I've noticed something about "Republican" people here in America

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Witty Name Here:
Well it seems like a large majority of the Republican leadership has gotten 1, 2, 6, 5, and possibly 4 down.

What? Are you fucking joking? Citation.

Secondly I'm not saying they're sociopaths "because I don't like them", I'm saying it because their policies definitely seem to have some degree of sociopathy and lack of care for other peoples' feelings within them.

Horseshit. Not supporting programs that you like is not the same as not caring for other people's feelings. They have different methods.

Honestly, there seems to be a legitimate basis to believe that the Republican party, with it's current politicians and bills, is partially sociopathic in nature.

No there isn't. You are just trying to attack of bunch of people because you view their policies as having the opposite affect that you want.

Thing is, everyone already knew Al Capone was a criminal. They knew he was a mob boss, they knew he committed crimes and ran a criminal organization, hell he practically admitted to being a criminal! The only problem is that no evidence could stick to the guy.

I do not give a flying fuck. It sets a horrifying precedent and it disgusts me.

They used one of the few times he actually was caught committing a crime and ran with it. THAT is true justice, putting a criminal, a murderer, a mob boss behind bars. In certain situations, wherein the government has trouble imprisoning a mob boss such as Al Capone, it's perfectly alright to use any legal means necessary to put the man behind bars.

The problem is that the government does not think that way. Her is how the government thinks-
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

A hundred thousand page law code and tax code seems to fit that description.

Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't stand for Gay marriage rights? That we should just let people oppress and harm others because "we don't want any radicals"? No. It's important to stand up for what's right, and if the other side becomes insane radicals, then it just goes to show they were wrong in the first place.

It is interesting that you bring up slaves. Did you know that prior to about the 1840s the largest abolitionist organizations in the US were in the South? Why did they disappear? Southerners are evil people who keep the poor Negro in chains in order to satisfy their sadistic lust (I cannot find the exact quote but that is the gist of a statement from an abolitionist newspaper in the 1850s). In other words, it is the way that y'all are going about this debate that is causing them to circle the wagons. How did I convince my mother that pot should be legalized? I waited and bided my time until I said that I do not care what you do as long as it does not hurt me. Then she said, what about when a person gets high and plows into you on the road, will you care then. And I said, then are you in favor of the banning of alcohol? And it was over. No shouting matches, no insults, a quiet victory.

Oh yes, because the most "profitable" choice is always the most "efficient" and "inexpensive".

Yes it is, in the proper system.

Are you kidding me? In Rome they had what was, essentially, a privatized fire-fighting service. Want to know what happened? Some rich bastard got the idea to negotiate buying the burnt out ruins of someone's home as their house was burning right next to them at low, low, low prices.

In other words, you had a system where the corporations did anything they wanted without laws. Can you really not think of any system where that would not happen?

All you'll get from a privatized healthcare service is companies that try to make sure you pay them, and they don't have to pay you.

When the government ensures that the companies have the power to do that then what do you expect to happen? The government creates an artificial shortage of companies. In a true free market the government would not prevent smaller companies from getting into the game and the smaller companies would be more liable to fail if and when they screwed over their customers.

All you get from a privatized FEMA service is companies that pull you out of the rubble of your home, then send you a bill later.

Really? I do not suppose you have ever heard of the Red Cross.

All you will get from a privatized prison service is companies that lobby for insane laws to push as many people as possible into prison.

When you allow government and business to get into bed with each other what do you expect? And of course people like you are constantly trying to push government and business closer together in the name of "reigning in" business.

Companies may always be motivated by profit, but that doesn't mean that whatever is the most "profitable" choice is the good one for you and me.

Actually it is. When you build the system properly. Y'all support the continuing of a fucked up system. We do not.

As someone with a younger brother who actually does have ADHD, and has struggled through the schooling system throughout his entire life, you have no idea how angry that comment just made me.

And as someone who has dyslexia and had a doctor try and prescribe me ADHD meds (my mother told him he was an idiot) I would tell him that currently I am a graduate student at UT and I have yet to even sign up with the University Disabilities Service.

The government is more then capable of giving money to those who need it, more so then private charities simply because the government is capable of distributing that money to a wider range of people.

A wider range of people who may not need it because the government is not looking close enough.

There's nothing that makes private charities "magically" more efficient then government one runs, it's simply whoever is employed in each sector.

Magic? Aren't y'all the ones that believe in the magical power of big government?

What makes private charities more efficient is (among other things) that simple fact that they give a shit and they want to be efficient. Government doesn't give a shit.

The government gives money where it's needed

Do they? Several of my friends were in Mississippi during Katrina. Would you care to compare the destruction and amount of money spent in Mississippi and Louisiana?

and if something goes wrong reforms can always be passed to make things more efficient.

Can we? Effectively there are 5 branches of government. The 5th branch is the bureaucracy. It is the bureaucracy that handles such minor things as how the laws are implemented. You have no say whatsoever.

Hmm, FEMA doing poorly under a president that already had a noticeable distrust for FEMA and appointed a total moron who couldn't spell "disaster relief" even if it was written on the board in front of him? Who would've thought such a thing could happen! The only problem with FEMA during katrina was that it was being run by the same people who thought it was "evil big guvment!"

Reposted" So if a government program fails it is not because of an inherent problem in the system it is because we do not believe in it enough. You see that is why I am not a statist. Y'all treat government like a religion and if anyone speaks against it you try and burn me at the stake. After all, the only reason things are not better is because I do not fall at the altar of big government the way everyone else does."

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1222162--psychopathy-and-the-ceo-top-executives-have-four-times-the-incidence-of-psychopathy-as-the-rest-of-us

Rolls eyes. First of all there is a difference between psychopathy and sociopathy

Second of all, having psychopathic traits is not the same as being a psychopath.

farson135:

What? Are you fucking joking? Citation.

Horseshit. Not supporting programs that you like is not the same as not caring for other people's feelings. They have different methods.

No there isn't. You are just trying to attack of bunch of people because you view their policies as having the opposite affect that you want.

As mentioned several, several times already, the party with policies such as "If you're gay, suck it up, no marriage for you" and employers and saying that raped women should be kept from having an abortion because "their bodies can protect against pregnancy from TRUE rapes" really has a hard time showing any empathy or care for the american people.

I do not give a flying fuck. It sets a horrifying precedent and it disgusts me.

