View Full Version : How to convince Obama supporter to Switch?
njjack
09-27-2007, 09:07 AM
This is an important question as I've found many young people
are torn between Obama and Paul, does anyone have any tips
to swaying a Obama supporter to switch sides? Aside from
that Obama is somewhat involved with the CFR?
This is going to become more and more important as the
campaign goes on.
Trying to find a reason that a young person that knows nothing
about the issues but have decided to support Obama would decide
to check out Ron Paul.
Anyone?
FrankRep
09-27-2007, 09:08 AM
Why do they support Obama? That will give us direction.
10thAmendmentMan
09-27-2007, 09:10 AM
If they're a one-issue anti-Iraq voter, just explain Paul's stance versus his.
If they like entitlements, etc. there's not really any way other than by forcing them to read a copy of The Road to Serfdom by Hayek which explains why even well-meaning social programs aren't usually all that good.
constituent
09-27-2007, 09:11 AM
Why do they support Obama? That will give us direction.
a combination of collective guilt and their yuppie dipshit parents who think
this is their second shot at a John F. Kennedy.
wanna convince them? ask what his position is on a war with Iran...
ask him why it is, if he is opposed to the war in Iraq, he has not filibustered....
why did he not filibuster this recent Bomb Iran bill???
are those lives not important enough? not worth his time/effort?
:confused: :confused:
nullvalu
09-27-2007, 09:12 AM
Why do they support Obama? That will give us direction.
Very good question, I've found once you ask an Obama supporter why they support him, they have no real answer -- and especially around Chicago, they just like his "local appeal" (i've heard that!).. Boy, what a great reason!
Highmesa
09-27-2007, 09:15 AM
One, just last night he said he will keep troops in Iraq for the next four years if that's what it takes.
Two, if they are young, as them if they realize how much money they owe to the federal government to pay for the debts already incurred. Between the $9 Trillion debt and the $40-50 trillion promised to future recipients, they alredy owe about $175,000 each. And that's without state sponsored healthcare. Obama will not deal with this problem. Only Dr. Paul will.
born2drv
09-27-2007, 09:15 AM
This is an important question as I've found many young people
are torn between Obama and Paul, does anyone have any tips
to swaying a Obama supporter to switch sides? Aside from
that Obama is somewhat involved with the CFR?
This is going to become more and more important as the
campaign goes on.
Trying to find a reason that a young person that knows nothing
about the issues but have decided to support Obama would decide
to check out Ron Paul.
Anyone?
Obama is a socialist... he wants universal healthcare, he wants to continue with social security, he wants to EXPAND more and more entitlements..... he also doesn't want to pull out immediately from Iraq, or our troops all over the world for that matter.
Ron Paul wants to end the entitlement era.... let young people opt out of social security, radically reduce spending.... completely eliminate income tax, the IRS, restore our liberties and freedoms. End the so-called "war on terror" which was really just an exercise on propagating our dependence on oil and trying to strengthen our dollar (which has backfired along with this failed war). Ron Paul wants to end all entitlments to illegals, period. He even wants to amend the constitition so we don't have any more "anchor babies"... get rid of birthright citizenship.
Basically Ron Paul wants to completely scrap our entitlement programs, and empower our youth. Ron Paul wants to completely scrap our foreign policy and invest in the prosperity of Americans instead of an ancient foreign policy which requires us meddling in the affairs of the middle east in order to secure cheap sources of oil. Ron Paul is looking at the big picture for the future of our children.... everyone else just wants to come up with bandaid solutions to keep us from drowning a few more years.
The 2 are radically different.
speciallyblend
09-27-2007, 09:18 AM
Try not to mention the word republican,democrats do not like that word.I use to be a democrat and I'm registered republican(Temporary),try explaining he isnt a typical big goverment republican. At all cost dont mention the word republican until you possibly have him interested,then explain he is a constitution/libertarian kinda of republican.
