(07-01-2017 08:41 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 08:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Being a Classical Liberal(socially liberal-fiscally conservative)...I subscribe to the "non aggression" principle. As long as theft,fraud,violence or destruction of property is not involved?..What people do is none of my business. I do not have to like what they do...I just have to allow it and expect the same courtesy from them about my life.

I do not agree with the above assertion that most Classical Liberals support illegal immigration. It is fraud/theft and violates the non aggression principle. I fully support legal immigration and a pretty liberal guest worker program. I in fact support even harsher penalties for breaking the non aggression principle than our current laws dole out. The idea that Classical Liberals somehow do not support punishment for "harming others" is false.

A classic liberal is against the electric chair but not against lethal injection. Democrats are no longer liberals, they are idiots.

This one has no problem with the chair, hanging, or firing squad. Actions have consequences and society is free to decide how to punish those that commit violent crime. Im not overly sensitive to the pain and suffering of violent criminals.

I support the Toga Party.

(07-04-2017 02:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 08:41 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 08:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Being a Classical Liberal(socially liberal-fiscally conservative)...I subscribe to the "non aggression" principle. As long as theft,fraud,violence or destruction of property is not involved?..What people do is none of my business. I do not have to like what they do...I just have to allow it and expect the same courtesy from them about my life.

I do not agree with the above assertion that most Classical Liberals support illegal immigration. It is fraud/theft and violates the non aggression principle. I fully support legal immigration and a pretty liberal guest worker program. I in fact support even harsher penalties for breaking the non aggression principle than our current laws dole out. The idea that Classical Liberals somehow do not support punishment for "harming others" is false.

A classic liberal is against the electric chair but not against lethal injection. Democrats are no longer liberals, they are idiots.

This one has no problem with the chair, hanging, or firing squad. Actions have consequences and society is free to decide how to punish those that commit violent crime. Im not overly sensitive to the pain and suffering of violent criminals.

What about cruel and unusual punishment? My personal opinion is kill them however the state decides but I can see the argument that a firing squad can be considered cruel. Especially if they suffer non fatal wounds the first round of firing. The chair is also not always 100% effective in killing them swiftly and while hanging is a science its not an exact one. In reality I think states are more worried about getting sued than providing a quick and painless death.

I don't think we'll have these particular divisions for much longer. We just happen to be right in the middle of a big transition. I think the next Congressional election is going to create two pretty distinct Democratic parties.

(07-04-2017 04:35 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 02:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 08:41 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 08:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Being a Classical Liberal(socially liberal-fiscally conservative)...I subscribe to the "non aggression" principle. As long as theft,fraud,violence or destruction of property is not involved?..What people do is none of my business. I do not have to like what they do...I just have to allow it and expect the same courtesy from them about my life.

I do not agree with the above assertion that most Classical Liberals support illegal immigration. It is fraud/theft and violates the non aggression principle. I fully support legal immigration and a pretty liberal guest worker program. I in fact support even harsher penalties for breaking the non aggression principle than our current laws dole out. The idea that Classical Liberals somehow do not support punishment for "harming others" is false.

A classic liberal is against the electric chair but not against lethal injection. Democrats are no longer liberals, they are idiots.

This one has no problem with the chair, hanging, or firing squad. Actions have consequences and society is free to decide how to punish those that commit violent crime. Im not overly sensitive to the pain and suffering of violent criminals.

What about cruel and unusual punishment? My personal opinion is kill them however the state decides but I can see the argument that a firing squad can be considered cruel. Especially if they suffer non fatal wounds the first round of firing. The chair is also not always 100% effective in killing them swiftly and while hanging is a science its not an exact one. In reality I think states are more worried about getting sued than providing a quick and painless death.

Once they're killed, they're dead. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but if we are going to have it, I don't give a rat's ass how it is done.

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Libertarians are by no means liberal though. They are just so far to the right that they reject the hypocrisy of the GOP and its broken promises to the hard right on a number of issues that it gives a false impression of being a moderate party by appearing to agree with libs on some issues. It's a well known political trend that polar opposites sometimes seem to have more in common with each other than you would normally expect

(07-06-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Libertarians are by no means liberal though. They are just so far to the right that they reject the hypocrisy of the GOP and its broken promises to the hard right on a number of issues that it gives a false impression of being a moderate party by appearing to agree with libs on some issues. It's a well known political trend that polar opposites sometimes seem to have more in common with each other than you would normally expect

That's not true if you utilize the correct definition of what liberal means. The one major difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian is the former do not have an anarchist strain that you will see in modern Libertarians.

