PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone discussing the debate on other forums?




AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 02:50 AM
I've been engaged in a couple of heated exchanges with what I would call the establishment voters. They are fiercely loyal to Bush and his policies and see no economic downturn coming. I've read the GAO report. I watched the debate. I've posted YouTube clips, and they still say Paul was nuts.

Now, don't go off on me, but we are preaching to the choir on this site. It's a bit over the top in support of Paul and his performance. I believe in his message and think this could be the change America needs.

My question is, how do you deal with people who still say Paul is a nutjob? How do you deal with people who say Thompson won the debate and use Luntz as a source? I've been on this other site for more than 4 years. These posters have always loved Bush's rhetoric and foreign policy stances.

Any advice?

ChooseLiberty
01-11-2008, 03:10 AM
Unfortunately most people won't "get it" until it hits them personally.

Typical thought process "It's a bad break when my neighbor loses his job and his house, when I lose mine it's a recession." baaaaaa.

Most of the issues he's talking about are too complicated for people that don't at least understand econ 101.

angrydragon
01-11-2008, 03:13 AM
Show em the Beck interview with David Walker, head of the GAO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

wildflower
01-11-2008, 03:15 AM
Funny that you posted this, because I just got back from reading a very pro-war, neocon forum (starts with an f) and I was sickened.... truly sickened by their comments. Those people are so freakin vicious, mean-spirited and completely brainwashed by establishment neoconservativsm.

Anyway, they were all going on and on about Fred Thompson (he's the favorite there). And of course, as usual, they were viciously bashing Paul. With all the usual smears, "He's certifiable", "He's loonytunes", yadda yadda.

I couldn't take much more of it, but I wanted to see what they had to say about some of Paul's best responses. Of course, very few people there give him credit, even when it's due. Maybe it's group-think, because the majority there hate Paul.

:(

angrydragon
01-11-2008, 03:17 AM
What forum starts with a f?

wildflower
01-11-2008, 03:18 AM
I was talking about freerepublic.

I have a feeling that the OP might've been talking about them too. :D

(AlbemarleNC0003 - if you post there, PM me... I'm curious who you are over there)

angrydragon
01-11-2008, 03:21 AM
Oh never heard of them much before.

The only forums I've belonged to before this one were investment forums and anandtech.

mokkan88
01-11-2008, 03:22 AM
Show them the below picture and ask them if this is what they call "honorable".

WARNING: GRAPHIC!
http://piratenews.org/iraq-war-leg-blown-off-kid.jpg

AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 03:23 AM
Show em the Beck interview with David Walker, head of the GAO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

I have. I've dissected the report. It's not good. They shrug it off.

No, it's not freerepub. It's a completely independent board. There are people of all kinds of political persuasions there. The Republicans are divided. The Democrats are Obama and Edwards fans.

Meh. Lou Dobbs reminds me of why I do it. Disgusting performance, a legacy he can't be proud of.

SuMuKong
01-11-2008, 03:23 AM
I've been engaged in a couple of heated exchanges with what I would call the establishment voters. They are fiercely loyal to Bush and his policies and see no economic downturn coming. I've read the GAO report. I watched the debate. I've posted YouTube clips, and they still say Paul was nuts.

Now, don't go off on me, but we are preaching to the choir on this site. It's a bit over the top in support of Paul and his performance. I believe in his message and think this could be the change America needs.

My question is, how do you deal with people who still say Paul is a nutjob? How do you deal with people who say Thompson won the debate and use Luntz as a source? I've been on this other site for more than 4 years. These posters have always loved Bush's rhetoric and foreign policy stances.

Any advice?

Some people are stuck on certain issues, and there's no way that you can sway them by logical argument or otherwise. For example, I very much disagree with RP's non-interventionist position, and I doubt that there is very much that you could say to persuade me otherwise. That's not a reflection on RP's position; that's simply a strong opinion that I hold.

However, the libertarian philosophy is not just an anti-war platform, and there are many things that many (if not most) people will find appealing in the overall liberatarian message. So if someone is adamant on staying in Iraq, for example, you may want to approach the issue from a different angle.

AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 03:24 AM
Maybe it's group-think, because the majority there hate Paul.

:(

And we like Paul. :D

AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 03:26 AM
Some people are stuck on certain issues, and there's no way that you can sway them by logical argument or otherwise. For example, I very much disagree with RP's non-interventionist position, and I doubt that there is very much that you could say to persuade me otherwise. That's not a reflection on RP's position; that's simply a strong opinion that I hold.

However, the libertarian philosophy is not just an anti-war platform, and there are many things that many (if not most) people will find appealing in the overall liberatarian message. So if someone is adamant on staying in Iraq, for example, you may want to approach the issue from a different angle.

I'm here for the economy.

I suppose I am afraid of turning people off that aren't as closed minded. I know what I need to do. Walk away. Lost causes.

Edu
01-11-2008, 03:28 AM
I think it starts with education. These people are ignorant due to their lack of informing themselves. They won't look at stuff, they like their little reality bubble (till it pops).
Ignorance is bliss, like don't wake me up, let me sleep.
You need to start slow, and everyone is different, but using facts like stuff about the federal reserve and how there wasn't a irs for the first 100 years plus we had a surplus sometimes gets them to think because they can go look it up pretty easy. Most won't and it gets frustrating when you cast those pearls before them.
A lot of them are getting something out of the socialist system and don't want that to stop no matter how many other people are hurt (enslaved) by it.
I agree they are sickening to listen to but you may be able to make some good points.
Suggest you start a new account on a different board if possible and go from there.
If you want to be a little sneaky you could act like an idiot and ask them a lot of questions about their position and see if they can defend it without calling names.

AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 03:30 AM
Suggest you start a new account on a different board if possible and go from there.
If you want to be a little sneaky you could act like an idiot and ask them a lot of questions about their position and see if they can defend it without calling names.

No way. I know a lot of these people personally. I ain't leaving. And no, the Loyal Bushies can't go far without name calling. I'll just consider them lost causes and move on.

user
01-11-2008, 03:30 AM
Funny that you posted this, because I just got back from reading a very pro-war, neocon forum (starts with an f) and I was sickened.... truly sickened by their comments. Those people are so freakin vicious, mean-spirited and completely brainwashed by establishment neoconservativsm.

Anyway, they were all going on and on about Fred Thompson (he's the favorite there). And of course, as usual, they were viciously bashing Paul. With all the usual smears, "He's certifiable", "He's loonytunes", yadda yadda.

I couldn't take much more of it, but I wanted to see what they had to say about some of Paul's best responses. Of course, very few people there give him credit, even when it's due. Maybe it's group-think, because the majority there hate Paul.

:(
Don't worry, they're the real "fringe" people. There's similar viciousness towards RP at dailykos. You know you're doing something right when fascists and socialists are both against you.

sasha_2008
01-11-2008, 03:35 AM
Funny that you posted this, because I just got back from reading a very pro-war, neocon forum (starts with an f) and I was sickened....

:(

LOL, I just peeked over there also. The thread was pretty silly all the intelligent people have been banned.

SuMuKong
01-11-2008, 03:40 AM
I'm here for the economy.

I suppose I am afraid of turning people off that aren't as closed minded. I know what I need to do. Walk away. Lost causes.

I'm here for State's rights. So there is something for everyone :)

I find that it is sometimes more persuasive if I concede right off that bat that I don't agree with many of RP's positions. For example, although I think that Austrian economics is an important heterodox school of economics, I don't think that the free-market succeeds in many situations where there are severe collective action problems. Similarly, I find RP's statements on evolution and abortion to be at odds with my own beliefs.

These would be fatal for other candidates, but I think that RP has nailed the overall message of libertarianism -- the distribution of power from the state to the individual. And plus, it's just nice to have a candidate that doesn't speak in soundbytes.

AlbemarleNC0003
01-11-2008, 03:43 AM
Similarly, I find RP's statements on evolution and abortion to be at odds with my own beliefs.


There's also my non-heterosexuality too.

SuMuKong
01-11-2008, 03:45 AM
Don't worry, they're the real "fringe" people. There's similar viciousness towards RP at dailykos. You know you're doing something right when fascists and socialists are both against you.

Dailykos is really a very strange website, and a textbook example for the dangers of group-think. When any dissent--no matter how reasonable--is modded down into oblivion, you have to wonder about what kind of ideology you're foisting upon people.

Which is why I'm glad that we have plenty of dissent here, even if they are from the nuttier fringes of society!

wildflower
01-11-2008, 03:46 AM
Thanks user. :)

sasha - Yep, it's pretty sad that a lot of good people have been banned there. You really have to watch your P's and Q's, if you're a Paul supporter.

bricklayer
01-11-2008, 03:57 AM
One of the more "civil" exchanges I've seen at another political blog:

User A:
"I'm in general agreement with the consensus here, but Paul did have at least one noteworthy moment and response...toward the end of the debate when he was defending his Republican bona fides.

It actually was a fairly eloquent description of his philosophy: strict constitutionalist, small government, low tax, laissez-faire economics, individual liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy...these were all pillars of conservative ideology for much of the 20th century. In that sense, it was the other candidates who were mavericks...not he."

User B:
"More Libertarian than Conservative.

The big deal with Ron Paul, is he is looking at the world through 1890-1939 eyes. Sure, it would be nice to roll yourself up in a ball, and hope the world leaves you alone. Ain't gonna happen.

Honestly, a lot of what Paul says, made sense 100 years ago. Times have changed in a very big way. The world has become very small. Everyone else has adapted, except Ron Paul.

He's a bit like Obama, to the kids. He's got a good spiel, but little else. Very empty suit.

We live in a very complicated world. We have terrorists that have sworn to bring down America, and other western nations. It's not our fault though. Ron Paul goes on and on about how it's America's fault. That disqualifies the man from being president. If he can't take America's side in the most important struggle of this Nation's history, then he should go back to delivering babies. I'm sure he was great at that."

User C:
"When Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian terrorist in 1913, it became painfully obvious how quickly sworn alliances can turn a skirmish into a world war.

Unless I'm wrong, we joined in the fight because it consumed Europe so quickly. The Lusitania was an excuse since it was also laden with munitions for our "friends".

Then we allowed such punitive reparations after WWI that Germany was ripe for the monster who followed.

Far reaching alliances were our first dalliance in Mutually Assured Destruction."

This blog is an anti-MSM, "conservative," blog that seems for the most part to be supporting Romney and Thompson. Huck Norris, McCain, the Ghoul, and even Romney to some extent are all considered RINO's. Kind of interesting to see what the shrinking base thinks...

Edu
01-11-2008, 04:10 AM
"When Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian terrorist in 1913, it became painfully obvious how quickly sworn alliances can turn a skirmish into a world war.

Unless I'm wrong, we joined in the fight because it consumed Europe so quickly. The Lusitania was an excuse since it was also laden with munitions for our "friends".How dare this guy use history as an example! "Times have changed in a very big way. The world has become very small. " So what does old, old history have to do with it?
/sarcasm