Oh fun, being a "Rules Lawyer" for a good cause is absolutely disgusting, honestly it's moments like these where it doesn't shock me that some people think undercover cops have to tell the truth if someone asks "are you a cop?"

The problem is that the government does not think that way. Her is how the government thinks-
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

A hundred thousand page law code and tax code seems to fit that description.

...

Heheheh...

Hehehehehe-ha-haha-heh....

HAHAHAHA! HA! HAHAHAHA!!!

Atlas Shrugged? You're actually quoting Atlas Shrugged?! Oh my god, this is hilarious. Honestly, quoting the gospel of selfishness, with enough strawman arguments to make the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz say "now wait a second!" is what you're trying to use to prove the government is evil and the republican party isn't sociopathically selfish?! Dear god, that's comedy gold. Honestly, once you start quoting miss Rand, you lose in my book. The arguments of an insane russian-american woman with a love of sociopathy does not make for a good debate.

Oh yes, because the most "profitable" choice is always the most "efficient" and "inexpensive".

Yes it is, in the proper system.

Now you're arguing "proper systems"? Well in a proper system the Government functions better then a private charity, in a proper system communism, fascism, theocracy, anarchy, virtually every government system would "work" if done "properly". However people fuck up and others are selfish. Social Democracy has proven that it works infinitely better then our own system, period.

You know what? I'm done with this argument. Honestly, you officially lost any seriousness I was treating you with once you started quoting a woman whom I consider to be the worst lady to ever call herself an "american" in the past 70 years.

TheIronRuler:
Where are those lovely liberaterian Ayn Rand loving users that support this whole notion of, and I quote you, "I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff. "

Oh. I think they're all gone now.

Guys, am I the only one who feels that our administration is slowly turning us into Denmark?

Pretty certain Danyal was the only one who was really into that particular cup of Kool-aid. There are a few others that kinda like her, but I don't think much of anyone else outright worshipped her. There was also those guys that randomly showed up for a thread on objectivism and never turned up again.

Witty Name Here:

You know what? I'm done with this argument. Honestly, you officially lost any seriousness I was treating you with once you started quoting a woman whom I consider to be the worst lady to ever call herself an "american" in the past 70 years.

Witty, where's that empathy you've been hammering on about? Take a moment and question why he used that quote rather than dismiss him outright for using it in the first place. He is afraid of a police state, a completely reasonable fear driving him to possibly unreasonable conclusions. You're afraid of criminals like Capone, a completely rational fear driving you to argue in favor of an arbitrary legal system. Which is obviously bad.

Revnak:

TheIronRuler:
Where are those lovely liberaterian Ayn Rand loving users that support this whole notion of, and I quote you, "I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff. "

Oh. I think they're all gone now.

Guys, am I the only one who feels that our administration is slowly turning us into Denmark?

Pretty certain Danyal was the only one who was really into that particular cup of Kool-aid. There are a few others that kinda like her, but I don't think much of anyone else outright worshipped her. There was also those guys that randomly showed up for a thread on objectivism and never turned up again.

.
There was also this bloke who got banned that made a "Ask a X" thread.

Witty Name Here:
As mentioned several, several times already, the party with policies such as "If you're gay, suck it up, no marriage for you"

So that is their policy now? I thought part of their argument (for some Republicans who still are against gay marriage) was that gay parents are bad for children (sounds pretty empathetic towards the children). Also, gays cannot be married because marriage is a religious institution. Etc.

employers and saying that raped women should be kept from having an abortion because "their bodies can protect against pregnancy from TRUE rapes" really has a hard time showing any empathy or care for the american people.

A couple of people say something and you condemn tens of millions. That sounds fair.

Oh fun, being a "Rules Lawyer" for a good cause is absolutely disgusting, honestly it's moments like these where it doesn't shock me that some people think undercover cops have to tell the truth if someone asks "are you a cop?"

It is absolutely disgusting that our government makes laws so broad and buries them so deep that only a handful of specialists can even tell you if you did something illegal. You are going to punish me for something that you yourself did not even know was illegal. That sounds pretty fucked up to me. Although maybe you like it that way.

Atlas Shrugged? You're actually quoting Atlas Shrugged?! Oh my god, this is hilarious. Honestly, quoting the gospel of selfishness, with enough strawman arguments to make the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz say "now wait a second!" is what you're trying to use to prove the government is evil and the republican party isn't sociopathically selfish?! Dear god, that's comedy gold.

In other words, you have nothing of validity to counter my point. Or maybe you want to live in a world where the government can make virtually anything illegal but you would not even know it.

Honestly, once you start quoting miss Rand, you lose in my book.

Your inability to accept other people's point of view means that you lose in my book.

The arguments of an insane russian-american woman with a love of sociopathy does not make for a good debate.

Citation.

Now you're arguing "proper systems"?

Actually I always have argued that.

Well in a proper system the Government functions better then a private charity, in a proper system communism, fascism, theocracy, anarchy, virtually every government system would "work" if done "properly". However people fuck up and others are selfish.

If a system would not work when people are introduced then the system is a failure. My system works with people in it.

Social Democracy has proven that it works infinitely better then our own system, period.

Your point? The American system is not the system I want.

Also, "infinitely better"? Bullshit.

You know what? I'm done with this argument. Honestly, you officially lost any seriousness I was treating you with once you started quoting a woman whom I consider to be the worst lady to ever call herself an "american" in the past 70 years.

You consider Ayn Rand worse than Marie Noe? A woman who murdered 8 of her 10 children?

If you are that biased fine, but do not take it out on me or on the tens of millions of people who call themselves Republicans.

Also, I am going to repost this to make sure that you read it-

Revnak:

Witty Name Here:

You know what? I'm done with this argument. Honestly, you officially lost any seriousness I was treating you with once you started quoting a woman whom I consider to be the worst lady to ever call herself an "american" in the past 70 years.

Witty, where's that empathy you've been hammering on about? Take a moment and question why he used that quote rather than dismiss him outright for using it in the first place. He is afraid of a police state, a completely reasonable fear driving him to possibly unreasonable conclusions. You're afraid of criminals like Capone, a completely rational fear driving you to argue in favor of an arbitrary legal system. Which is obviously bad.

If you think my conclusions are wrong then we can discuss that. Just dismissing them makes you look completely illogical.

TheIronRuler:

Revnak:

TheIronRuler:
Where are those lovely liberaterian Ayn Rand loving users that support this whole notion of, and I quote you, "I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff. "

Oh. I think they're all gone now.

