Comment: If it were me

(See in situ)

If it were me

Again, I ask that you look at your language. You're lumping a lot of people into one group and stating something as broad as "they don't like facts".

I happen to like Kucinich. I also like some of Obama's ideas. If I'd have heard you say that I don't like facts, that people who support Kucinich are brainwashed, that there re no right-wing extremists, or that Obama is "as far left as Mao", I wouldn't have given you much of a chance to say more - and I'm a Ron Paul supporter.

Here's how I'd have responded to them:

"Well I think Ron Paul is good too. But he will end the whole EPA and destroy government, so I will never have anything to do with that. Obama says we need to reunify our borders & strengthen our military. He also is commemorating a memorial to Rosa Parks."

He wants to transfer the authority of the decisions that the EPA has to local groups that are more informed about the problems faced in their communities. Ron Paul doesn't want to end government, he wants to give the power back to the people in the most meaningful ways. He - and I - don't think that a few people can know enough to manage everyone's lives.

"I know each of the wars needed to happen. We have a few enemies left, its kind of difficult. Also of course we strongly support the Palestinians and Israel to join the world union. (HIS words, not mine) And from there we can all have a much greater, more wondrous future. Military in the streets is ok long as terrorists & survival preppers are dealt with. I've heard its dangerous from my friends."

The thing is, attacking countries when we're only after a few key people is a policy that turns the rest of the world against us. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to bring tanks into my hometown to kill a few extremists. There are better ways to find and capture key targets - we don't need to blow things up or shoot people. How can we work with other countries in any sort of union when they're afraid of our methods of helping people fight the bad guys?

"Yes, its okay. We want this. Because bad people are out there and they are always trying to disrupt our peaceful nation."

Like I said, it's one thing to have a presence in another country when they ask for our help and we think it's in our best interest, but it's another thing to cause anxiety by having the military walk around with guns out. There are smarter ways of doing things.

"Ummm, well if he dismantled a federal agency that puts them all out of work. That is wrong. We have a peaceful government, seizing back private lands that people have no right to steal. They should be used for tourist attractions, museums and so on."

The people who are being put out of work by government downsizing have better qualifications than a ton of other people. There's no worry about them getting jobs. And, you know, companies lobby government to get access to private land. Just think about it - how likely is it that a big corporation with lots of money will get the land it wants more often than the government decides to take land away from it? Local governments will do better with bargaining for private land than lobbied government offices that determine who land can be taken from and given to.

Like I said, that's Ron Paul's message - a few people do a worse job at managing a lot of information than a lot of people together can. It's not about killing government, it's about moving power to the local level.

+ Follow the Cooperative principle
+ Civility first
+ Constructive comments