0 votes

Don't let Dr. Paul's positions on "wedge" issues discourage you from supporting him! WE NEED YOU ALL!

I posted this originally under the topic "Alienated female". I think this is important to address...

This woman discontinued her support because her positions on certain issues opposed Dr. Paul's. This disappoints me for the simple fact that this campaign is about more than just "wedge" issues. Wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion are commonly used to confine the population to a limited spectrum of argument. The purpose of this is to allow the real agendas of the system to remain hidden. The country couldn't be in worse shape...do you think these issues really made a difference in the past?

Do your research. Ron Paul is planning to implement an entirely new (to us) system that will hopefully clean up much of the existing mess, if not at least provide the tools.

The call to action is URGENT. The desperation of this situation NEEDS YOU ALL to make a difference!

Oh, by the way, I'm Canadian. The world is counting on this revolution! That's how important it is!

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to save the world!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your post...

Your post gives the illusion, at cursory glance, without reading comments below for clarification ---gives the impression that 'women' are leaving RP because he is pro=death (choice)--when in fact, he is pro-life (very much so--with a life-long voting record to prove it)---he is for states rights on abortion.

It would do the subject a great service if you would add this to your above body/text...because, some people don't both reading comments section.


I noticed no one has been discussing this...

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to save the world!

And Please Just Discuss! Be charitable!

Gotta say, I don't think a lot of the comments I read in the other thread are going to do anything to change minds. Stuff like "obviously, you never did support RP" and "good riddance" and "what a troll" or whatever.

IMO (not H), regardless of the troll-ness or whatever of the person posting, it would make more sense to answer posts that aren't obviously abusive or divisive by giving full charity to the poster. (Dr. Paul actually is quite a master at this from what I've seen.) In other words, even if you are suspicious of a poster, simply do your best to understand the argument, and make your best case against it, always treating the poster with the respect you would give to someone you really just believed was mistaken and lacking information.

This accomplishes two things: 1) If the original poster was not a "troll", then this provides the best opportunity to give them an alternate point of view, and by doing it nicely and as if they are our ally, we will have a chance to rectify their misunderstanding, or to give them another way of looking at things, and 2) Even if the original poster was a "troll", this type of response, when read by another person who does share similar beliefs, will then provide a reasonable, friendly response to *them*. I understand the passion here, but I have been in the libertarian movement for a while now, and it's very important that we keep in mind that the most important thing is to educate and inspire those who would be with us, and *not* to alienate people who might be with us but who never even listen the message due to encounters with people not treating them charitably. Look at Mary Ruwart's "Healing our World" on-line, or read some Liberator Online archives and check out Michael Cloud's section at the end on how to effectively communicate with people.

I think there is a big lesson to be learned here: We will be successful because we offer a positive outlook on things that matter to people, and every time we respond with anger or insults to valid questions (regardless of the intentions of the person who asks them) we will just turn off anyone who reads them. If, instead, we advocate for freedom, and Dr. Paul, we will show them that there is, indeed, LOVE in rEVOLution!

Thanks for listening!

email: chelle.liberty@gmail.com
Me on Google+ or gplus.to/ChelleLiberty if you're typing by hand :)
Me on Twitter

Agreed; this needs discussion

(I too, originally posted this comment under Alienated Female) ;)

1. Regarding pro-life vs. pro-choice: I am pro-choice for two main reasons: (a) There is a big difference between abortion and murder: everyone agrees that murder is murder, there is still quite a bit of contention as to whether abortion is murder. Unfortunately, at what point someone is considered to be a person with rights is outside of libertarian philosophy, something you have to know before trying to apply libertarian principles to the question of abortion. So, being that there is no widespread agreement at the point in which someone becomes a person with rights, I think the thing that makes the most sense is to keep any laws against abortion limited to those which practically everyone can agree on. Obviously birth is the limit on one end, and conception the limit on the other. The limit that makes most sense to me personally is one of viability, although I again think that there should be an overwhelming majority required to even set it there.
(b) That being said, even in the case of viability, there are always questions of things such as whether the mother's health would be endangered, and I think it's very dangerous to allow the government to tread on this area. Just as I believe there are lots of immoral actions which should not be prohibited by law due to the ill effects of allowing the government control, I believe that abortion (in the cases where there is *not* an overwhelming majority in agreement that a particular case of abortion would indeed be murder) should be left alone by the government. Otherwise, as with all government attempts to legislate morality, the unintended consequences will likely far outweigh the intended ones.

