How do you respond to guys like this??

[RestoreTheRepublic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wCkta8Tu4M&mode=related&search=

I'm sure people have mentioned possible responses to people who reason like this, but I'm relatively new to this forum. What is the best way to go about talking to people who support this viewpoint?

By the way I think some of the points this man makes are stupid, like saying Ron Paul is a homophobe and what not.

[DeadheadForPaul]

People like that are hopeless. Not everyone appreciates logic and freedom

[MadEmperor]

I just finished watching his videos, and some counter videos of his. I think he brings up some good points, and it's important to have a response to them.

I do suggest you watch this video which is a response to his videos on Ron Paul. This gives some understanding of where he may be mislead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBHHfcJaYRo

[ShaneC]

well, at least he said RP is a "front-runner" :)

[Kuldebar]

You wait for people like that to walk over the hidden trap door, then hit the red button...swoosh, flushed away!

Bah, people really are a pain in the ass, there should be a law!

[RPatTheBeach]

I would respond by saying "Ron Paul is not a liberal."

This mentality of "everyone is out to get me" and "i need government to protect me". Give me a break.

[lintsniffer]

His reasons for not liking Ron Paul are just assumptions based on what a possible motive of Ron Paul is. "Ron Paul is against the federal government defining marriage so states can discriminate against gays." I'd love to hear this guy's proof of Ron Paul's 'hidden motives'. Also, it's funny that this gay person thinks of someone who doesn't want the federal government to deal with marriage worse than someone who is against it.

[Cowlesy]

Ah! They're starting to fighting us! Bring it on!!! :)

[nullvalu]

Yep.. and his reasons for not liking libertarians is because they're all white hetersexual males.. wow, stereotypes from a liberal.. huh.. let me make one of my own, i didn't see him wearing a tube top or speaking with a lisp..

[dircha]

Don't waste your time on people like this, honestly. It only feeds their egos.

I see he titled his entry "Ron Paul - Wolf in sheep's clothing". All I have to say to that is cast not your pearls before swine.

Claim 1: Ron Paul would discriminate against gays and lesbians.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate your personal sexual behavior, nor to treat you unequally because of it. Ron Paul believes it is not the role of the government to tell you how to lead your life.

Claim 2: Ron Paul is anti-abortion and wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
Ron Paul couldn't have been more clear in his Ames speech. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Just as the federal government restricts your choice to take the life of your young child or of your neighbor, government must similarly restrict the choice to take an unborn human life. We can not protect liberty if we do not protect life.

If you are interested in anti-abortion arguments, we can go there. I personally am not convinced that conception is the point from which life must be protected, but I believe there is a point pre-birth. And you know what? Liberals don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court agrees with that statement; it's right in the language of Roe. The state, it finds, has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of late term unborn children, and permits the states to make laws restricting and proscribing them. Tell them to go read it. I can guarantee you most of them have not. Liberals are no more educated or less reactionary by and large than conservatives, though they like to think so.

Claim 3: Ron Paul is an isolationist who will return us to pre-1950s foreign policy.
That by isolationist this self-styled liberal considers returning to a foreign policy where we do not wage war like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, a thing to be condemned, tells me that he hasn't given his position very much thought. Need I same more?

Instead of carpet bombing a country like Vietnam, Ron Paul's position is that we should talk and trade with them in good faith, and set an example by our values and by our success that will be the envy of the rest of the world, as it once was. And this is precisely what has worked.

It is our welfare state and our massive entitlement programs themselves that isolate us from the rest of the world. The reason that we can not allow the free flow of people across our borders is that by allowing them in we enter them into our federal entitlement programs, stealing from hard working citizens to support them, while disincentivizing immigrants to work hard and to support themselves.

If it were not for our welfare state, people from any country in the world, from Mexico to Sudan, would be able to come to this country and establish new lives for themselves and their families.

[libertarianguy]

test

[AnotherAmerican]

I live near Berkeley. Welcome to my world. *sigh*


His reasons for not liking Ron Paul are just assumptions based on what a possible motive of Ron Paul is. "Ron Paul is against the federal government defining marriage so states can discriminate against gays."

As the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment vote showed, he's also against the Feds riding in to our state and telling us we have to discriminate. Give them the power to do "good," and they can also use it to do "bad." Better to leave them out of it entirely, which is exactly Ron Paul's "motive."



Also, it's funny that this gay person thinks of someone who doesn't want the federal government to deal with marriage worse than someone who is against it.


Actually, I don't think he's gay, because he talks about gay people in the third-person (or were you referring to yourself?). Sounded to me more like a desperation. Yeah guy, after all these years of Bush/Cheney, even Berkeleyites are having second thoughts about giving the Feds even MORE power. That's not gay-bashing, that's rationality.

[max]

1. "He's an isolationist"..darfur etc. - No, he's a free trader. He just doesnt believe in sending Americans to die policing world and bankrupting our country. If you want to pick up a gun and go fight in Darfur, be my guest. But what gives you the right to send my kid to die, and to take money out of my wallet, to support your cause? Here's my $20 donation...Get Angelina Jolie to give you a million bucks. You and your bleeding heart buddies can form a brigade and go to Darfur.