Johnnybags
09-27-2007, 09:18 AM
Very good question, I've found once you ask an Obama supporter why they support him, they have no real answer -- and especially around Chicago, they just like his "local appeal" (i've heard that!).. Boy, what a great reason!
debt and pushing the federal reserve to prop up markets that is going to inflate many out of existence. The USA export machine is war oriented. The politicians wanna keep thier jobs as long as possible so instead of letting markets discount the bad news they are simply stealing our dollars thru inflation to give the illusion of a healthy economy. Stop the war and all those DOW stocks get beat up badly. Force people to supplement them with debt and inflation and keep the war going, it holds them up.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NUE&t=5y
Look at this stock, NUE prewar. If any recall many of the steel companies were headed for BK and many Industrial complex stocks were languishing. Now that ole Bush is frontspending and rebuilding Iraq he has given these guys new life in a world in which they cannot compete long term. What do you think will happen in a free Iraq making their own decisions on who to buy from. Think they are going to buy US products or Chinese? When Iraqi's become sovereign our markets will tank, but maybe we will hit Iran and frontspend there as well. Its all a game folks designed to delay the inevitable.
lucius
09-27-2007, 09:20 AM
This worked wonders on my lifelong democratic sister: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
And this worked well on my employees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCRc2ub8hU
constituent
09-27-2007, 09:20 AM
oh yea.... and feign ex-Obamabot...
say you liked him b/c you thought he wanted to help
people, but realized that this opinnion wasn't based
in reality. when you looked at his voting record, or
more importantly, his non-voting record... his personal
agenda became clear.
then i remind them about how in the 1st(?) democratic
debate he said that he wants a whitehouse that will
raise the nation's children as if they were their own...
you remember school right? looking back on it, do
you think that you'd have been better off w/ more
of it or less?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, if Barack Obama is worth electing,
why? He's been elected and has one of the most powerful
positions in this country (100 out of 300million folks is
awfully exclusive)... so... show me the proof, what's
he done ALREADY, what is he doing NOW?
edit:: voting for the black man just because (he's black)
is an insanely racist thing to do. you don't fight racism
by being a racist.
Ridiculous
09-27-2007, 09:24 AM
Besides Iraq, let them know the expected ROI on their Social Security payments.
Let them know what the difference would be if they put that in something like the index 500 themselves.
I don't know the exact figures off of the top of my head anymore, but I read them a few years ago. The difference is huge.
Elwar
09-27-2007, 09:26 AM
If you're against the war...I mean TRULY against the war then you have no other choice than to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. The Democrats will choose their candidate, either way they will say they are anti-war. The Republicans only have one anti-war candidate and that candidate is Ron Paul.
If you hold your nose and vote for the Republican Ron Paul in the primary then we will have an anti-war Democrat vs an anti-war Republican. This will guarantee our troops coming home and we can focus on domestic issues.
(Copy and paste as needed in Democrat circles, don't worry about the fact that Democrats won't actually get us out of Iraq...it's a big enough stretch trying to convince a Democrat to vote for a Republican. Trying to make them believe something they don't think would be true is more difficult. We can worry making them true believers after the primaries. That shouldn't be too hard.)
andrewgreve
09-27-2007, 09:26 AM
"If we have information about high value targets in Pakistan, and Musharraf won't act, we will..." (paraphrased and misspelled name)
nullvalu
09-27-2007, 09:28 AM
you don't fight racism by being a racist.
lol.. tell that to the people "fighting for" the "jena 6"
DahuiHeeNalu
09-27-2007, 09:32 AM
Great used this on the whole myspace political forum they got going so many supporters there everyone should check it out so many ppl t rying to find a canidate that fits them we have been working hard on it props again!
erowe1
09-27-2007, 09:34 AM
Ask the Obama supporter the following questions:
"Is there anything in Obama's basic philosophy of America's role in the world that can provide you with any assurance that, as new problems and threats emerge abroad, he will not use military intervention as a means of accomplishing his goals?
