv]

The right to bear arms is not for protection against Indians...

If you really study the fore fathers, everything they did was constructed to prevent a ruling class, a tyranical governing body.

The right to bare arms, means the people always have the ability to take back their government if need be. Tell him in todays world, we need to reserve the right to stand up for our rights, if any elected official with "Political Capital" tries to remove them.

In this world, we are sacraficing liberties to conquer something else, and although wrong, we've done it... and its one push... and yet another push, and another push will come until we as a people do not want to live under the rule of an iron fist... without the right to bare arms... we would be powerless against the government to make a change.

THAT is what the 2nd amendment is all about. It is the single most important protector of all the other rights... if you take away that, then nothing will stop them from taking away any others...

[affa]

Him

Him
Today at 10:35pm
You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing. For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns. Today however I think that the gun laws are waaaay too lax and Paul is loved by gun owners. Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of. Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too. Also some issues need to be federally regulated in my opinion such as the death penalty which I believe should be banned period. Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it.

I do agree with you on one thing though...there would be more democrats voting for Paul than republicans voting for Obama, however I attribute this to the fact that republicans tend to be closed minded and many would be afraid of having a black president. And if you dont think that republicans are closed minded look up how many republicans still dont believe in evolution, nuf said.

Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party. As a matter of fact many of those points you made sound a lot like hiliary who I know you and Jenna love so so much.




His last reply kinda pissed me off. Suggestions?


"You bring up a good point, he is a strick constitutionalist. I have always been annoyed by constitutionalists because people do not realize times change and although I think that the constition was a good document at the time it was written, today it has little bearing."

Ask him to read the constitution. The document's main purpose is to protect the people from the slow creep of tyranny. That is of great bearing today, given the encroachment upon civil liberties, secret tribunals, etc.

"For example when the constitution was written I can understand why citizens would have the need to own guns."

Taking away freedoms should never be the gov'ts role. You speak of wanting civil liberties, but then want to remove the most important one. Please take the time to read the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, regardless of whether you yourself want to own a gun, recognize that the primary reason we are allowed to own guns is because they are " necessary to the security of a free State". In other words, our founding fathers believed that an completely unarmed populace is NOT free. It's easy for someone who doesn't own a gun to want to do away with this right, but you need to understand what exactly you are asking for - you are telling other people what they can and can not do. This is NOT freedom.

Also Im not sure about what you say about him wanting to allow immigrants in the country seeing as how he voted to build a big ass fence which is one of the dumbest ideas ive ever heard of.

Q:You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?
"Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive." - Ron Paul


"Im pretty sure he is pro-life which is a big issue for me too."

Ron Paul does not want to impose his views on you any more than you want to impose yours on his. He is against federal regulation of abortion - a government that can legalize abortion can also ban it. He says the federal gov't has NO business deciding on the issue one way or the other.
As for him being pro-life - he's 72 years old and has helped deliver over 4000 babies - I think this probably earns him the right to have a slightly different view on the topic than us.

"Gay marriage is another issue which should not be left up to the states...maybe we should leave whether or not slavery is allowed up to the states also, point being that when a policy is predujice the state should not even have the option of allowing it."

Once again, as soon as you give the Federal gov't the (unconstitutional) authority to 'legalize' gay marriage, you're giving the implicit ability for a future president to ban it. Ron Paul wants to let everyone do as they please - but recognizes that the Federal Govt has no business in marriage, gay OR straight.

"Also I have to ask, if you agree with the libertarian views that you say paul stands for then why are you a republican in a time when those views are now the foundation of the democratic party"

The democratic party is the antithesis of libertarian views. Both major parties want to legislate morality -- they just fall down on different sides of it. Some want to legislate for this or that, others against this or that.
Ron Paul is the ONLY true candidate for freedom - he's saying, let us be free! Keep the gov't out!

And this is what freedom is all about.

[qednick]

On the 2nd amendment issue: ask him to look into how well the British gun ban worked out for them. Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control and gun crime itself is 4 times higher than before the 1997 ban.

With so many guns already in circulation, a gun ban in the US would be a major catastrophe.

[Todd]

This is an excerpt of something I wrote to a friend about the 2nd Amend.

You said "Civilians don't need guns". So, let me see if I get this straight....Government is the only capable bastion of this responsibility. The Police will protect you... right?
I despise the notion that a responsible, law abiding citizen cannot possibly handle one. The key word is "responsible". I don't care if it's Forrest Gump with an IQ of 70... if he can handle a firearm without carelessness that's fine. I'm all for revoking the right of the irresponsible, but not beforehand. And trust Government?...when trained soldiers have accidents killing civilians everday in Iraq? When trained police accidentally kill civilians in New Orleans?
There is no evidence a panacea exists if you got your way. Empowering the weak over they tyranny of the strong is the epitome of a free society and the abolition of firearms from law abiding isn't. It's a tool that forces an oppressor to persuade rather than threaten. It puts a 95 lbs female on a level playing field with the 230 lbs aggressor and would be rapist. "Law abiding citizens that carry guns aren't looking for a fight..they want to be left alone." (Not my words)
Have you ever studied the ways tyranny occurs? One thing is the means to resist are taken from the people. One thing a deceased acquaintance of mine said (Bela Jacobs, a Hungarian who resisted the Soviets) that always stuck with me was how the Soviets first action in 1956 was take away the peoples guns. This mentality is how crap like the Patriot act and Real I.D. occur, when emotion out weighs reason and deliberation.