Guys, am I the only one who feels that our administration is slowly turning us into Denmark?

Pretty certain Danyal was the only one who was really into that particular cup of Kool-aid. There are a few others that kinda like her, but I don't think much of anyone else outright worshipped her. There was also those guys that randomly showed up for a thread on objectivism and never turned up again.

.
There was also this bloke who got banned that made a "Ask a X" thread.

I like to forget about him.

farson135:

Karma168:
If anything America is closer to 1984 than Europe (Patriot Act, SOPA-esque legislation, FOX News) and yet there is less of the good side of government-run infrastructure.

Do you really want to go down that road?

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/holocaust-denying-bishop-charged/story-e6frfkui-1225787373343
and
http://www.blottr.com/breaking-news/france-police-arrest-4-muslim-women-wearing-headscarves-video
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
And I could go on all day.

Also, comparing FOX News with the Ministry of Truth? I will need some evidence for that.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

This guy's entire channel is dedicated to pointing out the bias and mistruths in Fox coverage, complete with plenty of links to evidence showing where Fox has twisted the story (his latest video is a perfect example.)

And if I wanted too I wouldn't be surprised to find twice as many stories coming from the US similar to these. For example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44163852/ns/business-us_business/t/post-surveillance-cameras-everywhere/#.UMOagOS6c3k

A decade later, there haven't been any more major terrorist attacks in the United States, but there are an estimated 30 million more security cameras.

Emphasis mine. If America has at least 30 million cameras (so at least 1 for every 10 people) how does that make Britain (with 1 per 14) worse?

Have you ever considered that maybe it just doesn't work properly to begin with? Name the most powerful governments (in terms of power over the people) and you will also be naming greatest failed states. The most powerful government that I can think of that did not fail somewhat quickly was Sparta. And even with them the power was only over the 1st and 3rd tiers of Spartan society. The 2nd tier was generally left alone.

And that plays into my point. If no politician bothers to keep it running smoothly then what makes you think they'd bother putting more work in to set it up correctly?

Big Governments =/= The party from 1984. My government handles a huge chunk of things that happen around me, my interaction with them? Near zero. Beyond filling in a tax form and applying for student loans I have no interaction with them. If you lived here your lifestyle would be affected in no way whatsoever.

In what way does the government having numerous departments designed to make choices based on the good of every person they were elected to serve comparable to any oppressive government? It's like saying small government leads to a anarchy, it's hyperbolic bullshit.

So if a government program fails it is not because of an inherent problem in the system it is because we do not believe in it enough. You see that is why I am not a statist. Y'all treat government like a religion and if anyone speaks against it you try and burn me at the stake. After all, the only reason things are not better is because I do not fall at the altar of big government the way everyone else does.

Did you even read what I wrote? The failure of the NHS would not be systemic as it has gone on for 60 years and not failed, if it was a crap model it's would not have lasted an entire bloody lifetime.

Government is not treated like religion, if it screws up we will fix it. If government screw up we elect a new one to change it. If companies have a massive market share and huge profits then do you think they'll change policy away from the most profitable one? The last US election was won by <5%, do you honestly think a 5% drop in sales would phase a company?

And there has yet to be a counter example.

If the American right did not resort to lies then you have a perfect example in the NHS.

We spend ~$2766 per person in the UK ($166B budget and 60M people) compared to the US which spends ~$6666 per person ($2T budget and 300M people) - 59% less per person for a service that is better on an overall scale (i.e nobody gets shafted because they're poor)

Face it, the American system is broke. Even only taking the costs not covered by government (about 50%) you're still spending more per person than we spend. Ask Americans what's most important and they'll probably say reducing the debt, there you go, say yourself close to 50% what you spend now.

But of course that involves a big government that is automatically evil. Is it not a little hypocritical to say the left treat government as a religion that can do no wrong while stating that government is the devil and is nothing but wrong?

Karma168:
This guy's entire channel is dedicated to pointing out the bias and mistruths in Fox coverage, complete with plenty of links to evidence showing where Fox has twisted the story (his latest video is a perfect example.)

And there are plenty of examples from other channels. Comparing FOX to the Ministry of Truth requires a hell of a lot more than biased journalism. Otherwise every news outlet on the planet is equivalent to the Ministry of Truth.

And if I wanted too I wouldn't be surprised to find twice as many stories coming from the US similar to these. For example:

That is not anywhere near the level of surveillance as in the UK.

If America has at least 30 million cameras (so at least 1 for every 10 people) how does that make Britain (with 1 per 14) worse?

Because those cameras are actually monitored. I have several security cameras in my home. Do you know how often I review the footage? Do you know how much the UK spends to have people monitor their footage?

And that plays into my point. If no politician bothers to keep it running smoothly then what makes you think they'd bother putting more work in to set it up correctly?

What? Are you honestly trying to say that Soviet Russia failed because the politicians stopped paying attention?

Big Governments =/= The party from 1984. My government handles a huge chunk of things that happen around me, my interaction with them? Near zero. Beyond filling in a tax form and applying for student loans I have no interaction with them. If you lived here your lifestyle would be affected in no way whatsoever.

Tell me every single law you can break in your country. Then calculate the chances that you have violated one of those laws.

In what way does the government having numerous departments designed to make choices based on the good of every person they were elected to serve comparable to any oppressive government? It's like saying small government leads to a anarchy, it's hyperbolic bullshit.

See above.

Did you even read what I wrote? The failure of the NHS would not be systemic as it has gone on for 60 years and not failed, if it was a crap model it's would not have lasted an entire bloody lifetime.

Crappy models have lasted far longer than that. Also, my health insurance covers dental. What about yours?

Government is not treated like religion, if it screws up we will fix it.

And how is that different from religion? If a religious doctrine becomes outdated it is usually reinterpreted. That is why we no longer have Inquisitions.

If government screw up we elect a new one to change it.

And how often does that change happen?

If companies have a massive market share and huge profits then do you think they'll change policy away from the most profitable one? The last US election was won by <5%, do you honestly think a 5% drop in sales would phase a company?

What the fuck are you talking about? Give an example.

If the American right did not resort to lies then you have a perfect example in the NHS.

Perfect? Bullshit. If it is so perfect then why do you keep changing it? Why your survival rates so much lower than in the US?

Also, although the statements are exaggerations they have hints of truth. Such as, in the US you can get very pricy drugs that you cannot get in the UK. Also, surgeons and specialists are easier to find in the US. Etc.

