Explaining ourselves to liberals

[acptulsa]

In need of an excellent example of why we don't believe in too much Federal government? Try gay marriage.

Most of the non-sentimental arguments in favor of it stem from the fact that married couples enjoy certain benefits in terms of their ability to get joint insurance coverage, the rights they have in the event of the other's death, and etc. Well, much of this was given to married couples at a time when the prevailing opinion didn't think much of extramarital relationships of any kind whatsoever. Not coincidentally, at that time most voters were married. So, they got pandered to.

Now we are still saddled with this fifty-year-old pandering because it's easier to pull one of Mike Tyson's teeth without a dart gun than to repeal a federal statute.

If this last weren't so very true, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be so die hard, eh? But as it is...

Anyone else have good examples seemingly designed to get the attention of liberals? Seems just pointing out how much less money charity wastes than government does would be enough, but obviously not.

[GunnyFreedom]

The BP ecological disaster was created by federal regulations mandating that they drill where it was not safe to do so. If not for Federal regulations making the BP drilling project unsafe, then we would not have that disaster killing our Gulf Coast today.

[Vessol]

I used to be able to get a lot of liberals to like Ron Paul due to his non-intervention stance. Now that doesn't work as many of them are of the mind that "Well Iraq is almost over..and Afghanistan is the GOOD war..we can't just leave without finishing the job."

And the gay marriage debate, liberals are hypocrites in the fact that they don't like the government banning them, but they want the State to recognize them. Why should the State have to recognize any marriage?

[phill4paul]

Now we are still saddled with this fifty-year-old pandering because it's easier to pull one of Mike Tyson's teeth without a dart gun than to repeal a federal statute.

I'd rather pull my own tooth than try to explain anything to a liberal.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

libertarians advocate individuals have a natural right to choose their partner.

libertarians advocate government should not be pointing guns at people asking them to convert to a belief of an acceptable definition for the term partner.

libertarians advocate reproduction and time will sort out partner choices.

libertarians advocate groups of individuals should not receive collective privileges or redistribution's of wealth based on the use of group labels like gay or heterosexual

[catdd]

Tell them to forget the dualistic war with their old enemy "the right-wing capitalist pigs" and listen to what RP says.
He's only on the republican platform out of necessity. Then ask them why they don't trust truly free markets.
That's about the best I can do.

[GunnyFreedom]

Tell them to forget the dualistic war with their old enemy "the right-wing capitalist pigs" and listen to what RP says.
He's only on the republican platform out of necessity. Then ask them why they don't trust truly free markets.
That's about the best I can do.

Except that's not actually true. I'm not sure that telling mistruths will help. RP is a Republican because everything that his platform is NOW, is what the Republicans stood for from 1928 until 1950. For most of RP's life growing up, the GOP platform is precisely the same as his current platform. :o

[LiveFree79]

The BP ecological disaster was created by federal regulations mandating that they drill where it was not safe to do so. If not for Federal regulations making the BP drilling project unsafe, then we would not have that disaster killing our Gulf Coast today.

:rolleyes: What a load of crap. It was BOTH the government and BP. You know I've been a Paul supporter for years now but some of you are just plain DUMB! If it wasn't for government the BP disaster wouldn't have occurred? LMAO!

Look at BP's history. It's the COLLUSION between corporations and government that's the problem not one or the other. They keep benefitting each other at the detriment of the people. If Paul can't see this his senile old ass needs some glasses. If it wasn't for government Paul and his son wouldn't have a job. Give the whole everything is the fault of government line a rest will ya!

[dannno]

:rolleyes: What a load of crap. It was BOTH the government and BP. You know I've been a Paul supporter for years now but some of you are just plain DUMB! If it wasn't for government the BP disaster wouldn't have occurred? LMAO!

Look at BP's history. It's the COLLUSION between corporations and government that's the problem not one or the other. They keep benefitting each other at the detriment of the people. If Paul can't see this his senile old ass needs some glasses. If it wasn't for government Paul and his son wouldn't have a job. Give the whole everything is the fault of government line a rest will ya!

If BP controls the government then we don't tend to distinguish too much 'round here.

