Voluntary Human Extinction Party

12/16/2009 10:05:21 AM

Ok revised for you long winded pessimists

MattJM321: right
d357r0yr: right
Stimwalt: skeptic with left leanings
JCASHFAN: skeptic, the end is near
TreeTwista10: bitter and left
McDanger: left
TKE-teg: right
eyedrb: right
sparky: right
OopsPowSrprs: left
Socks: left
BobbyDigital: right
mambagrl: batshit, courted by neither
lafta: still left after doing post research
Boone: still left and educating youngens with a left agenda
AxlBonBach: right
PinkandBlack: skeptic?
adultswim: left
jwb9984: left
red baron 22: right
EarthDogg: right
Solinari: right, let me know if you want it changed, more right than jwb9984
LoneSnark: right
theDuke866: right
LunaK: left
HockeyRoman: "But I am socially liberal yet fiscally moderate to conservative except for when it comes to money for the environment." does not compute, left
AxlBonBach: right
Supplanter: left


Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Tory, Whig, Labour, Bull Moose, Green, Dixiecrat, pick the lesser

12/16/2009 10:05:29 AM

I want a small federal government whose primary objectives are;

1. enforcing laws and borders
2. homeland protection
3. getting out of the way of its citizens (including social issues)

I want local governments to be the more prominent entity in the community, rather than the feds.

If that makes me conservative so be it, but I do not identify with the stereotype crotchety old white man afraid of homosexuals and evil Negroes.

12/16/2009 10:11:19 AM

if forced to choose, i am left of center.

i believe in teaching a man to fish instead of giving him fish, i'm calling myself a non-socialist progressive. i am a strong proponent of public education in most forms. all you Wake and Duke grads feel free to disagree with me.

i say we take care of children, the elderly, the disabled, and veterans; but everyone else buys their own healthcare.

i am pro-stem cell research, but am anti-abortion once the fetus has brainwaves and a heartbeat.

i am "green". where the motherfunk do you think all the fossil fuels come from? dinosaur blood? virtually all of it comes from compressed photosyntethic organisms - in other words we're simply pursuing a roundabout highly inefficient, facist/imperialist course of actions to unlock solar energy. i will lead us out of this purgatory once and for all.

12/16/2009 10:45:45 AM

You keep making these lists with people being conservative/liberal, left/right, but we have no idea what those labels are in reference to. This ties in with Duke's thread about ideological similarities between non-related issues. If someone is a staunch fiscal conservative, pro environmental regulation, pro-choice, anti same sex marriage, and anti-war, what are they? Right, left, conservative, liberal? The correct answer is right on some issues, left on others. There is no "in general." I would argue that on economic issues, modern liberals are actually to the right of modern conservatives. Many Republicans, neo-conservatives specifically, are to the far right on social issues. Some libertarians, which might be referred to as conservatives in some circles, are to the far left on social issues.

So, people don't fall neatly into these categories. It's an oversimplification to lump everyone into one "side" or the other. People derive their political views from a wide variety of beliefs and principles, but every person will apply those beliefs/principles in different ways. If someone asks me if I'm liberal or conservative, I'll respond "libertarian." The labels liberal and conservative lead to assumptions about my views that I'm not comfortable with. Of course, people make assumptions about libertarians as well. I'll hear things like, "Oh, so you believe in anarchy. You think corporations should be able to dump as much waste into the water as they want. You believe in deregulation across the board." Slapping a label on yourself is often useless, because a label will mean something different to each person. It makes a lot more sense to tell someone what you believe the role of government should be, why you believe that, and your position on specific policies.

12/16/2009 12:00:29 PM

More left than Sweden.

12/16/2009 12:07:17 PM

^^I know it's over simplified, but it needs to be.

MattJM321: right
d357r0yr: present
Stimwalt: skeptic with left leanings
JCASHFAN: skeptic, the end is near
TreeTwista10: bitter and left
McDanger: left
TKE-teg: right
eyedrb: right
sparky: right
OopsPowSrprs: left
Socks: left
BobbyDigital: right
mambagrl: batshit, courted by neither
lafta: still left after doing post research
Boone: still left and educating youngens with a left agenda
AxlBonBach: right
PinkandBlack: left
adultswim: left
jwb9984: left
red baron 22: right
EarthDogg: right
Solinari: right, let me know if you want it changed, more right than jwb9984
LoneSnark: right
theDuke866: right
LunaK: left
HockeyRoman: left
AxlBonBach: right
Supplanter: left
Lumex: left
DaBird: right
God: left

So far in this thread:
Left ~15
Right ~13

12/16/2009 1:42:29 PM

Fiscal conservative, adherent to the U.S. Constitution, strong believer in si vis pacem, para bellum, tend to be liberal to moderate on social issues.

Virgo.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : PS: Please alphabetize the list for easy reference. Thank you. ]

12/16/2009 1:48:52 PM

Quote :

"so what were you saying again, adultswim?"

There are multiple definitions of humanism but the relevant 21st century humanist movement is overwhelmingly pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-separation of church and state.

You are fiscally liberal and socially conservative, also known as "Crazy fucking idiot".

12/16/2009 6:43:14 PM

explain how that makes me crazy?

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 6:54 PM. Reason : whats crazy are republican "christians"]

12/16/2009 6:54:21 PM

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: skeptic, the end is near"

woah woah woah woah. I'm a skeptic, an eternal pessimist, and an all around curmudgeon, but I do not think the end is near. As a matter of fact I'm supremely confident in the human race's ability to perpetuate it's nature for the next 100 years . . . unless the Singularity comes, then all bets are off.

Quote :

"the exact same spot as gandhi"

so do you hate black people as much as he did?

12/16/2009 9:17:09 PM

Quote :

"LunaK: left"

i appreciate that this required some post-stalking your part

12/16/2009 9:18:51 PM

I believe in gay marriage, legalization of drugs, assisted suicide. I believe the government should pay for poor peoples education as far as they want to take it as long as they maintain a b-c average. I believe the government should crack down hardcore on nitrogen pollution in our waterways. I support net neutrality. I support stem cell research and abortion in the third trimester. I believe in the legalization of prostitution. I support strict regulations on banking and a crackdown on CEO pay.

Does this sound conservative??

12/16/2009 10:08:13 PM

i would say you're almost left of me.

12/16/2009 10:21:16 PM

^^ closer to Socialist than a true "Liberal". But then again, the American Left has been that way for quite some time. (To be fair, the American Right has trended at least as strongly Fascist).

12/17/2009 7:46:04 AM

wtf - closer to socialist? Just because I support government funded education and correcting the incentives for CEOs?

I'm not conservative, liberal, socialist, or libertarian. I'm smart.



[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 8:04 AM. Reason : s]

12/17/2009 8:02:45 AM

Quote :

"MattJM321: I know it's over simplified, but it needs to be."

Why does it have to be at all?

Who the fuck are you, and what's the deal with list?

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 8:07 AM. Reason : This is obnoxious.]

12/17/2009 8:04:30 AM

Quote :

"woah woah woah woah. I'm a skeptic, an eternal pessimist, and an all around curmudgeon, but I do not think the end is near. As a matter of fact I'm supremely confident in the human race's ability to perpetuate it's nature for the next 100 years . . . unless the Singularity comes, then all bets are off."

+

Quote :

"I believe in gay marriage, legalization of drugs, assisted suicide. I believe the government should pay for poor peoples education as far as they want to take it as long as they maintain a b-c average. I believe the government should crack down hardcore on nitrogen pollution in our waterways. I support net neutrality. I support stem cell research. I believe in the legalization of prostitution. I support strict regulations on banking"

and I support gun rights, I'm pro-death penalty (though only when strict requirements have been met) and I very strongly support a strong national defense and I'm against any hate crimes legislation. So which of the two boxes do I fall into? Everyone else as already said it, but this type of labeling is precisely what's wrong with the discourse in the country today.

12/17/2009 8:07:13 AM

^ You would be closer to Fascist. But not really. More inconsistent than anything else.

Quote :

"wtf - closer to socialist? Just because I support government funded education and correcting the incentives for CEOs?"

Sure, why not? Government mandated funding of education is de-facto control of education. The DoE can determine to withhold funds from whomever it deems incompatible with it's doctrine. Now, will this automatically happen? Maybe, maybe not, but a strong argument can be made for the increase in tuition coinciding with the increase in government funding of higher education. And I, for one, do not want to be paying for a C average student.

As for banks and bankers, the government doesn't have to "own" a bank outright to control it and, by definition, government control of industry and financial institutions is socialism.

I agree the word gets tossed out way too much, but that doesn't make it any less valid when appropriately applied. Like I said you were closer to socialist, I'm not expecting disaffected Bolsheviks around the world to start putting up a portrait of Solinari next to Chavez.

Quote :

"Who the fuck are you, and what's the deal with list?"

Relax, it is the internet, it doesn't count in real life.

12/17/2009 9:16:36 AM

Quote :

"More inconsistent than anything else"

oh? Do tell.

12/17/2009 9:26:21 AM

Meh, I guess you're right . . . inconsistent is based on my personal beliefs. I just find that an aggressive foreign policy (generally what people mean when they say strong national defence, but you may very well be different) to be incompatable with liberty at home, especially when coupled with government control of the banking system which is practically necessary to fund the kind of expenditures required for such activist diplomacy. A strong central government which controls education tends to perpetuate the welfare / warfare myth which has never lead a nation to speheres of greater prosperity.

12/17/2009 2:01:50 PM

Strong defense in my mind means just that, a strong defense. I don't mean an overly aggressive foreign policy, eg Bush Doctrine. Though I do support big stick diplomacy.

But you're right, I'm all over the map, and so are most people. That's why generic labels liberal or conservative are worthless.

12/17/2009 2:43:39 PM

when my only post in this thread (before this one) is "Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich"

how do I become "bitter and liberal"

lol

12/17/2009 3:08:05 PM

You quoted a very cynical episode of south park and your handle is TreeTwista. Clearly you are a bitter pot smoking hippy. This exercise is meaningless.

12/17/2009 3:12:16 PM

Quote :

"I'm all over the map, and so are most people. That's why generic labels liberal or conservative are worthless."

12/17/2009 3:12:28 PM

Quote :

"Strong defense in my mind means just that, a strong defense."

Fair enough.


And yes, Liberal v Conservative is worthless.

12/17/2009 3:40:16 PM

look, i know some of you don't like labels, but we have every reason to call those of you who claim to be libertarian "right", esp those of you who were big on the ron paul thing.

JCASHFAN and especially d3storyer (whatever) fit this. broadly, you're on the right. you are not a unique snowflake. get over it.

same goes for any of you ron paul backers, and i know youre out there b/c his thread during the election was full of plenty of you. if you back his brand, you are on the right. old right, the islolationist right, to be more accurate.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : and how does my admitted voting for Nader make me anything but left, unless youre clueless, OP]

12/17/2009 3:56:18 PM

We get it. You're not a fan of libertarianism or Ron Paul, and everyone that disagrees with you is a blind zealot spewing nonsense. It's not worth arguing about, because you don't want to hear the arguments. You don't even want to entertain the thought that we might be correct, you just want to play the "I was a libertarian until I grew up" card. If you want to say I'm "right," that's fine. I already established my position, which is that labels mean nothing without some kind of context. You want to label us as right because then you can turn your brain off and think of us as teabaggers, but it doesn't change the fact that my views on many issues are considered "left" in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

12/17/2009 4:27:12 PM

In a broad sense, I tend to align with Theodore Roosevelt on many issues, in that I think many of them still need to be applied to modern politics.

Specifically, big stick diplomacy, reform of lobbying and special interests, anti-trust/monopoly regulation while still protecting businesses from large unions, his views on environmental conservation and development, and his more public views on race ("treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man"... great quote, though some of his actions painted him as something of a closet racist... which, for the early 1900s, was ahead of his time). I tend to be less socially progressive than he was, though (largely because much of that social progress has already happened at this point).

As for broad labels, the most applicable thing I can think of is anti-authoritarian, in that I am against any organization becoming too large and gaining unnecessary amounts of influence... government, corporations, worker's unions, political organizations, political parties, etc. Personal freedom for individuals is most important.

So... a bit right of center, on your black vs white list, I suppose. Depends on your definition of "right", really... If "right" = Modern Republican Party, then I'm definitely left-of-center.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 4:46:06 PM

Quote :

"you are not a unique snowflake. get over it."

Sounds like someone is projecting.

12/17/2009 4:52:56 PM

yeah, can a brother get on a list?

i'm self-identifying meself as a card carrying member of the left.

12/17/2009 5:21:13 PM

Quote :

"You don't even want to entertain the thought that we might be correct"

there's a reason why i don't criticize Dr. Steve Chaos on this sort of crap but I pick out people who say things like "people in europe are barely free despite their oppressive system": he backs his stuff up.

it's easy to think you're right when you're ideas for prosperity will never get tried in the post-modern world of globalization, post-industrial economies, and the issues of assymetrical information in markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Information_asymmetry).

just because peter schiff easily called the bubble being created that burst last year, that doesn't validate the rest of your stances any more than the economic collapse validates those of a legitimate marxist (which i hope you know doesn't mean the same as ")

i probably know more about murray rothbard than you do, i actually read 3 of his works last year, and i know that based on his definition of "right" and "left" as unevolving phenomena, yes, you are "left" by a definition that noone except the fringe of his ideological brethren.

thing is, popular political factions or definitions today have little in common with those of the french revolution, or those of the age of "classical liberalism" as most call it.

if you want me to write like 5 pages on how i rejected libertarianism based on the inability to reconcile the rawlsian vision of justice with hayek, i suppose i can take a stab at it. but in short, that's all you need to know: i could not reconcile my view of justice with the libertarian ideal, so i rejected it. actually, the assymetric nature of information in markets was a big part, too. but still, as far as philosophy, yeah.

I don't give a shit whether people think they're right or wrong as long as they're well-reasoned (but that still doesn't protect anyone from criticism).

Quote :

"Sounds like someone is projecting."

i know you are but what am i hurrrrr

Quote :

"Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Tory, Whig, Labour, Bull Moose, Green, Dixiecrat, pick the lesser"

This is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaid_Cymru

I prefer decentralized society in that I think local bodies are more likely to carry out the reforms I support. Alabama can have their Dixiecrat society as long as I can move to DC or Mass. and have full equal rights for all humans, including in health care.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 5:41:48 PM

Ohhh, I get it. You're just butt hurt about this: message_topic.aspx?topic=583759


Because I don't recall posting anything about how oppressed the Europeans were.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ok sorry, not interested in investing any real energy in a TSB feud anyway.]

12/17/2009 5:43:24 PM

^it wasn't directed at you

yep, you got me.

actually i'm being misleading. i actually like libertarians but think the whole "monetary freedom, end fiat currency, end the fed, gold gold gold" thing is distracting them from teaming up with the left and making headway on civil liberties, foreign policy, and whatnot.

so more than anything, i guess i'm sore that you people ditched us to go put all your energy into silly money policies as opposed to silly foreign and civil liberties policies.

remember back in '03 when we were a team? when it was us vs. bush and the world? we could have been something, man. we could have been something. we totally could have teamed up on that stuff and supported decentralizing the US. you get Montana, we get the coasts. you get your gold standard, we get our gay shit. but no, you had to go off with that hussy the GOP, thinking you can reform it. lame dude. totally lame.

we could have been something, man.

12/17/2009 5:51:35 PM

Libertarian. I agree with conservatives on more issues but I often value some of the policies that I agree along with liberals higher than those of conservatives.

If the right could get kick the moral conservatives out and strive for economic policies that benefit the nation as a whole, NOT just a few corporations that can buy the most lobbyists than I would proudly be a conservative.

Quote :

"I want a small federal government whose primary objectives are; 1. enforcing laws and borders 2. homeland protection 3. getting out of the way of its citizens (including social issues) I want local governments to be the more prominent entity in the community, rather than the feds. If that makes me conservative so be it, but I do not identify with the stereotype crotchety old white man afraid of homosexuals and evil Negroes."

ditto

though at the extreme I would rather be a liberal living on gov't handouts capable of doing whatever I want in my free time (as long as i don't impend anothers civil rights) then live under a system where the moral police swoop in to tell me whats right or where i live as a serf where societies resources are consolidated to the big corporations.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM. Reason : l]

12/17/2009 6:40:38 PM

Quote :

"I want local governments to be the more prominent entity in the community, rather than the feds."

just curious: would those of you who support this reasoning (I do, exceptions giving to protecting civil rights and liberties, such as in the case of school desegregation, to allow that doesn't promote freedom at all) be more willing to support, say, a city taking over welfare duties?

i'm just curious how many people support conservative policies at all levels as opposed to simply wanting them devolved to local bodies.

the later choice is actually pretty prevalent in the UK, moreso than here. parties supporting devolution of affairs to regional governments tend towards the left, whereas I think in the US they tend more to the right. while I don't think it's articulated very well, I think most of your serious granola hippy progressives would prefer the UK approach as well.

for example: in Arcata, California, where I almost moved and where I have family nearby, most people support left wing policies but also support local action as opposed to federal action on issues like the environment, gay rights, or drug legislation, due to the perceived corporate or establishment bias of the federal gov. in some cases.

def. not a right wing region, but it def. isn't anything short of left wing, either.

12/17/2009 7:04:37 PM

Quote :

"the later choice is actually pretty prevalent in the UK, moreso than here. parties supporting devolution of affairs to regional governments tend towards the left, whereas I think in the US they tend more to the right. while I don't think it's articulated very well, I think most of your serious granola hippy progressives would prefer the UK approach as well."

Truthfully I think both left and right support bigger "federal government" since neither side wants to lose power. Somehow the need for big federal government has been ingrained into our society and will likely be difficult to break. In response to your question, I would support more lefty welfare policies coming from a local level. In this case if I "don't like it" it is much easier moving to a different county or state with a lower tax rate and more conservative social spending policies. I also think a local or state level would be better at creating a system that can support the individuals needs of its own community, while a federal system can lead to favortism based on lobbying as well as congressional seniority. I am tired of paying federal taxes to which an unproportional amount goes to people like Robert Byrd creating pet projects in West Virginia.

12/17/2009 7:41:30 PM

political labels are pretty much useless. if you wanted to label me something, then I'd say conservative.

I'm for a free market yet fair trade/business, my 1st & 2nd amendment rights, a strong national defense, small & limited government, having the bulk of government power being pushed down the line to states and local entities, I support health insurance reform & regulation, I oppose government run programs that belong to the private market (health insurance, alcohol), I oppose the large and wasteful government departments, I am for a fair tax, I don't have a problem with gay marriage, abortion is ok with me for certain situations, I am in favor of stem cell research, I am against PACs and lobbyists, I am against arbitrarily set ages which allow for certain privileges, I am against government hand-outs, I support incentives to give to charities, I am against career politicians, I am against government subsidies to industries that don't need them, I am against the congress controlling their own pay & benefits, I believe in equal opportunity and not equal results, I don't believe in forcing those who have succeeding being forced to pay for those who have not.... I'm tired of typing. lol

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 8:49:21 PM

Quote :

"I want local governments to be the more prominent entity in the community, rather than the feds.""

I'm with you on that. It's a lot easier and quicker for the people to punish local politicians who go astray of voter's wishes. That is one of the reasons I'm for ending the centralized Federal Reserve. Things like a gold standard put a tighter control on gov't spending. This would help keep us out of many pointless foreign military escapades.

Quote :

"i could not reconcile my view of justice with the libertarian ideal,"

Can you give me a quickie version of your reasoning behind this belief?

12/17/2009 10:58:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't give a shit whether people think they're right or wrong as long as they're well-reasoned (but that still doesn't protect anyone from criticism)."

yeah, i'm like that to an extent. i get annoyed as shit at people who agree with me when they agree with me for all the wrong reasons (to include fallacious ones).

Quote :

"i could not reconcile my view of justice with the libertarian ideal"

Quote :

"Can you give me a quickie version of your reasoning behind this belief?"

yeah, generally it's the opposite problem--people find that much justice to be kinda unpalatable...too hardball for their tastes.

Of course, "libertarian", while better defined than "left", "right", "conservative", or "liberal", is still somewhat of a broad term, and as a side note, often confused with constitutionalist (which has significant overlap with libertarianism, but is not the same thing).

12/18/2009 1:37:17 AM

Quote :

"if you want me to write like 5 pages on how i rejected libertarianism based on the inability to reconcile the rawlsian vision of justice with hayek, i suppose i can take a stab at it. but in short, that's all you need to know: i could not reconcile my view of justice with the libertarian ideal, so i rejected it. actually, the assymetric nature of information in markets was a big part, too. but still, as far as philosophy, yeah."

The problem of imperfect/assymetric information one can be dealt with by buyers and sellers, though. Sure, there will often will be sellers that know a lot more about the product they're selling than the buyer, and vice versa. However, both participants can anticipate this information problem. If a buyer is to buy something without a guarantee or opportunity to get a refund, they will be expected to pay less. If they want a guarantee of some sort, they'll pay a little more. The seller can determine what method is the most beneficial. However, if you think that assymetric information makes the case for economic intervention, and I don't know that you do, that's a jump. Buyers and sellers will always have imperfect information, but the government's information tends to be so far off that it can only make market failures even worse.

As for reconciling Rawls' view of justice with libertarianism, Robert Nozick did a pretty good job of that in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I suppose it's more of a rejection of Rawls. Rawls made the point that basic liberties should be maximized, which I agree with, and Nozick agreed with. But, Rawls also wrote about the difference principle, saying that inequality is only acceptable if it benefits the disadvantaged/poor. He uses this to justify redistribution of wealth. Nozick makes the point that property is justly acquired only if the exchange is voluntary. Of course, if you follow it back far enough, a lot of property was acquired through unjust means - slavery, for instance, allowed people access to labor that would not normally be there in a free society. The purpose of government should be to ensure that property is protected and acquired through just means.

Quote :

"i'm just curious how many people support conservative policies at all levels as opposed to simply wanting them devolved to local bodies."

That's a good question, and I think a lot of "conservatives" do want their legislation enacted on the federal level. I've often heard a case made against federalism. Something along the lines of "oh, so you want maximum freedom, but only as determined by local or state governments...how is it better to have a local government, rather than the federal government, take away your freedom?" Well, the idea is that if a state or town makes a law you disagree with, you can move to a different area with laws that you like better. That's Federalism 101, you vote with your feet. The United States is too spread out to have set of laws that apply to everyone; cultural values tend to vary. We can see that "voting with your feet" works, even today with unprecented levels of federal intervention. You can move to a different state if you want to get married to your same sex partner or smoke weed legally, and while I think you should be able to do those things in any state, it's unrealistic to to believe that the residents of all states would agree with those laws.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ]

12/18/2009 9:30:39 AM

yay! labels!

you're either ______ or _______.

someone already said it, but, yes, this IS what's wrong with modern political discourse, and generally, the entire news media.

12/18/2009 3:59:33 PM

Federalism also works in the "experimentation" column. The goal is to prevent bad things with the minimal impact to our liberties. It is not obvious before hand what legislation would do that. Therefore, states can implement different laws, see the results, and adjust based upon the perceived winners. Or so the theory went. It seems to work differently: legislatures experiment to see what they can get away with, and upon seeing a neighbor get away with murder, other states join in.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/18/2009 10:28:46 PM

Federalism will be the downfall of this country

12/19/2009 1:38:41 AM

socialist

not that I have any problems with being called a 'liberal'


[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 2:03:32 AM

I'm moderately conservative. I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and traditional American values.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 3:28 AM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 3:27:36 AM

^ no offense intended here, but

Quote :

"traditional American values"

really doesn't mean anything. that's a made-up term trotted out by the right-wing whenever they want to oppose something, like gay rights.

12/19/2009 9:07:52 AM

I am very, very socially liberal, so long as one's activities don't infringe on the happenings of others (that doesn't mean I give a fuck if some blow-hard doesn't like what I'm doing). If it doesn't impede or hurt someone else, do what the fuck you want.

I am pro-death penalty. I think it ought to be infinitely cheaper to kill a creep.

I am also pro-choice.

12/19/2009 4:19:06 PM

Anti big govt

Pro abortion (for $$$ reasons)

Pro legal weed

Pro gay rights, but only if I still have the right to call them fags

Anti seatbelt laws (not that I wouldn't wear one)

12/22/2009 5:48:42 PM

I don't have a problem with big government. I have a problem with stupid government. Sometimes when government is stupid, small government is better to limit the stupidity. Sometimes, though, government can be smart. So I won't say across the board that I want small government or limits on it or a strict interpretation of the Constitution or anything.

I am very conservative in foreign policy, which means that I am often in favor of the liberal use of bombs.

I like the death penalty a lot.

I don't really like gay marriage or abortion, but if I dislike them, I do so very weakly. At the end of the day I'd rather you not abort that little bastard but I'm not going to try to yell at you or anything.

I want fewer things to be illegal and most of the illegal things to be punished more. Legalize pot and hang the crack dealers. Legalize prostitution and hang rapists. Legalize gambling and hang Steve Bartman.

12/22/2009 6:29:37 PM