Stuff Republicans say.

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know....you're rather socially conservative for my taste. But, hey....we can still be friendly, eh?

I'm not sure how you gather I'm socially conservative. My position on drugs and the so-called war on drugs is probably in line with your view. I'm all for LGBT rights seeing it's one of the areas of social equality I'm involved in. I'm for universal healthcare. I'm against the prison industrial complex (both state run and the for profit ones). I believe all governments (state and federal) have no business trying to regulate women's choices.....And there are number of other social stances I take. My wife and I are actually involved in a few of them in various surrounding communities. Personally you may be more social-conservative than I am. I think we have differing opinions on public assistance and minimum wage.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. Witness the dress codes in Montana, the anti-abortion votes in red states, anti-voting by democrats provisions in many states and so forth

This is not what what post #579 was about. I see that I wasn't clear, so I'll restate: Regarding attitudes towards libertarians
by other political groups, we endure less criticism from the right for our pro-social liberty views, & we endure more criticism from the left for our pro-economic liberty views. I notice this hostility particularly on RF, eg, post #567.

Note: The Montana dress code oppresses not just women, but men too (something never noticed by "feminists"). Business formal attire also discriminates against guys who prefer Hawaiian shirts or Carhartts. Hey, guys....what say we get together for a necktie burning to protest this oppressive 3-piece suit crap? Hell, let's burn all our suits too!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure how you gather I'm socially conservative. My position on drugs and the so-called war on drugs is probably in line with your view. I'm all for LGBT rights seeing it's one of the areas of social equality I'm involved in. I'm for universal healthcare. I'm against the prison industrial complex (both state run and the for profit ones). I believe all governments (state and federal) have no business trying to regulate women's choices.....And there are number of other social stances I take. My wife and I are actually involved in a few of them in various surrounding communities. Personally you may be more social-conservative than I am. I think we have differing opinions on public assistance and minimum wage.....

I was just fun'n ya!
(Although you likely are more conservative.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tis mostly the left which resents us. The right is more tolerant of social liberty than the left is of economic liberty.

It's pretty much the right that says that letting transgender people use the restroom of their identity is to allow stalkers and rapists into women's restrooms. These are also the same people that are known for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The right is more likely to sponsor anti-immigration policy. The right, actually more specifically right-winged men, want to make reproductive decisions for women. The right tends to throw a fit over people not using the Bible to be sworn into office, and are much less likely to vote for an atheist (this one pretty much comes down to the core of the two groups).
As for economic liberties, because you have to elevate the status of the least well off to improve the whole of society, the only way to make sure this is done through taxes. Because we work to take care of ourselves instead of each other, there has to be some way to offset the **** lottery that is life. So, other than taxes, how are the parties different? Other than one is trying to take a more socially responsible, ethical, and moral approach to the problem?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've found that neo-cons aren't shy about who they hate, who they want silenced, and who they demonize. It's blatant, directed, and would be hilarious if it wasn't so true. But, they really don't care if they're called out for their bias, as they'll pull out religious doctrine to back up their claim.

I mean, I'll give them that much. I respect authenticity since I know up front who to put my dukes up with. Better self-defense that way. I know when I'm targeted, and that's helpful to me.

As to the American liberals, I've found that they like to talk about the poor, or queers, or people of color, or women's rights, but would rather throw us under the bus when it suits them (Stonewall riots come to mind). Chris Hedges wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that liberals like to talk about the poor, but don't like the smell of the poor. Mostly it's academic grandstanding. In other words, it's the white liberals who will have a drink with their black friends, but they better not dare share the same zip code.

I'm still wary of both sides. But, for this thread, Republicans will say some really hateful drivel that deserves to be called out for their misogyny, homophobia/biphobia/transphobia, and racism.

 

[metis]

I think probably most of us here are really a mixture of liberal, conservative, and moderate in a variety of areas, and those who claim only one label may be suffering from ideological constipation. However, I still love poking some fun at some self-proclaimed "conservatives" and "libertarians".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think probably most of us here are really a mixture of liberal, conservative, and moderate in a variety of areas, and those who claim only one label may be suffering from ideological constipation. However, I still love poking some fun at some self-proclaimed "conservatives" and "libertarians".

I'm with you on that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's pretty much the right that says that letting transgender people use the restroom of their identity is to allow stalkers and rapists into women's restrooms. These are also the same people that are known for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The right is more likely to sponsor anti-immigration policy. The right, actually more specifically right-winged men, want to make reproductive decisions for women. The right tends to throw a fit over people not using the Bible to be sworn into office, and are much less likely to vote for an atheist (this one pretty much comes down to the core of the two groups).
As for economic liberties, because you have to elevate the status of the least well off to improve the whole of society, the only way to make sure this is done through taxes. Because we work to take care of ourselves instead of each other, there has to be some way to offset the **** lottery that is life. So, other than taxes, how are the parties different? Other than one is trying to take a more socially responsible, ethical, and moral approach to the problem?

