Moderate gay conservatives?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 4:43 PM GMT
    Are there are moderate gay conservatives on this site?

    The most vocal conservatives seem to always be as radical and staunchly partisan as the liberals they constantly fight. Are there any gay conservatives that do not blindly follow libertarianism and worship Ayn Rand?

    There must be some of you out there... why are you hiding! icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 4:54 PM GMT
    Anyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered (too) "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:03 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered a "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.


    Perhaps so, but once social issues are taken out of the picture, most fiscal libertarians are still far to the right.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:37 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered a "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.


    Perhaps so, but once social issues are taken out of the picture, most fiscal libertarians are still far to the right.



    So give me an example of something you think is "too far" to the "right". So I can understand what you're meaning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:46 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    conscienti1984 said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered a "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.


    Perhaps so, but once social issues are taken out of the picture, most fiscal libertarians are still far to the right.



    So give me an example of something you think is "too far" to the "right". So I can understand what you're meaning.


    "Rich people shouldn't pay taxes because it's theft."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidAre there are moderate gay conservatives on this site?

    The most vocal conservatives seem to always be as radical and staunchly partisan as the liberals they constantly fight. Are there any gay conservatives that do not blindly follow libertarianism and worship Ayn Rand?

    There must be some of you out there... why are you hiding! icon_cry.gif


    I'm in the same boat as you. I agree with some things but not with others. And unfortunately, the far right has totally hijacked the conservative movement and turned it into a religious cult.

    In my view, government is not inherently evil; rather, it is the people in control that make it what it is. Government is most certainly needed to maintain infrastructure, provide civil and peaceful defense, regulate as needed, and represent a nation as generally as possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 6:08 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    conscienti1984 said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered a "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.


    Perhaps so, but once social issues are taken out of the picture, most fiscal libertarians are still far to the right.



    So give me an example of something you think is "too far" to the "right". So I can understand what you're meaning.


    Examples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money
    *Favoring the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy even during two wars
    *Supporting the Cut, Cap, & Balance Amendment to the Constitution making it easy to cut social programs while extremely difficult to raise taxes
    *Never compromising on fiscal issues (e.g. raising taxes coupled with spending cuts)
    *Viewing Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid as radical socialism
    *Believing that personal responsibility is the sole (or at least the main) reason why some people are rich and other people are poor
    *Supporting Social “Darwinsim”
    *Supporting the exploitation of fossil fuels for economic gain with no care for the consequences down the road
    *Gutting federal agencies like the Department of Education and the EPA
    *Voting purely based on fiscal issues with little care for the consequences to society—basically caring only about one’s personal wealth.
    *Ending reasonable regulations and/or weakening agencies like the FDA even more than it already is
    *Blindly supporting “the market” with no care for the consequences (e.g. Millions are addicted to tobacco, fatty and sugary food—information is/was suppressed concerning the dangers of these products making a few very wealthy and our country extremely unhealthy)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    mocktwinkie said
    conscienti1984 said
    mocktwinkie saidAnyone who leans libertarian, gay or not, is considered a "moderate" among the majority of traditional conservatives. That's why they never get passed primaries.


    Perhaps so, but once social issues are taken out of the picture, most fiscal libertarians are still far to the right.



    So give me an example of something you think is "too far" to the "right". So I can understand what you're meaning.


    Examples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money
    *Favoring the continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy even during two wars
    *Supporting the Cut, Cap, & Balance Amendment to the Constitution making it easy to cut social programs while extremely difficult to raise taxes
    *Never compromising on fiscal issues (e.g. raising taxes coupled with spending cuts)
    *Viewing Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid as radical socialism
    *Believing that personal responsibility is the sole (or at least the main) reason why some people are rich and other people are poor
    *Supporting Social “Darwinsim”
    *Supporting the exploitation of fossil fuels for economic gain with no care for the consequences down the road
    *Gutting federal agencies like the Department of Education and the EPA
    *Voting purely based on fiscal issues with little care for the consequences to society—basically caring only about one’s personal wealth.
    *Ending reasonable regulations and/or weakening agencies like the FDA even more than it already is
    *Blindly supporting “the market” with no care for the consequences (e.g. Millions are addicted to tobacco, fatty and sugary food—information is/was suppressed concerning the dangers of these products making a few very wealthy and our country extremely unhealthy)


