Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dragonbreathp9d

(2,542 posts)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:48 PM Dec 2011

Help me convince my liberal friend Ron Paul is no good

FB convo:
Me:


You do know he wants to overturn roe v wade and get rid of all kinds of healthcare (including vet) and would get rid of all unemployment and disability pay. Is against equal pay for women. Is against gay marriage. Is for complete corporate deregulation (as in corporations could do ANYTHING)
Yesterday at 5:28am · Like · 2
Remove

Him:
all that shit can be addressed later dude and in all honesty he's against some of these because the FEDERAL govt. is the one telling you what to do. He is against the FEDERAL government having a say in what you can and cant do. The FEDERAL govt. needs to be reduced extremely. Time and it's different forms of issues affecting us will change but the solution, THE CONSTITUTION, shouldn't. States rights can figure all this shit out, like they were supposed from the very damn beginning. He is addressing one of the major sources, being the financial calamity, caused by the central banks. He is not getting slowed down by the symptoms. If i had bacterial pneumonia i'd expect my doctor to give me the proper antibiotics, not give me some pain meds, some cough syrup and a sponge bath. All that shit makes you nice and comfortable ... right before you die!! Focus on the source not the distractions. Fix the money and the out of control Federal government and a lot of these little things can resolve themselves. And if you watched the clip i posted he is not against gay marriage. I'm sure if you watched more clips he'd explain why he might be against other issues you speak of. I'm sure there is absolutely no other reason beside he hates the idea of big government fucking with what you can and cant do with your life. Sorry brother but i see nothing wrong with his approach to this fucked up time in humanity. There isn't anyone else i believe even remotely close in character or economic knowledge. DO YOU WANT GINGRICH!!! come on!

Me:
What about complete corporate deregulation?? That is more than half the reason why the economy is in shambles. He wants to get rid of the EPA, the department of education and many other vital departments. I do agree with alot of what he stands for- but getting rid of all of healthcare (especially for VETERANS). Do you have healthcare? Neither do I nor millions of Americans. Get hurt on the job because a corporation doesn't have to follow any standard of safety you will get no government help. And if your mother is raped- he would have the FEDERAL government force her to have that rapist's child. Occupy is all about ending deregulation of corporations an Ron paul's stance completely conflicts with that. He is also well known for his stance against equal pay and rights for women and minorities. I agree with him on cutting the defense budget an other intrusive big gov- however- I believe in having a stronger Fedreral gov than state gov because then states like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc will be left behind in the quest for true freedom. I truly, honestly think that if Ron Paul were a third party canindate and you were to vote for him you would be voting against issues important to you (and I say this now and not before because I believe I know you well enough now to make such a statement). Ron Paul is a libertarian- until it comes to things like women's and minority's rights. And yes, out of the republican party he is the best (but that is not saying much) and yes I have a shot ton of problems with Obama- but I cannot and will not vote for a racist, sexist, pro corporation, anti healthcare canindate and I hope we can have a meaningful discussion where I can convince you of the same. One of the things I like most about Ron is he is honest (which is rare) but some of the things he stands for completely contradict with everything I believe in. He also has voted with Boner (Boehner) 93% of the time. I have been open to hear why people (especially in Occupy) want him- but it is getting to the point where the glaring differences in beliefs is too much for me and anyone I know well enough to know what they believe in I cannot let it stand anymore. You know I love and respect you- which is the only reason why I am now being so bold about it. Unemployment? Gone. Healthcare? Gone. Roe v Wade? Gone. Disability? Gone. Veterans care? Gone. DOMA stays standing. He is most vocal about that which I agree with- which is why he is an attractive canindate- but if you want to know the whole story- I can provide you with multiple sources.

