For lefties only: more evil, traditional conservatives or libertarians?

[LLR]

The ones who smile when gay kids commit suicide.

In what world does this describe a significant portion of traditional conservatives?

Its something of an exaggeration, but american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc. Doesn't help that they tend to have as bad or worse attitudes about the poor as libertarians(who are often more naive as to what actually helps people then bad people)

Ya think?  Also, have you ever met any real life liberals, dude?!  Plenty of racist ones.  Or are they "socially conservative" on that issue?  LOL, GMAFB.

I never claimed that there isn't a chunk of the left that is really bad about race. But this topic isn't about the left. It's about the right. I know quite a lot of liberals, and the liberals who are regressive about race are not as bad about it as many dedicated conservatives, with some exceptions(Seth Macfarlane comes to mind). A significant chunk of republicans in office are pretty openly racist. The current republican president won partially by catering to racist sentiments.

PS: Never call me "dude".

"Dude" is not a gendered term, self-aware comedy is not harmful, and libertarians are worse than racists - they're racist and classist. Also your first statement is just completely inaccurate, don't lie about good God-fearing people.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc.

You are right, but the exact same can be said American economic conservatism. And they have been far more successful in hurting people.

I find the person who thinks that people could make their lives better if the government just stopped interfering is much better morally then a common bigot. Both create very harmful policies, but one is doing it via naivety. It doesn't help that traditional american conservatism isn't any more economically liberal then libertarianism.

The ones who smile when gay kids commit suicide.

In what world does this describe a significant portion of traditional conservatives?

Its something of an exaggeration, but american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc. Doesn't help that they tend to have as bad or worse attitudes about the poor as libertarians(who are often more naive as to what actually helps people then bad people)

Ya think?  Also, have you ever met any real life liberals, dude?!  Plenty of racist ones.  Or are they "socially conservative" on that issue?  LOL, GMAFB.

I never claimed that there isn't a chunk of the left that is really bad about race. But this topic isn't about the left. It's about the right. I know quite a lot of liberals, and the liberals who are regressive about race are not as bad about it as many dedicated conservatives, with some exceptions(Seth Macfarlane comes to mind). A significant chunk of republicans in office are pretty openly racist. The current republican president won partially by catering to racist sentiments.

PS: Never call me "dude".

"Dude" is not a gendered term, self-aware comedy is not harmful, and libertarians are worse than racists - they're racist and classist. Also your first statement is just completely inaccurate, don't lie about good God-fearing people.

Its a very sore spot for me. The word does tend to have masculine  connotations.

The ones who smile when gay kids commit suicide.

In what world does this describe a significant portion of traditional conservatives?

Its something of an exaggeration, but american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc. Doesn't help that they tend to have as bad or worse attitudes about the poor as libertarians(who are often more naive as to what actually helps people then bad people)

As someone who is a social conservative and knows many, none of what your say is true.  Please leave your hyperbole elswewhere.

The man who made up "welfare queens"(Reagan) was a traditional conservative.

[Santander]

Whatever dude.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Reagan was an American conservative, but very little about the foremost television president was "traditional."

I'm curious (as I have my own definition here) as to how you would situate a "traditional conservative" in contrast to Reaganism, and at what point this communalism becomes actual egalitarianism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The ones who smile when gay kids commit suicide.

In what world does this describe a significant portion of traditional conservatives?

Its something of an exaggeration, but american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc. Doesn't help that they tend to have as bad or worse attitudes about the poor as libertarians(who are often more naive as to what actually helps people then bad people)

Ya think?  Also, have you ever met any real life liberals, dude?!  Plenty of racist ones.  Or are they "socially conservative" on that issue?  LOL, GMAFB.

I never claimed that there isn't a chunk of the left that is really bad about race. But this topic isn't about the left. It's about the right. I know quite a lot of liberals, and the liberals who are regressive about race are not as bad about it as many dedicated conservatives, with some exceptions(Seth Macfarlane comes to mind). A significant chunk of republicans in office are pretty openly racist. The current republican president won partially by catering to racist sentiments.

PS: Never call me "dude".

"Dude" is not a gendered term, self-aware comedy is not harmful, and libertarians are worse than racists - they're racist and classist. Also your first statement is just completely inaccurate, don't lie about good God-fearing people.

