PDA

View Full Version : Why are so many Southerners so pro-militarism and anti-liberty?




LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 06:43 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 06:50 PM
I think it has a lot to do with how Southern Christians are taught their faith, which is, basically, blind obedience.

BLS
07-20-2007, 06:52 PM
They've lost their way.

LibertyEagle
07-20-2007, 06:54 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with their belief that we should protect Israel because they are the "chosen ones". Their pastors preach this to them on a weekly basis. So, it's very hard for them to break free from this thinking and say... wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. They however are closer to doing this, than I have seen in a long time. We simply MUST get the campaign literature distributed in our own communities. If they don't know about him and have time to research him, Ron Paul will lose the nomination.

spacebetween
07-20-2007, 06:57 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with their belief that we should protect Israel because they are the "chosen ones". Their pastors preach this to them on a weekly basis. So, it's very hard for them to break free from this thinking and say... wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. They however are closer to doing this, than I have seen in a long time. We simply MUST get the campaign literature distributed in our own communities. If they don't know about him and have time to research him, Ron Paul will lose the nomination.

I agree. I believe this is the reason.

quickmike
07-20-2007, 06:58 PM
I think it has a lot to do with how Southern Christians are taught their faith, which is, basically, blind obedience.

yep !

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 07:01 PM
I assume by what you've been saying is that Christian Conservatives have a lot of influence in the SCRP. And that many of these people feel they have some Biblical obligation to have the U.S. government support Israel. And this support is unqualified.

torchbearer
07-20-2007, 07:01 PM
Louisiana is becoming more libertarian, i can vouch for that... our citizens are more likely to take up arms against the government, than fight to protect it.
Everyone in louisiana has gun, legal and illegal. ;)

BuddyRey
07-20-2007, 07:03 PM
I've noticed this too, and, being a born-and-raised North Carolinian, I was actually swayed by the same jingoistic politics for many years. I like to think we're evolving out of it though. In NC's 9th Congressional District, a very progressive, anti-war Democrat named Bill Glass came fairly close to unseating Sue Myrick in '06...and, once I'm old enough to run for Congress in '10, I'll finish the job! :D

Elwar
07-20-2007, 07:05 PM
A huge amount of military bases are in the south. Candidates know how to scare their constituents about the possibility of the base closing down and pretty much losing a city their main source of income.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 07:06 PM
Louisiana is becoming more libertarian, i can vouch for that... our citizens are more likely to take up arms against the government, than fight to protect it.
Everyone in louisiana has gun, legal and illegal. ;)

While Louisiana is part of the South, it is not typical of the South. Catholicism is strong. Louisiana had a Jewish Senator, Judah Benjamin. I'm not saying Benjamin was a good guy but it says a lot that there would be a Jew serving at such a high level in the 1850's.

Spirit of '76
07-20-2007, 07:09 PM
There's something to the religious aspect, but I think that's really a minor part of it.

I think what is much more significant is the "Culture War" aspect of it. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans have completely bought into the two-party system. And for most of us these days, the Democrat Party represents the destruction of traditional American culture. It represents the promotion of minority group interests at the expense of the majority, it represents political correctness run amok, it represents anti-religious fervor, it represents attacks on the traditional family structure, etc.

Of course, these things are found to some degree in the neoconservative Republican Party as well, but to a much lesser degree. Having bought into the myth that they only have two choices, these Southerners side with the one that is less overtly hostile to their way of life. It is unfortunate that it comes with imperialist baggage attached, but most people really aren't thinking that abstractly.

They just know that the Democrats stand for things that are very abhorrent to them, such as disallowing prayer in public places, removing religious iconography from state buildings, making 1st-graders read books like "Heather Has Two Mommies", affirmative action, mass immigration (even more than the Repubs), etc. Thus, they go with what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

Coming from a predominantly Scots-Irish (ie. bellicose) background, the matter of a little war here and there isn't a deal-breaker. What matters most to them is the preservation of culture.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 07:10 PM
A huge amount of military bases are in the south. Candidates know how to scare their constituents about the possibility of the base closing down and pretty much losing a city their main source of income.

I'm glad you brought that up. This is where the welfare state and the warfare state meet. The Feds have a lot of influence over the South through the military. Unfortunately, any Southern that voices opposition to the ongoing military occupation of the South are written off or labeled as "racists". (Some of them are, but not every single one).

nullvalu
07-20-2007, 07:17 PM
I think they all need to see Zeitgeist: The Movie (http://zeitgeistmovie.com) and wake up to the fact that their chuches are prisons, not sanctuaries.

LibertyBelle
07-20-2007, 07:20 PM
Western SC is MAJOR Bible belt. Lived there, seen it. The problem is a combo of the 'chosen people' issue, the obey 'authority' stated frequently in the Bible which has been projected onto the gov't, and letting other people do the thinking for them. Obviously, many of them support blindly what the pastors/churches tell them, and don't think independently. Well....sounds familiar, can anyone say MSM?

jblosser
07-20-2007, 07:20 PM
Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States.

Which they lost, and then they had their culture and economy torn apart and "Reconstructed", and spent years under the boot. By some estimates the southern economy has never recovered.

Just looking at cultural trends, it would seem the liberty-minded got out toward the west when they could. Idaho, Montana, many rural parts of Texas, etc. are where quite a lot of the liberty-minded culture aggregates these days.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 07:32 PM
Western SC is MAJOR Bible belt. Lived there, seen it. The problem is a combo of the 'chosen people' issue, the obey 'authority' stated frequently in the Bible which has been projected onto the gov't, and letting other people do the thinking for them. Obviously, many of them support blindly what the pastors/churches tell them, and don't think independently. Well....sounds familiar, can anyone say MSM?

In general, is there any difference between the Black Churches and the White Churches in regards to blindly following their preachers? Are Black Southerners also gung-ho on Israel?

ThePieSwindler
07-20-2007, 07:40 PM
Wow lots of anti-religious fervor in this thread. "yeah its because they are blind ignorant followers of their faith" and "Their churches are prisons not sanctuaries" yeesh people, i agree that it is better to mix faith and reason than to have blind faith, but these blanket generalizations seem a bit ill-founded and crude.

constituent
07-20-2007, 07:40 PM
See, I think that the North is the pro-militarization, anti-liberty half of the nation. I was raised in the south and don't really know many folks at all represented by the characature presented in this thread. I ripped some guy on this very subject not too long ago about the kids in louisiana getting the gob's justice. It seems like on npr's fresh air, the question was posed if the south was threatened by a return to Jim Crowe in light of the recent Supreme Court racial quota ruling.

To me forced integration via racial quotas is not only deliberate population control, it is also an effort to strip the individual of any sense of identity/community/self outside of that defined by the state. Racial quotas are a phenomenon of the north and the elite along the west coast, why? because that is where the racists live in their largely segregated subdivisions... white flight.