Him:
I would love those sources. Especially the ones giving documentation about his stance with minorities, women's rights and abortion. He is not a racist. The majority of that shit came from a smear campaign starting when he announced he was running for election back in 2008 continuing til present day. Id have to see the words come from his mouth about him being that fanatical in regards to Roe vs. Wade. That is indeed contradictory to what he believes to be the role of government in a citizens' personal decisions. That would be an area of concern. Him being a medical doctor for over thirty years might give him better insight on the health industry. We have a healthcare system told what to do by big pharma. If you want big pharma telling you what they think is ok to eat and what pill is best to take then let's continue with obamacare. Now, no healthcare is somewhat questionable and I'd like to look into his plan of approach on that. Its clear that what we have today is no walk in the park. When companies like Prudential can screw over thousands of troops and their families by denying them their deserved insurance money i tend to lose hope in the present system in place. He clearly states why he wants to do away with the EPA. Individual property rights being honored the way they should be, coupled with real EDUCATION, not can help solve this environmental issue we face. The EPA, for as long as it has been in establishment, has allowed every Corp. with the right amount of cash to pollute as freely as they please while the EPA and other global warming groups prepare to rain down restriction after restriction on the little man. Screw the EPA and screw Cap and Trade. Those with money can pay to fuck up the planet while you and I have global warming Gestapo come into our homes fining us out the ass for having the wrong lightbulbs. With a sound economic system unemployment programs will not be necessary, simple as that. The education system has clearly shown it's incompetence as America continues to drop from a once respectable worldly standing to somewhere laughable in a matter of decades. When Texas decides that no longer is Thomas Jefferson important to this country's history books, why the fuck does the current institution require the rest of the states to change their textbooks? Kids then regurgitate verbal feces from an "archetypical authority figure" they've been told all their lives to obey and not question, simply to pass some form of standardized test. The whole idea about states rights is that if the state you lived in started making stupid ass decisions, you could bail on that shit hole for a better one. Good riddance if the "state" begins to fall behind due to their misguided decisions. The Federal government shouldn't be the police man to jump in and save the day. It hasn't done any good for the U.S. to play such a role in the global scheme of things. It wouldn't benefit the states either. Look at the strength of the Federal government involving medical marijuana!! When California was on the verge of financial disaster, weed jumped in to save the day becoming its number one cash crop. As i'm sure you've noticed many other states followed suit. And the Federal government does everything it can to shut such a beneficial and logical program down! Is that what we need it for? The Federal government also loves it's war on drugs because it's a war on the people and freedom itself. Ron Paul would end the drug war. We have 5% of the world's population and 20% or more of it's prison population. Most of them for non violent drug crimes!! The Federal government doesn't like competition that's why. They've got a great deal going on with the cartels. Fast an Furious is a clear example of the deals and scandals they have in the mix. The Fed wants your guns, so they can take your freedom. Clear as day. The NDAA act is the last straw.

------
I've got commentary ready to go but if y'all could help me with good sources it would be great. I understand why he likes Ron Paul and on most of these subjects I agree with both of them- but I do want to convince him the rest of Paul's stances are terrible.

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Help me convince my liberal friend Ron Paul is no good (Original Post) Dragonbreathp9d Dec 2011 OP
Want babies to be born without obstetric care cause mom is poor? Vote Paul. McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #1
I got this from PeaceNikki yesterday Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #2
where in Ohio Charlemagne Dec 2011 #4
Yeah... about that... I did not pick a very good user name :) Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #7
Nice Charlemagne Dec 2011 #10
GREAT!!! thank you this is perfect Dragonbreathp9d Dec 2011 #23
Use the stopped clock argument eridani Dec 2011 #3
Paul wants to abolish HUD, a federal agency most devoted to the needs of the poor and homeless. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #5
Don't bother, they're cultists. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #6
This ^ PeaceNikki Dec 2011 #9
Paul's own website is a good source for his stance on Roe v Wade PeaceNikki Dec 2011 #8
I am not convinced that this friend is a liberal. Curmudgeoness Dec 2011 #11
"States rights" is something right-wingers have been shouting ever since they wanted to keep slavery pnwmom Dec 2011 #17
Your friend is obviously not a liberal if he supports Ron Paul. nt Zorra Dec 2011 #12
Federal government interference is a Jim Crow argument. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #13
Since your avatar is DK ozone_man Dec 2011 #14
touche think Dec 2011 #16
Here's a link to some old newspaper reports. pnwmom Dec 2011 #15
Ask him if he believes in social security and a social safety net for the poor think Dec 2011 #18
At one point I read some flyers/paper he use to put out boston bean Dec 2011 #19
Litmus tests are as valid for Obama as they are for Paul. Rageneau Dec 2011 #20
In 2004 Ron Paul spoke out strongly against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. pnwmom Dec 2011 #21
If he's done real research he doesn't need convincing unless he's insane. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #22
That's the thing- he hasn't- he sees what he wants to see Dragonbreathp9d Dec 2011 #24

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
1. Want babies to be born without obstetric care cause mom is poor? Vote Paul.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:50 PM
Dec 2011

Libertarian means leaving everyone---including children---to fend for themselves.