You're entirely missing my point, which is that lefties are far less tolerant of Libertarians than the right, even though we each have some values in common, & some at odds. Your extensive complaints about the right aren't related to my post.
Note: I find it sexist to complain about men on the right wanting to regulate women's reproduction, but ignore women on the right who would do the same. Body autonomy is a right which should be independent of the gender of those who want to control it.

 

[Revoltingest]

My experience is that all too many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are only as such until something that they want shows up, and then they're all too willing to impose that will on others.

I think you're just making up hollow criticism, since you don't even identify anyone for this criticism. Hypocrisy is a tricky accusation for a lefty to make. Examples: Your side was all anti-war while Bush was prez, but when Obama took office & continued the wars, your opposition evaporated. Your side is all over occupying & fighting Wall St, but don't complain when Dem shower Wall St corporations with special favors & bail-outs. Perhaps this explains your low opinion of Libertarians....you bristle at our criticism of your crony capitalism & war mongering, eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're entirely missing my point, which is that lefties are far less tolerant of Libertarians than the right, even though we each have some values in common, & some at odds. Your extensive complaints about the right aren't related to my post.

There are left-wing Libertarians though, and even the right-wing Libertarian party only matches up about 50/50 with Dems or Reps. Though the Right may be more willing to tolerate right Libertarians for their economic views, the core of the right has pretty much made it so that what distinguishes Libertarians from Conservatives is overshadowed and overpowered by the Conservative platform.
But in all reality, either one isn't too found of outsiders or straying from too far from core views. However, if you're gay, transgender, an immigrant, or live in the hood, the right has made it clear how they mostly feel about you. Afterall, I've never heard of a Liberal going around town to warn businesses of a "transvestic voyeur" who was invading women's restrooms to install cameras and take a peek.

Note: I find it sexist to complain about men on the right wanting to regulate women's reproduction, but ignore women on the right who would do the same. Body autonomy is a right which should be independent of the gender of those who want to control it.

It's not nearly as bad of a problem. The Republicans sent a boys only club to decide the future of women's reproduction options. This is as bad as it would be to send in a crew of urban developers to decide how to manage a forest. I agree body autonomy is a right as you put it, but far too often the Republicans send too many men to decide things that are about women.

Hypocrisy is a tricky accusation for a lefty to make.

Hypocrisy is frequently resorted to by both.

Examples: Your side was all anti-war while Bush was prez, but when Obama took office & continued the wars, your opposition evaporated.

There was still a lot of Liberal and Democrat opposition to it. Maybe not in Washington, but among the voter base it isn't at all accurate to say Liberal and Democrat support for the war largely increased and opposition came to an end once Obama became president.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are left-wing Libertarians though, and even the right-wing Libertarian party only matches up about 50/50 with Dems or Reps. Though the Right may be more willing to tolerate right Libertarians for their economic views, the core of the right has pretty much made it so that what distinguishes Libertarians from Conservatives is overshadowed and overpowered by the Conservative platform.
But in all reality, either one isn't too found of outsiders or straying from too far from core views. However, if you're gay, transgender, an immigrant, or live in the hood, the right has made it clear how they mostly feel about you. Afterall, I've never heard of a Liberal going around to warn businesses of a "transvestic voyeur" who was invading women's restrooms to get install cameras and take a peek.

These so called "left libertarians" are naught but lefties & modern liberals, ie, they're OK with social liberty, but they're economic authoritarians. They'd be happy in the Democratic or Green parties. Perhaps they're just uncomfortable with calling themselves "liberal", eh? Or do they find our edgier label more fashionable?

If they were real libertarians (N American language usage of the term), they wouldn't need the prefix of "left" to distinguish themselves from us. We fans of liberty both economic & social don't use the "right" prefix. Economic authoritarianism would be against the Libertarian Party platforms of both Canuckistan & Americastan.

It's not nearly as bad of a problem. The Republicans sent a boys only club to decide the future of women's reproduction options. This is as bad as it would be to send in a crew of urban developers to decide how to manage a forest. I agree body autonomy is a right as you put it,

It is still quite sexist to ignore women on the right (& left) wanting to restrict bodily autonomy of both men & women, eg, selling bone marrow, telling us all how to dress.
Libertarians see things as oppressors vs citizens, not the facile men victimizing women. In other words both intra-gender & inter-gender oppression are present & wrong.