[catdd]

Except that's not actually true. I'm not sure that telling mistruths will help. RP is a Republican because everything that his platform is NOW, is what the Republicans stood for from 1928 until 1950. For most of RP's life growing up, the GOP platform is precisely the same as his current platform. :o

Well I wish someone would make up their mind about that. Some people say he's a libertarian running on a republican ticket for obvious reasons and some say he's old school republican.
I tend to switch back and forth between the two and it's not a deliberate mistruth. Just ask some of the people here and see what they say - it would make a good poll.

[heavenlyboy34]

using logic and facts on a liberal is just as ineffective as they are on conservatives (it don't work :( )

[heavenlyboy34]

Except that's not actually true. I'm not sure that telling mistruths will help. RP is a Republican because everything that his platform is NOW, is what the Republicans stood for from 1928 until 1950. For most of RP's life growing up, the GOP platform is precisely the same as his current platform. :o

So RP just wanted to fool everyone when he described himself as a libertarian? :rolleyes: This kind of desperation is as sad as the silliness I see from left liberals. :(

[MN Patriot]

Liberals are envious, spiteful malcontents. Their god is Almighty Government controlled by the Marxists in the Democrat party. It is a waste of time trying to persuade liberals over to our side. Most of them are hopeless idiots who think they are enlightened, open minded and educated.

Liberals should be the ones explaining why they support a political philosophy that has caused so much misery to mankind for the last 100 years.

[Anti Federalist]

Liberals should be the ones explaining why they support a political philosophy that has caused so much misery to mankind for the last 100 years.

Yeah, that.

The record of statism/collectivism/authoritarianism is grim, with hundreds of millions dead.

We shouldn't be on the defensive here.

[osan]

If BP controls the government then we don't tend to distinguish too much 'round here.

He did not say BP controls government. He said they COLLUDE. There are elements of control there but this is a far cry from overt control.

I agree with the assertion that they collude. The USA is a defacto fascist state at this point. It is not really even arguable anymore. The marriage between government and corporation is nearly complete and we, the people, are taking a hell of a licking.

[osan]

I feel no need to explain anything to imbeciles and bufoons who ignore reality regardless of how forcefully and unbreakably one presents it to them.

[osan]

Except that's not actually true. I'm not sure that telling mistruths will help. RP is a Republican because everything that his platform is NOW, is what the Republicans stood for from 1928 until 1950. For most of RP's life growing up, the GOP platform is precisely the same as his current platform. :o

But the republicans were co-opted by neocons. Has this changed? I would find it amazing, were it so. Why would the neocons just go away?

[osan]

we shouldn't be on the defensive here.

hello!

[GunnyFreedom]

So RP just wanted to fool everyone when he described himself as a libertarian? :rolleyes: This kind of desperation is as sad as the silliness I see from left liberals. :(

Um. No. RP ran on the LP ticket because the GOP had lost it's way. It's still lost, for the most part. That's why we are trying to restore them rather than turning them into something completely different. It has the bonus that it's easier to sell to the sheeple.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Ask the liberal who we are better off having as the stewards of our needs: 1) companies that can only survive if they successfully meet the needs of a finicky and ever changing public or 2) a government influenced by beaurocrats and lobbyists that produces nothing and can only give to Paul what it has stolen from Peter.

Also touch on civil rights, the police state, endless wars, failed drug war, Fed Reserve printing money.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Point a gun at the liberal and tell them to convert or perish.

Then ask if they liked it....

[TheeJoeGlass]

In need of an excellent example of why we don't believe in too much Federal government? Try gay marriage.

Most of the non-sentimental arguments in favor of it stem from the fact that married couples enjoy certain benefits in terms of their ability to get joint insurance coverage, the rights they have in the event of the other's death, and etc. Well, much of this was given to married couples at a time when the prevailing opinion didn't think much of extramarital relationships of any kind whatsoever. Not coincidentally, at that time most voters were married. So, they got pandered to.

Now we are still saddled with this fifty-year-old pandering because it's easier to pull one of Mike Tyson's teeth without a dart gun than to repeal a federal statute.

If this last weren't so very true, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be so die hard, eh? But as it is...

Anyone else have good examples seemingly designed to get the attention of liberals? Seems just pointing out how much less money charity wastes than government does would be enough, but obviously not.

I find the majority of the gay movement is not so much on a mission to gain equality as much as it is to try to use the government to force the Religion to approve of it.