"The south" as some sort of easily defined entity within this country is a complete fraud. I live in south texas and I assure you that my part of the state is more culturally tied to central america than say new york or d.c. It has always been this way, even before the United States was even a thought and has never changed... hopefully it never will. It is my home, it is what I know, where I plan to stay and therefore feel the need to respond w/ such a long post... I just hope all the yankees out there (yankee, as defined by me is anyone north of San Antonio) have the patientce and attention span to stick it out to the end.

The problems brought up in this thread is not a problem of the people, but rather the institutions corrupted by power and outside influence. These are the same folks that will cry to you about welfare queens because they only received $200,000 for not raising X, and for raising Y... even if you can't really grow corn down here (knowing this of course, you don't really bother buying all that fertilizer or diesel fuel you'd need either, since it ain't gonna come in anyway)... These folks are typically the children, grandchildren ...on down the line... of formerly slave owning, resource grubbing Americans and are supported by the army of immigrants who moved in from the rust belt back in the late 70's/80's, and have in the last couple of years been coming in droves (really though, I'd take the mexicans and otms over more nosey, uptight yankees any day of the week).

You can always recognize these folks by:

1) The insanely large metal gate with cut out cowboy on the trail, the name "rancho blah blah blah," made to look written in rope, and the enormous Lone Star right in the middle.

2) Their vehicles' [brand name] logo replaced with a Texas Flag and/or the texas flag in the towing hitch of their truck they never use to tow anything (ok, maybe the rv sometimes, but only during the summer when it gets too hot).

3) Their nasally, rapid and often rude speech, attitude, and tone of voice.

4) The general aura that I assume is caused by the realization that you were born in some other little, wimpy state.

Most native Texans I know are extremely liberal (in a social sense) and accepting of anyone who likes to party, shoot firearms, damn the eyes of all authority, raise a fuss in jest over just about anything, talk shit and hear it in return, and respect everyone's right to just be left the hell alone if that's what they so desire... anyone and everyone regardless of color, age, sexual orientation, all those things the institions try to legislate significance into.

constituent
07-20-2007, 07:42 PM
the post was longer, but apparently cut off

just so you know... I define yankee as follows:

yankee- anyone living north of San Antonio, TX

Spirit of '76
07-20-2007, 07:46 PM
the post was longer, but apparently cut off

just so you know... I define yankee as follows:

yankee- anyone living north of San Antonio, TX

Them's fightin' words. :mad:

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 07:49 PM
Wow lots of anti-religious fervor in this thread. "yeah its because they are blind ignorant followers of their faith" and "Their churches are prisons not sanctuaries" yeesh people, i agree that it is better to mix faith and reason than to have blind faith, but these blanket generalizations seem a bit ill-founded and crude.

Not by me. I am one of those libertarians, while not religious myself (look at my signature) who thinks that religious people can and should be libertarians. If you accept that taxation is theft and one of the Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal", then you are a religious libertarian. The reason I brought of the South was that there ancestors (as well as the American Indians) were victims of the federal govt. But at the same time they are amongst the biggest cheerleaders for military interventions.

quickmike
07-20-2007, 08:15 PM
SC is Sean Hannity country...................... Need I say more?

jblosser
07-20-2007, 08:26 PM
Not by me. I am one of those libertarians, while not religious myself (look at my signature) who thinks that religious people can and should be libertarians. If you accept that taxation is theft and one of the Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal", then you are a religious libertarian.

Taxation is not *always* theft. You can get to taxation, even heavy taxation, via legitimate social contracts. Beyond that many "religious" types would maintain that what they own doesn't belong to them in the first place and if their Deity chooses to set up a particular form of government they need to go along with it.

I am a "religious" person and have libertarian ideas simply because a) that is the only intrepretation of the law of this country I consider legally valid, and following the law is the thing to do when it doesn't contradict something Higher, and b) I believe that man is depraved and evil and therefore while government is necessary, it needs to be limited and have checks and balances. I'd frankly prefer my particular Deity to come run things in a face-to-face manner but as long as They don't, this is what is necessary and proper given what I know/believe to be true about reality. There are consensual and/or "victimless" things which I fully believe are immoral and will have consequences, but I don't want the government policing them because the "cure" is worse than the disease. The gun should not be a tool of the church.

I have several non-theist friends who see proper government the same way because they have similar conclusions about the depraved nature of mankind, for their own reasons.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 08:36 PM
I don't want to debate zero government versus limited government. And I understand the "Render under Caesar" concept although I don't think that justifies taxation. As far as man being depraved, I like this quote,
"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

wecandoit
07-20-2007, 08:37 PM
I hate to say it, but I think it's because we are good, trusting folk, in other words easily fooled.

Of course I've never considered myself as such, I knew what Bush was doing with Iraq beforehand and pretty much predicted every bad thing that has happened since, there are always exceptions to generalations.

What most need to understand is even though trusting and perhaps easily fooled, many have been waking up for quite some time. After you have heavily invested in something, it's hard to admit you were wrong. I attend a small church just south of Little Rock, and just judging from the different times we have been lead in prayers by various members, it has gone from, help us defeat our enemies(2003) to protect our troops(2005) to help our leaders do what You would have them do (2006) To outright admissions that we are not doing what God would have us do. (2007)

We are by no means a liberal church, (church of Christ) about as conservative as it gets, and I'd estimate over 70% feel very uneasy about what has gone on with about 30% of that knowing exactly what is going on (destruction of America by evil forces from within) politics is not discussed much at all in the church building, not in sermons, only rarely in bible class. We are pretty strict about not allowing things to interfere with worship, and I'm grateful for that.

I've posted about this subject before in other threads, the Christian faithful in this country, in the south as much as anywhere, are primed to hear Ron Paul's message, they've never been more ready.

Paul's "most pressing moral issue" answer of the last debate and the other answers Paul has given that has touched on "moral" issues, we really need to get to this base of voters, it's the backbone of the country.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 08:40 PM
Taxation is not *always* theft. You can get to taxation, even heavy taxation, via legitimate social contracts. Beyond that many "religious" types would maintain that what they own doesn't belong to them in the first place and if their Deity chooses to set up a particular form of government they need to go along with it.

I am a "religious" person and have libertarian ideas simply because a) that is the only intrepretation of the law of this country I consider legally valid, and following the law is the thing to do when it doesn't contradict something Higher, and b) I believe that man is depraved and evil and therefore while government is necessary, it needs to be limited and have checks and balances. I'd frankly prefer my particular Deity to come run things in a face-to-face manner but as long as They don't, this is what is necessary and proper given what I know/believe to be true about reality. There are consensual and/or "victimless" things which I fully believe are immoral and will have consequences, but I don't want the government policing them because the "cure" is worse than the disease. The gun should not be a tool of the church.