There was still a lot of Liberal and Democrat opposition to it. Maybe not in Washington, but among the voter base it isn't at all accurate to say Liberal and Democrat support for the war largely increased and opposition came to an end once Obama became president.

Public opposition nonetheless disappeared from demonstrations & mainstream media once it morphed from Bush's wars to Obama's. I presume it's more acceptable to waste trillions of dollars & thousands of lives so long as it keeps egg off the fresh new face of a Democratic prez.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Public opposition nonetheless disappeared from demonstrations & mainstream media once it morphed from Bush's wars to Obama's. I presume it's more acceptable to waste trillions of dollars & thousands of lives so long as it keeps egg off the fresh new face of a Democratic prez.

We're still against war and wasting trillions. I for one want to see a massive cut in the military industrial complex and budget. Back when the administration was considering getting heavily involved in Syria and the president took it to congress and the American people we were overwhelmingly against it. Look at the recent Senate report on torture. Many of us on the left, the right and obviously the center are condemning those actions we took...but turn on or open the paper to some (not all) of the right wing media and they don't see the torturing we did as an issue. Cheney said if he had to do it again he would. Now this isn't a partisan bash....because there are in fact people from many political leanings that support war actions in some form. It just seems that we have a large part of the conservative spectrum endorsing war and torture tactics than the rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're still against war and wasting trillions.

I spoke only of the public arm of the left. I don't include you & others whose opposition didn't wane.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These so called "left libertarians" are naught but lefties & modern liberals, ie, they're OK with social liberty, but they're economic authoritarians. They'd be happy in the Democratic or Green parties. Perhaps they're just uncomfortable with calling themselves "liberal", eh? Or do they find our edgier label more fashionable?

If they were real libertarians (N American language usage of the term), they wouldn't need the prefix of "left" to distinguish themselves from us. We fans of liberty both economic & social don't use the "right" prefix. Economic authoritarianism would be against the Libertarian Party platforms of both Canuckistan & Americastan.

I don't seem to recall you having this "real" attitude in the Libertarian forums about left-wing Libertarianism.

It is still quite sexist to ignore women on the right (& left) wanting to restrict bodily autonomy of both men & women, eg, selling bone marrow, telling us all how to dress.
Libertarians see things as oppressors vs citizens, not the facile men victimizing women. In other words both intra-gender & inter-gender oppression are present & wrong.

True, but it is a problem within the Republican party. The Democrats are not perfect, but they didn't send the boys only club to a meeting concerning women's health issues. The Democrats aren't trying to enforce traditional gender roles. Even when it comes to our sex lives, the Democrats do not try and control us like the Republicans are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't seem to recall you having this "real" attitude in the Libertarian forums about left-wing Libertarianism.

Oh, I've been exceedingly annoying about it....just not in a long while. And the "left libertarians" are quite upset at my insisting they don't exist.

True, but it is a problem within the Republican party. The Democrats are not perfect, but they didn't send the boys only club to a meeting concerning women's health issues. The Democrats aren't trying to enforce traditional gender roles. Even when it comes to our sex lives, the Democrats do not try and control us like the Republicans are.

They each want to control us in their own special way. Dems were (& still occassionally are) the big supporters of one of the worst violations of bodily autonomy, ie, the military draft. (You know.....you lose your civil liberties, you belong to the military 24/7/365, you're paid little, you must kill people who did you no wrong, & they'll try to kill you too.) And we had women voters supporting this male only system. Does it not make more sense to recognize & fight all oppression of all people by other other people, instead of the feminist myopia of only males victimizing women?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does it not make more sense to recognize & fight all oppression of all people by other other people, instead of the feminist myopia of only males victimizing women?

It does make sense, but it doesn't make sense to downplay the fact that right-winged men are very typically the ones sent to bat when it is a woman's turn. Before too much longer, we'll have the "token-woman" in Republican politics, kinda like how we have the "token-black" character in a movies.

And the "left libertarians" are quite upset at my insisting they don't exist.

