The question of Leftists

[gb13]

Well neo-cons are far right, so if a comparison is to be made, it seems far-left is the reasonable one.

Agreed. Either one would be a nightmare scenario, but if the choice were between the two, I'd take the ideal of the far-leftists. Although, ultimately, in either situation the end-result would probably be a bullet in my brain.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

"If we were in the days of the revolution, Conservatives today would be the Liberals, and the Liberals would be the Tories."

-Ronald Reagan, 1975

Hmmm?

 

[Jingles]

It depends on the issue and the people I'm talking with.

They both don't really favor personal liberty nor do they both favor economic liberty. In broad terms the right and left both want to use the force of the state to push their morals/views on others. As a libertarian I don't wish to use the force of the state to force morals/views on anyone. Liberals want to force people to "accept" things. Conservatives want to use force to make people more "moral". They don't oppose the state, violence, and force, but wish to use it for different ends is all.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hmmm?

Some truth to that.

 

[sailingaway]

They are better on that point, but people tend to end up voting their pocket book, and our pocket book ideology isn't leftist.

 

[sailingaway]

Agreed. Either one would be a nightmare scenario, but if the choice were between the two, I'd take the ideal of the far-leftists. Although, ultimately, in either situation the end-result would probably be a bullet in my brain.

It doesn't work that way. It goes from fascism/tyranny/communism (the statist control side) to the anarchist side. I'm neither, but left and right don't really work. As said above, if they want to force their way on others, it had better be in strictly limited areas.

 

[truthspeaker]

The argument I hear from liberals is "he's pro-life".

Just remind them that it is the lives of soldiers we are fighting for and the shift our nation has been doing against their liberties.

Remind them that a vote for Ron Paul is also a vote in favor of saving the economy. (He did predict the housing bubble and is against corporate bailouts).

 

[Hyperion]

I actually find that far-leftists are far and away more disapproving of RP than are neo-cons.

This.

 

[Hyperion]

liberals also think that the govt should not legislate sexual behavior or marriage rights, and that the police beating people is generally bad. Neo-cons rush to blame the victims of police brutality, whereas liberals tend to see the state in that respect as an abusive agent of special corporate interests...

Friendlier? LOL yo we live in different worlds. Neo-cons talk happily about dead muslims and collateral damage where I live.

Uhh, liberals are just a different side of the statist coin. I hardly call the advocacy of state funding of abortion, sex education, mandating their state sponsored definition of marriage as getting the government out of the equation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Uhh, liberals are just a different side of the statist coin. I hardly call the advocacy of state funding of abortion, sex education, mandating their state sponsored definition of marriage as getting the government out of the equation.

+a bunch. Unfortunate that certain statists stole the word liberal and bastardized it beyond repair. Mises would be sad and disappoint.

 

[Massachusetts]

I'm not sure a lot of you guys understand what the average liberal/left winger is like. What has been described is how extremists view the world. I live in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in America. They are not how you have been describing them at all...I don't know how they are where you come from, but it seems very far off to me.

 

[TheGrinch]

In life I've found that people are people.

I've also realized early on that TV dictates what people talk about around the water cooler; what dress so & so wore at the Oscars, what team is in the play-offs, what the updates are on the latest sensational murder trial, the weather, electronic gadgets, cars, etc.

I've been purposely monitoring NPR, PBS, BBC and the 4 major networks' local affiliate news programs. It has gotten to the point where Ron Paul's name is never even mentioned. It follows that neither is his name mentioned around the water cooler.

This forum blames the campaign, sheeple, RP supporters, youth's failure to vote and some have finally begun to address the electronic vote flipping and blatant ballot tampering (a good thing), but...

The guy is not even mentioned once in a 15 minute "report" on the GOP race.

In contrast to this travesty, diractly after the GOP reporting, they switch to the election in EGYPT, where they mention EVERY CANDIDATE.

With the excitement RP generates and the truly astounding attendance at his speeches, the press reporting those details like they've incessantly blathered on about Santorum/Romney, or Romney/Gingrich, or Romney/Cain, or "there are now 3 top contenders; Perry, Romney and Bachmann" would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

It really is that simple.

The same folks who bad-talk RP would be singing his praises without us having to 'win' arguments, debates or conversions.

Bosso

+rep

The media has acutally succeeded somewhat in deflecting the balme away from them, and causing a few in this movement to look to eachother for blame. I mean, it has to be something, but too many look to "soft" supporters, campaign strategies, while neglecting the true reason we're not able to have the reach we should.

I mean, think about it. If a liberal is opposed to or (even on the fence about) Dr. Paul, then when the media reports "racist newsletters", they buy it hook-line-and-sinker, because it fits into the narrative they have about the GOP, and successfully lumps Dr. Paul in with some of the GOP and governement's policies that could easily be construed as racist.