If not, then is his underlying philosophy of foreign affairs any different than the model that both Bill Clinton and G. W. Bush embraced in their tenures?
Wouldn't you rather have someone who gives you clear black and white explanations of his views on the role of America in the world so that you know for absolute certainty that, given a course of events like those that led up to the Iraq war, he would not have invaded Iraq and he will not engage in nation-building there or anywhere else?"
EvilTwinkie
09-27-2007, 09:35 AM
Obama comdemned Ahmadinejad's visit to columbia by saying that He might influence the american people and confuse the issue on iran, the federal government should be the one expressing the values we want to express to the american people.
God forbid we should formulate our own opinion. Oh no, what if it differs from the propaganda?
JMann
09-27-2007, 09:40 AM
This is an important question as I've found many young people
are torn between Obama and Paul, does anyone have any tips
to swaying a Obama supporter to switch sides? Aside from
that Obama is somewhat involved with the CFR?
This is going to become more and more important as the
campaign goes on.
Trying to find a reason that a young person that knows nothing
about the issues but have decided to support Obama would decide
to check out Ron Paul.
Anyone?
Maybe just let them no the Obama has no experience to be president and that he supports taking your money from you and redistributing to the non working class. That there is really no choice as that Obama and Ron Paul are nothing alike and that you would have to be truly ignorant to ever be torn between voting for those two. If you thought Dan Quayle would of made a horrible president multiply that by about 100 and you have Obama.
If those don't work simply state the obvious. Obama comes from the point of view that government has the ability to solve problems, where as Paul believes government is the problem.
constituent
09-27-2007, 09:44 AM
Maybe just let them no the Obama has no experience to be president and that he supports taking your money from you and redistributing to the non working class. That there is really no choice as that Obama and Ron Paul are nothing alike and that you would have to be truly ignorant to ever be torn between voting for those two. If you thought Dan Quayle would of made a horrible president multiply that by about 100 and you have Obama.
If those don't work simply state the obvious. Obama comes from the point of view that government has the ability to solve problems, where as Paul believes government is the problem.
try redistributing to wealthy shareholders in welfare queen corporations...
you'll not win any obamabots over with the Rush/Newt Gingrich bit, i promise.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=DGUS%2CDGUS%3A2006-25%2CDGUS%3Aen&q=obama++suntimes+real+estate+rezko
Show them Obama is a traditional politician with ties to corrupt people in Chicago.
kickzman
09-27-2007, 09:55 AM
I was an Obama supporter before (b4 I saw Dr Paul) b/c I thought he was someone "outside" of Washington, and he seemed intelligent and genuine. But after hearing Dr Paul I saw more and more that Obama would be more of a Bill Clinton than anything else, Yes an improvement to Bush but he would keep AIPAC going, Fed reserve, etc. But if for some reason if it came down to Obama VS Giuliani(Bush 3.0) I wouldn't hesitate for a second to go Obama even if it means raising taxes.
constituent
09-27-2007, 09:59 AM
oh yeah... when all else fails...
CFR, not to mention....
University of Chicago...
if you're not familiar w/ why UofC is so damned
important, please hit the google search or
answers.com for Leo Strauss...
thanks.
oh yeah... when all else fails...
CFR, not to mention....
University of Chicago...
if you're not familiar w/ why UofC is so damned
important, please hit the google search or
answers.com for Leo Strauss...
thanks.
I'm not playing games/wasting time, point to exactly what you mean.
vertesc
09-27-2007, 10:20 AM
But if for some reason if it came down to Obama VS Giuliani(Bush 3.0) I wouldn't hesitate for a second to go Obama even if it means raising taxes.
Well, yeah. I mean, Obama would continue Iraq, send us to war in Syria and Iran, but at least he wouldn't NUKE Iran pre-emptively, like Giuliani said he would. And hey, there's something to having a black president. It gives the appearance of some kind of racial equality to the world.