I have several non-theist friends who see proper government the same way because they have similar conclusions about the depraved nature of mankind, for their own reasons.

I think a better way of reaching people on the "victimless crime" issue is to talk about free will. All Christians believe (or should believe) that God has given us free will. And if the government prevents us from making the wrong choices, they are putting government before God. And in the case of drugs, I don't think the Bible mentions drug use as a sin.

jacksit
07-20-2007, 08:40 PM
I'd agree with my fellow Texan though I'd have to shoot him for calling me a yankee. ;)

I'm a hard-core orthodox Catholic who can Bible thump with the best of the Protestants and will argue all day with people about the merits of the Council of Trent, etc. My best friend is a fire-brand atheist. I see no contradiction there. The South in general and Texas in particular is a place where people stand for something. None of this wishy washy nonsense. And a person who stands for something, you can trust to act on principles. (Ron Paul is a good example of this). This breeds a real openness to different opinions, which I never saw in the North or West Coast.

As for why Southerners are more militaristic, the South is worth dying for. If I believed that Texas was in serious danger, I'd be out there too. I think it speaks loudly about the quality of life in the North that Southerners are more interested in avenging attacks on NYC than New Yorkers.

However, it's wrong to think of Southerners as neoconservatives. You have to remember that traditionally the south has voted democratic. Such representatives generally opposed big government but also opposed big money. The change-over didn't occur until the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it's almost entirely the result of the Democrats becoming anti-God and pro-death. Killing your unborn children for personal gain just doesn't fly with most people in the South.

jblosser
07-20-2007, 08:44 PM
"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

I couldn't agree more, really, except I think some minimal type is still a necessary evil.

I'm sure we can agree the big problem is that people miss this entirely; they take it for granted (are indocrinated to think) that government is by existence a good thing and just needs to be pointed in the right direction. They don't think beyond that. This gives us religious types trying to capture government to push their agendas, social activists theirs, etc.

LastoftheMohicans
07-20-2007, 08:48 PM
As for why Southerners are more militaristic, the South is worth dying for. If I believed that Texas was in serious danger, I'd be out there too. I think it speaks loudly about the quality of life in the North that Southerners are more interested in avenging attacks on NYC than New Yorkers.



I don't consider those who defended the South as militaristic. I think one can be pro-self defense and be non-militaristic at the same time. This is the point that Ron Paul makes. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country think opposing a big military establishment is somehow unpatriotic, weak and un-American.

bygone
07-20-2007, 08:55 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

Alright, I'm going to try to help you out a little here, even though it might not seem like it, at first. You might not like a few things I say.

This question is like asking "Why are all internet nerds more self-righteous than your average TV evangelist?" (the answer to which, is, of course, "because stupidity should be painful...) or something of this nature... It's a lack of understanding of both viewpoints.

I'm southern, been that way my entire life, I also happen to be a registered Republican, so you're talking to the horse on this one so to speak, and I'll try to explain at least part of this to you, since you (and some others here) don't seem to get it.

And please don't think I'm defending it, I'm not... that's another story. Anywho.

The person who brought up military bases is 100% correct. When you talk about less government in the southern states that message translates into "less jobs".

This is bad.

It's not just the military bases. A lot of federal programs have brought a lot of jobs, and a higher standard of living, to countless southern states and areas. So when you talk like that to a southerner you're likely to get a bad reaction.

That's just part of it, you know...


Something about southerners in general is your dealing with people (this is in general, there are exceptions) who develop long term relationships with a lot of people. They tend to count on their friends, stick to their guns, go to church on sunday, watch NASCAR, and all that. There's a lot of old beliefs and a lot of "set in your ways" type of thinking that, believe me, even the most intelligent argument will not dislodge.

That's because most of the southern populace does not base their living on intelligence. The people of the South do not live a calculated life, but rather a conservative, set in your ways, learned "trust" if you will in God, Country, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and Cornbread. Do you start to understand what I'm saying here?

Not only that, but they tend to believe people even if these people are very questionable or even downright idiots. My wife and I were having a coversation about Rush Limbaugh the other day, and I was commenting on how he said that he has the power to determine the next republican party nominee, and a couple of other things you can find if you click around.

I'll save you some trouble.

"As WND reported May 16, Limbaugh, the most-listened-to radio host in the U.S. and America's No. 1 voice for conservatism, said he alone has the power to select the 2008 Republican nominee for president at this point, but he's avoiding promoting one candidate over another so as not to sound like a "cheerleader." "

Ok, you laugh (and so did I) but there IS some truth to this. My wife promptly said "Rush is a "The D Word". I said "Yeah, he might be. But that "D word" has 15 million people listening to him and a large majority of them BELIEVE him..."

And so you start to understand the mindset. It's not so much blind obedience as it is the willingness to believe someone who seems credible that expresses viewpoints somewhat similar but usually beneficial to thier way of life due to an inherent laziness and ultimately, the lack of caring about us blowing up the rest of the people on earth as long as God blesses the USA.

Now like I said I'm not defending this point of view, but I'm trying to explain it best that I can. Its utterly frustrating at times. But it's the way it is.

Some young people "get it". Problem is that its not and never will be received very well by most of the parents and older crowd, and sometimes its just with young people that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You know the 25% of America that still believes Bush and Congress are doing a good job? You'll find 75% of them in the south. You do the math.

Most southerners are pro-liberty... and in a lot of cases see the military as an extension of liberty, in the same selfish sense, if that makes any sense to you. It probably isn't your definition of liberty, though. Remember that the south left the union over protecting their way of life more than anything else. At least, that's what you'll believe if you're Southern...

What constituent has to say is pretty spot on, too. As far as churches go, really the Isreal subject in my experience is avoided altogether, as are a lot of other subjects.

There is a tendency in the South to simply ignore or shun certain topics, much like the MSM does about certain things. What's critical, I think, to your understanding of this, is that this doesn't only apply to the south, in some limited ways it applies to America as a whole.

Southern people are largely selfish, in many ways, except to those that they are close to, and to those they are often very generous.

What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

Like the war in Iraq. You know, CNN recently said it would take two years to pull everything out we've got there. That's probably not overestimating it by too awfully much. You're talking about moving 160,000 troops and all the crap they brought with them. That won't happen overnight, and any argument for that needs to reflect that.

Freedom is popular, non-intervention is popular enough to run on it these days I think. Some of the other points need some serious tuning before you run the serious risk of being labelled so badly that the majority, and the MSM who can help you get the majority, won't touch you.