Then show him these stories from the links below about that infamous town in Georgia.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634


Hope this helps with the gun issue.

[JMann]

Your friend is hopeless.

[Basilieus]

I always found that providing facts and points is better than attacking someone on what they think.

Just use facts and references to persuade thought, not change it.

[matratzac]

I sent him another message, I will post his reply when I get one

[matratzac]

his latest reply:

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms. If you get shot and killed I'd say that interferes with your ability to live and prosper, wouldnt you?? Look at the situations that could potentially have been avioded had there been stricker gun laws. Columbine comes to mind. Or how about Virginia Tech. Thousands of people die every year because of guns being so easy for anyone to get. You need to weigh the pros against the cons when determining which personal freedoms to allow. The thousands of livesthat would be saved every year by implimenting very stick gun control laws would be worth taking away peoples guns.

The idea that gay people cannot get married is discrimination plan and simple. By allowing the states to tell people that they cannot get married because of their sexuality IS taking away a personal freedom. It would be no different than states having the power to tell women they cant go to school.

We agree on the fact that the gov't is responsible for protecting people's personal freedoms we just disagree on exaclty what that means. I believe that in order to protect peoples freedoms, people must make some sacrifices. (such as giving up your gun).

I very strongly disagree with you on the issue of needing to be allowed to own guns in order to be free. These are very different times from when our country was first founded and you have to adapt to the times.

[matratzac]

bump. his last reply should be everyones favorite to PWN

[matratzac]

one last bump before going to work... someone blow this one out of the park

by the way isnt it true that the states in the USA with the loosest gun laws have the lowest amounts of violence?

[WATYF]

his latest reply:

Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms.
That's exactly the logic that Bush et al used to justify the Patriot Act/Iraq War/etc.

Like I said before... he thinks that he's right... well so do they. Him wanting to force his opinion of what's "right" on the whole nation is no different than them wanting to force their opinion of what's "right" on the whole nation.

WATYF

[phill4paul]

Tell him that he doesn't respect the need for Constitutional controls on government is only because his personal issues are endorsed by the Government.
The government without these controls can turn on the wind. See what they did after 9/11...Patriot Act,Military Commisions, pre-emptive strikes etc.
What if the winds changed over those issues that he is interested in. Suppose that the Christian Coalition gained power and outlawed abortion and gay marriage. How would he feel about the Constitution then?

[Xyrus2]

"Certain freedoms need to be taken away in order to ensure other peoples freedoms."

Congratulations! You're friend hsa been fully indoctrinated into the fascist mode of thinking! As a prize, he will get to enjoy the company of famous people such as Hitler and Mussolini!

This is why America is rotting. Once you start taking away freedoms, that opens the door for more freedoms to be taken away. Soon, in an effort to "keep the population safe", you'll have Muslim concentration camps, RFID chips implanted in your skull, and the "Ministry of Truth (aka Fox News)" completely controlling everything you see, hear, and think.

You're friend really needs to read up on history, where great leaders began stripping away freedoms in the name of safety, security, and prosperity.

You're friend doesn't get it, and he won't get it until jack-booted thugs drag him away. Just ask our Japanese-Americans what happened to them during WW2.

There is little hope for your friend. He seems to be perfectly content with our large and corrupt government. He's happy that the government is "protecting us". He's happy because "Hey, it doesn't affect me". Ignorance is bliss. Just keep giving him a live feed of MSM and he'll be as happy as a clam when the government installs cameras in house to make sure he isn't a dissenter.

Sure, that will never happen here right. I mean, we'd never let the government just invade our privacy or search our house without warrants. We'd never torture people or throw them in a cell without charges or trial would we. We'd never never slaughter thousands of innocent civilians or support brutal dictators or overthrow democratic governments. Because we are the United States and we stand for all that is good and great in the world.

Are we, as a population, really that ignorant? If that's the case, the Department of Education has done it's job well. :P

~X~

[Kade]

Regarding the constitution. Ron Paul has offered up amendments to the constitution, such as updating acts of piracy on the sea to include the air. The constitution is a living document, in a sense. When the constitution grows, it must only grow according to the mechanisms put in place to allow slow but progressive change. Ignoring the constitution and increasing the size of government through creative reinterpretation has led to cancerous growth.

In short, respecting the constitution doesn't mean being stuck in the 1700's. It means you realize that the constitution is the law of the land, and it limits the role of the federal government. If the government wishes to expand, it must work to amend the constitution. To allow the government to ignore it is allowing the government to have control over every aspect of our lives.

What a solid and valid assessment. You have come a long way. =)