Help me convert a Hillary Harlot

[giskard]

He's a bleeding heart liberal type, a San Francisco gay guy, an immigrant. (wow that's a lot of cliches!)

Any talking point tips?

I have another general Q.

How did liberalism become associated with socialism anyway?

[Oddball]

What's important to him??

If socialialistic, paternalistic, big spending big gubmint is his ideal, you have nowhere to go.

[Richie]

Get him started on the concept of Libertarianism first. Libertarianism is very appealing to people like him, since it's very tolerant towards homosexuals and immigrants. Then, if you manage to get him into it, bring up Ron Paul. Explain that even though he's a Christian (and probably against homosexually personally), he believes that the federal government has no right to regulate marriage.

[beermotor]

Point him at Classical Liberalism, for starters. Then point him at Ron Paul's words at the debate where he said we don't get our rights because we're members of some collective, rights are individual.

If he's a legal immigrant, shouldn't be any problem.

Have him read stuff by Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com. Unbelievably good writer, lives out in San Fran, and introduced RP at the Google rally.

There's nothing wrong with being a bleeding heart, altruistic type. What they have to come around to understand is that you cannot use the government to achieve those altruistic ends. It is exactly why Galadriel and Gandalf both refused to take the One Ring from Frodo in LoTR...

[Oddball]

Explain that even though he's a Christian (and probably against homosexually personally), he believes that the federal government has no right to regulate marriage. FOR ANYONE!! Make that point clear!!

The only intellectually honest position on marriage licences, and the position that makes things the most "fair" (the Holy Grail of libs), is that the gubmint get out of the marriage licensing biz altogether and quit extending special rights and privileges to heteros.

[FreedomLover]

Get him started on the concept of Libertarianism first. Libertarianism is very appealing to people like him, since it's very tolerant towards homosexuals and immigrants. Then, if you manage to get him into it, bring up Ron Paul. Explain that even though he's a Christian (and probably against homosexually personally), he believes that the federal government has no right to regulate marriage.

Yeah, good angle.

If he's anti-war in any respect, mention that hillary voted for and has defended the war up until very recently, and hasn't apologized for her vote like John "beauty shop" edwards. And she can be considered the most war-hawkish democrat running.

She'll probably make life in Sf alot more expensive as well, and she's a cold calculating beeyotch. That last part is just my opinion though. :cool:

[joshuainmn]

There are a ton of liberals who support Ron, and will continue to.

Some points that Ron makes that bleeding hearts agree with:

Ending the war in Iraq
Ending government corruption
Upholding all of our liberties which leads into...
Ending the patriot act, big government spying on you
Moving power from the federal government into the states so they can decide (which means gay marriage will be allowed in states that vote for it, which California... cmon...)
By eliminating income tax, I'm guessing the government would raise it's funds from sales tax. A flat sales tax would eliminate a lot of the problems with illeagal immigrants, in that they would pay like everyone else. Although he would have a very strong border, a streamlined process towards citizenship, along with no welfare state and no income tax means that immigrants would play on the same field as native american-born people, and that the general populace wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

Plus, if he has seen Michael Moore's movie, let him know that if you DON'T socialize medicine and make it a private enterprise, you open medicine up to all the price controls in our current market, which is a good thing. Prices go down to what people are willing and able to pay, otherwise the doctors go broke. Also, by eliminating regulations on basic healthcare, nurses can no wtreat common colds and crap like that, saving an enormous amount of money, as well as waiting times, etc. Doctors could focus on what they went to school for... treating specialized, complicated medical issues. Although it would be privately paid for, the costs would be dramatically lower, and as Buffet showed us, the power of charity from private coorporations can be incredible.

[jblosser]

He's a bleeding heart liberal type, a San Francisco gay guy, an immigrant. (wow that's a lot of cliches!)

Any talking point tips?

Given that most bleeding hearts don't like the idea of depending on personal responsibility you are usually stuck. We have a unique opportunity this time in that W and Dick have shown just how bad it can be.

Take these two from another forum:


I agree completely, even though I'm supporting Ron Paul.

I'm not a libertarian at the state level. I'm a pretty radical socialist. If
Ron Paul was running for my state rep or governor, I wouldn't give him the
time of day. I'd be looking for someone to the left of Kucinich (if there is
such a thing).