Then you add in the people who pay even less attention, and they're not even very aware of Dr. Paul and his message from the mainstream media, and so they almost have to take our word for it that there's as many of us as there seems to be. For many, it really does matter that the media puts them into the public sphere, because most are trusting that if a candidate were viable, he'd get coverage. As we've seen that's certainly not the case, no conspiracy theory about it.

If the media and GOP chose to, they could paint Dr. Paul as a guy who can unite folks from all parties with common ideals, and draw the always-valuable swing votes; But it's as if in this race, they want to pretend that the all-important "independent" bloc that is for Dr. Paul and can win an election, simply does not exist according to their coverage. It's just a vocal minority, and not a growing movement, as far as they're concerned. Nothing to see here...

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure a lot of you guys understand what the average liberal/left winger is like. What has been described is how extremists view the world. I live in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in America. They are not how you have been describing them at all...I don't know how they are where you come from, but it seems very far off to me.

I'm from California and have to agree with you.

 

[Massachusetts]

I'm from California and have to agree with you.

California is also an extremely liberal state. I have never been there and cannot speak on the people there, but I assume it is more of the same.

 

[Butchie]

This. Alot of liberals seem to recognize some of the same issues we do, namely a corrupt system, but follow this demonstrably false-premise that big-gvoernment is still good if you just regulate it more, when that only exacerbates the problem.

Though what's a bit more disturbing to me is how pro-mid-east-invervention some are now, just because it's their guy doing it quieter... In other words, it was only when Bush was in charge that it was okay for them to criticize going to war on a "whim' with no evidence and assault our liberties here. They don't seem to have a problem with it however, if their savior Barry does the same.

I love that second paragraph, sums it up nice, I never liked liberals much but I did atleast respect the fact that they spoke out against the wars, but as is typical (well, with conservatives as well) the most important principle of all seems to be "hate the other guy no matter what and stand by your guy no matter what."

 

[The Free Hornet]

Does anyone else find, in mixed political company, that the discussion turns into you (the ron paul supporter) and the leftist arguing against the neo-con?

No. Although the left-right divsion is artificial, arbitrary, and oddly applied (e.g., neocons are NOT far-right if your far right is pure capitalism or libertarian/anarchy variants), nobody would confuse me as a leftist. Their defense of government quickly makes them the leftist/statists. And I will use leftist/communist/pinko/bleeding-heart-liberal terminology as that is what your typical mixed company will claim to abhor (in my circles). There are so many issues you can use to tie them down as the progressives they are: welfare state (social security, medicare), government regulation (FDA, EPA), interference in our lives (DEA, BATF), deficit spending, monetary inflation, and huge government with overseas tendrils.

Neocons are jellyfish without the poison. They resort to comments like

a) he can't win, Romney will be the nominee
b) without the welfare state the underclass will rise up and take over

Very few have any sort of intellectual chops. Many claim to have things you can identify as libertarian tenancies but with zero understanding of how to achieve freedom. Their defense of liberty is summarized as "yes, but". There is always an excuse why they need their precious nanny state. They are weak and pathetic - the very opposite of hardlined and principled.

The neocon is the leftist and it our job to let them know it! Again, I only say "leftist" because that is what they dislike.

 

[flynn]

Live in Canada, we have no short supply of statists left wing government know best types here.

In my experience, it is pretty easy to argue with leftists here. All you really need to do is to poke holes in their argument. Ironically, the right wing, conservatives are pretty hardcore, they are fixed in their religious believes and would not hesitate to impose their values onto your personal lives. Both are digging their own grave. Both thinks they are superior than thou. in the u.s, Republicans are just democrats lite at this point.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's not Left vs. Right
It's the State vs. YOU

 

[Icymudpuppy]

It's not Left vs. Right
It's the State vs. YOU

We know this, but I don't find many people on the left OR the right that understand this. They completely don't realize that each new law passed seemingly benevolently by one party is used tyrannically by the other party when they get in. Nothing is ever repealed, and the grip just gets tighter.

I fear the only way to escape tyranny is to become nomadic. Seastead, or space-stead like in firefly. Only pioneers living at the edges of civilization ever experience freedom.

Ohh how I wish she were right.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm sorry to have to break this to y'all, but I (and a couple other RPF members) belonged to a now-defunct Left-leaning progressive board where it was known that we were/are Ron Paul supporters. It was no easier to try to discuss issues with those people than it is to try to discuss issues with right-wing neocons (in fact, the Leftists persistently accused us RP supporters of being neocons ... the "logic" behind that thinking being, if you're not a liberal/progressive/Democrat, you're automatically a neocon...what else is there? )

Long story short, these Leftists were every bit as clueless (and SIGNIFICANTLY MUCH RUDER) than any neocon I've ever met.