PDA

View Full Version : RP discussion with my sister.




FunkBuddha
09-07-2007, 12:50 PM
I just can't concede to the fact that I can't convert everyone! I guess I'll leave her alone if she'll vote for Kucinich.


12:36 PM Lee: just reading over ron paul's voting record. pretty sure i can't vote for him. sorry....
12:37 PM me: can you give me a instance? and where are you reading the record?
Lee: there are some things i like about him but...
a) didn't realize how pro-life he was b)he's given an 'A' from the NRA. fine if you believe that way, but i don't
12:38 PM hold on, there's more
me: hwhile he IS strongly pro-life he thinks it should be left to the states per the Constitution.
12:40 PM Lee: i think that's one issue that should not be fooled with anymore because it is the way it should be. i think it should stay legal across the country. period.
me: Strongly 2nd amendment.... look up what has happened in the majority of countries once guns are removed from private citizens... like uganda, germany, guatemala, etc...
Lee: and he voted 'no' on the amber alert? wth?
me: he's 2nd amendment so that people can defend themselves form a tyrannical government.
it's unconstitutional.
Lee: yeh, england has turned out real bad because of their lack of guns
12:41 PM me: yeah, they're trying to ban kitchen knives now.
Lee: i'm not saying to ban guns totally
but i do agree with some limits
me: seriously... knives over 3 inches i believe.
12:42 PM what people don't get is that those powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal goverment are denied to the federal government.
and left to the states.
12:43 PM Lee: yeh, but i would prefer a middle ground
me: then there should be a constitutional amendment granting that power...
otherwise it's illegal. he took an oath to uphold the constitution and he takes that seriously. i think thats commendable.
12:44 PM Lee: AND finally, he's voting record shows low environmental support
that's another issue i have
me: and yet, his policies would do more for the environment than any one leses ideas.
Lee: i'm not saying it's not commendable, doesn't mean i have to agree with him
like what?
12:45 PM me: ending oil subsidies, appointing judges that would support an individuals private properrty.
12:46 PM ending regulations that prevent smaller businesses from competing with large corporations.
Lee: i'm not getting the apointing judges thing...
12:47 PM me: if judges supported indivuals private property rights then citizens would have more recouse against companies that pollute... as it stands now, we have little.
see, corporations love regulation, in fact they lobby for it. it prevents competition by making harder for the little guy to get entry into the market.
12:48 PM that's the reason things like health care are unaffordable.
Lee: i'm still not convinced...he also voted against a raise in minimum wage...
12:49 PM me: again, not the job of the federal government.
unconstitutional.
he's consistent...
Lee: how is raising minimun wage unconstitutional?
me: bbut he is against things that really hurt poor people like the income tax and the inflation caused by our federal reserve system./
12:50 PM regulating wages isn't in the constitution.
Lee: but it's not 'not' in the constitution either
if that makes sense
me: actually regulating anything other than interstate commerce is unconstitutional.
12:51 PM those powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal goverment are denied to the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Lee: if minimum wage were left up to the states, i have a feeling the poverty level of this country would rise
but i guess that's just my opinion
12:52 PM me: why is that?
Lee: because i think there are many states that would never raise it
me: i think it would be better.... competition between states competing over labor?
people would leave the state and they would lose revenue.
tax revenue.
Lee: um, yeh, okay, so people that are already poverty stricken can afford to move?
12:53 PM me: we've done it for centuries.
Lee: hell, i can hardly afford to move
great idea on paper, but i don't think it's reality
me: people have moved from one end of the country to the other.
why?
did you see the link?
12:54 PM Lee: not yet, still reading over his voting record on things
12:55 PM people have moved, but more people have stayed where they are and lived in poverty because they don't know how to get out
me: you really need to read your constitution to gain insight as to why he votes the way he does...
Lee: survival of the fittest i guess
maybe so, but there are social issues there that i don't agree with him on, therefore won't vote for him
me: i say go after the things that keep people poor like inflation and taxes.
12:56 PM then you can worry about minimum wage if its still a problem.
12:57 PM Lee: i agree with the first part...much easier said than done
12:58 PM anyhow, i see his appeal and can see why people would vote for him, he's just not the candidate for me
me: go with kucinich then, ate least he's not a crook like the rest of them (repubs and democarats)
Lee: i do like him...
1:00 PM me: we have to start voting for honest people if we want to turn this ship around.
Lee: i don't think i'm going to make my final decision between him and obama until it gets a little closer though
me: i can't believe so many people are on the obama train when he's funded by AIPAC.
http://www.stopaipac.org/
brb
8 minutes
1:09 PM me: kucinish needs money though... if you like him, send him a check.
1:14 PM Lee: i still don't know where i stand on the israel/palestine issue. i guess i lean towards the side of palestine, but really have confess not knowing enough of the details...
1:15 PM me: i think we should just stay out of it.
Lee: you're probably right
1:16 PM me: unfortunately the zionists control our politicians so that won't happen unless we run them out.
Lee: which probably won't happen in our lifetime
1:18 PM me: unless we stop voting for AIPAC candidates.
we're screwed if people think we can't change anything.
1:19 PM Lee: it looks as though obama at least has some record of standing up against them. don't know if that really means anything though
me: http://www.stopaipac.org/prescandidates.htm
5 minutes
1:25 PM Lee: alright, i've bookmarked it. have to get ready to head to athens

