Gary Johnson, RP, and libertarian supporters......remember.

We're fine until social issues are brought up, or if the conservative in the discussion is one of those Bush-era big-government types. You don't sound off about social issues much, so I've had no reason to argue with you much yet.

And Monty has already admitted to being a brainwashed socialist so there's almost no point in my arguing with him anymore.

 

Ron Paul and his followers are stupid enough to believe that Americans should compete with Chinese slave labor to see who will work cheaper. And when they speak of freedom they really mean the freedom for them to exploit others who are not as economically comfortable as they are. Its slavery by any terms. But it isn't necessarily racist. They think everyone should be exploited. Except for them.

 

When he says that it's impossible for a libertarian to be a racist, he may have a point. "May have" but not really and it's an easy one to argue against. But if we suppose he does have a bit of a point, it tells us something else. It tells us that those posing as libertarians who exhibit their racist tendencies are probably not libertarians at all.

They are racists and haters who were searching for a leader to identify with. And because both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have been proven to both display racist behaviour, he picks up on it and starts to pretend he is a libertarian of some sort.

Of course we also know that neither Ron or Rand are libertarians either. They're just contrarians who appeal to angry people such as our friend in question here.

 

1. Ending trade agreements that give foreign countries an edge, creating sound money that doesn't allow the FED or the Government to continually keep spending, ending Government intervention into businesses and lowering taxes is considered "compete with Chinese slave labor to see who will work cheaper"? You have no understanding of the platform at all.
2. Ron Paul's platform was based upon separation of Church & State and Individualism... Whether or not he agree with gay marriage or of the sort wasn't his business. Thus a gay couple could be married in any State by the Church willing to do so. If a person wanted to consume drugs it's their own body and they have claim to it. To move onto your "exploit others" remark you have no basis for an argument here at all. Nothing but pure dribble that you've made up and cannot prove.
3. His platform was based upon the ending of the exploitation of Corporations/Banks running this country and the continual wars. How does creating a system where they have less power to run the House and Senate such a bad thing? Unless of course you prefer to be a drone... and considering exploitation of yourself when you have the freedom to do as you please as long as you harm no other.

 

Spoken like a true simple minded libertarian. (light sarcastic applause)

My damnation of Ron Paul is based on his book "Liberty Defined". Particularly the sections on unions and international trade. Ron Paul wants the same thing all supply siders want: cheap labor. He is against collective bargaining on the part of labor. Meaning that laborers should compete against each other to see who will work cheapest. I suppose that's fine for those who don't have to work for a living. Meaning the independently wealthy. But, really, what do you think is going to happenwhen one side has all the power and the other has none? Do you really think things will be MORE fair? That's just stupid. And what does science tell us about a vacuum? You think you can just strip gov't of its power and there will be LESS coercion in the world? Corporate America will just play nice right? How silly of you! There's a reason that Austrian economics has never been tried. Its NONSENSE! And there are reasons why nearly ALL libertarians are under 35: youthful exuberance and a minimum of real life experience. You'll outgrow it when you mature.

 

Truly a remarkable rebuttal! Any other personal attacks while you're at?

Because he wants the price floors/ceilings removed? Even though the minimum wage directly affects the prices of all goods making them far more expensive. It's similar to college as to how the government gives loans out by the thousands and we wonder why classes are so expensive... Intervention into the college market create a price increase because it's expected of every individual to get government money to pay for school and almost everyone is granted the funds.

Tell me when one side gets taken advantage of under a Republic... The systems in which people are slaves to someone else is directly related to the government(s) allowing it to be so. Feudalism? Nobility ruled because government said so. Fascism/Communism/Socialism? Government ruled because they had the military and that's the way they wanted it. Slavery? Because government permits there to be slaves. Corporatism? Corporations directly working with the government to get special privileges.

If a system is in place to prevent or diminish those forms of control it won't happen. Giving government more power to control the markets gives the corporations their power.

 

The actual left is consistently against war, but Democrats in general definitely aren't.

Neither party is anti-war until the opposition is in power. Neither is that pro-war until they are in power.

The Libertarian party is consistently anti-war though.

 

Yeah, actually this is fair to a degree. Although, now that I think about it, many of the liberal groundlings appear to become rather indifferent to war once their guy is at the helm. "Anti-war" is largely just a code word for anti-Republican now. Notice how all these anti-war protest groups always pop up during Republican presidencies and then conveniently disappear once a Democrat is in office again even if the war is not over and even if the Democrat isn't doing anything differently than his Republican predecessor? Notice how we don't hear any more complaining about the inhumanity of Gitmo? Even though Obama said he would close it and hasn't touched it? Convenient, huh? Such is partisanship, I guess.

Personally, I don't believe in being consistently pro or anti-war. I think each situation must be judged on its own merits. Sometimes war is the right answer. Often times it's not. It all just depends.

 

I agree, although we've seen the flipside among some conservatives as well. Some of the former hawks during Bush's reign have become anti-war regarding Libya, for example.

 

An accurate assessment. If Bill Clinton would have marched into Iraq, then the Democrats would be the chest pumping flag waivers and the Republicans would be staging protests, for sure. Historically speaking, the Democratic party has lead the country to war more than any other, a fact conveniently gleaned over by today's "anti-war" left.

 

Maybe so. I think that kind of partisanship is stupid, personally. And it only undermines your own credibility. If your stance on an issue can change significantly based on nothing more than a change of leader, then that shows that principle isn't the most important thing. I think there's too much of that in this country. For instance, I might not be happy with Obama as president, but I gave him credit for getting Bin Laden. Assuming it actually happened (I'm not much of a skeptic, but it would have been nice to see the pictures), then this is a definite positive mark on Obama's record. And I'm not going to deny him of it just because he's in the wrong party. That's stupid.

 

Aggression by the strong against the weak? I'm not sure I follow you here. I just believe in standing up for what's right and ignoring what's politically correct. Sometimes you have to go to war. Hopefully that's as rare as possible. But you don't always have control over that. There is evil in the world. And when evil arises, if you have the power to stop it, you have a moral duty to do so. If you sit idly back and let it happen, then you are no better than the person committing the evil act. Period.

 

This reminds me of how the anti-war crowd became silent once Obama was elected.