They exist, and their views aren't all that different from mine. And I do not see where it is economic authoritarianism. No one is trying to tell you that you have to save, spend, buy only certain products, or control the money in your pocket in any way. Yes they want more economic equality and power to be spread out rather than concentrated in the hands of a few, and there are plenty of social reasons for this to accompany economic reasons. Even Milton Friedman, who was delusional enough to believe there is freedom in money and that all social and economic disparities, gaps, and gross inequalities will correct themselves if there is no government regulation, did not consider taxes economic authoritarianism. As for taxes themselves, the only ones subjected to total crap policy are those who cannot afford top dollar lawyers (which is over 90% of the American population) to find a myriad of loopholes, ambiguous wording, and other things to get the richest Americans paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class. If you make millions a year, you should be paying a higher percentage than those who make $50,000 or even $500,000 a year. Even compared to other RF members over the years, they have been screwed on their taxes by having to pay more at the end of the year while the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals pay very little or even get a refund at the end of the year.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does make sense, but it doesn't make sense to downplay the fact that right-winged men are very typically the ones sent to bat when it is a woman's turn. Before too much longer, we'll have the "token-woman" in Republican politics, kinda like how we have the "token-black" character in a movies.

I don't downplay my objection to the agenda of right wing men when I object to the downplaying of right (& left) wing women's power to impose an agenda I dislike. This illustrates a problem with modern N Americastanian feminist culture....they enable oppression of both men & women by failing to acknowledge the power of the latter.

They exist, and their views aren't all that different from mine. And I do not see where it is economic authoritarianism. No one is trying to tell you that you have to save, spend, buy only certain products, or control the money in your pocket in any way. Yes they want more economic equality and power to be spread out rather than concentrated in the hands of a few, and there are plenty of social reasons for this to accompany economic reasons. Even Milton Friedman, who was delusional enough to believe there is freedom in money and that all social and economic disparities, gaps, and gross inequalities will correct themselves if there is no government regulation, did not consider taxes economic authoritarianism. As for taxes themselves, the only ones subjected to total crap policy are those who cannot afford top dollar lawyers (which is over 90% of the American population) to find a myriad of loopholes, ambiguous wording, and other things to get the richest Americans paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class. If you make millions a year, you should be paying a higher percentage than those who make $50,000 or even $500,000 a year. Even compared to other RF members over the years, they have been screwed on their taxes by having to pay more at the end of the year while the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals pay very little or even get a refund at the end of the year.

Where these left leaning folk differ is that they are willing to give government or some government-like authority great power to prevent others from free economic association. They'll often say that it's "the community" which does this, but such extensive coercion of the unwilling by any means is not libertarian.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where these left leaning folk differ is that they are willing to give government or some government-like authority great power to prevent others from free economic association. They'll often say that it's "the community" which does this, but such extensive coercion of the unwilling by any means is not libertarian.

Where is anyone pushing for this? What sort of economic associations are pushing to be ended, other than the influence of money in politics? Or, rather, do us far lefties actually want to free up economic association be reigning in Capitalism and giving more power to more people rather than let it fester like a tumor within the .1%?

This illustrates a problem with modern N Americastanian feminist culture....they enable oppression of both men & women by failing to acknowledge the power of the latter.

Equality for both men and women does not enable the oppression of men. Trying to ignore and sweep the issue at hand (men making reproductive choices for women) does. I'm not denying there are things unfairly stacked about men, but the issue being discussed is a group of pricks who have a dick who want to take the ability to choose away from women.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where is anyone pushing for this? What sort of economic associations are pushing to be ended, other than the influence of money in politics? Or, rather, do us far lefties actually want to free up economic association be reigning in Capitalism and giving more power to more people rather than let it fester like a tumor within the .1%?

It wouldn't be proper to name names, but leftish 'libertarians' in our DIR have advocated even more extensive economic regulation than we have now under a government of the Big Two. To claim that economic association is freed up by inhibiting capitalism is oxymoronic, since no alternative offers greater liberty.

Equality for both men and women does not enable the oppression of men.

Well, of course!

Trying to ignore and sweep the issue at hand (men making reproductive choices for women) does.

No sweeping away here.....I oppose anyone of any gender making reproductive choices or other body autonomy choices for either gender. To state it more explicitly:
Women shouldn't be making the choices for other women (or men).
Men shouldn't be making the choices for women (or other men).
This is the more general libertarian approach.

I'm not denying there are things unfairly stacked about men, but the issue being discussed is a group of pricks who have a dick who want to take the ability to choose away from women.

It isn't about the deck being stacked against men...it's about it being stacked against anyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

Interesting that you'd use a dismissive genital reference about men. Would you be OK with my calling women the C-word? And you've no criticism for rightish women who would limit the rights of fellow females?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They each want to control us in their own special way. Dems were (& still occassionally are) the big supporters of one of the worst violations of bodily autonomy, ie, the military draft.

Yeah, I recall Charlie Rangel pushed a bill back in 2006 but our party outright rejected such a notion...

Democratic Leaders Reject Idea of Draft