Like the welfare state issue, and all the entitlements and all that. You know, some people depend on that system, and some of them vote. And to be perfectly honest I can't see how you'd just pull the rug right out from under them, and expect no blowback. Same for the education programs, and a lot of other good things the federal governement does. I'm NOT saying there's no bad in that, just that there IS some good, too.

I understand that Ron is a man of principle. I believe that he is. But America is sick, in so many ways, and when you deal with a patient, you must have a certain bedside manner... Does having that compromise your principles? If it does, you're not half the Doctor I think you are.

That's my opinion, and that's all it is. I hope it helps, even in some small way.

jacksit
07-20-2007, 08:56 PM
I don't consider those who defended the South as militaristic. I think one can be pro-self defense and be non-militaristic at the same time.

I agree entirely. I think southerners are pro-self defense and not any more interested in going to war than the rest of America. However, being pro-defense, they don't see serving in the military as "bad" in the way a lot of northerners do.

jblosser
07-20-2007, 08:56 PM
I think a better way of reaching people on the "victimless crime" issue is to talk about free will. All Christians believe (or should believe) that God has given us free will.

Er... no, some of the oldest and largest branches of Christian thought do not believe in the notion of free will, at least not as it is popularly understood. That issue is way too complicated for a forum like this, though.

I have no idea what your background is talking to Christians or other religious types, but in my experience, talking to them about the depravity of man is far and away the best way to get them to recognize that government is at best a necessary evil that needs to be limited. The easy progression is "are people basically good or bad" to "given that, why do we need government" to "but what does it mean when government itself is made of people". Most of the ones that *can* be reached respond well to this, in my experience.

Spirit of '76
07-20-2007, 09:01 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. :)

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 09:02 PM
I don't want to debate zero government versus limited government. And I understand the "Render under Caesar" concept although I don't think that justifies taxation. As far as man being depraved, I like this quote,
"If man is good you don't need government, if man is bad you don't dare have one".

Yeah, but then again, the Jews and disciples of Jesus didn't get to pick their Caesar.

We, however, do get to pick. Similar context, but not the same. These followers of Christ have the choice to chuck Caesar peacefully if they don't like him.

jblosser
07-20-2007, 09:07 PM
Yeah, but then again, the Jews and disciples of Jesus didn't get to pick their Caesar.

We, however, do get to pick. Similar context, but not the same. These followers of Christ have the choice to chuck Caesar peacefully if they don't like him.

This is an important point. I have had some luck pointing out to Christians that following the laws of this particular nation require them to take personal responsibility for their own defense and government.

DAZ
07-20-2007, 09:24 PM
Spirit of 76, constituent, and bygone have made some excellent points. I would only add something that most people outside the South don't see. There are really two "Souths". The first is the loud and proud to be Southern, hunting, gun owning, leave me the hell alone type. More rural. Evangelical Christianity tends to be pretty big, and they are mostly raised to bleed Republican because Democrats "love killing babies" etc. The second South is the big city South like Atlanta. Especially Atlanta. The Southern identity, and even our accent, is more watered down because of the influx of people from other areas of the country, and from other countries entirely. The religious mix is vastly greater, and I think even on the Protestant side tends to be less intense. (I was raised Catholic.) Republicans are still dominant, but we have no shortage of Democrats. We are still proud, just not quite as loud. I think across the board, we are raised to be aware of a military tradition and the "duty to country" is more ingrained than in most other regions.

I think the generalization that we are pro-military is for the most part correct, for all the reasons already outlined by others. The anti-liberty part is less clear. Here, religion can play a big role in one's comprehension of things like homosexuality and abortion. Or you just might not care. But most people do want the government to get its hand out of our pockets. The biggest split is whether we want the government out of our (neighbor's) bedroom as well.

Carbine556
07-20-2007, 09:58 PM
This is my take on it. Firstly, it has to do with religion. There are no two ways about it...

Muslims hate jews...
Jews are God's chosen people...
Muslims hate god's chosen people...
Terrorists are islamofascists (still trying to figure that one out)...
Fascist=Nazi...
Nazis murdered six million jews in World War Two...
Jew hating muslim terrorists want to murder six million of God's chosen people...
Jesus was a jew...
Muslims hate Jesus and, therefore, Christianity...
Israel is God's pet country...
Israel is surrounded by jew hating muslim terrorists that want to murder six million of God's chosen people...
We, as a Christian nation, must supply aid and support to God's pet country...*


*I, personally, do not subscribe to this train of thought.


Jobs. As said earlier. For example, if you shut down Robins Air Force base, Warner Robins, Georgia would be a ghost town. If you want to see a Southerner get hoppin' mad, threaten to close a military base in a place like that. The base was being threatened with closure when I was in high school and the entire city was protesting it.

Our country is at war, like it or not. No, I absolutely do not agree with it, but it's a fact. Southerners never have and never will back down from a fight. Southerners would rather, if I may quote General Longstreet (Tom Berringer) from the movie Gettysburg, "lose the war than admit to the mistake". Convincing Southerners that we should leave Iraq before we've won (whenever and however that's supposed to happen)? You don't have enough time in the day, and would have better luck trying to ride lightning across the sky. My mother is dead set on voting for Ron Paul. She absolutely loves him. My stepfather is a Fredhead. And the reason for that is he thinks we shouldn't "cut and run" in Iraq. I'm still working on him...

These are a couple of reasons why Southerners seem to be pro-militarism. Others have been laid out as well, and nothing that I've written should be taken as a negative comment on Southerners or Southern culture. I love my Southern people and Dixie, and I'm going right back there when I get out of the Navy.:)

bygone
07-20-2007, 10:26 PM
I cannot help but think that great results would have been obtained had my views been thought better of; yet I am much inclined to accept the present condition as for the best.

James Longstreet

Others have been laid out as well, and nothing that I've written should be taken as a negative comment on Southerners or Southern culture. I love my Southern people and Dixie, and I'm going right back there when I get out of the Navy.

Carbine

Well said, Carbine. I agree with this. The fatter and older I become the more I long for a cooler climate, though. Maybe one day.

Moneychanger
07-20-2007, 10:31 PM
Alright, I'm going to try to help you out a little here, even though it might not seem like it, at first. You might not like a few things I say.

This question is like asking "Why are all internet nerds more self-righteous than your average TV evangelist?" (the answer to which, is, of course, "because stupidity should be painful...) or something of this nature... It's a lack of understanding of both viewpoints.

I'm southern, been that way my entire life, I also happen to be a registered Republican, so you're talking to the horse on this one so to speak, and I'll try to explain at least part of this to you, since you (and some others here) don't seem to get it.

And please don't think I'm defending it, I'm not... that's another story. Anywho.

The person who brought up military bases is 100% correct. When you talk about less government in the southern states that message translates into "less jobs".

