What issues do you dislike the people who 'side' with you on?

[Frink]

Most anti-war activists and organizations bother me with a lot of their rhetoric. Many of their chant-style one-liners about how evil Iraq and Afghanistan are just makes everybody who's anti-war look utterly ridiculous (thats not even to say I actually disagree with the underlying sentiment).

Elitist holier-than-thou pro-choice types have always bothered me.

A lot of the rhetoric used by gun rights advocates is rather grating (like the rhetoric for any "hot-button" perpetual social issue such as this).

Drug legalization. This is more or less self explanatory..

The anti-Semitic nether reaches of Anti-Zionism.

[To be is the answer to all penus]

Abortion. I live in a Pro-Life city, and I am Pro-Life, and I really hate debating Pro-Choicers because most of them here don't try to debate  normally.

This is where you talk about people you agree with, but still can't get along with. For the longest time, most of my friends were Republicans and most Democrats I knew didn't like me. 

Oh, misread it haha!

In that case, Unions. I agree with the leftists on it, but they go nuts when the GOP threatens the unions.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Abortion. I live in a Pro-Life city, and I am Pro-Life, and I really hate debating Pro-Choicers because most of them here don't try to debate  normally.

This is where you talk about people you agree with, but still can't get along with. For the longest time, most of my friends were Republicans and most Democrats I knew didn't like me. 

Oh, misread it haha!

In that case, Unions. I agree with the leftists on it, but they go nuts when the GOP threatens the unions.

Then again, the unions in this country are an endangered species.

[Gustaf]

All of them.

But especially economic issues, both when it comes to supporting the free market and the welfare state.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

People who are fiscally libertarian and socially ultra-conservative at the same time.

If you believe in smaller government, it needs to apply to all issues. 

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

People who are fiscally libertarian and socially ultra-conservative at the same time.

If you believe in smaller government, it needs to apply to all issues.  

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

I think that's a pretty universal critique of the American Far-Right, made even by mainstream Right-Wingers like you. The point is not to forget that their policy isn't based so much on Christianity as its based on American Nationalism as written by William F. Buckley. He's kind of our own little Mousilini or Nasser or a corpratist Ataturk.

[realisticidealist]

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

[Kushahontas]

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

[white trash heroes]

People who are fiscally libertarian and socially ultra-conservative at the same time.

If you believe in smaller government, it needs to apply to all issues.  

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

I think that's a pretty universal critique of the American Far-Right, made even by mainstream Right-Wingers like you. The point is not to forget that their policy isn't based so much on Christianity as its based on American Nationalism as written by William F. Buckley.

That's pretty funny considering he was on the board of amnesty international and a delegate to the UN. If anything Buckley was responsible for divorcing the right from its traditional, isolationistic, 'un-respectable' roots in favor of something more centralized and internationalistic.

TL;DR: People like Buckley are exactly the reason we have 'conservative' Republicans like Don.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

People who are fiscally libertarian and socially ultra-conservative at the same time.

If you believe in smaller government, it needs to apply to all issues.  

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

I think that's a pretty universal critique of the American Far-Right, made even by mainstream Right-Wingers like you. The point is not to forget that their policy isn't based so much on Christianity as its based on American Nationalism as written by William F. Buckley.

That's pretty funny considering he was on the board of amnesty international and a delegate to the UN. If anything Buckley was responsible divorcing the right from its traditional, isolationistic, 'un-respectable' roots in favor of something more centralized and internationalistic.

TL;DR: People like Buckley are exactly the reason we have 'conservative' Republicans like Don.

Well, what would you call "fusionism" then? Amnesty International could be seen as an organization that could be hijacked by neo-cons and the UN, as advo, could be a major asset for US force projection and again, neo-conservatism.

[white trash heroes]

People who are fiscally libertarian and socially ultra-conservative at the same time.

If you believe in smaller government, it needs to apply to all issues.  

If you believe in a Biblical application of public policy, then you need to observe Biblical teachings about how we are to relate one another and God's admonishment of greed and wealth in favor of modesty and charity.

I think that's a pretty universal critique of the American Far-Right, made even by mainstream Right-Wingers like you. The point is not to forget that their policy isn't based so much on Christianity as its based on American Nationalism as written by William F. Buckley.

That's pretty funny considering he was on the board of amnesty international and a delegate to the UN. If anything Buckley was responsible divorcing the right from its traditional, isolationistic, 'un-respectable' roots in favor of something more centralized and internationalistic.

TL;DR: People like Buckley are exactly the reason we have 'conservative' Republicans like Don.

Well, what would you call "fusionism" then?

A largely mythical concept.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Perhaps it exists simply because Republicans want to kill and steal and still believe in God.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Classic white, blue collar Pennsylvania answer, but here goes:

Militant "diva" (male or female) NAACP types who like to compare everything to race and make excuses for assinine behavior.  Also, the overly PC, ex-hippie college professor types who unyieldingly side with them.  I'll include some 'feminazi' Baby Boomers in there as well.  And yes, I've been told by some more conservative friends, family and neighbors to join the GOP, but my views on the government being out of people's bedrooms and separation of church and state outweigh my disagreements with some Dems.  Not to mention the economic issues too.

Hey, there really isn't full cohesion on either side of the aisle and I was an Indy up till 2002 because of the above. 

