PDA

View Full Version : How do you respond to someone who thinks Ron should be a Presidential advisor....




LibertyEagle
09-26-2007, 01:57 PM
rather than the President? I just ran into someone like that today. She likes much of what he says, but for some reason thinks he would be a better advisor. :confused: I didn't have enough time to get into why she thinks that. She asked how much "pull" he had in getting Congress to go along with his ideas. I think she's concerned that he won't be able to get much changed, because he will be thwarted.

I reminded her about what happened when Reagan ran and how people started coming out of the woodwork to run for Congress under Reagan's mantle and how the same thing would happen with Paul. I also asked her what she thought was more important; someone who had a bad unconstitutional stance and was able to get others to buy-in or someone who had constitutional principles and had difficulty getting some of the bought off Congressman to do what was right. I mentioned being able to do away with Executive Orders, stop the spying on innocent Americans and to keep us from fighting wars of aggression.

I find my conversations with her fascinating, because you can tell she's very hungry for the truth. She asked me the names of good magazines, because she doesn't trust any of them anymore. The only one I could think of was the one that Buchanan started.

She also mentioned that she was concerned that if he stopped the warrantless surveillance, it somehow would stop all wiretapping of suspected terrorists. When I explained to her that this wouldn't happen. All they needed to do was to go to the FISA court after the fact, she seemed fine with that. We talked about why it was dangerous to allow the government to have no accountability in who they choose to surveil.

She was also concerned if we did away with Homeland Security, we would be more vulnerable. That, I'll try to see what she's thinking on my next visit.

Anyway, I thought I would tell you guys this, because I think this is what a lot of people are thinking. If we can just get the truth out, we can win them over.

Lord Xar
09-26-2007, 02:08 PM
To me that doesn't make sense...

Would someone want a millionaire to teach you how to make money, or some dimwit who is being advised by the millionare to teach you to make money?

Would you want to follow Sun Tzu into battle, or someone who has studied his teachings?

LibertyEagle
09-26-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm going to ask her more about what she's thinking, next time I see her. I can only imagine it's because of the whole "looking Presidential" thing. I think she sees him as more of a bookworm.

Bob Cochran
09-26-2007, 02:12 PM
She was also concerned if we did away with Homeland Security, we wouldn't be more vulnerable.
WOULD be more vulnerable, you mean?

I'm curious how anyone can take seriously the idea that the govt really wants to make us more secure, when our southern border is as porous as can be.

As to the question, how would I respond?

Well, I'd simply say, "I disagree, I think he should be the actual President. The question is, where do we find people smart enough to be HIS advisors?"

Bob Cochran
09-26-2007, 02:16 PM
I'm going to ask her more about what she's thinking, next time I see her. I can only imagine it's because of the whole "looking Presidential" thing. I think she sees him as more of a bookworm.
Let her know he was a competetive athlete in his youth.

From this article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_513029.html)

He "...excelled academically and athletically at Dormont High School...Paul lettered in track and was a National Honor Society member."

"He was a marvelous sprinter," said former teammate Paul Laughlin, 70, of Mt. Lebanon.


He doesn't have the Bush swagger, but Bush himself HAS the Bush swagger, yet he's a horrifically bad President.

LibertyEagle
09-26-2007, 02:16 PM
Yeah... typo. I was probably correcting it, when you were typing this. :)

Brian4Liberty
09-26-2007, 02:25 PM
rather than the President? I just ran into someone like that today. She likes much of what he says, but for some reason thinks he would be a better advisor.

I spoke with someone who had the same opinion: "Ron Paul would be a good adviser"...

I didn't have a good response at the time. One response is an "adviser" to whom? You have to have a good candidate to start with. A good adviser won't make a bad candidate good, or necessarily have any influence.

If you had a "modern perfect candidate" (who looks good on TV, is well spoken, an expert debater, never makes a mistake, etc.), who agreed with Ron Paul on most issues, then Ron Paul would make a great adviser. We don't have any candidates like that right now for Ron to"advise"...

(And Fred Thompson the actor already has puppet masters to "advise" him...)

LibertyEagle
09-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Good point. Thanks.

Chester Copperpot
09-26-2007, 03:01 PM
rather than the President? I just ran into someone like that today. She likes much of what he says, but for some reason thinks he would be a better advisor. :confused: I didn't have enough time to get into why she thinks that. She asked how much "pull" he had in getting Congress to go along with his ideas. I think she's concerned that he won't be able to get much changed, because he will be thwarted.