[Fox McCloud]

the problem is liberals don't just want gay rights, they want forced acceptance of gay rights. That is to say, businesses wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them, churches would be forced to recognize it as a marriage (and so would companies), etc.

[catdd]

Absolutely, there is no getting along when they want to force their agendas on you through government. The best thing for everyone would be to split the union. Red states and Blue states.

[heavenlyboy34]

Absolutely, there is no getting along when they want to force their agendas on you through government. The best thing for everyone would be to split the union. Red states and Blue states.

What about those of us who don't agree with either side? :confused::eek:

[silentshout]

Absolutely, there is no getting along when they want to force their agendas on you through government. The best thing for everyone would be to split the union. Red states and Blue states.

No thanks. I prefer living somewhere purple, or no color at all.

I'm a left libertarian..when i was a democrat i was really just naive. I just saw the government as a better way to help people than large corporations and churches who would only give help if people converted. I don't have that view of churches now, even though i dislike religion, but i still don't trust large corporations...i just include the government in that list.. I never realized how much the government was involved in corporations like BP at the time.

However, i don't think you can convince a statist liberal type..they just have to figure it out for themselves like i did. Talking about the wars and the debt helps, though. Not all liberals are obamabots.

[heavenlyboy34]

No thanks. I prefer living somewhere purple, or no color at all.

I'm a left libertarian..when i was a democrat i was really just naive. I just saw the government as a better way to help people than large corporations and churches who would only give help if people converted. However, i don't think you can convince a statist liberal type..they just have to figure it out for themselves like i did. Talking about the wars and the debt helps, though. Not all liberals are obamabots.

That's been my experience as well. Left liberals, like conservatives, worship their ideal State like a religion. (facepalm) :p

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's been my experience as well. Left liberals, like conservatives, worship their ideal State like a religion. (facepalm) :p

Mine too. In 1988 I would have been the fat kid (minus the fat) in the audience of the Morton Downy show telling Ron Paul he was a loon and we should have gotten tough on the drug war. Then I would have got in my Camero and turned on Rush Limbaugh and bitched about that idiot Ron Paul under my breath all the way home. :)

[Monarchist]

Explaining ourselves to liberals

I tried it before. They just started yelling and screaming about how I think they and their children should be thrown out on the street and die.

[catdd]

What about those of us who don't agree with either side? :confused::eek:

We can work that out.
I'm sure some of the red states would naturally be Ron Paul type free states. Just look how far we have brought the republican party along already.
I'm serious about this - I do not intend on living in a socialist country and I'm not leaving the US.

[Travlyr]

Point a gun at the liberal and tell them to convert or perish.

Then ask if they liked it....

This. :cool:

[mczerone]

Convincing the liberal:

Ask if they like paying for war, and military aggression. Ask if they like supporting "faith based community programs". Ask if they like giving big corporations major tax and regulatory breaks.

Certainly their answer is "No, but we just need better leaders in government."

Then reply that they are free to hire their own leaders as defense agencies, charity and community programs, and favored businesses and co-ops but for the force used by government funneling all the tax resources to what can only be a single solution, however disliked by however many people they are proclaiming to represent equally.

The liberal may at this point concede, and you can point them to mises.org or lend them your favorite book to let them learn more about this freedom thing. A few may still be holdouts though, and agree that the monopoly state has systemic flaws. The only two responses they have left are: "Well, okay its not perfect, but its better than nothing", or "Well, I propose a different system, like communism or monarchism."

To defeat the first you must show that forced tribute to a state is indeed worse than 'gang rule' (the liberal's worst fear). You may, if you have time and a particularly chatty person, go into how these gangs wouldn't be as 'bad' as gangs currently are today, because membership wouldn't be per se outlawed, and membership rules would be subject to market forces, and competing for the best members. Further, without the state enforced drug war, the gangs of today would be left without illicit and violent revenue streams. Ultimately (and the only issue needed in the short-form) ask them to imagine the worst case scenario: a single gang or cartelized group take over a whole landmass and start fighting their neighbors. Which is pretty much exactly what we have now on an international view.

The latter proposition should be met with an acceptance, and you should encourage them to put their money where their mouth is: throw a communist party and see who shows up and stays. Support them in trying to start their own governmental system, just ask that you be free to do the same, because after all, you have just as much right as they do to try to reform society.