This is bad.

It's not just the military bases. A lot of federal programs have brought a lot of jobs, and a higher standard of living, to countless southern states and areas. So when you talk like that to a southerner you're likely to get a bad reaction.

That's just part of it, you know...


Something about southerners in general is your dealing with people (this is in general, there are exceptions) who develop long term relationships with a lot of people. They tend to count on their friends, stick to their guns, go to church on sunday, watch NASCAR, and all that. There's a lot of old beliefs and a lot of "set in your ways" type of thinking that, believe me, even the most intelligent argument will not dislodge.

That's because most of the southern populace does not base their living on intelligence. The people of the South do not live a calculated life, but rather a conservative, set in your ways, learned "trust" if you will in God, Country, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and Cornbread. Do you start to understand what I'm saying here?

Not only that, but they tend to believe people even if these people are very questionable or even downright idiots. My wife and I were having a coversation about Rush Limbaugh the other day, and I was commenting on how he said that he has the power to determine the next republican party nominee, and a couple of other things you can find if you click around.

I'll save you some trouble.

"As WND reported May 16, Limbaugh, the most-listened-to radio host in the U.S. and America's No. 1 voice for conservatism, said he alone has the power to select the 2008 Republican nominee for president at this point, but he's avoiding promoting one candidate over another so as not to sound like a "cheerleader." "

Ok, you laugh (and so did I) but there IS some truth to this. My wife promptly said "Rush is a "The D Word". I said "Yeah, he might be. But that "D word" has 15 million people listening to him and a large majority of them BELIEVE him..."

And so you start to understand the mindset. It's not so much blind obedience as it is the willingness to believe someone who seems credible that expresses viewpoints somewhat similar but usually beneficial to thier way of life due to an inherent laziness and ultimately, the lack of caring about us blowing up the rest of the people on earth as long as God blesses the USA.

Now like I said I'm not defending this point of view, but I'm trying to explain it best that I can. Its utterly frustrating at times. But it's the way it is.

Some young people "get it". Problem is that its not and never will be received very well by most of the parents and older crowd, and sometimes its just with young people that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You know the 25% of America that still believes Bush and Congress are doing a good job? You'll find 75% of them in the south. You do the math.

Most southerners are pro-liberty... and in a lot of cases see the military as an extension of liberty, in the same selfish sense, if that makes any sense to you. It probably isn't your definition of liberty, though. Remember that the south left the union over protecting their way of life more than anything else. At least, that's what you'll believe if you're Southern...

What constituent has to say is pretty spot on, too. As far as churches go, really the Isreal subject in my experience is avoided altogether, as are a lot of other subjects.

There is a tendency in the South to simply ignore or shun certain topics, much like the MSM does about certain things. What's critical, I think, to your understanding of this, is that this doesn't only apply to the south, in some limited ways it applies to America as a whole.

Southern people are largely selfish, in many ways, except to those that they are close to, and to those they are often very generous.

What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

Like the war in Iraq. You know, CNN recently said it would take two years to pull everything out we've got there. That's probably not overestimating it by too awfully much. You're talking about moving 160,000 troops and all the crap they brought with them. That won't happen overnight, and any argument for that needs to reflect that.

Freedom is popular, non-intervention is popular enough to run on it these days I think. Some of the other points need some serious tuning before you run the serious risk of being labelled so badly that the majority, and the MSM who can help you get the majority, won't touch you.

Like the welfare state issue, and all the entitlements and all that. You know, some people depend on that system, and some of them vote. And to be perfectly honest I can't see how you'd just pull the rug right out from under them, and expect no blowback. Same for the education programs, and a lot of other good things the federal governement does. I'm NOT saying there's no bad in that, just that there IS some good, too.

I understand that Ron is a man of principle. I believe that he is. But America is sick, in so many ways, and when you deal with a patient, you must have a certain bedside manner... Does having that compromise your principles? If it does, you're not half the Doctor I think you are.

That's my opinion, and that's all it is. I hope it helps, even in some small way.

Just vote for Clinton or McCain and spare us your stupid rationalization for why you wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. You want bedside manner? That's exactly what you've received from every main-stream-media politician! If you want the truth, you need to stick to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't care to coddle the masses(your "sick patient"), that's what every other candidate does. He means what he says and he says what he means. You can either accept it or ignore it. But you CAN NOT change it! That is Dr. Paul's true principle!

FSP-Rebel
07-20-2007, 10:35 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.
Like I've said, the southerners have lost their way. They are no longer the soveriengty fans of the past. They've learned other things in the public schools. The OLD south is Gone with the Wind, thanx to the contemporarys. Leave it up to a guy in Mich to understand the culture of the South. History speaks, I guess.

jblosser
07-20-2007, 10:43 PM
What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

With respect, let us know when you've been elected to Congress 10 times and have been invited to speak to a packed house at one of the biggest companies in the country. Dr. Paul doesn't campaign, he speaks what he sees as truth and hopes he can get people to listen. He never expected to win once and doesn't care if he wins now or not, he's not going to compromise.

Of course it bucks conventional wisdom but this time at least people are responding to it.

cac1963
07-20-2007, 10:45 PM
In general, is there any difference between the Black Churches and the White Churches in regards to blindly following their preachers? Are Black Southerners also gung-ho on Israel?

Here is an article that ran about a week ago, before our city elections this Tuesday. Nothing specific about Israel, but still relevant to the churches' influence over elections in racially mixed populations.


Praying for votes: Churches playing role in Macon elections (http://www.macon.com/415/story/84430.html)
There is a commonly held tenet to Macon politics: You can't get elected without the churches.

Specifically, that means black churches, which have a long tradition as a political linchpin in the South.

And in Macon, where about 60 percent of voters are black, candidates see a preacher's endorsement not just as feather in their campaign caps but as a nearly crucial part of election strategy.

Spirit of '76
07-20-2007, 10:46 PM
Just vote for Clinton or McCain and spare us your stupid rationalization for why you wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. You want bedside manner? That's exactly what you've received from every main-stream-media politician! If you want the truth, you need to stick to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't care to coddle the masses(your "sick patient"), that's what every other candidate does. He means what he says and he says what he means. You can either accept it or ignore it. But you CAN NOT change it! That is Dr. Paul's true principle!

Ease up, hoss!

Where did the man say he wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul?

There's nothing wrong with carefully considering the words one chooses when presenting 'radical' concepts. It seems to me that's all he was saying.

Moneychanger
07-20-2007, 10:53 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

This is an awesome post, LastoftheMohicans! A very succinct history lesson wrapped in a dilema. What to do, what to say. :confused:

Damn!

