How should I explain Paul's more extreme libertarian positions...

[GunnyFreedom]

Um. Davy Crockett, at this point I have to ask if you are intentionally alienating Christians from Ron Paul, or do you just not know any better that teling people their entire universe is based on lies and deception might be considered offensive.

 

[James Madison]

Wow, great quote. Is that a paraphrase of a famous quote, or what? (I looked it up but didn't find it.) Thanks.

Nope. It's something I just came up with.

 

[lilymc]

Davy Crockett, yes, of course I know that RP is not in favor of those things, he is in favor of liberty and the constitution.

I understand what your point is, but I can't really use the things you brought up to convince the guy I've been debating. I have to debate and convince him from a different angle. I probably will never be able to convince that guy that RP is correct, but there are others out there with his same views who are not as stubborn and closed-minded, so.... this thread has been very helpful, in how to respond to strong social conservatives and christians who disagree with some of Paul's not-so-popular libertarian positions. Thanks though, for your input!

 

[crhoades]

Another angle to take. Is gluttony considered sinful? If your friend says yes:

Ezekiel 16
48*As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49*Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50*She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

Matthew 11
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Then ask them if we should make buffets illegal. Or put everyone on a 2500 calorie diet. Lock up fat people.

It is my experience growing up in a small town in Ky that was dry and didn't sell alcohol and raised in a fundamentalistic church, that everyone was pharasaical about alcohol but they were mostly fat and gluttonous.

 

[LibertyEagle]

1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.

Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

 

[Liberty74]

First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

 

[Sola_Fide]

1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Great post.

 

[LibertyEagle]

First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

That is nice, in theory, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul would do as President. I say this, because sometimes when we start philosophizing, we give people the wrong idea about what a President Paul would do.

 

[Davy Crockett]

but there are others out there with his same views who are not as stubborn and closed-minded, so....

Concentrate on reaching the others, and do not waste too much time on those who are closed minded. If I remember correctly, you mentioned that you only know this person on-line and not in person, if this is correct, let me point out that the Internet is the perfect medium for liars. There are going to be some who are going to try to waste your time on them knowing that you will be more effective if you moved on instead.

 

[tod evans]

Sounds like your "friend" is buying into media hype.

Dr. Paul is quite likely the most moral and principled person running for president. Please ask your "friend" to focus on Rons personal beliefs and actions over the years, once he gets an idea of who the man is only then try to understand how he interprets the constution.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Best answer in this thread, IMO ^^

 

[Kingfisher]

Whats extreme about following the Constitution?

 

[Simple]

There were some great responses, but no argument is as strong as the argument for life. The right to life is a major issue for most Christians, but at the same time we forget about the lives of those effected by our foreign policies. Our actions around the world have caused countless needless deaths that did not contribute to our national defense. Our troops are getting killed by the thousands and wounded or maimed by the tens of thousands. If you believe in life then you should support Dr. Paul's foreign policy that would end so much bloodshed around the world. The right to life issue also comes up in regards to Roe v. Wade. While others are arguing for a Constitutional Amendment, Dr. Paul actually understands the Constitution and he understands that the jurisdiction of the courts are determined by legislation, so just passing a law limiting the scope of the court could effectively repeal Roe v. Wade without a Constitutional Amendment. By getting the Federal Courts out of the picture, instead of the states having to agree on the same plan, each state could put prohibitions on abortions as the People of the each state see fit.

This all related to the original question of the role of the federal government in states rights. The question isn't legalizing prostitution, gay marriage, or medical marijuana, there are parts of the country that have already done this, it is a question of the right of the federal government to intimidate, harass, and arrest people who are following the laws of their state. Do we want to continue to arrest cancer patients for smoking medical marijuana? Following the Constitution and the 10th Amendment are not endorsing nor promoting sin, but it is giving you a greater voice in government while giving you the freedom to enjoy and promote your traditions. If Ron Paul is elected and he passes this legislation concerning abortion, you will have the opportunity to pass legislation in your state to protect life.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Um. Davy Crockett, at this point I have to ask if you are intentionally alienating Christians from Ron Paul, or do you just not know any better that teling people their entire universe is based on lies and deception might be considered offensive.

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian scientist and philosopher


I merely pointed out that the freedoms that we enjoy in Western civilization does not come from the Reformation as someone in this thread erroneously stated, but instead the Age of Enlightenment and gave several quotes from Voltaire and several Founding Fathers of America, several of whom were Deists, not Christians.