(07-06-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Libertarians are by no means liberal though. They are just so far to the right that they reject the hypocrisy of the GOP and its broken promises to the hard right on a number of issues that it gives a false impression of being a moderate party by appearing to agree with libs on some issues. It's a well known political trend that polar opposites sometimes seem to have more in common with each other than you would normally expect

woah woah woah....

The only difference between Dems and Reps is which opinions they want to force down everyone else's throats... and use the power of government to silence the opposition. It's 'liberals' who surprisingly aren't liberal (of course conservatives aren't)

NEITHER of them support the rights of 'unpopular' opinions to be expressed... which is what an ACTUAL libertarian generally believes... none of anyone else's business (if it doesn't impact you)... so both the left AND right make up these convoluted arguments about how they're impacted... The right by someone else NOT giving birth to a baby and the left by someone who for some reason can't find a gay-friendly pastry chef or florist... or wants to be married in a church and before a 'god' that calls what they're doing a heinous sin.


You confuse personal opinions with political agendas. I can believe that something is horrible, and yet not insist that the government step in to stop it... because it's not my business.

What you're calling liberal is someone who simply believes in the power of government to solve all ills, which of course is also the power to CAUSE all ills. That's not liberal.

(07-03-2017 01:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 05:07 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Once I have to pay taxes due to another person's individual choice then I am impacted by that person's choice.

If I'm impacted then I should have a say.

Disagree to an extent... You only have a say when that 'impact' interferes with your rights.

I mean, someone breathing air or drinking water or owning property arguably interferes with your right to do the same... and while we all pay for things like highways, not everyone uses them to the same degree.

My biggest issue with what you're saying is that now we're merely arguing over what 'impacts' you... and someone can claim that ANYTHING 'impacts' them.

You're correct. What |impacts" me or anyone is subjective. But haven't we seen the left make policy based solely on trigger issues?

But for a more tangible example, making me pay for abortions violates my personal rights of conscience.

(06-30-2017 01:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Abortion almost certainly saves money because fewer people are on welfare.
Hard to see any significant financial impact of gay marriage. Spousal benefits, I suppose, but those basically cover things that somebody has to pay for anyway.
Maybe drugs in the sense of treatment costs. But places that have decriminalized spend less on law enforcement and have found that treatment costs go down.

We can't really quantify how much money is saved due to abortion.

What if one of those babies that was killed would've have grown up to make a significant impact on society in any number of ways?

We can't factor in lost opportunity in this case> We don't know what great things we've been deprived of simply because the person was never allowed to be born.

(07-06-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Libertarians are by no means liberal though. They are just so far to the right that they reject the hypocrisy of the GOP and its broken promises to the hard right on a number of issues that it gives a false impression of being a moderate party by appearing to agree with libs on some issues. It's a well known political trend that polar opposites sometimes seem to have more in common with each other than you would normally expect

The linear left-right paradigm is inaccurate and outdated.

While it'll always be difficult to pigeon-hole peoples' viewpoints, the 4 Quadrant chart (one axis Economic, other axis Social) is far better.

(07-06-2017 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 12:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  What gets me is that socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't actually co-exist. Socially liberal policies usually end up costing quite a bit of money.

I think they are talking about Libertarians and primarily policies like abortion, gay marriage, drug de-criminalization, etc.

Libertarians are by no means liberal though. They are just so far to the right that they reject the hypocrisy of the GOP and its broken promises to the hard right on a number of issues that it gives a false impression of being a moderate party by appearing to agree with libs on some issues. It's a well known political trend that polar opposites sometimes seem to have more in common with each other than you would normally expect

woah woah woah....

The only difference between Dems and Reps is which opinions they want to force down everyone else's throats... and use the power of government to silence the opposition. It's 'liberals' who surprisingly aren't liberal (of course conservatives aren't)

NEITHER of them support the rights of 'unpopular' opinions to be expressed... which is what an ACTUAL libertarian generally believes... none of anyone else's business (if it doesn't impact you)... so both the left AND right make up these convoluted arguments about how they're impacted... The right by someone else NOT giving birth to a baby and the left by someone who for some reason can't find a gay-friendly pastry chef or florist... or wants to be married in a church and before a 'god' that calls what they're doing a heinous sin.


You confuse personal opinions with political agendas. I can believe that something is horrible, and yet not insist that the government step in to stop it... because it's not my business.

What you're calling liberal is someone who simply believes in the power of government to solve all ills, which of course is also the power to CAUSE all ills. That's not liberal.

not this boneheaded crap again.

you could have saved me a lot of reading by simply saying "I believe my views are right and everyone else's views are wrong"

(07-06-2017 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  not this boneheaded crap again.

you could have saved me a lot of reading by simply saying "I believe my views are right and everyone else's views are wrong"

Wow... you literally just said that YOUR views on the subject are right and everyone else's are wrong, and then tried to claim I did?

You're not a libertarian so you don't have the first clue what 'they' think....

and you can't in any way deny my first two paragraphs... which is why you come back with your drivel.

You literally just said everyone except your niche political party does not support others rights. Give me a ******* break with this ****. You have the most demented holier than thou attitude of anyone on here. I swear you use this place to fulfill some personal void in your life because no one else here goes around nitpicking while always acting superior like you do. Lemme guess...you aren't taking a side or taking a position in this thread right?

(07-06-2017 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='14432562' dateline='1499357862']
not this boneheaded crap again.

you could have saved me a lot of reading by simply saying "I believe my views are right and everyone else's views are wrong"

Wow... you literally just said that YOUR views on the subject are right and everyone else's are wrong, and then tried to claim I did?

You're not a libertarian so you don't have the first clue what 'they' think.... yet you feel qualified to not only speak for them, but then argue with one when he disagrees with you about what 'he' believes.

Hint.... The majority used to believe that gay marriage was 'wrong', and they sought to use the government to keep it that way. The majority now believes that gay marriage is okay, and they seek to use the government to keep it that way. Two sides of the identical coin.

A libertarian thinks that 'marriage' isn't any of the government's business... which not only supports people on both sides, it also supports those who have a completely different idea about what marriage is.

Explain to me how one can say his niche party is the only group that believes in the rights of others and not be a massive arrogant prick in making such a statement?

Hambone. It's clear you are just trying to pick a fight here to ease whatever ****** situation is going on in your life right now. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such an arrogant statement and tried to finger me over doing the same.

It's painfully clear.

I'm sorry that you are demented enough to not see the fundamental difference between my simply giving an opinion verse your literally claiming every other party does not believe in rights except yours. I mean what an arrogant load of crap and it's so painfuly obvious that you are trying to pick a fight.

Wow... NOW you're just arguing with yourself.

(07-06-2017 02:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Explain to me how one can say his niche party is the only group that believes in the rights of others and not be a massive arrogant prick in making such a statement?

You might try a reading comprehension class.

First of all, It certainly seems that the one being a massive arrogant prick is the one who starts the conversation by claiming that libertarians aren't liberal... and that you know more what they think than those actually IN the group. That is the very definition of arrogance... telling someone else what they believe in.

Second, I didn't say 'the libertarian party' did I.... I said an ACTUAL libertarian. Because the definition of a libertarian is someone who actually believes in individual liberty by definition... which means the right to a minority, unpopular opinion. That's not being an arrogant prick... it's called knowing the definitions of words.

I define liberal as being accepting and even supportive of views that you disagree with... to coin a phrase... disagreeing whole-heartedly with something someone else says, but fighting to the death for their right to say it.

Contrary to whatever either party says... neither of them do this. We all know conservatives do because that is 'what they do'. 'Liberals' similarly routinely shout down or otherwise censor opinions they disagree with. NEITHER major party 'fights to the death' for the rights of those they disagree with. In fact they both use every tactic available to censor them.

You obviously have a huge inferiority complex with regard to me. You should seek counseling.

You want to know why Libertarians will never get to 5%? Because I'm 100% right. You guys are by no means moderate or liberal and you ideology is too dumb and stupid to actually work in reality. It takes arrogance to believe a lot of the crap you spew (specifically that u are the only ones who believe in rights) which is why even with the Ds and Rs producing the two most dislike candidates in decades the Ls only further embarrassed and made a complete joke out of their party in 2016.