If it comes down to Obama and Giuliani, I'm writing in Ron Paul. I'd take a symbolic vote over one that supports war, interventionalism, and big government.
And if we "preemptive strike" Iran, I'm moving back to Canada, or maybe to the EU. I hate socialism, but I don't want a penny of my earnings to support preemptive war.
klamath
09-27-2007, 10:25 AM
If you're against the war...I mean TRULY against the war then you have no other choice than to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. The Democrats will choose their candidate, either way they will say they are anti-war. The Republicans only have one anti-war candidate and that candidate is Ron Paul.
If you hold your nose and vote for the Republican Ron Paul in the primary then we will have an anti-war Democrat vs an anti-war Republican. This will guarantee our troops coming home and we can focus on domestic issues.
(Copy and paste as needed in Democrat circles, don't worry about the fact that Democrats won't actually get us out of Iraq...it's a big enough stretch trying to convince a Democrat to vote for a Republican. Trying to make them believe something they don't think would be true is more difficult. We can worry making them true believers after the primaries. That shouldn't be too hard.)
This isn't going to work with a Obama supporter for he will be saving his vote to defeat Hillary. You have to convince him Obama isn't worth voting for but Paul is.
rich34
09-27-2007, 10:25 AM
If there for ending the war, let them know that after last night NONE of the front runner democratic candidates support a full withdrawel from Iraq. I'm hoping that the anti war crowd caught wind of the debates last night when none of the front running democratic candidates would pull out troops completely during their term.
vertesc
09-27-2007, 10:33 AM
I'm not playing games/wasting time, point to exactly what you mean.
Leo Strauss is a major poli sci and philosophy influence at the University of Chicago. Apparently Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, and several other prominent administration members count him as their "mentor". He is credited as the founder of neoconservatism.
Books by Leo Strauss (http://books.google.ca/books?as_auth=Leo+Strauss&ots=cHa6ticNd1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title)
Wikipedia on Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss)
A very concise summary of Strauss (http://www.alternet.org/story/15935) - 2 pages, explaining who strauss was, who are some of his disciples, and what he advocated.
If you don't want to follow even THOSE links, here's a highlight reel from that article.
Strauss believed that a successful government relies on "perpetual deception" of its citizens. It must be an infallible god-state, treated more like a religion than a political entity. In fact, religion was another pillar of the state - to add a moral imperative to following the government. Third: "...governance can only be established... against other people". A state of perpetual, nationalistic war is required.
Read the article. It's short and explains a lot more.
ronpaulitician
09-27-2007, 10:39 AM
Unless they're completely uninformed, the only issue you'll be able to sway them on is Iraq.
constituent
09-27-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm not playing games/wasting time, point to exactly what you mean.
then ignore me. but don't PM and act like an asshole. :mad:
EvilTwinkie
09-27-2007, 10:45 AM
Leo Strauss is a major poli sci and philosophy influence at the University of Chicago. Apparently Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, and several other prominent administration members count him as their "mentor". He is credited as the founder of neoconservatism.
Books by Leo Strauss (http://books.google.ca/books?as_auth=Leo+Strauss&ots=cHa6ticNd1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title)
Wikipedia on Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss)
A very concise summary of Strauss (http://www.alternet.org/story/15935) - 2 pages, explaining who strauss was, who are some of his disciples, and what he advocated.
If you don't want to follow even THOSE links, here's a highlight reel from that article.
Strauss believed that a successful government relies on "perpetual deception" of its citizens. It must be an infallible god-state, treated more like a religion than a political entity. In fact, religion was another pillar of the state - to add a moral imperative to following the government. Third: "...governance can only be established... against other people". A state of perpetual, nationalistic war is required.
Read the article. It's short and explains a lot more.
