Discussion with a libertarian against Ron Paul

[nevildev]

Last night I started talking politics with my buddy for the first time, and I found out he shares many of the same beliefs as Ron Paul (small government, non-interventionalist, etc)....Yet, when he talked about each of the candidates and finally got to Ron Paul he completely discounted him for two "sticking points" in his words....

Ron Paul wants to leave Iraq immediately
Ron Paul believes in the North American Union conspiracy

He was strongly convinced that we can't turn our backs on Iraq and anyone who believes in conspiracies can't be trusted. We had a civil debate but he wasn't budging. It's just frustrating, one that when Ron Paul and conspiracy are used in the same sentence it REALLY turns people off, and that even libertarians think we have to stay in Iraq no matter how long it takes.

For the record he didnt like any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates either....

[Nate K]

3 words..

what. an. idiot.

[hard@work]

No real big L libertarian wants to stay in Iraq lol ...

Perhaps he has libertarian tendencies but you absolutely must remember that libertarian philosophies are the foundational philosophies of the United States. They are merely the remnant of the actual ideology of our countries foundation. All the governmental philosophies today are generally new and radical to the classical liberal times. If not standard authoritarian practices really... making classical liberalism the radical idea (as tyranny and state control ain't nothing new). So it is quite common for the great vast majority of Americans to have "libertarian tendencies". They are supposed to. It's the fact that they have authoritarian submissive tendencies that is the battle for us.

;-)

[Hope]

As a Libertarian, how exactly does he expect to fund a war that's costing us $125 million dollars a day?

What religion is your buddy? Would he not vote for a candidate just because they weren't the same religion? A candidate's personal beliefs are just that -- personal. To not "trust" a candidate because he doesn't believe exactly as you do is foolish.

[constituent]

anyone care to guess?

[Alan84]

I guess he believes in Colin Powell's "Potter Barn" rule where if you break something, you have to fix it. I personally believe there is good merit to that but I have no idea how to fix it and if we can even afford to fix it.

[Flash]

Some Libertarians just like to oppose any good candidate that is getting the slightest amount of attention.

[AtomiC]

That dude isn't a true Libertarian then if he believes that.

[werdd]

Last night I started talking politics with my buddy for the first time, and I found out he shares many of the same beliefs as Ron Paul (small government, non-interventionalist, etc)....Yet, when he talked about each of the candidates and finally got to Ron Paul he completely discounted him for two "sticking points" in his words....

Ron Paul wants to leave Iraq immediately
Ron Paul believes in the North American Union conspiracy

He was strongly convinced that we can't turn our backs on Iraq and anyone who believes in conspiracies can't be trusted. We had a civil debate but he wasn't budging. It's just frustrating, one that when Ron Paul and conspiracy are used in the same sentence it REALLY turns people off, and that even libertarians think we have to stay in Iraq no matter how long it takes.

For the record he didnt like any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates either....

Sounds like one of those glenn beck libertarians, not really libertarian at all. If your a true small goverment conservative, then you have to be anti war. And you certainly have to hate the notion that our beurocracy would be moving away from US sovereignty into a NAU.

[nevildev]

He believes in a small government that keeps hands off peoples income and lives...sounds like someone I know. After he said that, I said Ron Paul believes those too. When I said Ron Paul, he didnt give an eye roll, but you could tell that's what he was thinking.

For some reason he is stuck on the belief that we can "win" in Iraq. He said we can't just go in bomb the hell out of them and then pick up and leave. That would make America look awful around the world. I came back with we look awful staying in there. Everytime another Iraqi dies we build more enemies. The soldiers are there to protect Americans, not rebuild Iraq. It costs Billions of tax dollars to stay in there, we're going to go broke. He shrugged and said we can't just turn our backs on Iraqis. He sees it as cut and run, I see it as save America from going broke and making more enemies...complete opposite ends of the specrtrum..


What religion is he....we've never talked about that...not sure

[JosephTheLibertarian]

3 words..

what. an. idiot.

I agree. I would call him a douchebag to his face.

[Mark Rushmore]

He said we can't just go in bomb the hell out of them and then pick up and leave. That would make America look awful around the world.

So you take it that he thinks America is looking splendid around the world as things stand?

[nevildev]

No calling him a douchebag is not right IMO. If I called everyone a douchebag that disagreed with me, then I'd have no friends. He can have whatever opinion he wants.

[murrayrothbard]

He shrugged and said we can't just turn our backs on Iraqis. He sees it as cut and run, I see it as save America from going broke and making more enemies...complete opposite ends of the specrtrum..
e

Well then he better get over there and help out huh?