Besides the Federal Reserve, nothing is destroying America more then basing our foreign policy on Religious Right's myth that we must protect "God's chosen people". We have put our nation in perpetual debt fighting useless wars over the last twenty years, not to promote democracy, but as mercenaries for the state of Israel all because we have allowed religious zealots to frame the debate through the lens of their Bible instead of what is in America's best interests.

Hardly anyone is paying attention to the fact that just in the last six years, those checking the "no preference" box on religious surveys has doubled, from around 10% to 20%. And if we add those who are Christian in name only, the percentage is much higher. One researcher on religious trends in America went as far as to state that 7 in 10 young Americans no longer care for religion.

The Religious Right high jacked the Republican party back in the early 1980s, and thankfully their days are numbered now. If it wasn't for Ron Paul running a campaign based on reality instead of the Bible, the Republican party would be in more trouble then they are right now.

 

[lilymc]

Another angle to take. Is gluttony considered sinful? If your friend says yes:

Ezekiel 16
48*As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49*Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50*She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

Matthew 11
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Then ask them if we should make buffets illegal. Or put everyone on a 2500 calorie diet. Lock up fat people.

It is my experience growing up in a small town in Ky that was dry and didn't sell alcohol and raised in a fundamentalistic church, that everyone was pharasaical about alcohol but they were mostly fat and gluttonous.

Thank you, that is so true. If we go by his logic, then where does it stop? There are so many things that are sins, but from our society's perspective are just normal, everyday things. (I don't think I need to write a list here, but most of you know what I mean.) He really reminds me of the Pharisees who were so legalistic, to the point of absurdity and missing the point entirely.... and they were the ones who Jesus had the MOST criticism for, because they only cared about what everyone else did, not realizing that inside they were prideful and hateful and hypocritical. Thanks for bringing that up.

1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.


http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Thanks so much, excellent post. I feel much more prepared now to deal with this guy and others like him, who completely misunderstand RP's position. No wonder they like Santorum, he is just as much an authoritarian as my pharisee-like friend. I feel like this is an important topic to discuss with social conservatives, and I think there is a strong need for us believing liberty-minded people to educate and inform those who may have good intentions but are misguided. Btw, liberals are the same way, ironically. They want to enforce THEIR ideas about what is right or wrong on everyone else...as much as the other side does. We need to get both sides to see what they are doing, and point them towards RP's view of following the constitution.

First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

Thank you. That pretty much sums it up. Now I just need to get my thoughts together and write an article about this, to share with all those I know who have personal values that are traditional, but profess to believe in liberty. And explain to them that RP's position is correct, both constitutionally and from a Christian perspective, imo.

Concentrate on reaching the others, and do not waste too much time on those who are closed minded. If I remember correctly, you mentioned that you only know this person on-line and not in person, if this is correct, let me point out that the Internet is the perfect medium for liars. There are going to be some who are going to try to waste your time on them knowing that you will be more effective if you moved on instead.

Yeah, I haven't been spending as much time dealing with him lately on facebook. But I hope that eventually he does realize he's being an authoritarian, and his position actually goes against the faith he professes to believe in, on a number of levels.

Sounds like your "friend" is buying into media hype.

Dr. Paul is quite likely the most moral and principled person running for president. Please ask your "friend" to focus on Rons personal beliefs and actions over the years, once he gets an idea of who the man is only then try to understand how he interprets the constution.

That's what I try to do, just point them to his actual positions and his consistent record, and tell them to stop believing the lies put out by the establishment/MSM who just want to bring him down.

Thanks for all of your comments, you all! This thread has been very helpful.

 

[lilymc]

Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:

Idolater
13 minutes ago · Like

Oh my gosh, LOL! Supporting a presidential candidate is "idolatry" to you? You've got to be kidding me.
10 minutes ago · Like

I'll pray for you. May your blinded eyes be opened.
9 minutes ago · Like

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.​

 

[LibertyEagle]

Me thinks your friend is nuts.

 

[lilymc]

Me thinks your friend is nuts.

It got even worse than that. I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Does this link work?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...57480289&type=1&theater&notif_t=photo_comment

 

[Jack Bauer]

Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:

Idolater
13 minutes ago · Like

Oh my gosh, LOL! Supporting a presidential candidate is "idolatry" to you? You've got to be kidding me.
10 minutes ago · Like

I'll pray for you. May your blinded eyes be opened.
9 minutes ago · Like

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.​

It got even worse than that. A lot worse. I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Just tell him whatever he is smoking, you'll have two of them.

 

[lilymc]

Just tell him whatever he is smoking, you'll have two of them.

LOL!! Thank you.