I've tried writing just a small answer and I can't. Not thoroughly, anyway. It's because I don't believe there is a South and a North anymore. I think we have two factions of state-worshippers and a small (but growing!) anti-state worshippers. You might have some good evidence that the Southern states worship the state more than the Northern states, but I would bet that they are pretty much even in the long run.

Instead of separating people between geographical boundries, let's just draw them out philosophically: for state or anti-state. I think we'll get further this way.;)

TheConstitutionLives
07-20-2007, 10:57 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.


Because down here men are more concerned with College Football. Down here you can be Pro-Life yet support killing in war. Down here you're a "real man" if you kill things, as long as it's not babies.

cac1963
07-20-2007, 11:06 PM
Some good signs that the Bush love (whether neocon or religiously-motivated) is wearing off in the south, at least from a Georgian's perspective:

*Ralph Reed, typical Rove, Abramoff-linked candidate running for lt. governor of our state last year, lost the election (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800792.html) to relative newcomer Casey Cagle.

*Paul Broun's anticipated victory (http://www.macon.com/220/story/92054.html) in heavy GOP territory of northeast Georgia this Tuesday, running largely on a biblically-laced constitutionalist platform, against the GOP establishment-backed Whitehead. The absentee ballots are still being counted, and Whitehead isn't conceding, but there are not enough absentee ballots to make up the almost 400 vote difference between the two.

*Two Democrat incumbent representatives, without national Dem party support, fended off (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/GA/2006-11-07-GA-US-house_x.htm) Bush-backed GOP challengers in 2006, Jim Marshall in Macon, and John Barrow in Savannah. (Though both Dems also backed Bush's war in Iraq). These two seats were believed to be the most critical for the GOP to try to retain control of the House.

Edit: also factor in the results of Tuesday's city elections in which incumbents lost heavily in what amounted to a public flush of the municipal toilets, and you get the sense that people are READY for change in our government.

I think these recent events indicate that non-establishment, anti-status quo candidates have very good chances in the South, at least in Georgia.

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 11:07 PM
I'd say the biggest cause for concern in the south is the Evangelical Christians (http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437). Not all of them, mind you, just the ones that give them a bad name.

Bradley in DC
07-21-2007, 12:12 AM
Lincoln's legacy.

torchbearer
07-21-2007, 12:41 AM
Lincoln's legacy.

The war of nothern aggression?

SeanEdwards
07-21-2007, 01:26 AM
I think the south has a very strong military tradition that often goes back several generations. I think this may at least partially be due to the economic damage done to the region after the civil war. Military service was probably an attractive career option to people without lots of choices. Then when you get entire communities that are heavily involved with the military it begins to affect their worldview.

Military culture is very focused on uniformity and obedience. These attributes are critical to get people to charge into enemy fire and operate effectively as a team. These character traits probably spill over into general attitudes about what patriotism means. These people that value discipline and obedience are probably more likely to follow the guidance of people they recognize as leaders, and be less inclined towards independent thought.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. ;)

Paul-O-Holic
07-21-2007, 06:10 AM
This has been something that has been
Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying?

I'm originally from South Georgia, and I would say that you are correct. However, I will have to say that Ron Paul's message is definitely gaining ground in the South. I firmly believe that if he can get to the South and get his message out, the ENTIRE South will go Ron Paul. The South wants the federal government to leave them the hell alone. As you correctly stated, we've already fought one war over it, and if the trend of bigger and bigger government doesn't stop, we will fight another one in the coming years.

In fact, a colleague of mine was recently in Greenville, SC, and happened to stop and eat at a restaurant where they were having a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting. He said that they all had Ron Paul stickers all over their cars and were wearing Ron Paul shirts. As you can see here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYKQ2T31AzA, I was recently at a Toby Keith concert in Bristow, VA spreading the good word to my fellow Southerners.

The response I received was good, except for one group of guys who called me a "pussy" because I support Ron Paul. The reason they called me this is because of his "unwillingness to fight radical islam." But I'm telling you, if Ron Paul can reach the South and explain his foreign policy as one of non-interventionism, just like the Founders, then a lot of the Neo-Cons in the South should come around. One of the guys in the group ended up agreeing with me -- one more for the good guys.

Hell, I used to be such a Neo-Con that, for my honeymoon last year, my wife and I went to a Freedom Concert and met Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter! And I used to go and do pro-war protest with the Freepers.

But thanks to LRC, Mises, and, most of all, Ron Paul, I have seen the light and am now a Libertarian. Ron Paul has a way of explaining his foreign policy where even a Neo-Con, unless they are in denial, will realize that Ron Paul is right.

walt
07-21-2007, 07:56 AM
Do they have the Internet in the south? ;)

LibertyEagle
07-21-2007, 08:12 AM
Originally Posted by bygone View Post
What people trying to help Ron Paul MUST understand is some of these points:

First off, you're NOT going to cram the idea down everyone's throat. This just will not work. You're going to have to sugarcoat it, at least somewhat, or it just will never fly in the mainstream.

Next, you need to avoid being TOO controversial for the MSM to touch. Every time I hear someone mention the word "neoconservative" I cringe, since I know what they just did was in some small way commit political suicide. On the same level as that, getting aligned with "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" and such will alienate you from MSM, and from a large portion of American voters, and it will do it fast. There's a lot of damage already done, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been feeling this for a while. Certain parts of the Ron Paul message appeal to me but I'm also smart enough to know that you can't be TOO radical or you won't get very far. It's the difference between saying "I'll get rid of the IRS" and "I will lower taxes to the lowest level in history."

Just like saying that "Nine eleven was a tragic event and I think we don't have all the facts. We might never have all the facts, I mean, its a very controversial subject" or saying "It's a fraud" and all that.

Or the difference in saying "I'm pro-life OR pro-choice" when really the answer ought to be "It's a states rights issue, and if I were President it wouldn't really matter since the people would have more choice at the state level. I'm for states rights, and better local government."

Do you see what I'm saying here? A lot of people especially those in the south are going to see these viewpoints as too radical, and to be honest I have some doubts about some of these points being valid answers anyway.

I think what bygone is getting at here, has nothing whatsoever to do with changing Dr. Paul's principles, but instead how to make them more palatable to the general public. I agree with him on a lot of what he said too.

However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them. That is, after all, one of the reasons we admire him so much.

Perhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

jblosser
07-21-2007, 08:36 AM
I think what bygone is getting at here, has nothing whatsoever to do with changing Dr. Paul's principles, but instead how to make them more palatable to the general public. I agree with him on a lot of what he said too.

However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them. That is, after all, one of the reasons we admire him so much.

Perhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

Dr. Paul is demonstrating to us that what people today are finding most palatable is someone speaking an uncompromised message. People are sick of politicians who play these games and "customise" the message to the audience. They are sick of it to the point that they are willing to listen to someone they don't agree with on some major things and support him anyway because they believe he will do what he says. The man sat in California at Google's headquarters and said abortion was murder and we should abolish the IRS and most government welfare programs, for pete's sake.