     Supposing that you aren't being ironic there, the only possible response is LOL.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was an American conservative, but very little about the foremost television president was "traditional."

"Traditional" in this case clearly means "standard pretrump conservative". Learn to context(and subtext).

The ones who smile when gay kids commit suicide.

In what world does this describe a significant portion of traditional conservatives?

Its something of an exaggeration, but american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc. Doesn't help that they tend to have as bad or worse attitudes about the poor as libertarians(who are often more naive as to what actually helps people then bad people)

Ya think?  Also, have you ever met any real life liberals, dude?!  Plenty of racist ones.  Or are they "socially conservative" on that issue?  LOL, GMAFB.

I never claimed that there isn't a chunk of the left that is really bad about race. But this topic isn't about the left. It's about the right. I know quite a lot of liberals, and the liberals who are regressive about race are not as bad about it as many dedicated conservatives, with some exceptions(Seth Macfarlane comes to mind). A significant chunk of republicans in office are pretty openly racist. The current republican president won partially by catering to racist sentiments.

PS: Never call me "dude".

"Dude" is not a gendered term, self-aware comedy is not harmful, and libertarians are worse than racists - they're racist and classist. Also your first statement is just completely inaccurate, don't lie about good God-fearing people.

     Supposing that you aren't being ironic there, the only possible response is LOL.

Wow, I didn't notice that part.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Scarlet, I for one, do not believe that to be "clearly" the case, though perhaps my perspective is warped owing to classroom "experience", wherein "traditional conservative" carried with it certain connotations that are quite separate from standard fare "conservatism with liberal economics!" that comprises today right-wing orthodoxy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Reagan was an American conservative, but very little about the foremost television president was "traditional."

I'm curious (as I have my own definition here) as to how you would situate a "traditional conservative" in contrast to Reaganism, and at what point this communalism becomes actual egalitarianism.

Traditionalists are not market or technological utopians.

So we agree on that point, then.

[Antonio the Sixth]

american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc.

You are right, but the exact same can be said American economic conservatism. And they have been far more successful in hurting people.

I find the person who thinks that people could make their lives better if the government just stopped interfering is much better morally then a common bigot. Both create very harmful policies, but one is doing it via naivety. It doesn't help that traditional american conservatism isn't any more economically liberal then libertarianism.

Let's dispel with this fiction that fiscal rightists don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They adhere to Ayn Rand's vicious, hateful, egotistical ideology and want to promote a Darwinian society where only the "successful" (ie, the rich) survive. Writing it off as "naivety" is giving them far more credit than they deserve.

[mencken]

american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc.

You are right, but the exact same can be said American economic conservatism. And they have been far more successful in hurting people.

I find the person who thinks that people could make their lives better if the government just stopped interfering is much better morally then a common bigot. Both create very harmful policies, but one is doing it via naivety. It doesn't help that traditional american conservatism isn't any more economically liberal then libertarianism.

Let's dispel with this fiction that fiscal rightists don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They adhere to Ayn Rand's vicious, hateful, egotistical ideology and want to promote a Darwinian society where only the "successful" (ie, the rich) survive. Writing it off as "naivety" is giving them far more credit than they deserve.

Nah, we are more into a Lamarckian society, where those with potential become successful rather than contented with mediocrity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc.

You are right, but the exact same can be said American economic conservatism. And they have been far more successful in hurting people.

I find the person who thinks that people could make their lives better if the government just stopped interfering is much better morally then a common bigot. Both create very harmful policies, but one is doing it via naivety. It doesn't help that traditional american conservatism isn't any more economically liberal then libertarianism.

Let's dispel with this fiction that fiscal rightists don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They adhere to Ayn Rand's vicious, hateful, egotistical ideology and want to promote a Darwinian society where only the "successful" (ie, the rich) survive. Writing it off as "naivety" is giving them far more credit than they deserve.

Nah, we are more into a Lamarckian society, where those with potential become successful rather than contented with mediocrity.

Who cares. Either way, poor people get the shaft.

[mencken]

american social conservatism is built upon hurting people who are different, tends to be horribly racist, etc.

You are right, but the exact same can be said American economic conservatism. And they have been far more successful in hurting people.

