PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Friend likes some libertarians, but not Ron Paul




giovannile07
12-17-2011, 08:38 AM
Because he has a history of bigotry, just search up the racist comments he made over the years, he's more of an antifederalist than a libertarian, and his economical policies will literally leave millions to starve with absolutely nothing while benefitting only the wealthy. Not to mention that he let's his Christianity speak louder than his trust in libertarianism so...

Let people have the freedom to marry, except gay people. Let people have freedom over their bodies, except people with uteruses who might need to get an abortion to save their lives.

That being said, I can agree to his domestic policy about the war on drugs and the war on terror. I also love his foreign policy, but in the long run, he's much more hurt than help than a different libertarian candidate who didn't have Paul's flaws.

This is what he said and I know all this stuff is not true, but how would you counter this?

I know for a fact that he doesn't care whether gay people get married, he believes that we should just drop this discussion and let anyone marry anyone, he even said it on Leno. Also, doesn't he believe we should let the States decide on the matter, that it is no place for the Federal government to be in. Also, doesn't he believe that people CAN get abortions if their lives are in danger?

So, how would you counter this?

bluesc
12-17-2011, 08:44 AM
his economical policies will literally leave millions to starve with absolutely nothing while benefitting only the wealthy.

People who want to end the drug war for some reason suddenly label themselves "libertriarian". This guy is a liberal in all but name.

Who cares what his opinion on abortion is? He doesn't want the federal government to decide. His economic policies are sound.

Just tell him to vote for Ron in the primaries to hold Obama's feet to the fire and to prevent someone like Newt or Romney getting elected.

GuerrillaXXI
12-17-2011, 09:50 AM
Paul doesn't want to leave anyone to starve. I'm quite sure he understands the current dependence of many on government benefits. I believe he has indicated that he would not want to see those suddenly cut (something he wouldn't have the power to do unilaterally anyway), but phased out over a long period of time so that future generations aren't dependent on handouts.

Occam's Banana
12-17-2011, 10:31 AM
Because he has a history of bigotry, just search up the racist comments he made over the years. [other BS snipped]
People like this are such tedious & predictable bores. They always affect a glib & confident certainty in ther baseless claims - but note that they NEVER actually accompany any of those assertions with any actual evidence. (Instead, they tell YOU go "search up" this or "look up" that - instead of simply telling you where to go to find clear, direct evidence).

Furthermore, they frequently make assertions in support of which it is literally impossible to give evidence (such as he does with his idiotic remark about RP's "economical" [sic] policies).

Given these things (in addition to the fact that this person apparently doesn't even have the vaguest clue what the word "libertarian" means), the only wise course - that is, the only one that won't end up in the complete frustration of trying to engage in reasoned discourse with a smug and know-it-all brick wall - is to simply not waste your time "arguing" with such people.

Instead, you'll be much more effective, productive & happy by promoting Ron Paul to people who don't have their heads up their asses.

EDIT: Anyway, if for some reason you do want to waste your time on this guy, you've (partially) answered you own question:


I know for a fact that [Ron Paul] doesn't care whether gay people get married, he believes that we should just drop this discussion and let anyone marry anyone, he even said it on Leno
Well, there you go. Just send the guy a link to a 'tube of the Leno bit (so he doesn't have to "search up" anything himself).
Find sources for the other items, and do the same.

I'll bet it won't do a damn bit of good, though.

bluesc
12-17-2011, 10:35 AM
Paul doesn't want to leave anyone to starve. I'm quite sure he understands the current dependence of many on government benefits. I believe he has indicated that he would not want to see those suddenly cut (something he wouldn't have the power to do unilaterally anyway), but phased out over a long period of time so that future generations aren't dependent on handouts.

True.

Also remember that these government programs contribute hugely to unemployment. Not only by subsidizing it, but by taxing people to do it.

Golden Rule
12-17-2011, 11:46 AM
Ronnie P thinks government should stay out marriage, let gays marry if they want to.

He would also put the life of the women giving birth ahead of the life of a their child.....furthermore one of his main reasons for being pro-life is the fact that after conception, doctors are liable for the fetus. If a doctor can be held liable for death of a fetus (e.g. neglect)...then by law the fetus is a person. It makes logical and lawful sense.

Ronnie P is a strong advocate of NGOs in that government programs are not productive to 'the people' or the individuals receiving help. Private, non-profit organizations are run much more efficiently and help the community much more than a governmental program could.

As for racism...the only thing I have heard about refers to a document published in the late 80s by an individual who was writing on behalf of Ron Paul. Ron Paul, upon finding this pamphlet stated that what individuals right "on his behalf" are not truth.