This said, I think there is an important distinction to be made between Federal control of abortion laws vs. State control, and this is why I do not find it contradictory to support a pro-life candidate for Federal office that intends to respect the limitation of the delegated authority of the Federal Government. In fact, I believe this is absolutely the right call, and here's the most important point: If the federal government assumes the right to determine that abortion is going to remain legal in all states, then, when the tides turn, and the court is composed differently, then the federal government will also have the right to make it *illegal* in all states.

This is what should scare all people with pro-choice beliefs. There will likely be states that choose to make abortion illegal, but then women are at least free to travel to another state. There is the problem of people with no resources to travel, however, the large proportion of pro-choice individuals out there can address this by funding charities that provide travel to states in which it is legal. There will never be a perfect solution, but leaving it in the hands of the Federal government seems far more dangerous to me. (And, frankly after seeing the power of the money-bomb, I am more confident than ever that people are willing to put their money into causes which they believe are right.)

So, just a perspective on how someone who is pro-choice can conscientiously support a pro-life candidate for Federal office (well, at least one that believes in the strict delegation of powers). [Just as a note: I likely could *not* support a pro-life candidate for a State office, at least unless the candidate thought that it should be a local, rather than a state, issue.]

2. Global Warming
Hmm, well, there is a lot of information out there, although the things I have noted while researching are that (a) Those measurements which have been used by the most adamant global warming treaty supporters are, at best, showing a less severe increase than predicted, (b) even just taking global warming as a given does not show for certain that it is simply carbon emissions, and (c) even if you take all the main advocates of the treaties numbers and assertions as to how severe the warming is and to the impact of carbon on thtat warming, the treaties provide practically no benefit (in their own calculations!) and cost an *enormous* amount. (see http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htmll; currently there have been approximately US$ 440.5 billion dollars spent on Kyoto, with a predicted temperature saving (say proponents of the Kyoto protocol!) by 2050 (!) is 0.004567684 deg C, or approximately $100,000 per billionth of a degree saved. (!!!))

It makes far more sense, to me, to get back to sound money, develop a free market, and for those of us who do believe global warming is a problem to sponsor those groups which we feel are doing the most to combat it. There are lots of free market options which could make a difference (forming groups which press companies to cut emissions and developing new technologies, to name just two) but we are going to be unable to afford to do all those things if we continue to trust the Government to fix it. So, I have no problem with someone not being convinced of human-caused global warming, especially at the Federal level, since I don't believe the solution is through government anyway. Just my take.

3. Creationism/School prayer. I haven't seen the particular quotes you are speaking of, but, again, Dr. Paul advocates the elimination of the Federal government interference in Education. (see http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/) Actually, he has even proposed tax *credits* (not deductions) for paying schooling, tax credits for teachers, and wants the elimination of the Department of Education.

"The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources." -- Ron Paul, from above link

So, regardless of his positions on prayer in schools or creationism, his position is that the Federal government shouldn't be involved, schools should be brought down to the local level, and I think we can all be fairly confident that he would never support the forced taxation of people to pay for the forced schooling of children in any particular religious world-view. He believes that private schooling should be affordable to everyone, and his views on the economy and sound money, along with a very limited Federal government, would allow you to send your own children to a school which does not have prayer or teach creationism, while allowing others who want that to do so.

Thanks for listening!

email: chelle.liberty@gmail.com
Me on Google+ or gplus.to/ChelleLiberty if you're typing by hand :)
Me on Twitter