Debate prompts my non RP friends to start asking me questions

[Roxi]

my husband and I have converted much of our family and many of our friends. I still however have a large number of friends and family who either don't give a crap about politics at all, or are still supporters of other people (mostly Romney and Obama, but a few Santorum supporters too)

So anyhow I have had an influx of messages about Ron Paul since the debate last night.

My homeschool group is a place where we try to avoid political conversations and since a lot of crunchy moms are also liberal I don't post RP stuff in the group page. I did post before the primary, and before the rally but otherwise have never spoken to many about him in there. I do have a couple friends there who already support RP but they don't post about him either there. Anyhow I logged onto the page tonight and saw this post:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2uj1gkm.jpg

so anyhow, just wanted to share, thought it was awesome.

[kathy88]

I was going to post a similar experience lat night, but was too tired to think. I work with about 90 people. Everyone knows I'm a "Paulbot." I get ribbed about it constantly. I use every opportunity, when people express dissatisfaction with one Government policy or another, to say, "that's why you need to vote for Ron." Well. Yesterday morning when I got to work, there were 5 people waiting for me to tell me how awesome they thought Paul was in the debate, and watched You Tube highlights with me before we started work. One's even a DEM :)

At lunch, I stayed in the office and spent 45 minutes explaining why social issues are not federal problems to a very intelligent young woman who was so intrigued at never having been presented that perspective before that she is doing more RP research. Her boyfriend (not a co-worker) is a Romney guy, and I'll be speaking with him shortly :)

[thoughtomator]

anytime you get called a Paulbot, just do your best Dalek impression

"Must exterminate.... deficit spending... exterminate... unconstitutional laws... exterminate... federal income taxes... exterminate exterminate!"

[AlexAmore]

I hate when someone says something like "It's not like they can go to their local church to pay for a $250,000 medical bill"

1. It's government paying for things that skyrockets the costs. 'If government pays me no matter what, then I'll naturally charge extra'...is the mindset.
2. Nobody wants to privately pay for welfare if it's already taken care of by the government. People deem that "redundant".

Bonus 3. If you hate the 1% so much then stop government spending in private industries like healthcare, banking, the military industrial complex, auto industry, agriculture....etc. Because it's just so happens that your hated 1% coincidentally are the CEOs and boardroom members on the receiving end of that money.

[kathy88]

anytime you get called a Paulbot, just do your best Dalek impression

"Must exterminate.... deficit spending... exterminate... unconstitutional laws... exterminate... federal income taxes... exterminate exterminate!"

HAHAHAHA I am totally going to use that!

[kathy88]

I hate when someone says something like "It's not like they can go to their local church to pay for a $250,000 medical bill"

1. It's government paying for things that skyrockets the costs. 'If government pays me no matter what, then I'll naturally charge extra'...is the mindset.
2. Nobody wants to privately pay for welfare if it's already taken care of by the government. People deem that "redundant".

Bonus 3. If you hate the 1% so much then stop government spending in private industries like healthcare, banking, the military industrial complex, auto industry, agriculture....etc. Because it's just so happens that your hated 1% coincidentally are the CEOs and boardroom members on the receiving end of that money.

Excellent points. Saving those away for when I need them :)

[jdcole]

Way to go guys! I'm still working on my father-in-law. He's not staunchly pro any of the candidates so far, and he says he likes the good Doctor on some of the issues (primarily economic), but he still can't wrap his head around the foreign policy issues, and he gets caught up on the whole earmarks thing (of which I explained that in the case of Dr. Paul isn't as huge an issue as people play earmarks up to be - he's allocating money already in the budget for things his district wants and also ensuring that money doesn't go to the executive branch if unallocated but still voting against the spending bill. He isn't trying to slip in a few orders for big macs while saying "I don't want McDonalds", he's saying "I don't want McDonalds, but if we have to stop there I would like a Big Mac"). He's a big Glenn Beck fan and he loves Fox News (of whom he is convinced always wants to interview Dr. Paul but never gets to rofl)

Keep fighting the good fight, everybody!

[roderik]

Just a little thing about the earmarks issue.

Since Ron strongly opposes the federal income tax, earmarking money to his district is his way of getting part of that tax money back to the people. That isn't hypocritical, it's actually very smart and morally sound. But most people won't understand the method, so he goes on to explain how the money would else be spent by the executive branch. Sure that is true, but it's not the main reason he's earmarking in the first place.

[Liberty74]

Listen up folks, WE are the seeds. Keep planting away. Let people know who you support and way. You won't convince or sway everyone. It's okay. Just keep plugging away. My work organization is about 120. Almost everyone knows who I support. Ron Paul has his supporters within. I have warmed quit a few up to Paul. One manager said to me last week, "I'm coming to support your guy. The other three are crazy."

We are the early adopters doing the good work. Once we explode because we have been planting the seeds, the media and establishment will go nuts. Be prepared.

[Dsylexic]

question about earmarking: i get what ron is trying to in principle. but what people insinuate is that a)earmarks maybe more than the taxpayers in that district paid for b)it would be entirely upto the congressman to decide which earmark he supports (perhaps a nice statue honoring his uncle/father) built by his contractor buddies or deny .there is an element of cronyism here.that is why people dislike earmarks.
so what does ron have to say about that?can you trust your representative to not loot the neighboring district?

[Dsylexic]

question about earmarking: i get what ron is trying to in principle. but what people insinuate is that a)earmarks maybe more than the taxpayers in that district paid for b)it would be entirely upto the congressman to decide which earmark he supports (perhaps a nice statue honoring his uncle/father) built by his contractor buddies or deny .there is an element of cronyism here.that is why people dislike earmarks.
so what does ron have to say about that?can you trust your representative to not loot the neighboring district?