I knew nothing about this. Thank you so much for posting those links.
fletcher
09-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Obama says it will take over a year to withdraw the majority of troops, but he would leave thousands there. He can't promise that there will be no troops there at the end of his first term in 5 years! Doesn't sound like ending the war to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoWmjEzg0rM
constituent
09-27-2007, 10:50 AM
I knew nothing about this. Thank you so much for posting those links.
kinda rewarding to go out there and find new perspectives, new sides to the story isn't it? thanks to the link poster, and thanks to EvilTwinkie for seizing the initiative rather than adopting a rude tone and seeking to intimidate or threaten or whatever "i'm not playing games" is supposed to mean.
constituent
09-27-2007, 10:56 AM
oh yea... and P.S. to anyone out there interested in learning a little more historical context of the Strauss situation...
go to google, choose "advanced search"
search for the term "Fourth International"
in the "domain" blank enter "www.marxist.org"
you will find an excellent primer on the subject that
i assure you will send chills up your spine and leave
you shaking in your boots...
even tough guys from Chicago (I ain't your enemy, friend).
LibertyBelle
09-27-2007, 10:56 AM
I was an Obama supporter before (b4 I saw Dr Paul) b/c I thought he was someone "outside" of Washington, and he seemed intelligent and genuine. But after hearing Dr Paul I saw more and more that Obama would be more of a Bill Clinton than anything else, Yes an improvement to Bush but he would keep AIPAC going, Fed reserve, etc. But if for some reason if it came down to Obama VS Giuliani(Bush 3.0) I wouldn't hesitate for a second to go Obama even if it means raising taxes.
If this was a scenario, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to write in Ron Paul! I would never vote for Obama. I will only vote for the founder types who understand that big gov't, Patriot Acts, socialism, and gun control lead to tyranny, oppression, and control. I'm not going to waste my vote for the likes of self promoting and CFR member Obama, it would be like asking for abuse. I will never vote for socialists, whether they are fascist or communist oriented socialists. Voting for them would be like shooting yourself in the foot.
EvilTwinkie
09-27-2007, 10:57 AM
kinda rewarding to go out there and find new perspectives, new sides to the story isn't it? thanks to the link poster, and thanks to EvilTwinkie for seizing the initiative rather than adopting a rude tone and seeking to intimidate or threaten or whatever "i'm not playing games" is supposed to mean.
It really is unbelievably helpful and clarifying to understand the underlying philosophy.
God I love this forum. I'm almost going to be sad when Paul wins and its all over.
Talk about a journey...
JMann
09-27-2007, 10:58 AM
I was an Obama supporter before (b4 I saw Dr Paul) b/c I thought he was someone "outside" of Washington, and he seemed intelligent and genuine. But after hearing Dr Paul I saw more and more that Obama would be more of a Bill Clinton than anything else, Yes an improvement to Bush but he would keep AIPAC going, Fed reserve, etc. But if for some reason if it came down to Obama VS Giuliani(Bush 3.0) I wouldn't hesitate for a second to go Obama even if it means raising taxes.
Have you ever heard the man talk? As I stated earlier he makes Quayle sound like a scholar.
I would stay away from the war thing unless the person is a anti war fanatic. Most people I talk to on a day to day basis don't think about the war. They have an opinion if asked but I find most people are far more concerned with domestic policy.
constituent
09-27-2007, 11:00 AM
Have you ever heard the man talk? As I stated earlier he makes Quayle sound like a scholar.
they are scholars... that's half the problem.
Leo Strauss is a major poli sci and philosophy influence at the University of Chicago. Apparently Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, and several other prominent administration members count him as their "mentor". He is credited as the founder of neoconservatism.
Books by Leo Strauss (http://books.google.ca/books?as_auth=Leo+Strauss&ots=cHa6ticNd1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title)
Wikipedia on Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss)
A very concise summary of Strauss (http://www.alternet.org/story/15935) - 2 pages, explaining who strauss was, who are some of his disciples, and what he advocated.
If you don't want to follow even THOSE links, here's a highlight reel from that article.