I'm a libertarian at the federal level because forcing my ideas on to the
people of all 50 states is a bad way to get things done. You and I could be
happy in our liberal paradise with our socialized medicine, $10/hr minimum
wage, decent public schools, etc. The fine people in Utah wouldn't.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, the "red states" are a net negative on
the treasury (they take in more federal money than they dole out in taxes).
They're always trying to shove religion down our throat as well. Cut them
loose and let them turn their population into a bunch of idiot hicks that
can't get a job. We'll do just fine without them TYVM.

Let the politicians in the shitty states screw up their own states AND NOTHING
MORE.


I agree with respect to Ron Paul. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist
until I saw how bad government can get when your guys aren't running the
place. Maturity and George W. Bush have taught me that less is more.

I'm still quite the socialist*, but my view of the constitution is
originalist. Many federal programs that I think are just fine are,
unfortunately, not constitutional. The states should be running these programs
as they see fit, not the feds. Realistically, conservatives want Dennis
Kucinich and Barbara Lee having as little say in their lives as possible.
Similarly, I want Orrin Hatch and James Inhofe having very little say in my
life. The best way to do this is to return power to the states where it
rightly belongs.

*I actually identify as a "states' rights liberal" if there is such a thing.

I don't agree with their notions but am glad they see that a strong central government is dangerous to all of us.

You could also point out that to date Ron Paul is the only candidate who has said he would roll back the laws abusing our civil rights that the current administration have put in place. The others to my knowledge have yelled about them but stopped short of wanting to remove them, no doubt so they can "keep their options open" if elected.

Ron Paul will never trample anyone's liberty, no matter what he thinks of what they do. Ever. He has almost 20 years in Congress and his record is solid.


I have another general Q.

How did liberalism become associated with socialism anyway?

Heh. It happened a couple of ways... first, the French Revolution was very populist in nature, but was inspired by the (classical) liberal American Revolution. So they borrowed a lot of our justifications and such, then implemented populist agendas.

Second, it happened in the US in the 19th century as more social causes got popular support. Since everyone knew "liberals" were good, they basically coopted the language for the positive connotations. It goes on from there. This happens a lot in political language.

[ChairmanMao]

Hes from San Fransisco? Ask him if hes ever heard of Emperor Norton? You might be able to reach him through that.

[Lord Xar]

why try to convert him? I have found that there are a TON of people in this country who do NOT believe in the constitution and in liberty... They are not 'nationalistically' tied to this country. This is why I have a big issue with 'illegals' and neocons/globalists etc.. because their "hearts" on not about America, or the the beliefs that made our country great.

That gentleman wants to be taken care of. He wants everybody to pay for everybody else.... he wants an utopia without the ramifications of the cost - socially, financially and and to 'our' liberties. But not only that, has this man "really" looked into Hillary... her backdealings, her part in CFR - globalism, NAU/SPP etc...

anyways, my 2 cents.

[Oddball]

Heh. It happened a couple of ways... first, the French Revolution was very populist in nature, but was inspired by the (classical) liberal American Revolution. So they borrowed a lot of our justifications and such, then implemented populist agendas.

Second, it happened in the US in the 19th century as more social causes got popular support. Since everyone knew "liberals" were good, they basically coopted the language for the positive connotations. It goes on from there. This happens a lot in political language.Also, the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term in the 1920s, when it still essentially meant "libertarian", to obfuscate their real intents.

[AlexAmore]

SHow him the video that proves Hillary Clinton committed election fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRL2Ew_VuA

[AnotherAmerican]

Dr. Paul's position is that the Feds shouldn't be coming in to California and telling us what we can and can't do here. Straight-up.

If we want single-payer health insurance, we can do it in-state and the Dr. will leave us alone.

We already have medical marijuana approval at super-majority levels, just like most of the Western states, and the Dr. would stop the DEA from harassing us about that, too.

If we want gay marriage, we can do it in-state and the Dr. will not use Federal power to stop us. If we enter into "reciprocal arrangements" with other states like Mass., that's our business too, not DC's.

If other states don't want to do such things, that's their business. People will vote, ultimately with their feet if need be. It's not a bad way to go.

Last thing, about Hillary - she wants permanent bases in Iraq. Her hubby Bill is best-buddies with George HW Bush, and gave your friend DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell (remember the "Don't Pursue" part that was originally at the end? Neither does anyone else). Hello?

[DeadheadForPaul]

When talking to liberals, you point out that Dr. Paul has consistently defended civil liberties and free speech. He has also opposed the War from the very start. Hillary VOTED for the War and still has no plan to get us out. What has she been doing in the Senate for the past few years?

Dr. Paul will stand up to the interventionists

[angrydragon]

If your friend is a man, tell him that Hilary will trump men's rights for more women's rights, though they are equal already.