We spend ~$2766 per person in the UK ($166B budget and 60M people) compared to the US which spends ~$6666 per person ($2T budget and 300M people) - 59% less per person for a service that is better on an overall scale (i.e nobody gets shafted because they're poor)

Which has to do with a bad system. The US government creates an artificial shortage and this happens. Anyone could have seen this coming.

Face it, the American system is broke.

I already have. The system I advocate for is not the current American system.

But of course that involves a big government that is automatically evil.

Evil? When did I say that? Misguided certainly. However, if you would follow my system you can have your big government and I can have my limited government. Unfortunately, y'all want to shove big government down my throat instead of letting me opt out.

Is it not a little hypocritical to say the left treat government as a religion that can do no wrong while stating that government is the devil and is nothing but wrong?

If I actually said that.

Try to stick with what I say and not with what you think I said.

Karma168:

Helmholtz Watson:
You realize that not wanting the governmnet in your lives as much as it is in places like Europe, is not exclusively a Republican feeling, right? You do realize that many Americans are opposed to things like big brother style government.

As are Europeans. It's not a case of bring in universal healthcare today and tomorrow the Ministry of Truth is set up and room 101 opens it's doors. You can have a big government that's not too big.

Its not that universal helathcare in of itself is their concern, but that its just the first step to big brother government.

Karma168:

If anything America is closer to 1984 than Europe (Patriot Act, SOPA-esque legislation, FOX News[1]) and yet there is less of the good side of government-run infrastructure.

First off, no no no no. Fox News isn't the Ministry of Truth, that is nothing more than sensational crap. I don't watch it, but you're going overboard by claiming such outrages things.

In regards to things like the Patriot Act and SOPA, all the more reason why these people would be paranoid about big brother government "taking over".

Karma168:

The reason Americans fear big government? Because no government makes the effort to keep it running properly. This is especially true of the GOP and their ideological dislike of big government.

Imagine for a second the Republican party was given control of the UK and can run the country exactly how they want (just go with it). The NHS would likely fail within a decade, why? It's not due to a systemic problem, the NHS has been around for 60+ years and has worked fine, the problem would be the GOP don't like Government run programs. They would gut the NHS in favour of private companies then when the NHS finally collapsed they'd say "see, this is why big government is bad"

No, the reason I have seen(and partly agree after experience) is that people who fear government controlled programs look at things like the DMV and don't want those kinds of experiences in other aspects of their life.

On a side note, I'm not actually opposed to some mild forms of government run programs, but I think you're completely strawmaning the feelings of those that strongly oppose big government.

[1] While I realise this isn't part of the government the parallels with the Ministry of Truth are very relevant

Witty Name Here:

farson135:

Citation please.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1222162--psychopathy-and-the-ceo-top-executives-have-four-times-the-incidence-of-psychopathy-as-the-rest-of-us

So 4% is a "great deal"?[1] Yes, it may be true that there is a much higher rate of psychopathy in top CEOs. It's still way too low to start painting people with broad brushes.

farson135:

Rolls eyes. First of all there is a difference between psychopathy and sociopathy

At best, it's a gray area. The general rule of thumb is they're the same thing with possibly some minor differences[2], with the primary difference being the suspected source of the condition. And who you're talking to about it[3]. Either way, they're an antisocial personality disorder and are treated as such, ie Witty's list of 6 symptoms wasn't actually a symptom list for sociopathy/psychopathy, but for a different disorder that it is generally grouped with by the WHO because it's similar enough to them. The DSM-IV-TR actually has a diagnosis specifically for psychopathy.

[1] Though I'm glad you didn't take the shaky 10% figure in the article.
[2] I say "possibly" because even that is heavily debated
[3] ie a psychologist is more likely to say it's a false demarcation that is made by sociologists/social psychologists so they can feel special.

I feel like in this day and age it's almost necessary to ask what kind of republicans the maker of the thread is referring to, as the entire republican party seems like it is fracturing under different political motivations. What happened to moderate republicans and moderate democrats?

my opinion on the big government thing comes down to: "a government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything away"
and i think that is the main fear of people against big government

farson135:

So that is their policy now? I thought part of their argument (for some Republicans who still are against gay marriage) was that gay parents are bad for children (sounds pretty empathetic towards the children). Also, gays cannot be married because marriage is a religious institution. Etc.

Never minding that there are religious sects who have no problem with gays marriage.

But yet, according to conservatives, they still shouldn't be recognized by the state.

And dont' make me bring up sodomy laws, something that the right wing in this country fought to keep constitutional.

You consider Ayn Rand worse than Marie Noe? A woman who murdered 8 of her 10 children?

Considering Ayn Rand was a fangirl for serial killer William Hickman, she's not far behgind.

Witty, where's that empathy you've been hammering on about?

I can't speak for Witty, but I have no empathy for conservatives. None. I do not waste my time anymore having empathy for a paradigm that's out to destroy me on the basis of my sexuality and religious stance. Time and time again, it's been proven. We're not welcome in the conservative paradigm anymore. Exactly what Barry Goldwater feared happened.

Barry Goldwater, #token:0#:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Colt47:
I feel like in this day and age it's almost necessary to ask what kind of republicans the maker of the thread is referring to, as the entire republican party seems like it is fracturing under different political motivations. What happened to moderate republicans and moderate democrats?

Not sure about the Democrats, but the Pat Buchanans and Rush Limbaughs of the GOP lead a pretty fierce inquisition against anyone who showed signs of being a "RINO", especially if they weren't on board with the dominant stances on social issues.

You know I sort of wonder where the whole schtick about big government come from. The republican party has never been about small government. Or at least not mainly. Of course, parties will change, but I always thought that it was under the purview of the libertarians. Of course, at this point on we might not even be talking about the same people.

EDIT:

Colt47:
I feel like in this day and age it's almost necessary to ask what kind of republicans the maker of the thread is referring to, as the entire republican party seems like it is fracturing under different political motivations. What happened to moderate republicans and moderate democrats?

Me? When I think Republican I think Bush & Reagan. Big spokesman for the industries. Heavy emphasis on the military. Alot of emphasis on keeping society "moral". I'm criticizing the people who say that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell. Of course, it is half the country encompassed under the party.

That's problematic.

GunsmithKitten:
Never minding that there are religious sects who have no problem with gays marriage.