AlexAmore
09-07-2007, 12:55 PM
My eyes are bleeding. It's hard to read that.

FunkBuddha
09-07-2007, 12:59 PM
12:36 PM Lee: just reading over ron paul's voting record. pretty sure i can't vote for him. sorry....

12:37 PM me: can you give me a instance? and where are you reading the record?

Lee: there are some things i like about him but...
a) didn't realize how pro-life he was b)he's given an 'A' from the NRA. fine if you believe that way, but i don't

12:38 PM hold on, there's more

me: hwhile he IS strongly pro-life he thinks it should be left to the states per the Constitution.

12:40 PM Lee: i think that's one issue that should not be fooled with anymore because it is the way it should be. i think it should stay legal across the country. period.

me: Strongly 2nd amendment.... look up what has happened in the majority of countries once guns are removed from private citizens... like uganda, germany, guatemala, etc...

Lee: and he voted 'no' on the amber alert? wth?

me: he's 2nd amendment so that people can defend themselves form a tyrannical government.
it's unconstitutional.

Lee: yeh, england has turned out real bad because of their lack of guns

12:41 PM me: yeah, they're trying to ban kitchen knives now.

Lee: i'm not saying to ban guns totally
but i do agree with some limits

me: seriously... knives over 3 inches i believe.

12:42 PM what people don't get is that those powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal goverment are denied to the federal government.
and left to the states.

12:43 PM Lee: yeh, but i would prefer a middle ground
me: then there should be a constitutional amendment granting that power...
otherwise it's illegal. he took an oath to uphold the constitution and he takes that seriously. i think thats commendable.

12:44 PM Lee: AND finally, he's voting record shows low environmental support
that's another issue i have

me: and yet, his policies would do more for the environment than any one leses ideas.

Lee: i'm not saying it's not commendable, doesn't mean i have to agree with him
like what?

12:45 PM me: ending oil subsidies, appointing judges that would support an individuals private properrty.
12:46 PM ending regulations that prevent smaller businesses from competing with large corporations.

Lee: i'm not getting the apointing judges thing...
12:47 PM me: if judges supported indivuals private property rights then citizens would have more recouse against companies that pollute... as it stands now, we have little.
see, corporations love regulation, in fact they lobby for it. it prevents competition by making harder for the little guy to get entry into the market.

12:48 PM that's the reason things like health care are unaffordable.

Lee: i'm still not convinced...he also voted against a raise in minimum wage...

12:49 PM me: again, not the job of the federal government.
unconstitutional.
he's consistent...

Lee: how is raising minimun wage unconstitutional?

me: bbut he is against things that really hurt poor people like the income tax and the inflation caused by our federal reserve system./

12:50 PM regulating wages isn't in the constitution.

Lee: but it's not 'not' in the constitution either
if that makes sense

me: actually regulating anything other than interstate commerce is unconstitutional.

12:51 PM those powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal goverment are denied to the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Lee: if minimum wage were left up to the states, i have a feeling the poverty level of this country would rise
but i guess that's just my opinion

12:52 PM me: why is that?

Lee: because i think there are many states that would never raise it

me: i think it would be better.... competition between states competing over labor?
people would leave the state and they would lose revenue.
tax revenue.

Lee: um, yeh, okay, so people that are already poverty stricken can afford to move?

12:53 PM me: we've done it for centuries.

Lee: hell, i can hardly afford to move
great idea on paper, but i don't think it's reality

me: people have moved from one end of the country to the other.
why?
did you see the link?