Strauss believed that a successful government relies on "perpetual deception" of its citizens. It must be an infallible god-state, treated more like a religion than a political entity. In fact, religion was another pillar of the state - to add a moral imperative to following the government. Third: "...governance can only be established... against other people". A state of perpetual, nationalistic war is required.
Read the article. It's short and explains a lot more.
Thanks.
As to the orginal person that brought this up, I have strong U of C connections and this was not on my radar and I certainly don't follow the guy. I can't read your mind but you should be careful how you generalize.
constituent
09-27-2007, 11:12 AM
if i'm generalizing/speculating i'll always ALWAYS disclaimer it.
i've been mocked and ridiculed as a fringe wacko for too long to
assert opinion or totally unqualified statements as facts.
had you been polite, i'd have gladly given you my login information
to the info. databases that i subscribe to for the sake of primary
resources... at risk of you (a stranger) exploiting my account.
i love to help people find needed information, i get my jollies (not literally)
knowing that i do my part to contribute to an informed society...
for that reason in particular, i'm not comfortable pointing you to a
second-hand site... if that is what you're looking for a google search
will get you there, after wading through all of the crap, I have faith
that you and others will be able to discern a rational answer from
all evidence provided... however, i don't find that good enough, i
like primary sources....
so just be friendly man, i'd have been glad to get you some primaries
or like i said, give you my login info. so that you could retrieve them
yourself. anyway, happy hunting and enjoy the debate tonight!
Nefertiti
09-27-2007, 12:23 PM
I just got my PhD at the U of C last December and I can tell you the university is not populated by sheep who can't think for themselves. Just because Obama was a lecturer there does automatically connect him with another professor's views. And what about Robert Pape? He's a U of C poli sci professor and he is supporting Ron Paul. And the students group at the U of C in support of Ron Paul just had their first meeting last night and are going to be handing out fliers at a lecture tonight by John Mearsheimer (another U of C prof) and Stephen M. Walt speaking on on their new book,
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on campus.
constituent
09-27-2007, 12:34 PM
I just got my PhD at the U of C last December and I can tell you the university is not populated by sheep who can't think for themselves. Just because Obama was a lecturer there does automatically connect him with another professor's views. And what about Robert Pape? He's a U of C poli sci professor and he is supporting Ron Paul. And the students group at the U of C in support of Ron Paul just had their first meeting last night and are going to be handing out fliers at a lecture tonight by John Mearsheimer (another U of C prof) and Stephen M. Walt speaking on on their new book,
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on campus.
Obama's U of C connex are simply one little piece of a much large puzzle...
it usually provides a good starting point for folks w/out forcing the discussion
into the "hot topics" zone right off of the bat.
That being said, I take a similar stance on anyone who would hand money
over to an institution that functions as an enabler of the fascist regime that
I take toward the soldier who violates their oath to enable the fascist regime...
no sympathy for the devil.
but congratulations on your phd!
lucius
09-27-2007, 12:37 PM
I just got my PhD at the U of C last December and I can tell you the university is not populated by sheep who can't think for themselves. Just because Obama was a lecturer there does automatically connect him with another professor's views. And what about Robert Pape? He's a U of C poli sci professor and he is supporting Ron Paul. And the students group at the U of C in support of Ron Paul just had their first meeting last night and are going to be handing out fliers at a lecture tonight by John Mearsheimer (another U of C prof) and Stephen M. Walt speaking on on their new book,
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on campus.
Congrats! Way to go, wonderful university--it's not about school affiliations, but Me Inc., go forth and... :D
saku39
09-27-2007, 12:42 PM
oh yeah... when all else fails...
CFR, not to mention....
University of Chicago...
if you're not familiar w/ why UofC is so damned
important, please hit the google search or
answers.com for Leo Strauss...
thanks.
