PDA

View Full Version : How do u respond to someone like this?????




VRP08
12-14-2007, 12:28 AM
I hate to even say This!! when they say , ''Paul is a nutter. ''

This is a response a friend gave why they don't think others should vote for Ron Paul:


* he is pro-life, believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion should be illegal -- has sponsored a bill amending the Constitution "guranteeing the right to life" and bills trying to legislate the idea that "life begins at conception"
* has sponsored court-stripping legislation that would prevent the federal court system from hearing cases dealing with any state laws on free speech, the free exercise of religion, or any case dealing with claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation or reproduction, or any cases dealing with same-sex marriage
* has also sponsored court-stripping legislation that he claims "restores first amendment rights" but really would remove the federal concept of the "wall of separation" between church and state (would not allow federal courts to hear cases regarding prayer in schools, Ten Commandments displays, etc.)
* has sponsored the flag-burning amendment on more than one occasion (believes it is OK for the Congress to pass an amendment banning flag-burning -- this from a so-called libertarian!!)
* introduced legislation to repeal the Motor Voter Act
* would totally gut the power of many federal agencies
* opposes the International Criminal Court and would end US participation in the UN
* he introduced legislation to repeal the Gun-Free School Act and other legislation that would very much swing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to pretty much be a gun-lover's free-for-all
* would completely eliminate the estate tax
* would eliminate or severely curtail the Federal Reserve
* has been a big supporter of the Patriot movement over the years
* favors no publicly fnded education

I am just NOT a libertarian! I am not idealistic/naive enough to believe that society will take care of its own without government intervention. I am not a small-goverment person by any stretch of the imagination. http://www.twinstuff.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif He and I also fundamentally disagree on a lot of our interpretations of the Constitution and what it means to live in a federal republic.

Honestly I don't even think he's truly a libertarian -- I think that he has a lot of really extreme right-wing ideas, but he manages to do enough high-level vague talk about personal responsibility and whatnot that he comes across as a principled straight-talker, but when you actually look at his record in Congress, he's introduced a lot of legislation that puts him to the right of the right.

So anyway. Ron Paul is definitely not going to be getting my vote, and I'd highly recommend anyone who considers themselves moderate and is considering voting for him to really look more into his record, because you may find some things that alarm you.

Edited to add: I am not trying to start a debate on the merits of my points above. I totally respect that some people will read that list and say, "Right! And that's why I love Ron Paul!" and that is OK. I am just saying that I am surprised by some of the people who have expressed some interest in Ron Paul on this thread given the other posts I have read from them over the years -- his record just doesn't seem to mesh with things they have professed here -- and want to be sure they are getting the whole picture.

itsnobody
12-14-2007, 12:37 AM
Those things are completely taken out of context....

Ron Paul believes in full-fledged free speech rights where the court can't jail someone for simply exercising free speech...

Remember the constitution says "congress shall write NO LAWS"

noztnac
12-14-2007, 12:38 AM
He's dead wrong on the flag burning issue.

http://brazosportnews.blogspot.com/2005/06/ron-paul-votes-against-flag-burning.html

mavtek
12-14-2007, 12:40 AM
BLAH BLAH, most of that I agree with, but the rest is conjecture.

steph3n
12-14-2007, 12:40 AM
yes he wrote the flag burning amendment just to get people on the record and do it "properly" if it was to be done :D

Jojo
12-14-2007, 12:41 AM
Well, clearly you'd be wasting your time trying to convince this person. So I wouldn't respond point by point. But for the sake of others who might be reading that person's post, you could just respond by giving the links to some great articles/youtubes. Let Ron speak for himself. And point out how much support he has. Make other readers curious.

curtisag
12-14-2007, 12:44 AM
Ron Paul doesn't claim to be a libertarian. He's always claimed to be an old school conservative Republican. The fact that he ran on the '88 Libertarian ticket means nothing except he has much in common with the Libertarian wing of the Republican party. Your friend is so lost and brainwashed by the status quo that there is no hope for him. But you might want to mention the 60 trillion in unfunded liabilities that Government has created for our children.

Chester Copperpot
12-14-2007, 12:47 AM
Looks like your friend is concerned that Ron Paul is going to reduce the power of the federal reserve... So now I know 2 people who are worried.. your friend and David Rockefeller...