As much as I want Dr. Paul president, his goal so far has not been to get people on the RP train, it has been to deliver a message of liberty and allow people to respond to it. I am sticking with him on this.

MsDoodahs
07-21-2007, 09:10 AM
IPerhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

Shooting ourselves in the foot...an RP supporter who opens with "I know you don't have the internet down here" or "you people are blinded by your stupid religion" in a small town in the South. :rolleyes:

Lots of Southerners will pick up on that attitude without the RP supporter saying a word.

jblosser
07-21-2007, 09:17 AM
Shooting ourselves in the foot...an RP supporter who opens with "I know you don't have the internet down here" or "you people are blinded by your stupid religion" in a small town in the South. :rolleyes:

Lots of Southerners will pick up on that attitude without the RP supporter saying a word.

I do find it hilarious people make those comments considering Dr. Paul represents a farming and military community in East Texas. Silly yankees and their complexes, eh?

Carbine556
07-21-2007, 09:26 AM
Do they have the Internet in the south? ;)

LOL!!

This wouldn't be so funny to me if I hadn't just come from home where my mother doesn't have internet, and even if they did get internet, the best they would be able to get would be dial up, at about 14.4 kbps. My folks' computer crapped out on them and have gotten along just fine without a computer for several months so they just cancelled their service rather than pay the bill for something that was useless to them (with a broken computer, I mean). So, I have to give my mom all of her Ron Paul news.

But yes, they do have the internet in the South. We even wear shoes down there.:)

MsDoodahs
07-21-2007, 09:32 AM
I have dial up, too. It's a trade off, between living where I am (very rural) or living somewhere more crowded.

I value this very rural setting more than I value high speed internet access.

lol...I guess you could say that on a personal level, I'm...isolationist. ;)

Spirit of '76
07-21-2007, 09:34 AM
I'm originally from South Georgia, and I would say that you are correct. However, I will have to say that Ron Paul's message is definitely gaining ground in the South. I firmly believe that if he can get to the South and get his message out, the ENTIRE South will go Ron Paul. The South wants the federal government to leave them the hell alone. As you correctly stated, we've already fought one war over it, and if the trend of bigger and bigger government doesn't stop, we will fight another one in the coming years.

In fact, a colleague of mine was recently in Greenville, SC, and happened to stop and eat at a restaurant where they were having a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting. He said that they all had Ron Paul stickers all over their cars and were wearing Ron Paul shirts. As you can see here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYKQ2T31AzA, I was recently at a Toby Keith concert in Bristow, VA spreading the good word to my fellow Southerners.

The response I received was good, except for one group of guys who called me a "pussy" because I support Ron Paul. The reason they called me this is because of his "unwillingness to fight radical islam." But I'm telling you, if Ron Paul can reach the South and explain his foreign policy as one of non-interventionism, just like the Founders, then a lot of the Neo-Cons in the South should come around. One of the guys in the group ended up agreeing with me -- one more for the good guys.

Hell, I used to be such a Neo-Con that, for my honeymoon last year, my wife and I went to a Freedom Concert and met Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter! And I used to go and do pro-war protest with the Freepers.

But thanks to LRC, Mises, and, most of all, Ron Paul, I have seen the light and am now a Libertarian. Ron Paul has a way of explaining his foreign policy where even a Neo-Con, unless they are in denial, will realize that Ron Paul is right.


Hey, good job, man. Congratulations on coming around to the good guys.

Interesting that you were at a Toby Keith concert spreading the word. I heard him on the radio the other day backpedaling on the hawkishness. He was basically saying that all those 'let's kick ass and take names' -type songs were about going after the guys who did 9/11, not about starting wars in other countries like Iraq. He was also saying that we need to let the Iraqi government take over and come home.

I took that as a heartening sign...

LibertyEagle
07-21-2007, 09:35 AM
Shooting ourselves in the foot...an RP supporter who opens with "I know you don't have the internet down here" or "you people are blinded by your stupid religion" in a small town in the South. :rolleyes:

Lots of Southerners will pick up on that attitude without the RP supporter saying a word.

Agreed.

My point was that WE are not Ron Paul. Nor, do most of us share his low-key way of going about describing issues simply. He doesn't scare people off. So, yes, I think we need to be attuned to how we go about discussing issues. You betcha. Most people don't like things crammed down their throat and treated like idiots if they don't agree.

PennCustom4RP
07-21-2007, 09:48 AM
See, I think that the North is the pro-militarization, anti-liberty half of the nation....


rmore nosey, uptight yankees any day of the week).

You can always recognize these folks by:

1) The insanely large metal gate with cut out cowboy on the trail, the name "rancho blah blah blah," made to look written in rope, and the enormous Lone Star right in the middle.

2) Their vehicles' logo replaced with a Texas Flag and/or the texas flag in the towing hitch of their truck they never use to tow anything (ok, maybe the rv sometimes, but only during the summer when it gets too hot).

[B]3) Their nasally, rapid and often rude speech, attitude, and tone of voice.

4) The general aura that I assume is caused by the realization that you were born in some other little, wimpy state.

Most native Texans I know are extremely liberal (in a social sense) and accepting of anyone who likes to party, shoot firearms, damn the eyes of all authority, raise a fuss in jest over just about anything, talk shit and hear it in return, and respect everyone's right to just be left the hell alone if that's what they so desire... anyone and everyone regardless of color, age, sexual orientation, all those things the institions try to legislate significance into.

This amuses me, where do you think Ron Paul is from? He is born and raised in Pennsylvania, only resettled in TX. Any more broad generalizations to throw in with the rest?
btw I'm from PA and live in SWLA

DAZ
07-21-2007, 12:24 PM
I think this thread boils down to one very good point that we all need to take to heart. Know your audience. I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again. There are some words that many people have kneejerk reactions to. The worst way to start a conversation about Ron Paul with someone who you know is a lifelong Democrat is to say, "Ron Paul is a Republican running for President." You have to realize the prejudices and perceptions of the person you are trying to convince and change tactics accordingly. Ron Paul has mass appeal, but many of the "labels" ascribed to him can set off alarms in potential converts. Know when to use which labels, and you can convince just about anybody that Ron Paul is the answer to their question.

qednick
07-21-2007, 02:11 PM
Do they have the Internet in the south? ;)

Yes... but we do it on "dial-up" using two plastic cups and a length of string. :p

torchbearer
07-21-2007, 02:11 PM
I fish with internet.

LibertyBelle
07-21-2007, 02:28 PM
In general, is there any difference between the Black Churches and the White Churches in regards to blindly following their preachers? Are Black Southerners also gung-ho on Israel?