I reminded her about what happened when Reagan ran and how people started coming out of the woodwork to run for Congress under Reagan's mantle and how the same thing would happen with Paul. I also asked her what she thought was more important; someone who had a bad unconstitutional stance and was able to get others to buy-in or someone who had constitutional principles and had difficulty getting some of the bought off Congressman to do what was right. I mentioned being able to do away with Executive Orders, stop the spying on innocent Americans and to keep us from fighting wars of aggression.

I find my conversations with her fascinating, because you can tell she's very hungry for the truth. She asked me the names of good magazines, because she doesn't trust any of them anymore. The only one I could think of was the one that Buchanan started.

She also mentioned that she was concerned that if he stopped the warrantless surveillance, it somehow would stop all wiretapping of suspected terrorists. When I explained to her that this wouldn't happen. All they needed to do was to go to the FISA court after the fact, she seemed fine with that. We talked about why it was dangerous to allow the government to have no accountability in who they choose to surveil.

She was also concerned if we did away with Homeland Security, we would be more vulnerable. That, I'll try to see what she's thinking on my next visit.

Anyway, I thought I would tell you guys this, because I think this is what a lot of people are thinking. If we can just get the truth out, we can win them over.


Tell them that Ron Paul doesnt major in minor things

constituent
09-26-2007, 03:04 PM
How do I respond? Laugh hysterically. "Advisors are the problem," is what I'd probably say after that. "Ron Paul is about solutions."

clearly you're speaking w/ an individual who is unfortunately a slave to slogans.

john_anderson_ii
09-26-2007, 03:10 PM
She was also concerned if we did away with Homeland Security, we would be more vulnerable. That, I'll try to see what she's thinking on my next visit.


This is an easy argument to win if you are talking with a thinker.

Ask her to riddle you this: At Virginia Tech Cho broke at least 4 gun laws during the massacre, but that didn't stop him. What if it were 5 laws, 10 laws? During 9/11 the terrorists thwarted the 3 federal departments (CIA, FBI, FAA). What if it were 4 departments? 8 departments?


What if there were no gun laws, and no departments? Would the owner of a multi-million dollar airplane and unimaginable liability to passengers take reasonable steps to protect his assets from harm or litigation?

If they stop to think, they agree.

Taco John
09-26-2007, 03:11 PM
Just laugh incredulously and ask "to who? hahaha!"

reduen
09-26-2007, 03:12 PM
To the Topic:

I tell them that they are absolutely right, but only after he has had two terms of Presidency himself... :)

superlou
09-26-2007, 03:13 PM
Share this with them:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1422450220070926?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Based on this Pentagon request, next year the war will cost Americans $633 per person.

Ron Paul will get us out of Iraq.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-26-2007, 03:42 PM
rather than the President? I just ran into someone like that today. She likes much of what he says, but for some reason thinks he would be a better advisor. :confused: I didn't have enough time to get into why she thinks that. She asked how much "pull" he had in getting Congress to go along with his ideas. I think she's concerned that he won't be able to get much changed, because he will be thwarted.

I reminded her about what happened when Reagan ran and how people started coming out of the woodwork to run for Congress under Reagan's mantle and how the same thing would happen with Paul. I also asked her what she thought was more important; someone who had a bad unconstitutional stance and was able to get others to buy-in or someone who had constitutional principles and had difficulty getting some of the bought off Congressman to do what was right. I mentioned being able to do away with Executive Orders, stop the spying on innocent Americans and to keep us from fighting wars of aggression.

I find my conversations with her fascinating, because you can tell she's very hungry for the truth. She asked me the names of good magazines, because she doesn't trust any of them anymore. The only one I could think of was the one that Buchanan started.

She also mentioned that she was concerned that if he stopped the warrantless surveillance, it somehow would stop all wiretapping of suspected terrorists. When I explained to her that this wouldn't happen. All they needed to do was to go to the FISA court after the fact, she seemed fine with that. We talked about why it was dangerous to allow the government to have no accountability in who they choose to surveil.

She was also concerned if we did away with Homeland Security, we would be more vulnerable. That, I'll try to see what she's thinking on my next visit.

Anyway, I thought I would tell you guys this, because I think this is what a lot of people are thinking. If we can just get the truth out, we can win them over.

I say..shut up, asshole :p

erowe1
09-26-2007, 04:41 PM
You reply to someone who says that with the question, "OK, then. Who do you think should be president?"
And take it from there.

Elwar
09-26-2007, 04:59 PM
If he'd do so well as an adviser...just imagine how great he'd be if he were president!?