I was giving an argument that is used by some Republicans.

And dont' make me bring up sodomy laws, something that the right wing in this country fought to keep constitutional.

SOME on the right wing. The phrase "right wing" is so vague as to be rendered meaningless.

Considering Ayn Rand was a fangirl for serial killer William Hickman, she's not far behgind.

Even if your statement were right there is a massive gap between liking a murderer and being a serial killer.

Second of all, she liked some traits that she viewed Hickman as possessing. Specifically she liked the idea that he did not have a herd mentality. She never endorsed anything he did or even him as a person. She only talked about certain perceived traits.

Third of all Hickman only killed one person.

I can't speak for Witty, but I have no empathy for conservatives. None. I do not waste my time anymore having empathy for a paradigm that's out to destroy me on the basis of my sexuality and religious stance.

And what in Conservative thought makes destroying you necessary?

BTW I am not a conservative. I am a Libertarian and a libertarian and Revnak was referring to me.

Time and time again, it's been proven. We're not welcome in the conservative paradigm anymore.

How so?

farson135:

And what in Conservative thought makes destroying you necessary?

I'll let them speak for it. From a Theology Online post.

The sexual perversions are specifically destructive to the person and his family, unlike smoking and overeating. You don't contract STD's from cigarettes, food or beer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the human body is not designed for same gender intimacy. It is a dysfunction. Our country shouldn't be enabling people in this. I am not interested in debate on this. I hate the lifestyle as much as ACW does because is destroys people and above all it separates them from God.

and from Free Republic

More than that, [gays being wed at the West Point Chapel] has apocalyptic significance.
This may be "the abomination of desolation spoken of in the Book of Daniel." Those were the words of Jesus, referring to some future event after which a huge catastrophe would occur.

Other internet people have made a note of this, that gay marriage is 'the abomination of desolation' but, standard Bible commentary on 'the abomination of desolation' is that it represents the pagan Romans putting up statues of their gods to worship in the Temple of Jerusalem around 60 AD.

Let the reader decide: Which is the greater abomination?

If you have been inside this wonderful chapel, it is so impressive, as is West Point, that it defies description. The whole campus, especially this building, embodies virtue and morality more than anything. You get the impression West Point is a religious shrine. And this chapel is the greatest focus.

For these two lesbians and their misguided family and friends (and the officiating pastor) to do this is inflammatory and needs to be protested.

Shame on these heathens and shame on the officer corps of the USA.

May they burn in hell.

I am a Libertarian and a libertarian and Revnak was referring to me.

I'm also a libertarian, but I dont' act like the battered wife that so many others do by staying in the Republican camp. I actually packed my bags and left when the party was, metaphorically, hitting me one minute while saying it loved me the next.

How so?

How about gay conservative outfits being directly forbidden from the major GOP caucuses? How about even Ann Coulter being labeled a RINO because she dared speak positively about one of those outfits? ANN COULTER. ANN. COULTER.

GunsmithKitten:
Snip

Once again, what in Conservative thought makes destroying you necessary?

Conservatism is not simply about religion. Religion is at times a part of conservatism but it is not necessary. Read up on what conservatism entails.

I'm also a libertarian, but I dont' act like the battered wife that so many others do by staying in the Republican camp. I actually packed my bags and left when the party was, metaphorically, hitting me one minute while saying it loved me the next.

So I am not allowed to acknowledge the simple fact that not all Republicans are against gay marriage without being like a battered wife? My mother is a Republican and she is fine with gay marriage. I also recently convinced her that pot legalization is a good thing.

The simple fact is that I refuse to fall into the trap of thinking that just because a person thinks differently than me they are automatically evil. I am tired of that bullshit. I will fight to convince them of how wrong they are but I will not condemn them for being wrong. You should try that some time.

How about gay conservative outfits being directly forbidden from the major GOP caucuses? How about even Ann Coulter being labeled a RINO because she dared speak positively about one of those outfits? ANN COULTER. ANN. COULTER.

Being a Republican and being a conservative is not necessarily the same thing. Republicans are a party, conservatism is an ideology (in the modern US case).

farson135:

So I am not allowed to acknowledge the simple fact that not all Republicans are against gay marriage without being like a battered wife? My mother is a Republican and she is fine with gay marriage. I also recently convinced her that pot legalization is a good thing.

You and your mother are level headed.

But you and your mother are not the dominant tone in the party anymore. You and your mother...and me for that matter...are not the agenda they fight for anymore. The Preachers and the Moralists have taken over the movement AND the party.

Don't believe me? Check out who's the grand poobahs of the conservative talking heads. Aside from Neal Boortz, you'll not find any Libertarian minded conservatives.

The simple fact is that I refuse to fall into the trap of thinking that just because a person thinks differently than me they are automatically evil. I am tired of that bullshit. I will fight to convince them of how wrong they are but I will not condemn them for being wrong. You should try that some time.

Again, no. If you seek my destruction, I will not show you any less than what you show me. That's how I roll, baby. Leave the cheek turning to the sects of Christianity that abide by it, I ain't one of em.

GunsmithKitten:
But you and your mother are not the dominant tone in the party anymore.

I was never the dominate tone in the party. Also, demographics change and parties change with it.

You and your mother...and me for that matter...are not the agenda they fight for anymore.

Did they ever? Aside from the Libertarian party to an extent has any party ever fought for my causes?

The Preachers and the Moralists have taken over the movement AND the party.

The moralists control both parties now and have controlled them for at least the past century.

Don't believe me? Check out who's the grand poobahs of the conservative talking heads. Aside from Neal Boortz, you'll not find any Libertarian minded conservatives.

There are plenty of libertarian minded conservatives. They are the libertarians who call back to "better days". This is why I told you to look up what conservatism entails- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

If you seek my destruction, I will not show you any less than what you show me. That's how I roll, baby. Leave the cheek turning to the sects of Christianity that abide by it, I ain't one of em.

Seeking my destruction and effectively trying to achieve it are two different things. The government seeks the destruction of my ideology and many on this forum agree. After all I am a destabilizing force because I refuse to believe in the power of almighty government. If the government decides to deploy its jackbooted thugs with a no-knock warrant, then you will see a reaction. Until then I will keep preaching and hopefully convince a few more. If I convince no one else and the government does not come for me, then I will retire to my land, maybe with a wife and children by my side. I will take in no income, I will grow my crops and raise my cattle, and hopefully live out the rest of my days in peace.