[Liberty74]

Listen up folks, WE are the seeds. Keep planting away. Let people know who you support and why. You won't convince or sway everyone. It's okay. Just keep plugging away. My work organization is about 120. Almost everyone knows who I support. Ron Paul has his supporters within. I have warmed quit a few up to Paul. One manager said to me last week, "I'm coming to support your guy. The other three are crazy."

We are the early adopters doing the good work. Once we explode because we have been planting the seeds, the media and establishment will go nuts. Be prepared.

[Liberty74]

question about earmarking: i get what ron is trying to in principle. but what people insinuate is that a)earmarks maybe more than the taxpayers in that district paid for b)it would be entirely upto the congressman to decide which earmark he supports (perhaps a nice statue honoring his uncle/father) built by his contractor buddies or deny .there is an element of cronyism here.that is why people dislike earmarks.
so what does ron have to say about that?can you trust your representative to not loot the neighboring district?

Earmarks or pork is only 1% of the budget. So for every dollar spent, a penny goes to earmarking. Divide that penny by 435 districts and it's practically zero per district. To argue over 1% is a side show to avoid the real spending problem. Can this pork be eliminated? Much of it is BS and it should. But again, it's not what is going to break the bank.

YouTube "Ron Paul Earmarks" to hear his speech on the house floor about earmarking. Everything should be earmarked by congress.

[goldpants]

I hate when someone says something like "It's not like they can go to their local church to pay for a $250,000 medical bill"

1. It's government paying for things that skyrockets the costs. 'If government pays me no matter what, then I'll naturally charge extra'...is the mindset.
2. Nobody wants to privately pay for welfare if it's already taken care of by the government. People deem that "redundant".

Bonus 3. If you hate the 1% so much then stop government spending in private industries like healthcare, banking, the military industrial complex, auto industry, agriculture....etc. Because it's just so happens that your hated 1% coincidentally are the CEOs and boardroom members on the receiving end of that money.
+rep

Great job of explaining this hidden issue. I wish Ron could articulate it in this very same manner in debates and interviews.

[sailingaway]

fantastic! Search earmarks on here for explanations of why the Constitution requires the Congress to have power over the purse rather than the executive, if you need that, but I suspect you don't.

This makes perfect sense though, How could homeschooling Mom's possibly vote for a guy who voted for no child left behind? In fact I understand he was assistant whip or whip for the majority under Bush in the Senate so even his taking more lobbyist money than anyone else aside, this guy was never the 'outsider' he is pretending to be, in fact he was responsible for rounding up votes for all the Bush agenda.

But about that unplugging a dam, Ron Paul absolutely thinks if the govt is AT FAULT it should pay for it. Just as he thinks the govt should pay for social security as a contract right, people having already paid in with no choice to opt out. At that point, for that group, the government is the cause of their problem.

[specsaregood]

question about earmarking: i get what ron is trying to in principle. but what people insinuate is that a)earmarks maybe more than the taxpayers in that district paid for b)it would be entirely upto the congressman to decide which earmark he supports (perhaps a nice statue honoring his uncle/father) built by his contractor buddies or deny .there is an element of cronyism here.that is why people dislike earmarks.
so what does ron have to say about that?can you trust your representative to not loot the neighboring district?

Are you implying that bureaucrats in the executive branch are above cronyism and are more trustworthy on how to spend the money? at least you can vote out a rep (technically) how are you expected to fire some douche working in the various departments?

[Joshua2585]

question about earmarking: i get what ron is trying to in principle. but what people insinuate is that a)earmarks maybe more than the taxpayers in that district paid for b)it would be entirely upto the congressman to decide which earmark he supports (perhaps a nice statue honoring his uncle/father) built by his contractor buddies or deny .there is an element of cronyism here.that is why people dislike earmarks.
so what does ron have to say about that?can you trust your representative to not loot the neighboring district?

Essentially what RP has said is that he is against earmarks, but he isn't going to let the Federal Government determine where that money goes. He isn't going to let his constituents suffer because of his principles. He'd get rid of them if he could.

[Fermli]

don't forget to use the moral argument to convince people who are on the fence.

[liveandletlive]

very interesting, it took them this long to notice

btw most neocons i talk dont give a f about Ron Paul's earmarks nor are they interested in the subject, so i find it funny how its always brought up against Ron Paul in these debates

[unknown]

Excellent. The influence of the debates cannot be overstated.

[ctiger2]

Just a little thing about the earmarks issue.

Since Ron strongly opposes the federal income tax, earmarking money to his district is his way of getting part of that tax money back to the people. That isn't hypocritical, it's actually very smart and morally sound. But most people won't understand the method, so he goes on to explain how the money would else be spent by the executive branch. Sure that is true, but it's not the main reason he's earmarking in the first place.

Every penny of the entire budget should be earmarked by the congress as to where it's to be spent. Ron's right.

[Xenophage]

People don't know what they think. Wishy washy moderates are far more annoying than diehard liberals.

[WD-NY]

Can you post more screenshots of the discussion or is that all that was said? Agenda-free discussions between friends on Facebook = a fantastic focus group!

[Roxi]

thats all that was said on that particular group so far, since then comments have been surrounding voting info and when the caucus is

I did get a message from one of the moms today asking if she could come by this week so we could discuss him. She signed up as a volunteer on the website and wants to be a delegate!