He whole policy is based on liberty of the individuals.....so whether is a strong christian does not matter to him because it should not affect your rights as a free person. Regardless of skin color, if you are an American citizen Ron Paul will stand behind you 100% in your rights.

Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions.

MisterTickle
12-17-2011, 11:53 AM
RONNIE PPPP!

Brian4Liberty
12-17-2011, 11:54 AM
Make him give proof when he repeats propaganda smears and lies like a parrot.

giovannile07
12-17-2011, 11:57 AM
Alright, thank you for the replies everyone. I'm going to go counter him now! Occam's Banana, I'm going to reply to it since it's on my Facebook status, so if people read it, they know it's not true. Either way I agree with you that it probably won't change his mind, but I'm fighting for Ron Paul and that's all that matters.


Ronnie P thinks government should stay out marriage, let gays marry if they want to.

He would also put the life of the women giving birth ahead of the life of a their child.....furthermore one of his main reasons for being pro-life is the fact that after conception, doctors are liable for the fetus. If a doctor can be held liable for death of a fetus (e.g. neglect)...then by law the fetus is a person. It makes logical and lawful sense.

Ronnie P is a strong advocate of NGOs in that government programs are not productive to 'the people' or the individuals receiving help. Private, non-profit organizations are run much more efficiently and help the community much more than a governmental program could.

As for racism...the only thing I have heard about refers to a document published in the late 80s by an individual who was writing on behalf of Ron Paul. Ron Paul, upon finding this pamphlet stated that what individuals right "on his behalf" are not truth.

He whole policy is based on liberty of the individuals.....so whether is a strong christian does not matter to him because it should not affect your rights as a free person. Regardless of skin color, if you are an American citizen Ron Paul will stand behind you 100% in your rights.

Hopefully this clears up any misconceptions.
Awesome first post man! :) Respect. Anyways, yeah that's true. I know his stances and I agree it's based on individual rights'. Thanks for the information. Also what is NGOs?

Golden Rule
12-17-2011, 12:07 PM
Thanks! This forum was a great find! sorry, Non-Governmental Organizations are for the most part funded by communities and national organizations and not subsidized by American taxes...at least that's my interpretation :)

giovannile07
12-17-2011, 12:09 PM
Thanks! This forum was a great find! sorry, Non-Governmental Organizations are for the most part funded by communities and national organizations and not subsidized by American taxes...at least that's my interpretation :)
Oh alright thanks! :D By the way I used your policy is based on liberty of individuals.


So this is what I said:

First, [Friend], Ron Paul is not a racist. If you've ever heard what he has said you would know he dislikes racism. He believes everyone should be viewed as an individual rather than a collective group, like people are viewed today. He has even said Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are some of his heroes.

Where is the evidence that supports that his economical policies will leave millions to starve? That is simply untrue. Give me some reasons why you believe this will occur?

He has not said he doesn't want to allow gay people not to get married. He is actually in favor if just totally dropping the issue, he doesn't believe the Federal government should even meddle in such a thing. He thinks that anyone can marry whoever they want. He even said it yesterday on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. At 1:42, he states that the government should just keep their nose out of this issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy44Zfdwe8U&feature=player_embedded#!

That is also a lie about his position on abortion. He is against abortion, but if a woman's life is at risk then he believes that woman is allowed to get an abortion.

I'm glad that you believe in his policies about the war on drugs and his foreign policy beliefs. These flaws you stated are misguided and have no evidence behind them. Please show me the evidence if you still truly believe in everything you have stated. Also, his Christian belief has nothing to do with how he is guided, his whole policy is guided based on the liberty of individuals.



This guy I know by the way is on him like crazy. He put like 5 posts stating Ron Paul's issues haha.

bluesc
12-17-2011, 12:12 PM
\\

airborne373
12-17-2011, 12:15 PM
Stop hanging out with liberal-tarians who promote collectivism. Yeah, they exist and in significant numbers.

giovannile07
12-17-2011, 12:21 PM
Stop hanging out with liberal-tarians who promote collectivism. Yeah, they exist and in significant numbers.
I don't know this guy too closely, he's on another forum I use, I think he goes on the Occupy Wall Street thread a lot, so I don't go on the OWS thread often because I know it's a hopeless cause.

LibertyEagle
12-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Ronnie P thinks government should stay out marriage, let gays marry if they want to.

Paul believes the federal government has no constitutional right to be in the marriage business. What states decide is another thing entirely. Or, at least that is my understanding of what his position would be as President.