If I showed your level of contempt to everyone who wished to destroy me in some fashion then I would hate pretty much everyone. Sorry, but I am too busy for that shit to fly. As I told the anti-gunner who told me that he wished I would die, "when you get the balls to do it I will be waiting, but until then fuck off".

Helmholtz Watson:

Frission:

Depends. I think that "high level" republicans are absolutely loathsome loonies. No really. Sociopaths as well, knowing that they were quite willing to burn the country down to prove a point. They regularly like to rewrite reality and have in the recent years alienated several groups with good reason. Without empathy as well, considering their attitude to the poor.

You realize that not wanting the governmnet in your lives as much as it is in places like Europe, is not exclusively a Republican feeling, right? You do realize that many Americans are opposed to things like big brother style government.

Here is a very interesting survey conducted about such things, giving a snapshot of just how different opinions are. There seems to be an almost 50/50 split in the American camp as to whether the priority of the state is to support and protect the citizenry, whereas in (Western) Europe the difference is far more noticeable.

However, I've said it before and I'll say it again, many Republicans seem to be hypocritical when it comes to the "big government" issue. When it's higher taxes, gun control or religion they'll scream about government interference and how the state has no right to tell them what to do. When it's gay marriage or reproductive rights or one of the other hot-button topics, they twist it around and insist the state should be able to tell people what they can or can't do.

Most republican candidates are just corporate sellout greedy bastards who have very little in the way of morales , most republican voters however are just plain stupid. That is why misinformation works so well with republican voters.

Occasionally you do get the person who actually believes in crap like supply side economics, gay marriage being evil, abortion should be illegal etc, while fully understanding these things. These are the people you need to worry about, these are the people who legitimately have some crazy in their head.

GunsmithKitten:
Don't believe me? Check out who's the grand poobahs of the conservative talking heads. Aside from Neal Boortz, you'll not find any Libertarian minded conservatives.

Uhm, libertarians are conservatives by definition. If they're not conservative, they can't be libertarian, as libertarianism is an inherently conservative ideology. You can even safely characterise many prominent libertarians as being reactionary

farson135:
Did they ever? Aside from the Libertarian party to an extent has any party ever fought for my causes?

Even if I didn't know anything about you, I can say without a doubt that the libertarian party doesn't stand for your courses, whether you know it or not. Pretty much everybody stands to lose a lot from libertarian principles being applied.

To name one simple example: The libertarian opposition to any form of environmental protection. If we were to apply libertarian ideas to all policies, someone could dump toxic chemicals in your backyard, or maybe 1 centimetre outside your backyard so you and your children still get poisoned, and it would be completely legal. After all, environmentalism is teh evils that destroys jobs.

No, civil lawsuits can't fix that (which is the popular libertarian response to this consequence of their policies). You A can't sue for something which is legal, and B not everybody can win such a thing in the US court system against a large company.

The only thing I've ever found all republicans/conservatives to have in common is a lack of compassion.

The idea of sharing with those who need it more than you and that the value of a human life is more than expendable seem to be alien concepts to them.

What do I know though? I'm happy to admit I have a liberal bias and I'm not so closed minded I think they're all inherently bad people.
I just cannot understand the lack of compassion.

Blablahb:
Uhm, libertarians are conservatives by definition. If they're not conservative, they can't be libertarian, as libertarianism is an inherently conservative ideology.

Really? So can you prove that libertarianism automatically calls back to a better time? Or that libertarians are inherently traditionalist? Or that libertarians wish to maintain the status quo?

Libertarianism is not an inherently conservative ideology. Most libertarians are NOT conservative. There are a few that are but most are not.

You can even safely characterise many prominent libertarians as being reactionary

And the same can be said of any party. What is your point?

Even if I didn't know anything about you, I can say without a doubt that the libertarian party doesn't stand for your courses, whether you know it or not. Pretty much everybody stands to lose a lot from libertarian principles being applied.

In your opinion, unfortunately for you your opinion has yet to have any basis in reality.

To name one simple example: The libertarian opposition to any form of environmental protection. If we were to apply libertarian ideas to all policies, someone could dump toxic chemicals in your backyard, or maybe 1 centimetre outside your backyard so you and your children still get poisoned, and it would be completely legal. After all, environmentalism is teh evils that destroys jobs.

No, civil lawsuits can't fix that (which is the popular libertarian response to this consequence of their policies). You A can't sue for something which is legal, and B not everybody can win such a thing in the US court system against a large company.

A- So let me get this straight. It is legal to drive on the road. Someone walks out in front of you. You see them and refuse to stop. By your argument the driver is not at fault because they were in the process of performing a legal act. That is not how it works. You hurt someone and you pay for it. The legality of your previous acts is irrelevant. Plus, your example requires there to be no environmental regulations at all. I understand that you do not know anything about libertarian social theories but even someone like you should know about minarchism. They are the most prominent Libertarians (although not the most prominent libertarians). Your example is completely fucking ridiculous.

B- US court system? Really? You apply libertarian laws but not a libertarian court system to your example. You continue to prove why you have no business talking about libertarian policies.

BTW- "environmentalism is teh evils that destroys jobs"? Really? If it was not for your fucking almighty government some of the greatest environmental innovations would already be on the market. The government automatically seeks to maintain the status quo and because of that the government will always be a danger to progress.

Smeatza:
The only thing I've ever found all republicans/conservatives to have in common is a lack of compassion.

The idea of sharing with those who need it more than you and that the value of a human life is more than expendable seem to be alien concepts to them.

I have a distinct feeling that you do not know many Republicans. The vast majority that I know are perfectly happy with helping people. They just do not believe that government is one to do it. Many believe Churches should be the main one to do it. Some believe in more private entities like the Red Cross.

In other words, most Republicans are fine with charity, they just do not care for government enforced charity.

Smeatza:
The only thing I've ever found all republicans/conservatives to have in common is a lack of compassion.

The idea of sharing with those who need it more than you and that the value of a human life is more than expendable seem to be alien concepts to them.

What do I know though? I'm happy to admit I have a liberal bias and I'm not so closed minded I think they're all inherently bad people.
I just cannot understand the lack of compassion.

I disagree with that assessment. One quote I like about conservatives, is liberals view a successful government based off how many people they help, conservatives view a successful one based off how many people don't need help. I think that is an important distinction, not that we shouldn't be helping people, but they should be in a position where they don't need the help. I'm not sure supporting a party that advocates for forced wealth redistribution classifies liberals as compassionate either. It's like Kony still activism, I care enough to vote for a party that will take someone else's money so I can feel better at night while I pirate video games.