[Ethek]

Sounds like a Boortz supporter. Don't get me wrong I was pretty big on Boortz and the like, but it took Ron Paul's convictions and the support he was getting to open my eyes. This country is going bankrupt with it's current course on foreign policy.

[coboman]

In the last debate Ron Paul addressed the conspiracy question.
As he put it, it is not a conspiracy, it is a plan and an ideal that many people are pushing forward, just like the european union, that eventually happened.

It is no secret or conspiracy, it is just a way of thinking. Like globalization.

So, if your friend thinks that having a common currency and open borders between the three countries is a good idea, then he just differs in his way of thinking with Ron Paul (like me).

But if he believes in a country sovereignty, secure borders, and independent currency, then he agrees with RP.

[FreeTraveler]

One word re: Iraq - Vietnam. Look how well that turned out for us.

The best luck I've had with this argument is to ask a simple question:

"If there were foreign troops in our streets, what would you be doing?"

[pdavis]

Libertarian: one who believes in both personal and economic freedoms; follows a strict adherence to the non-aggression axiom.

Non-aggression axiom: the use or threat of force is illegitimate, unless in self defense.

Staying in Iraq goes against the non aggression axiom since we are forced pay for this occupation directly (taxes) and indirectly (inflation) and the US government is using force against a nation who has done no harm against us.

Conspiracy: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act.

The CFR's plan to form a North American Union by definition is not a conspiracy since their plan to form a union is not an unlawful act. By your friends logic, Patrick Henry and the anti federalists were nut jobs since they were concerned about the federalist planning to create a more powerful, centeralized union that was capable of taxing and taking our rights away.

[Paulitician]

"War is the health of the State"

I can't believe there are actual supposedly small government libertarian and conservatives who would be for the ridiculous occupation of Iraq. And just because Ron Paul said "conspiracy"... ooh how scarry and nutty. I'm sure many of those we believed there would be an EU were called "crazy conspiracy theorists" too, yet they turned out to be correct. Whether there is an actual secretive plan to make a NAU or not, I think it's better to say, "no I'd never support something like that" than to completely ignore it and say it doesn't exist when global and international government is constantly expanding. Do people not use their brains?

[forsmant]

What does it mean to "Win" in Iraq? I must be stupid but I still don't know what our goal is in Iraq?

[AlexMerced]

Just sned your friend to the forum, we'll take care of him

[Paulitician]

What does it mean to "Win" in Iraq? I must be stupid but I still don't know what our goal is in Iraq?
I'm very stupid too. I don't know what we are still doing there currently...

[constitutional]

Just show him a documentary of the war in middle east. E.x., why we fight, Private Warriors (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/).

That last video will def crack him.

Oh and that isn't a conspiracy. It's real. Just tell him to search for I-69 on google.

[AlexMerced]

didn't we learn anything from Karzai making afghanistan a central government instead a of a republic which culturallly makes a lot more sense Afghanistan.

Let the people have the government they want, even if we don't like it. Rome wasn't built in a day, not so sure if it fell in one either.

[quickmike]

Last night I started talking politics with my buddy for the first time, and I found out he shares many of the same beliefs as Ron Paul (small government, non-interventionalist, etc)....Yet, when he talked about each of the candidates and finally got to Ron Paul he completely discounted him for two "sticking points" in his words....

Ron Paul wants to leave Iraq immediately
Ron Paul believes in the North American Union conspiracy

He was strongly convinced that we can't turn our backs on Iraq and anyone who believes in conspiracies can't be trusted. We had a civil debate but he wasn't budging. It's just frustrating, one that when Ron Paul and conspiracy are used in the same sentence it REALLY turns people off, and that even libertarians think we have to stay in Iraq no matter how long it takes.

For the record he didnt like any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates either....


Your friend is not a Libertarian. He calls himself one because its the "hip thing" to do right now. A real libertarian does not believe in using force to make a person or another country comply with your wishes. Libertarians only believe in using force in self defense. If your friend disagrees with this, hes not really a Libertarian. Its pretty simple really.

Someone needs to break the news to him about this. LOL

Its just like Glen Beck calling himself a libertarian. Pshhhh

[quickmike]

Just show him a documentary of the war in middle east. E.x., why we fight, Private Warriors (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/).

That last video will def crack him.

Oh and that isn't a conspiracy. It's real. Just tell him to search for I-69 on google.