12:54 PM Lee: not yet, still reading over his voting record on things
12:55 PM people have moved, but more people have stayed where they are and lived in poverty because they don't know how to get out

me: you really need to read your constitution to gain insight as to why he votes the way he does...

Lee: survival of the fittest i guess
maybe so, but there are social issues there that i don't agree with him on, therefore won't vote for him

me: i say go after the things that keep people poor like inflation and taxes.
12:56 PM then you can worry about minimum wage if its still a problem.

12:57 PM Lee: i agree with the first part...much easier said than done
12:58 PM anyhow, i see his appeal and can see why people would vote for him, he's just not the candidate for me

me: go with kucinich then, ate least he's not a crook like the rest of them (repubs and democarats)

Lee: i do like him...

1:00 PM me: we have to start voting for honest people if we want to turn this ship around.

Lee: i don't think i'm going to make my final decision between him and obama until it gets a little closer though

me: i can't believe so many people are on the obama train when he's funded by AIPAC.
http://www.stopaipac.org/
brb
8 minutes
1:09 PM me: kucinish needs money though... if you like him, send him a check.

1:14 PM Lee: i still don't know where i stand on the israel/palestine issue. i guess i lean towards the side of palestine, but really have confess not knowing enough of the details...

1:15 PM me: i think we should just stay out of it.

Lee: you're probably right

1:16 PM me: unfortunately the zionists control our politicians so that won't happen unless we run them out.

Lee: which probably won't happen in our lifetime

1:18 PM me: unless we stop voting for AIPAC candidates.
we're screwed if people think we can't change anything.

1:19 PM Lee: it looks as though obama at least has some record of standing up against them. don't know if that really means anything though

me: http://www.stopaipac.org/prescandidates.htm
5 minutes
1:25 PM Lee: alright, i've bookmarked it. have to get ready to head to athens

micahnelson
09-07-2007, 01:01 PM
Well, your sister is a statist. She believes to some degree that the government working on everyone's behalf can do a better job of improving her life than a person could do on their own.

The only way to point out why statism fails is to point out where it is tried.

shadowhooch
09-07-2007, 01:02 PM
Thanks for the exchange. That kind of exchange is very common.

I think where you might be "failing" to turn her is that you are trying to get her on board with ALL of Ron Paul's stances. Very few people agree with ANY candidate 100%.

Focus instead on Ron Paul's big issues: War, Foreign Policy, Taxes, and Spending.

Tie those into the principles on which this country was founded in the first place. The USA has become what we rebelled against in 1776 - a far reaching and meddling empire with high taxes.

Also, a good tactic is to see what she does like about Obama and Kucinich and see if Ron Paul has an even stronger stance on those issues. Address how RP is better on the things she DOES care about the most.

Good Luck!

ARealConservative
09-07-2007, 01:06 PM
Would your sister be willing to attack a foreign country - say Mexico - and force them to legalize abortion?

When she says no - ask why she is willing to use force to make states recognize legal abortion. If people from Mexico can decide this issue without our influence, why can't people from Alabama?

Of course if she says yes - she is insane and you have no chance anyway.

angelatc
09-07-2007, 01:13 PM
My point on abortion rights is that RvW is on the way out anyway. The court is too conservative now to uphold it. Just give them a reason, and we're back to state's rights.

And that can happen because Democrats weren't organized to actually amend the Constitution to achieve their goal.

Instead they chose to "interpret" it.

jblosser
09-07-2007, 01:18 PM
Ron Paul's position does not require that you agree with him on anything other than the rule of law. If people don't like what the law is, they should change the law, not ignore it. If you ignore the law it only works when your guy (or gal) is the one getting away with ignoring it. Then you get someone else (Bush) and the jaws slam shut.

Find another candidate who will at least agree to abide by the law and change the law if they want to do something different, and they'll have my respect, if not my vote.

FunkBuddha
09-07-2007, 01:54 PM
A co-worker of mine just brought up another excellent pro-choice argument.

If being pro-choice means you support a woman's right to choose, then you should support a woman's right to choose her health care provider, her health insurance, whether or not to participate in welfare programs, etc...

It twists the modern liberal position into the classic liberal position.

Spike
09-07-2007, 02:06 PM
I used to think like your sister. But that was before I finally got it.

Remind your sister that the abortion issue was forwarded but people like Margaret Sanger in the early part of the 20th century, and the main reason why she supported is because she wanted lower classes, blacks, mental patients, and other vulnerable people to stop populating.

FunkBuddha
09-07-2007, 02:58 PM
here's the email i sent my sister. Thanks for all of the suggestions.

I know I won't change your mind, but here's something to think about. Read up on classic liberalism and thinkers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. People that claim to be liberals today are not liberal at all they are actually statists/socialist more in tune with Jean-Jacques Rousseau.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke


Here is where the modern liberal stance on abortion being a federal
issue fails. If a woman should have the right to choose whether or not
to have an abortion then she should also have the right to choose
health care and whether or not to pay into programs like Social
Security and Welfare or how to educate her children.

So, if you support a candidate that wants Universal Health Care,
Welfare, Social Security, Drug Laws, you're supporting a candidate
that is not Pro-Choice. But if you want a candidate that is REALLY pro-choice, even Ron Paul won't do. You'll need to look to the Libertarian Party.

Another point is that Roe v. Wade will most likely be overturned
before another Supreme Court Justice is chosen. There is case in South
Dakota that looks like it will go to the Supreme Court. If this was
the case, would pro-choicers accept the State's right to decide
whether or not it's legal?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html

The activist judges in that case became legislators. Now tax-payer dollars are used to fund a procedure that many tax-payers find morally reprehensible.

Your statement that abortion is "the way it should be" is theoretical
for lack of a better word. I'm sure pro-lifers don't feel that way.
Personally, I'm kinda on the fence about abortion. I lean pro-life,
but I can see both sides of the argument. I think Ron Paul's Classical
Liberal/Constitutional position is correct though. Social issues
should not be federal issues because they are too divisive.

A little history lesson, and I'm not implying that modern pro-choicer's feel way, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a firm believer in negative eugenics. Her push for pro-choice laws wasn't fueled by compassion but by racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2DVFC_enUS224US224&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define:+liberty&spell=1

Trance Dance Master
09-08-2007, 02:13 AM
It's likely you're explaining a position to her that she's never heard before. You've planted the seed. Help it grow. Keep up the good work.

WannaBfree
09-08-2007, 10:49 AM
Ending wars should be a top priority to anyone with concerns for the environment. The depleted uranium (DU) in the bombs we drop is very damaging to both the environment and all living things. It has a half life of 4.5 billion years (!). Using it around a gulf, or anywhere else, is a very bad idea.

A POST-WAR DISASTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/

Depleted Uranium Haunts Kosovo and Iraq
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20061105&articleId=3715

Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons Threatens Environment in Kosovo Region
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/uranium-threatens.html

McDermit
09-08-2007, 11:44 AM
I have conversations like this with my mom's boyfriend at least three times a week. He's a huge Obama supporter. Won't give a single reason, aside form education, and basically accepts that the country is doomed and no one can change it. But he loves to get in digs about RP every chance he has. It's a never ending battle. The worst is when he puts RP down for having grassroots support. "You don't see people making homemade signs for Obama. That's my man!" ...like the fact that no one is EXCITED about an Obama presidency is a positive thing. Ugh!

He did let me put RP yard signs in front of his home and business last night though... with the stipulation that they have to come down on Monday. (Huge festival in town this weekend. About 70,000 people will walk past his house, and his business is along the parade route.) He's humoring me. But as long as people see the signs, it's all good.

des00s
09-08-2007, 05:26 PM
So your sister found one thing about RP that she dislikes, his stance on abortion. Good luck finding a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue. Sounds to me like your sister is an idiot.

bbachtung
09-08-2007, 05:37 PM
Your sister should realize that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then the federal government will have the "all clear" signal to pass a federal criminal law banning abortion. Would she rather have Ron Paul's principled, constitutional administration that would keep the federal government out of it, leaving abortion legal in most states, or would she prefer to try to have it all and end up with a federal ban?

Depending on where she lives, ask her whether she trusts her state's governor or President Bush with her "right to choose"?

Last, point out that Ron Paul has consistently voted against things like federally criminalizing transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion because Congress has no authority over the issue of abortion.

SeanEdwards
09-08-2007, 07:52 PM
Tell your sister that Roe V. Wade is one supreme court justice away from being overturned. If she really wants to defend abortion rights, then she should support doing it in a Constitutional way, by letting the states rule on the matter.

Liberal reliance on the Supreme court to protect their agenda is a terribly flawed strategy. The abortion supporters probably have voting majorities in most states, and certainly nationwide. They'd be much smarter to fight in the arena where they can muster real numbers instead of relying on the unconstitutional rulings of 5 justices.

dwdollar
09-08-2007, 10:11 PM
Forgive me, but your sister is way out there in left field. You have to feed it to her slowly. Remember, baby steps.