I find the person who thinks that people could make their lives better if the government just stopped interfering is much better morally then a common bigot. Both create very harmful policies, but one is doing it via naivety. It doesn't help that traditional american conservatism isn't any more economically liberal then libertarianism.

Let's dispel with this fiction that fiscal rightists don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They adhere to Ayn Rand's vicious, hateful, egotistical ideology and want to promote a Darwinian society where only the "successful" (ie, the rich) survive. Writing it off as "naivety" is giving them far more credit than they deserve.

Nah, we are more into a Lamarckian society, where those with potential become successful rather than contented with mediocrity.

Who cares. Either way, poor people get the shaft.

If by "the shaft" you mean "to provide goods and services to others in exchange for an overall higher quality of living" then sure (although that's certainly a far cry from extermination which you imply). There is a reason that the net flow of poor people is invariably away from nations with more socialist economies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is a reason that the net flow of poor people is invariably away from nations with more socialist economies.

Strange, I never noticed a massive emigration of Swedish and Danish workers.

[dead0man]

Yeah, what with their commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets, free trade, school vouchers and whatnot.  Those crazy cooky socialists.

[parochial boy]

There is a reason that the net flow of poor people is invariably away from nations with more socialist economies.

There is a net flow of people from poorer to wealthier economies, it really is't useful to get into an argument about whether your average developing country is more "socialist" or "capitalist", regardless of the policies in place, seeing as most of those countries don't really have the institutional effectiveness to be one or the other in any meaningful way.

Likewise, saying that country X is poor because it is Socialist or Capitalist would be a gross oversimplification.

That and the fact people will redefine both so that they can cherry pick successful examples.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'm surprised so many people chose libertarianism as more evil. At least you can work with them on most social issues, and potentially foreign policy depending on your own views.

[dead0man]

I'm surprised so many people chose libertarianism as more evil. At least you can work with them on most social issues, and potentially foreign policy depending on your own views.

I've always had the same thought, I forget what BS answer I get.  My theory is that they fear we'll poach many of them.  There are many people only on the left because they don't hate gays, browns or drugs.  Give them a voting option that feels the same way and isn't stupid about the economy and doesn't have an irrational fear of guns and they might jump to it.

[Goldwater]

I'm surprised so many people chose libertarianism as more evil. At least you can work with them on most social issues, and potentially foreign policy depending on your own views.

I think the idea is that libertarians will be more hardline on economic issues, which many people will argue is the actual defining feature of left vs right.

[Figueira]

What is a "traditional conservative"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, what with their commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets, free trade, school vouchers and whatnot.  Those crazy cooky socialists.

He said more socialistic, not socialistic. There is no socialist country in the world right now, and arguably has never been. Scandinavia is as good an approximation as we've got.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm surprised so many people chose libertarianism as more evil. At least you can work with them on most social issues, and potentially foreign policy depending on your own views.

I've always had the same thought, I forget what BS answer I get.  My theory is that they fear we'll poach many of them.  There are many people only on the left because they don't hate gays, browns or drugs.  Give them a voting option that feels the same way and isn't stupid about the economy and doesn't have an irrational fear of guns and they might jump to it.

Actually, the American left would be in a much better shape if the people you describe weren't part of it. Of course, that would require Libertarians to stop being a joke party.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, what with their commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets, free trade, school vouchers and whatnot.  Those crazy cooky socialists.

He said more socialistic, not socialistic. There is no socialist country in the world right now, and arguably has never been. Scandinavia is as good an approximation as we've got.

Even then, Scandinavia is a social democracy.

Was Yugoslavia not socialist post-Tito, pre-1990?

[mencken]

Yeah, what with their commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets, free trade, school vouchers and whatnot.  Those crazy cooky socialists.

He said more socialistic, not socialistic. There is no socialist country in the world right now, and arguably has never been. Scandinavia Venezuela is as good an approximation as we've got.

FTFY. The Scandinavian countries are ineligible for the reasons dead0man listed.

[dead0man]

I thought it was Communism that's "arguably has never been" tried?  Has that excuse been passed down to Socialism too now?  Interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm really not interested in these semantic nitpicks anymore, but to argue that Venezuela is "socialist" is ridiculous. It's just (or was, I guess) a clientelistic petrostate with a slightly more redistributionist bent to it than most other such places.