Strauss is a scumbag, sure he is-- but University of Chicago = evil? I don't agree. Guilt by association? By that logic, you can group 9/11 truthers and Ron Paul together even though both believe different things.
constituent
09-27-2007, 12:50 PM
where did i call the UofC evil? i'll apologize for that if you show me where i said it.
however, enabling is another issue altogether (intentional or not).
maiki
09-27-2007, 12:55 PM
IF their only issue is the war or patriot act, you have a hope. If they are socialists and buy into all his policies, tough luck.
constituent
09-27-2007, 01:02 PM
IF their only issue is the war or patriot act, you have a hope. If they are socialists and buy into all his policies, tough luck.
you see, there is this common misconception amongst republican/libertarian minded individual's that those w/ "socialist" leanings are that way b/c
they 'want something for nothing' or have some desire to be controlled...
they don't.
they're compassionate individuals who've been socially isolated by
television and commie haters who feel that not enough is done
about social inequality, things of that nature...
the problem is that they see government as this altruistic institution
that can "do no harm." well, atleast not when their folks finally have
free reign... these people should be our largest target because they
are the easiest to "convert"... if you do it right.... you know, kinda like
the "hey truthers, STFU" bit we see around here.
this is where the GR movement has failed miserably b/c the private sector,
particularly the non-profit sector is a vastly superior model for change.
they want exactly what ron paul is offering, they just don't understand
the how and why of this dynamic...
the solution is really quite simple, yet revolutionary... but we'll discuss
that another time, perhaps on another forum somewhere.
Nefertiti
09-27-2007, 01:11 PM
Excuse me, but do you think I was stupid enough to PAY for grad school? I got tons more money FROM the U of C than they ever got from me. In 11 years of grad school I wound up only having to pay tuition two years, and those were in my advanced years when tuition was something like $1600 a year. Not to mention they gave me additional stipends every other year or I had outside funding to pay for my education.
I went there for one reason-they are the top school in the world in my field.
And since when have you as a Ron Paul supporter started judging institutions by their support for the free speech of their faculty?
constituent
09-27-2007, 01:45 PM
And since when have you as a Ron Paul supporter started judging institutions by their support for the free speech of their faculty?
I have a general aversion to all forms of "institution," even those whose
causes i sometimes find myself sympathetic towards... this is not
exclusive to UofC.
However, it is important to note that I judge institutions largely
on the sum of their works. I'm sure lots of great folks have
come and gone, but no one has done enough to counteract
the sheer evil spawned from the individuals whose hatred and
and nefarious means/motives whose dissemination, in part or in whole,
was facilitated by the institution in these issues of pressing, global
importance.
To me it is like saying... well hey, the Third Reich wasn't all that bad,
there were some really great folks who inspite of everything really
worked to make this world a better place.... or, no no no, my bf doesn't
drop the bombs, he just delivers food to hungry Iraqis...
I think you rock nefertiti, don't get me wrong... but as a graduate of
that school you now officially have a say in the school's direction...
I hope (in fact, i'm quite certain that you will) that you take a strong stance in support of those who would
seek to counteract the evil brought upon the globe through said institution's
complicity (and i think complicity is generous... i'm not here to tarnish
people's good names or whatever, nor do i want to walk us through
the hot topics twilight zone). Same thing goes for walt.
though i'm an outsider, i'd be happy to help in any way possible.
libertarian4321
09-27-2007, 02:01 PM
Ron Paul will end the insane Iraq war.
Barack Obama will consider making a tepid move to end the war sometime in the year 2014 of so (maybe).
Grandson of Liberty
09-27-2007, 02:22 PM
My most effective "hook" with democrats (not necessarily Obama supporters) has been:
(Re: Ron Paul) "Fox news hates the guy." That generally gets their attention and they usually want to hear more.
paulitics
09-27-2007, 02:30 PM
You need to show them that they are hypocrites. The Iraqi liberation movement for regime change was signed in 1998. Obama was conspicuously absent on the vote for the recent Iran attack vote. He will not take a stand against the war.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.