I will admit I don't know anything about the Southern black churches when it comes to Israel, but good question. Depends I would guess on what they have been told and preached about throughout their life, and even if they are part of a large national church (such as Southern Baptist Convention) that is funded and influenced by certain people that push pro-Israel support. The biggest Southern Baptist church where I live in FL is major gung-ho Israel and pro 'chosen people.' Mostly white folk attend there.

It's not limited to the Bible belt, that's for sure, just know it's very prevalent there at least in the predominantly white churches.

bygone
07-22-2007, 02:09 PM
Just vote for Clinton or McCain and spare us your stupid rationalization for why you wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul. You want bedside manner? That's exactly what you've received from every main-stream-media politician! If you want the truth, you need to stick to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't care to coddle the masses(your "sick patient"), that's what every other candidate does. He means what he says and he says what he means. You can either accept it or ignore it. But you CAN NOT change it! That is Dr. Paul's true principle!

-- Moneychanger, New Member



"He said true things, but called them by wrong names."

- Robert Browning, Poet


With respect, let us know when you've been elected to Congress 10 times and have been invited to speak to a packed house at one of the biggest companies in the country. Dr. Paul doesn't campaign, he speaks what he sees as truth and hopes he can get people to listen. He never expected to win once and doesn't care if he wins now or not, he's not going to compromise.

Of course it bucks conventional wisdom but this time at least people are responding to it.

--jblosser, Senior Member



“I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle.”
- Andrew Carnegie, founder of Pittsburgh's Carnegie Steel Company, sold to JP Morgan, devoting the remainder of his life to philanthropy.

Ease up, hoss!
Where did the man say he wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul?
There's nothing wrong with carefully considering the words one chooses when presenting 'radical' concepts. It seems to me that's all he was saying.


-- Spirit of '76, Senior Member



"Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

I think what bygone is getting at here, has nothing whatsoever to do with changing Dr. Paul's principles, but instead how to make them more palatable to the general public. I agree with him on a lot of what he said too.

However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them. That is, after all, one of the reasons we admire him so much.

Perhaps though, WE should take to heart what bygone is saying and think about the essence of his message. Maybe this is good advice to WE the supporters as we talk to people about Dr. Paul. There are all kinds of ways to deliver the same message and since our goal is to get them on-board the RP train, we want to deliver it in such a way, that they will listen. Otherwise, we've done nothing more than shot ourselves in the foot.

-- LibertyEagle, Senior Member


"A Spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar."
-Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1748


Dr. Paul is demonstrating to us that what people today are finding most palatable is someone speaking an uncompromised message. People are sick of politicians who play these games and "customise" the message to the audience. They are sick of it to the point that they are willing to listen to someone they don't agree with on some major things and support him anyway because they believe he will do what he says. The man sat in California at Google's headquarters and said abortion was murder and we should abolish the IRS and most government welfare programs, for pete's sake.

As much as I want Dr. Paul president, his goal so far has not been to get people on the RP train, it has been to deliver a message of liberty and allow people to respond to it. I am sticking with him on this.

-jblosser, Senior Member


I don't personally believe the people at Google can be compared to the mainstream. I think my meaning by quoting greater men than I should be making my meaning obvious.
-bygone

Do they have the Internet in the south?

--Walt, Senior Member


Some of them sir, do not. Quite a few American voters do not. And the only way you will reach them is by spending your money or getting on MSM, or both. These in fact are probably the most likely to vote against you having never heard you. We obviously have internet in the South... :)
-bygone

My point was that WE are not Ron Paul. Nor, do most of us share his low-key way of going about describing issues simply. He doesn't scare people off. So, yes, I think we need to be attuned to how we go about discussing issues. You betcha. Most people don't like things crammed down their throat and treated like idiots if they don't agree.
-Liberty Eagle, Senior Member


ITA.
-bygone


As far as voting for him, it may never get beyond the primary if something doesn't change.

RonRules08
07-22-2007, 07:20 PM
This has been something that has been annoying me for several years. Southerners, at least Southern politicians, are almost completely pro- Big Government. The Democrats in the South seem to be a lot like Democrats everywhere else. But the Republicans, many former Dixiecrats and others religious folks pushed out of the Democratic Party, are just as bad. In particular, they are militarists and imperialists. Yet, their ancestors were the victims of an imperial War. I am speaking, of course, of the War Between the States. And before some of you may say it, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or at least not initially. It's ironic to hear neocon radio hosts, who must have some popularity in the South, cite Abe Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties as a precedent for today's war on terror.

Are there any Southerners in the forum who can either support or criticize what I'm saying? I do what to qualify what I've said by saying that I'm speaking generally. And I'm not implying that the rest of the country is any more libertarian than the South.

They are completely brainwashed from the time they are babies by their parents, churches, schools etc. They are taught to think in a certain way and to believe the world is a certain way. As we are seeing from the Iraq war supporters, chickenhawks, the the plain ignorance we have to do our best to get the truth to them and spread the word. Its a technique that requires practice. You have to feed them small pieces at a time or you will scare them and they will ignore you. You have to have proof and references to the things you talk about from what they would consider reliable sources. I have occasionally got through to a few but its hard.

Badger Paul
07-23-2007, 09:24 AM
Southerners like to fight, it's in their blood. Many are descended from Scots-Irish borderers and they were some of the fiercest warriors in the British Isles. Scottish Highlanders too. The military is a revered institution in the South and that take command from above mindset is always present.

Throw in Dispensationalism and you'll see why RP has his work cut out for him in places like South Carolina.

I don't have a problem with that. The problem is the way the military has been abused in this war and if you get Southerners to see how badly the institution has been damaged, then maybe they will support RP.

constituent
07-23-2007, 10:00 AM
penn, i stand by my statement and am fully aware of Ron Paul's state of origin...

i believe most of my statements apply to the good dr. as well, though I'm happy to welcome him and a few other yankees (interestingly enough... all of them from pennsylvania, many folks there, I know from experience to be very much those like rural s. texas).

lighten up, learn to laugh.

constituent
07-23-2007, 10:00 AM
that's half the problem with you yankees.... so uptight...

tisk, tisk, tisk.

PennCustom4RP
07-23-2007, 12:52 PM
lighten up, learn to laugh.

Oh I was laughing, I did say I was amused.
It has been said of Pennsylvania:
Pittsburgh on one side, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in between.
:D
Rural is Rural regardless of region, its the city people who might be uptight, but with good reason, and why I live in the country.

bygone
07-23-2007, 07:26 PM
However, Dr. Paul is unlikely to change the way he has always chosen to speak plainly about the issues, just the way he sees them.

Heh.