I worked 3 years in a low income school, I saw kids who had they been born somewhere else probably would have gone on to great lives, I also saw kids on free lunch coming to school in Jordans with a Monster energy drink everyday. As it is in all cases neither side is right, the former would have (and does) benefited from social programs, the later expected social programs so they could buy stupid shit.

farson135:
Really? So can you prove that libertarianism automatically calls back to a better time? Or that libertarians are inherently traditionalist? Or that libertarians wish to maintain the status quo?

Uh yes, to name just a few examples, they want to undo healthcare and education acces, as well as various other forms of social spending and environmental regulations, and dependings on the extremism of the libertarian in question, beat society back to anywhere between 1800 and 1950. That's reactionary right there.

Your turn: Show us progressive libertarian tenets.

Bloggers and artists who consider themselves to be libertarians while they're not do not count obviously, only actual politicians who have anything to say in the matter.

Blablahb:
Uhm, libertarians are conservatives by definition. If they're not conservative, they can't be libertarian, as libertarianism is an inherently conservative ideology.

Then why am I still not allowed in the conservative social circlejerk due to my views on sexuality, feminism, and religion? I must be pulling off some serious zen shit here to be conservative and not be conservative by your definition.

Blablahb:

Your turn: Show us progressive libertarian tenets.

-No government involvement, at state or federal level, in private sexual decisions between consenting adults. This is one where Ron Paul showed he's NOT a libertarian.
-Abolition of narcotics laws, or at the very least, abolition of possession charges.

GunsmithKitten:
-No government involvement, at state or federal level, in private sexual decisions between consenting adults. This is one where Ron Paul showed he's NOT a libertarian.

That's a no true scotsman fallacy. Paul is a libertarian, and because you may not want homophobia to be a libertarian tenet doesn't mean that it is and that he's not a libertarian.
The homophobia and wanting to ban gay marriage are where libertarianism shows they're very much in favour of meddling in people's private affairs, in the bedroom, and probably even in the closet.

Take for instance Gary Johnson, another prominent libertarian, who's not stupid, so his plans to gain clerical control over women's sexuality, is played by claiming he wants to lessen government influence, and doing that in the form of banning insurance coverage of contraceptives, making these unaffordable to many, bringing women who can't afford contraceptives back under the yoke of radical Christianity because if they're not chaste as is demanded of them, they'll get pregnant, since Johnson and other libertarians made sure they can't afford contraceptives.

Libertarians aren't your average straightforward "I want teh evils!" populists you know, they're clever and know their extremist Christian agenda scares voters away, so they wrap it in all sorts of excuses. It's important to look at the actual effects of their plans.

In general, the libertarian babble about 'privatising' marriage, effectively means banning gay marriage, because marriage then falls to the churches. That's also theocratic by the way; moving state powers over to churches.

GunsmithKitten:
-Abolition of narcotics laws, or at the very least, abolition of possession charges.

You mean that fake populist rag that Ron Paul put up to attract the pothead vote, because nobody else wants to pick that up?

Also that has little meaning on the axis of conservative vs progressive. There's conservatives who want to change drug policies and progressives who want them to remain as they are.

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
-No government involvement, at state or federal level, in private sexual decisions between consenting adults. This is one where Ron Paul showed he's NOT a libertarian.

That's a no true scotsman fallacy. The homophobia and wanting to ban gay marriage are where libertarianism shows they're very much in favour of meddling in people's private affairs, in the bedroom, and probably even in the closet.

Take for instance Gary Johnson, who's not stupid, so his plans to gain clerical control over women's sexuality, is played by claiming he wants to lessen government influence, and doing that in the form of banning insurance coverage of contraceptives, making these unaffordable to many, bringing women who can't afford contraceptives back under the yoke of radical Christianity because if they're not chaste as is demanded of them, they'll get pregnant, since Johnson and other libertarians made sure they can't afford contraceptives.

Libertarians aren't your average straightforward "I want teh evils!" populists you know, they're clever and know their extremist Christian agenda scares voters away, so they wrap it in all sorts of excuses. It's important to look at the actual effects of their plans.

GunsmithKitten:
-Abolition of narcotics laws, or at the very least, abolition of possession charges.

You mean that fake populist rag that Ron Paul put up to attract the pothead vote, because nobody else wants to pick that up?

Also that has little meaning on the axis of conservative vs progressive. There's conservatives who want to change drug policies and progressives who want them to remain as they are.

I'm an extremist Christian now?

Good god almighty, I really shouldn't have kept you off ignore as long as I have.

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
-No government involvement, at state or federal level, in private sexual decisions between consenting adults. This is one where Ron Paul showed he's NOT a libertarian.

That's a no true scotsman fallacy. The homophobia and wanting to ban gay marriage are where libertarianism shows they're very much in favour of meddling in people's private affairs, in the bedroom, and probably even in the closet.

Take for instance Gary Johnson, who's not stupid, so his plans to gain clerical control over women's sexuality, is played by claiming he wants to lessen government influence, and doing that in the form of banning insurance coverage of contraceptives, making these unaffordable to many, bringing women who can't afford contraceptives back under the yoke of radical Christianity because if they're not chaste as is demanded of them, they'll get pregnant, since Johnson and other libertarians made sure they can't afford contraceptives.

Libertarians aren't your average straightforward "I want teh evils!" populists you know, they're clever and know their extremist Christian agenda scares voters away, so they wrap it in all sorts of excuses. It's important to look at the actual effects of their plans.

GunsmithKitten:
-Abolition of narcotics laws, or at the very least, abolition of possession charges.

You mean that fake populist rag that Ron Paul put up to attract the pothead vote, because nobody else wants to pick that up?

Also that has little meaning on the axis of conservative vs progressive. There's conservatives who want to change drug policies and progressives who want them to remain as they are.

I'm an extremist Christian now?

Good god almighty, I really shouldn't have kept you off ignore as long as I have.

I don't believe in Christ as a messiah figure or son of god, but I guess I'm an extremist christian too.