2. Homosexual marriage. So, you're OK with seeing America go bankrupt. You're OK with corruption in government. Your OK with this senseless bloodbath in Iraq (and soon Iran). But let's note vote for Ron Paul because the states won't allow you to "marry." Ron Paul doesnt care what you do in your bedroom. Why do you feel you have to compel the rest of us to recognize "your marriage." Just live together and do what you wanna do. As long as you and your significant other recognize your "marriage", what difference does it make if the state does. Such a petty issue in light of everything else that is wrong today.

3. Abortion. Use birth control. Be responsible and Roe v wade won't matter. Agan, lets go bankrupt, lets give up our liberty and see America ruined just because Ron Paul is pro-life. Besides, the state of california would never ban abortions anyway

It probably wont work with this half a ***, but thats how you answer.

[RestoreTheRepublic]

Yea after thinking about it I'm in agreement that people like this are not even worth the hassle. He seems to be in complete reliance on the federal government to provide for him, and those people most of the time can not be converted. How anyone can depend on the federal government for anything is beyond me, time and time again they prove to be inefficient and incompetent. Oh well, it's time for a Ron Paul Revolution!

[MadEmperor]

1. "He's an isolationist"..darfur etc. - No, he's a free trader. He just doesnt believe in sending Americans to die policing world and bankrupting our country. If you want to pick up a gun and go fight in Darfur, be my guest. But what gives you the right to send my kid to die, and to take money out of my wallet, to support your cause? Here's my $20 donation...Get Angelina Jolie to give you a million bucks. You and your bleeding heart buddies can form a brigade and go to Darfur.

2. Homosexual marriage. So, you're OK with seeing America go bankrupt. You're OK with corruption in government. Your OK with this senseless bloodbath in Iraq (and soon Iran). But let's note vote for Ron Paul because the states won't allow you to "marry." Ron Paul doesnt care what you do in your bedroom. Why do you feel you have to compel the rest of us to recognize "your marriage." Just live together and do what you wanna do. As long as you and your significant other recognize your "marriage", what difference does it make if the state does. Such a petty issue in light of everything else that is wrong today.

3. Abortion. Use birth control. Be responsible and Roe v wade won't matter. Agan, lets go bankrupt, lets give up our liberty and see America ruined just because Ron Paul is pro-life. Besides, the state of california would never ban abortions anyway

It probably wont work with this half a ***, but thats how you answer.

I don't like your retort.

#2. You should take some of Ron Paul's advice and look at it from their viewpoint. They aren't just going for social recognition, they want the same legal rights as a married couple. If my spouce is killed by a big snow plow tomorrow, I can sue for wrongful death. While a non-married person has no recourse. There are many many other benifits that the married receive.
--Better response is that he might lay some groundwork for the states to put in place a *NonReligious* marrage, that gives them the same legal rights.

#3. The first part is just insulting, you are saying if you just use protection you will never need to worry about it.. I've known many people that used condoms, the pill, and the shot and still got pregnant. The problem is that there is still a failure rate.
--Just say that he plans on moving that decision to the local state government.

I hope everyone educates themselvees before falling into the same trap that many of the "neocons" fall into.

[cjhowe]

The correct way to answer people who doubt Congressman Paul's sincerity on leaving these things to the state need to be reminded that RP already has a voice in Washington, you do not. Your voice can be heard in your state and in your counties. To this point, it does not matter what RP's personal beliefs are, because your voice can be heard right alongside his in shaping your local policy.

[ZandarKoad]

Right, as far as the abortion issue... He is 100% pro life, but he would NEVER "LEGISLTATE" AS SUCH FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. He cannot! He's bound by the constitution. In fact, there shouldn't even be FEDERAL MURDER LAWS. Those powers are given to the STATES! He sure as hell would remove the Federal restrictions on the states that are preventing them from holding murderers for their crimes (abortionists).

I've seen pro-lifers call him pro-choice.
I've seen pro-choicers call him pro-life.

Both are idiots.

[dircha]

I don't like your retort.
#3. The first part is just insulting, you are saying if you just use protection you will never need to worry about it.. I've known many people that used condoms, the pill, and the shot and still got pregnant. The problem is that there is still a failure rate.
--Just say that he plans on moving that decision to the local state government.

I hope everyone educates themselvees before falling into the same trap that many of the "neocons" fall into.

I believe you are trying to cover up Paul's views. He stated in almost exactly these terms in his Ames speech: 1) We can not protect liberty unless we protect life, 2) Life begins at conception, 3) We should have maximum individual choice but not for abortion because that is a matter of life.

The anti-abortion position in various degrees is a strongly defensible position held by vast segments of the American people. There is no reason to be ashamed of Paul's positions.

If you disagree, that is fine, but I do not believe it is right to try to coverup the candidates views to try to trick someone into supporting him.

[amonasro]

"It only takes a wikipedia search"

Apparently he didn't search enough. Sounds like he spend 5 minutes "researching" and made up his mind.

[dircha]

I've seen pro-lifers call him pro-choice.
I've seen pro-choicers call him pro-life.

Both are idiots.

The only "idiot", if that is the vocabulary we are using, is the one implying P & ~P.

[quickmike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wCkta8Tu4M&mode=related&search=

I'm sure people have mentioned possible responses to people who reason like this, but I'm relatively new to this forum. What is the best way to go about talking to people who support this viewpoint?

By the way I think some of the points this man makes are stupid, like saying Ron Paul is a homophobe and what not.

You dont. People like this contradict themselves 10 times in a paragraph. They dont even know what they believe in. Forget about it. You would have better luck trying to convince a 5 yr old that santa claus wasnt real.