Remember that he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Occam's Banana
12-17-2011, 12:35 PM
Alright, thank you for the replies everyone. I'm going to go counter him now! Occam's Banana, I'm going to reply to it since it's on my Facebook status, so if people read it, they know it's not true. Either way I agree with you that it probably won't change his mind, but I'm fighting for Ron Paul and that's all that matters.
Ah, so it's a public thing. I see. Good! In that case, it might not be such a waste of time after all! By all means, fire away, give 'em hell, put on a good show and good luck!
EDIT: catching up on the thread, I see you've already done so (good job, BTW).

Feeding the Abscess
12-17-2011, 01:55 PM
Paul believes the federal government has no constitutional right to be in the marriage business. What states decide is another thing entirely. Or, at least that is my understanding of what his position would be as President.

Remember that he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

He was not in Congress when DOMA was enacted, and has stated dozens of times (and several times in books, no less) that if gay people want to get married, who is he to stop it. He's also argued that the states shouldn't regulate it either, but that constitutionally, they have more authority than the federal government.

States' "rights" for paleocons, "let people do what they wish" to liberals.

stephensmith
12-17-2011, 07:40 PM
I see at lot of posts here and elsewhere asking how to convince a friend, relative, etc. to support Ron Paul. It is good to ask these questions, because together we can hone our own responses and arguments. That said ... there are some situations where it is not worth it to spend one's time and energies to try to persaude someone who is unpersuadable. Someone I greatly admire (and who was an outstanding libertarian) once told me, "Don't go fishing in sand." Every situation is different, but I would urge everyone who makes it their mission to try to convert others to libertarianism (or to supporting RP) to honestly assess every encounter and decide for themselves if it might be time to "move on." There are lots of fish in the sea!

giovannile07
12-18-2011, 02:53 PM
Ah, so it's a public thing. I see. Good! In that case, it might not be such a waste of time after all! By all means, fire away, give 'em hell, put on a good show and good luck!
EDIT: catching up on the thread, I see you've already done so (good job, BTW).
Yeah haha. Thanks, he hasn't replied yet, but we'll see what goes on.


He was not in Congress when DOMA was enacted, and has stated dozens of times (and several times in books, no less) that if gay people want to get married, who is he to stop it. He's also argued that the states shouldn't regulate it either, but that constitutionally, they have more authority than the federal government.

States' "rights" for paleocons, "let people do what they wish" to liberals.
Oh I see, makes more sense, been confused with the do whatever you want or the states' rights thing.


I see at lot of posts here and elsewhere asking how to convince a friend, relative, etc. to support Ron Paul. It is good to ask these questions, because together we can hone our own responses and arguments. That said ... there are some situations where it is not worth it to spend one's time and energies to try to persaude someone who is unpersuadable. Someone I greatly admire (and who was an outstanding libertarian) once told me, "Don't go fishing in sand." Every situation is different, but I would urge everyone who makes it their mission to try to convert others to libertarianism (or to supporting RP) to honestly assess every encounter and decide for themselves if it might be time to "move on." There are lots of fish in the sea!
No worries, I don't believe this guy is one of those guys who are too stubborn to look on both issues.

freeforall
12-18-2011, 03:31 PM
This illustrates an interesting point. People on the right hate his stance on foreign policy, the drug war, and the war on terror but tend to like where he stands on economics and social issues. People on the right tend to be the exact opposite. And of course, there are those of us that understand his reasoning and fully support him. At any rate, this should give his supporters a clear starting point based on who they are talking to.

giovannile07
12-18-2011, 04:12 PM
This illustrates an interesting point. People on the right hate his stance on foreign policy, the drug war, and the war on terror but tend to like where he stands on economics and social issues. People on the right tend to be the exact opposite. And of course, there are those of us that understand his reasoning and fully support him. At any rate, this should give his supporters a clear starting point based on who they are talking to.
That's true... Hm... I just noticed my post to him has a lot of grammatical errors...

mconder
12-18-2011, 04:18 PM
He must be a reason magazine libertarian.

heavenlyboy34
12-18-2011, 04:26 PM
OB is right. The onus of proof about the various allegations leveled against RP ("racist", etc) is on the accusers. Ron is not obliged to "prove" himself innocent. Could you imagine how horrifying it would be if your friend's standard were applied to law in general? They could arrest anyone-and if they didn't have enough money to "prove" themselves innocent, they'd get jail time or worse. Patently absurd.

heavenlyboy34
12-18-2011, 04:30 PM
Stop hanging out with liberal-tarians who promote collectivism. Yeah, they exist and in significant numbers.
Yep. Roy L is one of them.

gerryb
12-18-2011, 05:31 PM
Thanks! This forum was a great find! sorry, Non-Governmental Organizations are for the most part funded by communities and national organizations and not subsidized by American taxes...at least that's my interpretation :)

This is partly true. Many NGO's get heavily funded via government grants and contracts.