I never knew that about myself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum <- Note the difference between right wing and libertarians and left wing and centrist and moderates and basically there's a whole rainbow of political beliefs out there and trying to divide them up into 'leftist' and 'rightist' is really ignorant.

farson135:
I have a distinct feeling that you do not know many Republicans. The vast majority that I know are perfectly happy with helping people. They just do not believe that government is one to do it. Many believe Churches should be the main one to do it. Some believe in more private entities like the Red Cross.

In other words, most Republicans are fine with charity, they just do not care for government enforced charity.

The republicans I've known have not been fans of donating to charity either. The phrase "we look after our own" comes up a lot in the discussions I've had. Still I realise that's irrelevant.
Whether they consider it "forced charity" or not the end result is the same, they would rather not donate to those who are needier than they. They would rather the church, private companies or more liberal individuals do it, which I think shows a lack of compassion.

Comocat:
I disagree with that assessment. One quote I like about conservatives, is liberals view a successful government based off how many people they help, conservatives view a successful one based off how many people don't need help. I think that is an important distinction, not that we shouldn't be helping people, but they should be in a position where they don't need the help. I'm not sure supporting a party that advocates for forced wealth redistribution classifies liberals as compassionate either. It's like Kony still activism, I care enough to vote for a party that will take someone else's money so I can feel better at night while I pirate video games.

"Liberals view a successful government based off how many people they help, conservatives view a successful one based off how many people don't need help."
I like that, it rolls of the tongue. The problem I find is that the mainstream conservative view seems to be that letting those who need help die out is the best way to reach a point where no one needs help. That's too harsh, it's not like most conservatives want to send hit squads into poverty stricken areas, but the resistance to free healthcare, the grudge against welfare and the general apathy towards human rights seems compassionless, It's all very laissez-faire.

I'm no political commentator but I think there's a big difference between forced wealth re-distribution and welfare systems.

Blablahb:

Uh yes, to name just a few examples, they want to undo healthcare and education acces, as well as various other forms of social spending and environmental regulations, and dependings on the extremism of the libertarian in question, beat society back to anywhere between 1800 and 1950. That's reactionary right there.

First of all, where exactly are the call backs? Universal education and healthcare existed long before the 1800s in some areas. What time period are libertarians universally calling back to as a better time that we need to go back to?

Second of all, socialist libertarians are all for a completely socialized system. They just do not want the governmental force part that you statists insist on.

Your turn: Show us progressive libertarian tenets.

Bloggers and artists who consider themselves to be libertarians while they're not do not count obviously, only actual politicians who have anything to say in the matter.

Really? Drug reform, prison reform, gay rights, other social reforms, economic reform, reform of the US foreign policy, etc.

These are all things that the Libertarian Party in particular and libertarians in general are calling for.

Blablahb:
That's a no true scotsman fallacy. Paul is a libertarian, and because you may not want homophobia to be a libertarian tenet doesn't mean that it is and that he's not a libertarian.

So, according to you, we libertarians are not allowed to say who actually follows the ideologies we develop but you, a person who does not even acknowledge the existence of most libertarians, gets to define who is a part of the party. Got to love that logic.

The homophobia and wanting to ban gay marriage are where libertarianism shows they're very much in favour of meddling in people's private affairs, in the bedroom, and probably even in the closet.

And what libertarians are calling for banning gay marriage?

Take for instance Gary Johnson, another prominent libertarian, who's not stupid, so his plans to gain clerical control over women's sexuality, is played by claiming he wants to lessen government influence, and doing that in the form of banning insurance coverage of contraceptives, making these unaffordable to many, bringing women who can't afford contraceptives back under the yoke of radical Christianity because if they're not chaste as is demanded of them, they'll get pregnant, since Johnson and other libertarians made sure they can't afford contraceptives.

Tell me, if I cannot get insurance coverage for Advil or cough medicine then why should women get insurance coverage for contraceptives? Also, banning health insurance for contraceptives? Citation.

Libertarians aren't your average straightforward "I want teh evils!" populists you know, they're clever and know their extremist Christian agenda scares voters away, so they wrap it in all sorts of excuses. It's important to look at the actual effects of their plans.

Effects that only YOU can see. You sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.

In general, the libertarian babble about 'privatising' marriage, effectively means banning gay marriage, because marriage then falls to the churches. That's also theocratic by the way; moving state powers over to churches.

Wow, just....fail. That statement is ridiculously idiotic. Find me a single libertarian who is stating that private marriages can only be done by a church.

Also that has little meaning on the axis of conservative vs progressive. There's conservatives who want to change drug policies and progressives who want them to remain as they are.

What? What the fuck are you talking about? Conservatives BY DEFINITION want things to stay the same (or go back to an earlier "better time"). Progressives what change. Learn the fucking language.

Smeatza:
The republicans I've known have not been fans of donating to charity either. The phrase "we look after our own" comes up a lot in the discussions I've had.

And what is "our own"? Likely what you are seeing is a group of people who want to break it down even further. My hometown is a small rural town in central Texas. We take care of our own, by giving to charity (specifically the church, or the 4H, or the BSA, etc) and then the people who need help in the town are helped. The other towns can deal with their own issues, we will keep the money here and make sure the people who need help are helped.

Whether they consider it "forced charity" or not the end result is the same, they would rather not donate to those who are needier than they. They would rather the church, private companies or more liberal individuals do it, which I think shows a lack of compassion.

What the fuck do you think the church does with that money? My church had a fundraising drive when one of our poorer families had a son who needed surgery. Just because I do not want to give to a mammoth uncaring apparatus does not mean I do not care. I would venture to guess that the Red Cross has done a hell of a lot more good in the world that the government that forces us to give money. I give money and blood to the Red Cross happily. The government takes the money by force and gives SSI checks to kids with ADHD. Fuck it.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/26/139941596/big-box-stores-hurricane-prep-starts-early

I like that, it rolls of the tongue. The problem I find is that the mainstream conservative view seems to be that letting those who need help die out is the best way to reach a point where no one needs help.

In your opinion. However, as of yet you have provided no basis for why your opinion would be correct. There are tens of millions of Republicans in the US. Are you honestly going to say that statement applies to each and every one of them? Will you even say it about a majority? A sizable minority? Any?

the resistance to free healthcare

Economics 101, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Also, there are plenty of problems with socialized medicine. Perhaps if you acknowledged them then you can understand why they have a problem with it.

the grudge against welfare

Because they have a different method in mind. Just because their method is different does not mean it does not exist.

and the general apathy towards human rights

More so than our current terror bombing president with a D next to his name?

It's all very laissez-faire.

No it isn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked