A little help - trying to educate others about Dr. Paul

[islather]

So I live in New Zealand but ive been following the Revolution for about 4months now. I have Ron Paul T-Shirts lol. Anyway I just remembered I have relatives in America so I figured I would send them some links to Youtube and some information about the Dr and see how they were voting. Unfortunately these were the replies :/

Relative1: I am a registered Liberal!! Love Obama and Hillary.. If i had my way I would elect Hilary as president and Obama as Vice President.

Relative2: This bloke has about as much chance as you or I of being elected! Dont waste any time on him.

Relative3: Im a serious Democrat or at best a liberal..which ever way you cut it, I dont agree with the Republican party! Something about the whole religious, not seeing the climate change, lack of abortion understanding...you get the point. Thats just who i am!!

So I have some work to do.. but i hardly know them so I dunno if they will be interested in even debating with me since Im not even American but I wanna do something for the cause lol. Anyone have some good replies for me to send them?

[wgadget]

You could start out by telling them that RP's fellow Republicans hate him....and that he has been against going to the war in Iraq from the very start.

Here's a good video to prove it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

[islather]

Thanks for the reply.

At this stage I dont think they will watch it. I sent a few Youtube links (The Google one and some of Avaroths) with my initial emails to them.

[Proemio]

So I live in New Zealand but ive been following the Revolution...

Cool...

You could point out to those 'liberals' (gently, of course), that they obviously have no clue what they are talking about.

Liberal -> Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free;
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal

and

Liberalism -> a : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism

Ron Paul is their man - the rest don't come even close.

[sickmint79]

it is hard to teach people that you can't spend money like no tomorrow because they think the government grows money (and wealth) magically on trees.

[jj111]

Try the Liberal Voterguide

at

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/36/files/

[JMann]

You can tell them that carbon emissions under Clinton/Gore grew at a much faster rate then during the last seven years of W. In other words the Democrats talk about global warming while the Republicans act.

If you want lip talk and big government solutions that will probably cause the deaths of millions of people worldwide then support Hillary and Obama. If you want real action to be taken and protection of people's right to property then vote for Ron Paul.

[Elwar]

Easy response to all liberals...especially if they are anti-war.

If you want the war to end, vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. That way you will have an anti-war Democrat vs an anti-war Republican and the election can focus on domestic issues and we will be assured of an end to the war.

If they truly believe in an end to the war, a vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries is the best thing they can do.

[richard1984]

Cool...

You could point out to those 'liberals' (gently, of course), that they obviously have no clue what they are talking about.

Liberal -> Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free;
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal

and

Liberalism -> a : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism

Ron Paul is their man - the rest don't come even close.

That's something that has baffled me for a while now. A lot of my friends are "liberal," but when most people say they're "liberal" they really mean "socialist," or "I want welfare, free healthcare, etc." or "what about the poor people that need welfare, free healthcare, etc.?"

I'm pretty new to politics, so I don't have the rhetoric completely down (especially words like 'liberal'). But where/when did the word 'liberal' go from meaning how it is defined above--basically 'libertarian'--to 'socialist'?

Why the perversion? Was it one of those political tricks to draw in supporters by using rhetoric that people respond positively to, but then once in office the politician goes about achieving his/her "liberal" agenda by increasing the size and scope of government and the welfare state?
It sure seems like it....

This is a big questions for me, because--like I said--some of my very best friends are "liberal," but by 'liberal' they mean they support socialism, big government, and the welfare state. Honestly, I don't think they've thought their positions through very well, but they adhere to the rhetoric religiously--it's engrained dogma for them, and I haven't ever been able to have a real conversation about politics or Ron Paul because of it.
BTW, I am mainly describing just a couple of my friends here, and, to quote one of them, "The only candidate that I can support is Dennis Kucinich, but since he doesn't have a chance of winning I just don't care."
Of course, I respond, "yeah, I like Kucinich because he's actually anti-war, but I prefer Ron Paul because he's also against the Iraq war, the federal war on drugs, etc., but he also has the economics down and he understands the Constitution, the importance of Freedom, etc."
But my friend just shrugs it off.
Oh well...I've helped convert just about all of my other friends (a lot of people, with a lot of friends)! :D

[john_anderson_ii]

Here's something you could include in your conversation.

You can have open borders.
You can have a welfare state.
You can have an imperialistic foreign policy.

Pick one: Because picking more than one will bankrupt your economy eventually. Both parties have a history of promoting all three of these things no matter what lip service they pay them. Ron Paul has a history of standing up against them and saying thats exactly what he'll do.

Each of these things serve one purpose. To redistribute wealth, oftentimes the wealth is redistributed outside of our borders. Ask the democrats how long they think we can keep pumping up our economy with money made from magic and still maintain our standard of living.

If there's one thing I've learned about liberals. They are all for redistributing everyone's wealth until such a time as enough of their wealth has been redistributed that they can't buy the things they want to buy. At that time they have the audacity to blame the government for their financial problems.


Edit: Now that I think about it, you can have open borders and an imperialistic foreign policy without too much economic damage. But the blowback will be a bitch.

[Proemio]

That's something that has baffled me for a while now. A lot of my friends are "liberal," but when most people say they're "liberal" they really mean "socialist," or "I want welfare, free healthcare, etc." or "what about the poor people that need welfare, free healthcare, etc.?"

...

Yeah, you are absolutely right. I'm fully aware of the slang use of the words, but we shouldn't allow the snake-oil peddlers to remove all context from discourse (war is peace, etc.) - words have meaning.

Of course it's intentional. It's a reasonably successful attempt to make even everyday speech so totally confusing to the proles, that only members of selected 'elites' versed in the 'code' (handlers, never mind politicians, bureaucrats, etc.) have any understanding what the hell is really being talked about. The same reasoning is behind the creation of 'code' in medical, legal, science and other 'lofty' lingos. It's one of those 'cunning' tricks that only work if we let it.


The primary purpose for posting the correct definitions, is to illustrate their usefulness as a tactical device in political arm-twisting, when talking to the usually, hermetically closed mind of the average 'liberal' (a.k.a. unsuspecting tool for totalitarians).

If one can damage the protective shell of empty slogans and misconceptions - by destroying one of their basic premises ("I'm a Liberal") - one has an excellent chance to stick some real liberal ideas through the cracks. I other words, the target is on the defensive, and vulnerable to a taste of freedom. Perhaps, they'll even hear that Clinton and/or Obama will only bring more permanent war, unmanageable debt, and loss of the natural right to breathe without license...

[Corydoras]

Relative #2 is the one you have a chance with, because s/he didn't seem to express any opposition to Ron Paul's views.

Here's what I would tell him/her: An election is not a horserace. You don't win anything if you vote for someone who is less than your #1 choice. Vote for Ron Paul and if he doesn't win, your vote still will add to the influence he has in Washington so that he will be able to influence more of Congress to vote for liberty to restore your rights and end the war and lower taxes. But Ron Paul's numbers and contributions are rising anyway, whereas the other Republicans are stagnating, so he has a good chance. At this point in the campaign, nobody was predicting Bill Clinton would win, either, so now is the time to learn what Ron Paul stands for.

Then ask Relative #2 who else s/he was thinking of voting for and what s/he particularly likes about that candidate. That provides some traction for discussion

[islather]

OK, working on a reply for them now. Just got a reply from another too

Relative4: thanks for the email. it has provoked a response from us all!
i can see why you would think ron paul is a good guy, on the surface all
that seems good.
however, we must get the republicans out.
all politicians are politicians but this country, in fact, the world at
large, needs an administration with ..... well, the list is long. let's
suffice to say republicans are very good, no excellent, at hoodwinking the
public into thinking they care about the people, the only planet we have to
live on, and the myriad other causes that need addressing but they in fact
are a narrow minded, myopic, sneaky, heartless, gang of good ole guys and
gals who have successfully turned this country into one nation under the
corporation ...,etc.

as you by now may have noticed we are very ready for HILARY for president and OBAMA for vp and BIDEN
for secretary of state.

i guess you have to have lived with this digusting administration to
appreciate our
frustration and passion on this subject.





So, really it seems they all just dont like the republican party, an possibly feel different about the abortion thing. Hopefully I can get them to look past the party.

[Proemio]

as you by now may have noticed we are very ready for HILARY for president and OBAMA for vp and BIDEN
for secretary of state.

OhVey, that will change things. The "redeployment" those frauds talk about only guarantees perpetual war; it's just moving the pieces around (apologies to the military), not ending the disastrous suicide pact. Talk about hoodwinking the public.

The left/right dog and pony show is a ruse. The man behind the curtain is the same. People who after the betrayal of the 'democrats' haven't at least some inkling that "something is rotten in Denmark (DC)", are a hard nut to crack (toast?).

Perhaps some "tough love" is in order for this one - we haven't got all century.

You can truthfully tell them all, that Ron Paul is NOT a republican apparatchnik, as his brave record clearly shows. A freeman running for office in the U.S. has only one of two realistic choices, and it's not the "cradle to needle" crowd. He is a one man army, guardian of the Founding Fathers' most excellent wisdom - if that sort of stuff still has any meaning for these people.

Also, perhaps you can break through by reminding them of JFK (WTF, you say ; ). They almost surely revere the guy. At some point, he wanted to regain some control of the nations money; a month later he was dead, mainly because he was an elitist and didn't tell the people about what it meant (dumb). Ron Paul wants to do the same - only more so - and tells everyone wanting to listen, making it much more difficult for any 'lone gunman' to succeed. Ron Paul has guts the rest of the empty shells can't even imagine.

As long as the money is controlled by mostly alien entities (check who owns the Fed and conveniently most every other Central Banks), Americans have no choice but to die for these gangsters' global protection racket.

There - be gentle...:D