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

In the run-up to the Iraq War and while it was a hot topic, I also disliked liberals who went after pro-war conservatives as "chickenhawks", not only is this a logical fallacy (poisoning the well), it the type of argument that could easily collapse when confronted with someone who doesn't meet the criteria, take someone like McCain who was so staunchly pro-war for example.

Semi-related are the anti-Bush people who were obsessed with him going AWOL, which ranks about around #1000 for reasons to oppose him and has about as much relevance to any modern day politics as the East India Tea Company. It might've been a somewhat relevant "issue" in 2000, but in 2004 it was just as dumb as if Obama's 2012 opponent decides to make their campaign largely about Jeremiah Wright.

[Jbrase]

Immigration, I'd put myself as a centrist tilting left on the issue.

And probably Healthcare reform, I fully oppose gov takeover of it, but I have to facepalm when I see rednecks with signs like "HEALTHCARE IS SOCIALISM"

[Stranger in a strange land]

* Many gun rights advocates. I part company with many of my fellow liberals in that I support the right to gun ownership, but I despise the NRA.
* Militant man-hating feminists on a host of issues
* people who claim that single-payer universal health care would be "free."

[Free Palestine]

I find that too many libertarians are culturally conservative/anti-feminist.

[Torie]

The list is sufficiently long that it would just bore folks to death to have to wade through it.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I find that too many libertarians are culturally conservative/anti-feminist.

That's what you call a conservative, right?

[wormyguy]

I find that too many libertarians are culturally conservative/anti-feminist.

That's what you call a conservative, right?

No, a conservative holds those views and wants to force them on others.

[Free Palestine]

Cultural conservatism is different.

I mean, a lot of libertarians seem to be really liberal-minded in terms of social policy.  Yet they have traditionalist mindsets.  I get along better with left-wing anarchists and the like, in that regard.

Though, even most liberals are like that too.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Democratic Underground forum. I'm very progressive but this forum just ilks me the wrong way.

The PETA is disgusting group of people that set the wrong explain for animal rights. They are to animal rights movement as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are to civil rights movement as Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell are to christens.

I think Keith Olbermann is the left version of Rush Limbaugh and I don't want the left to become like the hate group of right-wing talk radio. O'Donnell is alright as with Rachel Maddow. Don't like Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz.

Feminist that get too radical with hating males. I support their rights but they should focus on what the movement should be about, not telling men that they are evil.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

I'm not a big fan of pro-choicers of the militant feminist variety, who mostly tend to only spew extreme strawmen and do as much of a disservice for their side as people like Randall Terry do for the other side.

In the run-up to the Iraq War and while it was a hot topic, I also disliked liberals who went after pro-war conservatives as "chickenhawks", not only is this a logical fallacy (poisoning the well), it the type of argument that could easily collapse when confronted with someone who doesn't meet the criteria, take someone like McCain who was so staunchly pro-war for example.

Semi-related are the anti-Bush people who were obsessed with him going AWOL, which ranks about around #1000 for reasons to oppose him and has about as much relevance to any modern day politics as the East India Tea Company. It might've been a somewhat relevant "issue" in 2000, but in 2004 it was just as dumb as if Obama's 2012 opponent decides to make their campaign largely about Jeremiah Wright.

Yep, both apply.

Also radical anti-Zionists are usually very terrible people. Even those who aren't out and out Neo-Nazis or radical Islamists sympathizers or whatever tend to have either have tinges of anti-Semitism (when they say things like "The Jews control Hollywood and the media and thus they are fully of pro-Israel propaganda"...way too common.) or simply complete conspiracy theorist nutjobs (like Truthers.)

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

I'm not a big fan of pro-choicers of the militant feminist variety, who mostly tend to only spew extreme strawmen and do as much of a disservice for their side as people like Randall Terry do for the other side.

In the run-up to the Iraq War and while it was a hot topic, I also disliked liberals who went after pro-war conservatives as "chickenhawks", not only is this a logical fallacy (poisoning the well), it the type of argument that could easily collapse when confronted with someone who doesn't meet the criteria, take someone like McCain who was so staunchly pro-war for example.

Semi-related are the anti-Bush people who were obsessed with him going AWOL, which ranks about around #1000 for reasons to oppose him and has about as much relevance to any modern day politics as the East India Tea Company. It might've been a somewhat relevant "issue" in 2000, but in 2004 it was just as dumb as if Obama's 2012 opponent decides to make their campaign largely about Jeremiah Wright.

Yep, both apply.

Also radical anti-Zionists are usually very terrible people. Even those who aren't out and out Neo-Nazis or radical Islamists sympathizers or whatever tend to have either have tinges of anti-Semitism (when they say things like "The Jews control Hollywood and the media and thus they are fully of pro-Israel propaganda"...way too common.) or simply complete conspiracy theorist nutjobs (like Truthers.)

     I have to agree with this one. I don't like the American government's strong support of Israel, but the vocal anti-Zionists are truly horrible people. The way I think about it, anti-Zionist is not the same as anti-semitic, but self-identifying as an anti-Zionist is practically the same thing as saying that you're anti-semitic.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

That's largely caused by the facts that actual anti-Semites often speak pretty raging things just using "Zionists" as a stand-in for "Jews" when it's quite obvious that's what they really mean (for example just see Mahmoud Ahmadinjad's speeches.)