Below is a conversation I had with an acquaintance about Ron Paul. My purpose was to to educate him and clarify Ron Paul’s position so he can better make a decision for himself rather than have the media make it for him. One important thing to remember when making a case for Ron Paul is to make them defend their position rather than forcing your issue or beliefs on them why he is a good candidate. For example, inquire the specifics on why they do not want to vote for Ron Paul and ask them what lead them to that conclusion. Most of the time they have false information that lead them to to believe their conclusion. Then clear up the misinformation they have. After doing so, see if there are any other objections, and address those as well.
Polite Exchange:
Sorry John,
I’m not drinking the kool-aid. He is more extreme than the most right wing candidate I can think of. There are so many reasons why I would never support this man, and here’s a big one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html
I’m black. I cherish and appreciate the decades of blood that was spilled to ensure civil rights for all citizens. Anyone who is crazy enough to oppose the Civil Rights Act in 2012 is a nut job, deserves to be called a nut job, and yes, a bigoted racist.
-G
G,
Thank you for raising this issue. Just so we are clear, I would never endorse or vote for a bigoted racist. Please consider the following. Listen to what Ron Paul actually says rather than what a bias media is saying. The issue about civil rights is not about bigotry, its all about property rights. This is major attempt to smear him an get the focus off the real issues. I invite you to watch the follow videos and I hope you to come to your own conclusions when you have more information available to you. I sincerely hope you take the time with the videos below. I think you will be very surprised.
MSNBC Slanderous Misquote Corrected
From Ron Paul’s own mouth
James Williams speaking out for Ron Paul
Clarification of media spin on the civil rights issue by his son Rand Paul
The videos against the idea that Ron Paul is a racist are endless. Listen to this man. He speaks to this very simply.
Respectfully,
John
John,
Arguing that he opposes the Civil Rights Act because of property rights doesn’t make his position any more egregious. He basically believes that property owners have a right if they so choose to not serve people based on the color of their skin. Yet, his belief goes beyond the hypothetical. As recently as 2004, he was the ONLY senator who voted against extending the Civil Rights Act. I was floored when I saw one of your clips and Paul said he sees Martin Luther King Jr. as a hero yet denounces what is easily King’s seminal achievement. Can you see how some people would question his sincerity?
Look, let’s move on from the Civil Rights Act. That’s just one example and despite Paul’s beliefs, we’re probably past the point where it will even be rolled back (I hope). I’ll even take back calling him a racist bigot cause in all fairness, I can’t look into his heart. I’ll certainly give him credit for having the courage to have a foreign policy that is unique among all the presidential candidates and whose position I agree with the most. I also can’t disagree with decriminalizing drug use (as long as that also coincides with increased funding for drug abuse treatment centers). Those points make him initially enticing as a candidate, yet what’s the tradeoff? He has made it consistently clear that his domestic policies would aggressively dismantle the welfare state, particularly everything that came out of The New Deal and The Great Society. He has repeatedly said that he would eradicate entire government agencies such as the FDA, EPA, and the Dept. of Education (among others). He even joked about it in that same infamous clip where Rick Perry couldn’t name the three govt agencies he’d dismantle.
Perhaps this is where we disagree, but we need government. We need a watchdog to protect the people from other’s irresponsibility. The FDA wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a time where people were being sold fake home remedies like is currently the case in China. We wouldn’t have an EPA if there wasn’t a time where companies polluted our water and air and put us at risk. We wouldn’t have a Dept. of Education if there wasn’t a need to educate more members of our society to build a robust Middle Class. Perhaps the greatest argument against Paul and libertarianism in particular is the econ meltdown of 2008. A philosophy of deregulation that has run through both parties since Reagan lead to a steady decline in govt regulation that allowed Wall street execs and bankers to make outrageously risky investments that almost collapsed the world economy. The problem isn’t too much government but too little. Because of monetary influence and lobbying, the govt has been ineffective in policing big business and with the Supreme Court decision in 2009, things will get only worse.
For those reasons, I cannot support Ron Paul but I respect your decision to do so. I’ll be supporting Obama and although he’s been disappointing, he in my mind is the best option we’ve got.
-G
G,
Thank you for raising the points you did. I also voted for Obama in 2008 thinking that he was going to give us change. I also thought that the government needed to take care of us to protect us. There are a lot of things that I was not aware of and I have taken a lot of time to get educated on issues that America faces. I was never involved in the political process until I heard Ron Paul. I appreciate you willing to have a discussion about this and I hope that we can continue this with respect.
I agree with a lot of the civil rights act but I also think it is clear that it has had some adverse and unintended consequences. Putting that aside for the moment I want to address some of the other points you bring up.
You mention the welfare state and how we need government as a watch dog for people acting irresponsible. I was for ObamaCare. My mother still does not have health insurance and I thought that it would be a good idea for her to have it. What I have since come to understand is that when the government gets involved in economic or social issues however well intend, inefficiency, fraud, and lobbyist with specialist rule. This becomes the norm today.
A good simple example of this to make my point is sugar. Did you know that corporations lobby the government to limit the amount of cheaper sugar to come into this country? A few (special interests) benefit greatly from getting the government to limit the amount sugar to come into this country so they can use their own alternative (high fructose corn syrup). The few (special interest) benefit in the billions from this. The cost to the American people is probably around $50-$100 per person per year. Not enough to rise up and rebel about when its spread out like that.
The point I am trying to make is when government gets together with special interests that have A LOT of money our government is for auction. This also applies to ObamaCare. It’s not the disenfranchised, sickly people that come together to petition the government in their favor, its the health insurance companies that get all the benefit under the guise that this will be “better for everyone”. The FDA, EPA, or DOE are no exception. I think they have good intentions but are not solving anything. We spend around $20k (more than double) what we spent 10 years ago and people are not getting a better education. I would argue that it is getting worse. The allocation of the money is not going to the student’s education or teacher salaries, rather to the DOE bureaucratics.
When the government takes your hard earned money (taxation) and allocates to another group, it assumes that the government owns you. In a country where the government’s only purpose is to protect civil liberty, lobbyist could not exists. (See Video below)
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2503659468374
The fact of the matter is that we have 50-60 Trillion in entitlements that we cannot afford. Its not that we don’t want to take care of the people its that the money is not there. By 2026 all medicare and social security will be tapped out. We have a government that does not care to balance its check book because the Federal Reserve prints more money for the government when it needs it because no politician would get reelected if they raised taxes. When they print more money it becomes a “stealth tax” on the people. When the Federal Reserve increases the money supply that means any dollar you have saved in the bank is worth less. Think about it, if they continue to print money to pay for things what will $1 buy when you retire and start collecting social security? How much will medicare cost?
You say we need more government and that we don’t have enough. I would argue that the federal government is ballooning out of control and it is related directly to the Federal Reserve. The problem on Wall street is directly related to the federal reserve. When Obama bailed out the banks, where do you think they got the money? The federal reserve printed money out of thin air and gave it to them. It was a blatant transfer of wealth from the middle class to banking interest under the guise that “it will be good for the economy” and they were “too big to fail”. That is the result of when the government gets too big.
Ron Paul is the only one talking about these issues; Personal Liberty and Federal Reserve. Not only has he been talking about these, he has been saying the same exact thing for 30 years. The only thing that has changed is the country itself. He predicted all this would happen.
Again, might come to a surprise to you.
Respectfully
John