Youre better off moving on to somebody else who isnt so afraid of liberty and the free market

itsnobody
12-14-2007, 12:48 AM
Regarding the flag burning amendment, Ron Paul expressed his great opposition to it:
"Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it."

"However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years." - Ron Paul

TheIndependent
12-14-2007, 12:48 AM
Anyone who complains about idealism should be reminded that everyone's idealistic about something.

Everyone.

ronpaulyourmom
12-14-2007, 12:50 AM
Anyone who complains about idealism should be reminded that everyone's idealistic about something.

Everyone.

Well said my friend.

xexkxex
12-14-2007, 12:52 AM
His mother probably breast fed him until he was 13.

He expects the same nanny oversight from his government.

Let him go....he is no longer with the living.....

DanielDeibler
12-14-2007, 12:55 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about it. My psychological profiling abilities tell me they're not likely to vote in the primary, so at least they won't be a vote against Freedom Liberty McAwesome...I mean Ronald Ernest Paul.

hawks4ronpaul
12-14-2007, 12:59 AM
Anyone who complains about idealism should be reminded that everyone's idealistic about something.

Everyone.

His friend refuses to be naive/idealistic about what the market can accomplish so instead he is naive/idealistic about what the government can accomplish.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

rfbz
12-14-2007, 01:01 AM
interesting that someone who isn't interested in Ron Paul would go to such great lengths to go through his record and pull things out of context like that. It's easy to go take a quick look and go "omg Ron Paul is against education? He hates kids?" But when you know his broader philosophy it makes sense why he wants the federal government out of it.

Some people really are afraid of freedom and the ability of the free market to take care of a lot of the problems government attempts to fix. It's simply empty fears though because they really have no example of a failed true free market society. The reason the United States has been more prosperous (in my opinion) compared to most other nations is because of the entrepreneurial spirit that has been allowed to thrive, where in other countries it is shunned as being greedy. For some reason though people want to move us in the direction of those who are not as efficient as us (healthcare - socialized medicine).

Wingman
12-14-2007, 01:10 AM
that guy quoted right at the start -- he has a very unsophisticated view of politics, human rights and economics.

Ron Paul sees deeper and further than him by far. And Ron Paul has a much deeper perception than Obama.

VRP08
12-14-2007, 01:16 AM
Y'all are great!:D

McLane2007
12-14-2007, 01:23 AM
How do u respond to someone like this?????

I don't. Tell him to go do his own research and move on to someone not so misinformed.

Goldwater Conservative
12-14-2007, 01:31 AM
* he is pro-life, believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion should be illegal -- has sponsored a bill amending the Constitution "guranteeing the right to life" and bills trying to legislate the idea that "life begins at conception"

What's wrong with that? And his position is to return the issue to the states, where it belongs.


* has sponsored court-stripping legislation that would prevent the federal court system from hearing cases dealing with any state laws on free speech, the free exercise of religion, or any case dealing with claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation or reproduction, or any cases dealing with same-sex marriage
* has also sponsored court-stripping legislation that he claims "restores first amendment rights" but really would remove the federal concept of the "wall of separation" between church and state (would not allow federal courts to hear cases regarding prayer in schools, Ten Commandments displays, etc.)

Have you scratched deeper than the surface? If you go by first glance, then you must not be a patriot for opposing the "Patriot" Act, right? If Paul supports such legislation, I'm sure it's for a valid constitutional reason (maybe he opposes the incorporation doctrine, which is a very reasonable constitutional position, even if you don't like the implications).

Really, there's no candidate (Kucinich included) I'd trust more with my civil liberties than Paul.


* has sponsored the flag-burning amendment on more than one occasion (believes it is OK for the Congress to pass an amendment banning flag-burning -- this from a so-called libertarian!!)

I have looked into this before, and he sponsored alternative proposals that made the language being voted on less harsh (making it an issue the states could regulate). When they actually came up for a floor vote, he consistently voted against them.


* introduced legislation to repeal the Motor Voter Act

Expand, please.


* would totally gut the power of many federal agencies

So? Return it to the states, and many of them probably shouldn't exist at any level of government.


* opposes the International Criminal Court and would end US participation in the UN

I don't see the problem.