Hey, I just looked up I 69 on Google and all I got was some Kamasutra sex site. Whats that all about???:D

[AlexMerced]

that would make sens wouldn't it, yeah I heard someone use that in a blog today, "the worries about a super highway are ridiculous, we already got I 69" I think it was in the Blog I posted earlier in the thread

[nevildev]

He's overall a very smart guy who really buys into the belief that we need to see it through. I don't think he realizes the INCREDIBLE cost that will have on American taxpayers and the ripple affect it will have on our economy.

Will we look like assholes leaving Iraq a mess after bombing the hell out of them? Yes. Will we look like bigger assholes continuing to stay in Iraq, building further frustration and hatred of Americans, and possibly spreading our war to Iran? Absolutely! If Iraq wants Democracy, let the people rise up and choose themselves. We chose to be free from Britain ourselves. Democracy was brewed from the passion of young revolutionaries who fought for freedom. Let Iraqis fight for freedom. Let Americans protect their freedom at home and get the hell out of Iraq.

[beerista]

...anyone who believes in conspiracies can't be trusted...
You might start by asking your friend to define a conspiracy. I think that 19 guys planning in secret to fly planes into buildings would fit a reasonable definition of "conspiracy." That, last I checked, was a perfectly acceptable description of what happened on a date he might be familiar with.
No one really believes that there is no such thing as conspiracies (otherwise they'd be hard pressed to explain the mafia, e.g.); they're just careful to only believe in the sanctioned conspiracies for fear of looking like a nut.

[AlexMerced]

Your friend makes me a sad panda

[Hook]

Well, sounds like he already made up his mind, so no gain trying anymore. There are plenty of people that still need to hear the message, so I would spend more time convincing them.

[constitutional]

Hey, I just looked up I 69 on Google and all I got was some Kamasutra sex site. Whats that all about???:D


You scared me for a second. :D

I-69 <-- what a weird name.

[Sey.Naci]

Last night I started talking politics with my buddy for the first time, and I found out he shares many of the same beliefs as Ron Paul (small government, non-interventionalist, etc)....Yet, when he talked about each of the candidates and finally got to Ron Paul he completely discounted him for two "sticking points" in his words....

Ron Paul wants to leave Iraq immediately
Ron Paul believes in the North American Union conspiracy

He was strongly convinced that we can't turn our backs on Iraq and anyone who believes in conspiracies can't be trusted. We had a civil debate but he wasn't budging. It's just frustrating, one that when Ron Paul and conspiracy are used in the same sentence it REALLY turns people off, and that even libertarians think we have to stay in Iraq no matter how long it takes.

For the record he didnt like any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates either....I live in Canada and can report that the North American Union (formally named the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America or SPP) has been much under discussion in Canadian political circles and (unintentionally) was leaked to the general public.

It's no unfounded conspiracy. It's fact. In Montebello, on August 21, 2007, Canada's Prime Minister Harper, Mexican President Calderón, and US President Bush signed onto this secretive agreement. To their dismay, the media and others found out about it and began exposing the purpose behind its purportedly innocent mandate.

Some references:
* US site of the SPP (http://www.spp.gov/)
* Canada site of the SPP (http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx)
* Backgrounder by Council of Canadians (http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/)
* CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spp/)
* Call to suspend the SPP (http://www.ndp.ca/spp_petition), by Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP)
* The Grand Ayatollah (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/12/Ayatollah/)

And from the website of the Green Party of Canada (http://www.greenparty.ca/): "The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) encapsulates US post - 9-11 concerns about security, addresses US energy needs with Canada portrayed as “domestic supply” for the US energy appetite, and addresses Canadian concerns to ensure that the border remains open to trade in any eventuality. It builds on NAFTA, but is different from NAFTA by moving Canada and the US much closer to a common market and customs union. Some have described it as a North American Union (NAU) similar to the European Union....

"The SPP model operates from a hyper-security mentality that involves anti-terrorism legislation, Smart Border Accord, security certificates, harmonizing immigration polices and military integration for homeland security. The work to realize the objectives of this partnership is going on largely without public scrutiny. Nevertheless, it appears to be moving very rapidly towards military, energy, natural resource, security, social and environmental policy integration en route to NAU.

"Green Party MPs will scrap the Security and Prosperity Partnership."

Do a search for 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' and you'll find a great deal more. Canada's opposition parties are furious that our PM took it upon himself to sign an agreement without getting prior authorization from our House of Commons (akin to your Congress). Sound familiar? :mad:

[azminuteman]

He's probably a Boortz Libertarian