The ones who survive birth will have no school lunches, no vaccines, probably no education.

Ohio Joe

(21,656 posts)
7. Yeah... about that... I did not pick a very good user name :)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:00 PM
Dec 2011

I used to live in Dublin, NW corner of Columbus but I moved from there a while ago. I'm now in Denver.

 

Charlemagne

(576 posts)
10. Nice
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:04 PM
Dec 2011

Been to Dublin plenty of times.

Denver is an amazing city too. Right on Rt 40 and 70. Good times.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
3. Use the stopped clock argument
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:57 PM
Dec 2011

Also, if you have a nice vinaigrette dressing, there is no point at all in pouring it all over a poison ivy salad.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
5. Paul wants to abolish HUD, a federal agency most devoted to the needs of the poor and homeless.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:58 PM
Dec 2011

He is also a bigot. If your friend continues to support Ron Paul in light of his extremist views, then I'm not so sure that your friend truly is a liberal.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
8. Paul's own website is a good source for his stance on Roe v Wade
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:00 PM
Dec 2011
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
11. I am not convinced that this friend is a liberal.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:07 PM
Dec 2011

Much of what he is writing is right wing propaganda. Big government---bad. They want to take our guns. Fining people for using incandescent light bulbs. Uh, sounds like he is listening to too much Rush.

I would abandon the debate. He is not listening.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
17. "States rights" is something right-wingers have been shouting ever since they wanted to keep slavery
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:31 PM
Dec 2011

He doesn't sound like a liberal to me either.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
13. Federal government interference is a Jim Crow argument.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:13 PM
Dec 2011

Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, states had a free hand. What is your friend's opinion of the (Federal) Civil Rights Act? What does your friend think of the (Federal) investigation of Arpaio? Warranted or not?

Please share your commentary. I could use it.

Edit to add this link to argue that Ron Paul is, in fact, a racist pos.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

ozone_man

(4,825 posts)
14. Since your avatar is DK
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:20 PM
Dec 2011

you probably know that Kucinich and Paul share similar views on half of the issues. I would discuss those issues with your friend. Things like antiwar, the corruptness of the fractional Federal Reserve , privacy rights, Constitutional rights, and decriminalization of marijuana.

Then I would discuss the differences between the two. Things like regulation of business, size of government, Keynesian vs. Libertarian economics, and abortion rights.

After some vigorous discussion, he may not convince you to vote for Paul, but he may make you wish Kucinich was running.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
15. Here's a link to some old newspaper reports.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:28 PM
Dec 2011

It wasn’t a smear campaign. He spent years writing racist opinions in his newsletters, and now he’s trying to take them back. For example:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

SNIP

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

 

think

(11,641 posts)
18. Ask him if he believes in social security and a social safety net for the poor
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:33 PM
Dec 2011

Let him know America is the only industrialized country without some form of universal health. Then ask him to see how other countries like their health care.

If he plans to vote for Ron Paul if he runs on a third party ask him if he could live in a Newt Gingrich or a Michelle Bachmann version of America if Obama loses. That should scare the hell out of him....

Rageneau

(3,503 posts)
20. Litmus tests are as valid for Obama as they are for Paul.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:37 PM
Dec 2011

Paraphrasing: Your President is obviously not a liberal if he supports the War on Pot.

It's a two-way street.

Difference is, Paul will never be in the White House and therefore will never cause any of those dreaded anti-liberal things you cited to happen, whereas Obama is already equipped with maximum power and more than ample support to do the right thing, but instead, he deliberately does what he knows and has previously strongly said is morally, scientifically and politically wrong.

IOW, Ron Paul at least has the courage of his convictions and WANTS to do what he thinks is right.

Obama, not so much.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
21. In 2004 Ron Paul spoke out strongly against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:41 PM
Dec 2011

From a Ron Paul "fan site":

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

SNIP

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Help me convince my liber...