* he introduced legislation to repeal the Gun-Free School Act and other legislation that would very much swing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to pretty much be a gun-lover's free-for-all

Probably because he doesn't think the federal government has the authority to make such decisions. Schools are under state and local control, as they should be.


* would completely eliminate the estate tax

So? It's pretty much just a class warfare tax, since it raises relatively little revenue. Taxes are for raising revenue, not for symbolism.


* would eliminate or severely curtail the Federal Reserve

Again, so? They're at least partially responsible for our runaway inflation, which is effectively a "soak the poor" tax. And it's a private corporation with no accountability to the American people.


* has been a big supporter of the Patriot movement over the years

What is this?


* favors no publicly fnded education

I know he doesn't favor federal involvement in education. He is partial to home schooling and school choice, but I don't know if he goes "as far" as to oppose public education. Jefferson didn't.


I am just NOT a libertarian! I am not idealistic/naive enough to believe that society will take care of its own without government intervention. I am not a small-goverment person by any stretch of the imagination. He and I also fundamentally disagree on a lot of our interpretations of the Constitution and what it means to live in a federal republic.

Are you idealistic/naive enough to think government can fix society's problems with distant mandates, whatever the realities of economics?

And I don't see how there's much room to interpret the Constitution more loosely without reducing it to a token series of suggestions. If you don't like the highest law of the land, change it, or work within its already ample structures (that is, most things that are done by government should be done at the state or local level).


Honestly I don't even think he's truly a libertarian -- I think that he has a lot of really extreme right-wing ideas, but he manages to do enough high-level vague talk about personal responsibility and whatnot that he comes across as a principled straight-talker, but when you actually look at his record in Congress, he's introduced a lot of legislation that puts him to the right of the right.

What's "libertarian" according to you? What's "right-wing"? Paul bases his positions on a consistent philosophy of maximum liberty under the rule of law. That makes him something of a cross between libertarian and paleoconservative (paleolibertarian?) in our lexicon, but who cares what the labels are? Focus on the ideas, and his are ideas of freedom. If you don't like them, fine, but it's odd to be afraid of them. America was founded on them, and they're not outdated (indeed, just as statism and collectivism was the norm prior to the US, it is now... the early Republic was an anomaly, really, and a very successful one at that).

DRV45N05
12-14-2007, 01:49 AM
* he is pro-life, believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion should be illegal -- has sponsored a bill amending the Constitution "guranteeing the right to life" and bills trying to legislate the idea that "life begins at conception"

His bills would NOT amend the Constitution. The bills express the SENSE that life begins at conception, and they take abortion cases out of the jurisdiction of Congress.


* has sponsored court-stripping legislation that would prevent the federal court system from hearing cases dealing with any state laws on free speech, the free exercise of religion, or any case dealing with claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation or reproduction, or any cases dealing with same-sex marriage
* has also sponsored court-stripping legislation that he claims "restores first amendment rights" but really would remove the federal concept of the "wall of separation" between church and state (would not allow federal courts to hear cases regarding prayer in schools, Ten Commandments displays, etc.)

His reason for doing this is that the Constitution doesn't place these issues under jurisdiction of the federal government. So therefore, the courts should have no jurisdiction over it.


* has sponsored the flag-burning amendment on more than one occasion (believes it is OK for the Congress to pass an amendment banning flag-burning -- this from a so-called libertarian!!)

This guy really is an idiot. Ron Paul's amendment WOULD NOT BAN FLAG BURNING! Rather, it would clarify the power of state governments to ban it if they want, which they have the rightful power to do under the 10th Amendment before the Supreme Court ruled that they don't. The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging freedom of speech; it says nothing about what states can do. Flag burning presents issues other than speech that are relevant to states and local communities, such as disturbing the peace and arson, so they should have the power to deal with the issue as they see fit. States already make laws banning fraud and slander, which are technically curtailments of "freedom of speech;" does this guy think that those laws should be overturned because they do?

And as someone said earlier, he's voted against Flag Burning Amendments time and again that would ban it federally. And my sense is he would oppose any legislation in states that would ban it.


* favors no publicly fnded education

Wrong. He has no problem with states funding education if they want. He just doesn't believe the federal government should.

ThePieSwindler
12-14-2007, 01:50 AM
Alot of these person's qualms with ron paul are things that make us LOVE him so much. So its obvious their just a hardcore statist and would take much more education than is worth investing.