Talk Elections

Anything come to mind? For me one of the most obvious would be marijuana. There's few things more annoying than 'drug culture' or smoking in general for me.

You mean people like PETA that you want to beat the crap of or Julian Assange who might be a rapist?

Hmmmm... I guess people who passionately oppose gun control are people I agree with and think can be funny, but I think are ridiculous Dale Gribble-like stereotypes for the most part.

...and for the strangest reason, it might be harder to get laid by a pro-choice girl than a pro-life one. Which doesn't bode well for me.

...and I have noticed that I generally get along better with people who have value systems that I find unacceptable....though I have been working harder on preventing that. lol.

Crazy pro-life bombers. Also, Palin supporters, we agree on the issues but they have serious issues that push people away.

Gun control. Most gun owners annoy me and are part of a culture that I don't really understand even though I've lived in a bastion of it my whole life.

I'm a center-leftist/leftist stereotype so I have no issues with my side. I guess anti-zionists can be annoying and I'm somewhat of an anti-zionist.

Libertarians tend to be highly susceptible to every batsh**t conspiracy theory known to man, so probably that.

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.

^^^^
This.

Radical pro-lifers are second place.  I mean talk about a divisive issues jeez.  I am also embarrassed by some of the more radical anti-zionists who sound all out anti-semitic and somehow relate everything back to Jews Zionists controlling everything in the world.  Yeah.

Abortion clinic-bombing pro-lifers is the easy first answer. I also dislike those who are better described as anti-choice rather than pro-life and take the stance for all the wrong reasons. Similarly, anyone who has a socially conservative stance on an issue only because of religious beliefs really irritates me.

I would have put that down but that's too obvious/safe.

Same. Oddly probably my most socially conservative phase was when I was a firm atheist.

Yes, yes and yes.

(which is why I wonder why so many "libertarians" pine for the days of Ziggy and Libtard who fit at least two of those to a T...they both LOVED the conspiracy and hated da Joos)

This accurately sums up what I said above. So it seems like both sides on abortion hate many on their own side (not a surprise really.)

Nanny statism by Labor is even worse than the Coalition were. Overall, I'd take 5 Gillards over 1 Howard...but I do wish governments of both stripes would treat Australian adults as adults.

Drug legalization. Tends to attract stoner embarassments and makes people unfairly blur the line between people who support drug legalization and people who support (or engage in) drug use. Irritates me more than anything.

Much like Wormy, I find myself incredibly annoyed by deep-end libertarians who believe whatever conspiracy theory the tabloids have plastered on the front page that particular day. Likewise, libertarians on the furthest end of the political matrix who call everyone who dares to disagree with them in the slightest a "fascist" can get hurled out of an airplane and land ass-first on a pine tree.

I dislike hacks of any sort, particularly in France where there are a lot on both sides. On economic issues, there are a lot of people "on my side" who know nothing and don't give a sh*t about economy, an that's particularly saddening.

those who use opposition to Iraq war to view Saddam Hussein as being decent

Radical neocons who think its ok to invade countries under false pretexts (looking at you Cheney and Rumsfeld)

Especially when pro-choicers get into arguments on why you are supposed to be pro-choice. Once I saw this argument between those who claimed that they were "pro-choice" because no one could prove that a fetus was a person and therefore it was just a way to make new people up to take away the liberty of people who in fact exist and those who were "pro-choice" because though they believed a fetus was a person, they didn't believe in forcing those beliefs on others. So, its really a debate on whether its a straight bioethical debate or constitutional debate.



On the other hand, "pro-lifers" the honest debate amongst them is that there are those who think that abortion is THE SAME as homicide and should be prosecuted as such and those who are "pro-life" who beleive that "killing babies" was irresponsible and that the state's interest in preventing or punishing abortion should be to perserve chasity and marriage by making it so that when people have sex, they would eventually have to stop having sex and raise a child instead....or else go to prision. So, basically  "pro-lifers" are torn on whether abortion is a violent crime or a drug/sex crime or both or neither.

I dislike the SWP a great deal.

Greenpeace, and their kin.

There are issues on which I am in agreement with but also embarrassed by the other stances and beliefs of some Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, socialists, capitalists, secularists, feminists, unionists, pro-gun types, and drug legalization activists. I do not think there are people who are in full or nearly-full agreement with me across the board though. Among the ones who come the closest, my biggest beef tends to be how much disrespect they show for those across the isle.

A lot of death penalty opponents arguments about how only 'barbaric' societies still have the death penalty (because japan, south korea, etc. are medieval hell holes obviously) and implication that only bloodthirsty HP would want such a thing bother me.

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.

It's not a bad argument....though trying to accuse dp (dp...hehe) proponents of having some sort of moral defect isn't the way to go. The point here is that the United States needs to be a leader, not a follower in the world.

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. 

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.

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.

All of them.

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

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.

:)

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.

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.

A largely mythical concept.

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

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. 

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.

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"

* 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."

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

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

That's what you call a conservative, right?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Its funny alot of people have talked about the anti-zionist whom they disagree with, im the other way i tend to despise the pro Israel people, which i am. Mostly the fundies who support Israel, i just dint find their support to be genuine. In that i mean they support Israel not for the fact that the Jewish people have a right to have their own homeland,which is my opinion that is to long to discuss and would side track this discussion.  However, their end is to further their own biblical prophecies which dictate those that they supposedly support are doomed upon the realization of said prophecies.

The other group that i am part of but disagree with, though not necessarily political but becoming more so, are the ex- insert lifestyle choice. For instance i was skinny then i got a little fat during undergrad and i am now back in shape. Also, i quit smoking cigs. These groups along with other who fit this description are so sanctimonious. Now that they dint have this bad habits anybody who does should be admonished and condemned.  Though not a part of the groups i am a part of born agains of any stripe are also like this. It just pisses me off that people who until recently act the same way as those they are condoning think its okay to admonish those who still act like they previously did. I just cant wrap my mind around that thought process.

*Capital punishment and immigration because I tend to disagree on everything else with the people I agree with on these issues.
*American Nationalists who believe the US has some sort of divine mandate to rule the world or something like that. I tend to vehemently oppose withdrawal from conflicts once we are in them (though I don't necessarily support getting involved to begin with). But it seems like some of the people I agree with on this can become quite absurd in their pro-America thinking.
*Cultural conservatives who will only support politicians with perfect ideological authority with no regard to their ability to actually get elected or govern (ex. supporters of Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Michele Bachmann- wow... it's weird that they're all women).

Anti-Gay Marriage people, annoy me although I vehemently oppose gay marriage.

This thread has produced some magnificent poetry.

Nanny statism by Labor
is even worse than
The Coalition were.
Overally, I'd take 5 Gillards over 1 Howard...but
I do wish governments
of both stripes
would treat Australian adults
as adults.

Crazy pro-life bombers.
Also,
Palin supporters,
we agree on the issues
but they
have serious issues
that push
people
away.

Anti-Gay
Marriage
people,
annoy me
although I
vehemently
oppose
gay marriage.

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

He's kind of
our own little Mousilini
or Nasser
or a corpratist Ataturk.