    Wow there's quite a lot here to touch on. I'll do my best to address it when I feel like I have more time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Wow there's quite a lot here to touch on. I'll do my best to address it when I feel like I have more time.


    icon_razz.gif Take your time, however, I don't intend to turn this into a debate about specific issues per se.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 6:53 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidAre there are moderate gay conservatives on this site?

    The most vocal conservatives seem to always be as radical and staunchly partisan as the liberals they constantly fight. Are there any gay conservatives that do not blindly follow libertarianism and worship Ayn Rand?

    There must be some of you out there... why are you hiding! icon_cry.gif


    All the center-right moderates have been run out of the conservative movement and the Republican party.

    These people are now known as Obama administration officials.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 7:30 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidExamples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money


    Is that really that radical? Consider the inverse. Should take resources away from those who have them?

    Again with respect to that first point, if you go back to where I made the comment - I also pointed out that poor in the US are quite wealthy in absolute terms versus those who are poor in absolute terms elsewhere in the world. Should we therefore take resources away from the poor and rich in the US to give to the poorest elsewhere in the world?

    It's immoral for the simple reason that it requires coercion to take their resources for spending based on your perceived needs. Further, I think there might be more sympathy to higher taxes if there were a perception that funds as currently taxed are being spent appropriately or efficiently - do you believe that's currently the case?

    But back to the original point - is it fair to tax those who contribute most to a given society? These individuals already pay considerably more than most - in fact, if you look at the numbers the top 10% pay for well over half of the overall federal government.

    If wealth was obtained simply by taking it from others and transfers I might agree with you - but the reality is that it's created. Shouldn't services be paid for by those who use them? Is it fair that so many don't even contribute in taxes but still consume society's resources?

    Just a reminder of a Robert Heinlein quote:

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”"

    Incidentally, Google makes a point to counter what you consider radical right - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

    Given that I highly doubt most people would consider Google to be a radical right wing organization, have you considered that you may in fact be radical left?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    conscienti1984 saidExamples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money


    Is that really that radical? Consider the inverse. Should take resources away from those who have them?

    Again with respect to that first point, if you go back to where I made the comment - I also pointed out that poor in the US are quite wealthy in absolute terms versus those who are poor in absolute terms elsewhere in the world. Should we therefore take resources away from the poor and rich in the US to give to the poorest elsewhere in the world?

    It's immoral for the simple reason that it requires coercion to take their resources for spending based on your perceived needs. Further, I think there might be more sympathy to higher taxes if there were a perception that funds as currently taxed are being spent appropriately or efficiently - do you believe that's currently the case?

    But back to the original point - is it fair to tax those who contribute most to a given society? These individuals already pay considerably more than most - in fact, if you look at the numbers the top 10% pay for well over half of the overall federal government.

    If wealth was obtained simply by taking it from others and transfers I might agree with you - but the reality is that it's created. Shouldn't services be paid for by those who use them? Is it fair that so many don't even contribute in taxes but still consume society's resources?

    Just a reminder of a Robert Heinlein quote:

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”"

    Incidentally, Google makes a point to counter what you consider radical right - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

    Given that I highly doubt most people would consider Google to be a radical right wing organization, have you considered that you may in fact be radical left?


    Do you even understand what it is you linked too? Because I don't think you do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    riddler78 said
    conscienti1984 saidExamples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money


    Is that really that radical? Consider the inverse. Should take resources away from those who have them?

    Again with respect to that first point, if you go back to where I made the comment - I also pointed out that poor in the US are quite wealthy in absolute terms versus those who are poor in absolute terms elsewhere in the world. Should we therefore take resources away from the poor and rich in the US to give to the poorest elsewhere in the world?

    It's immoral for the simple reason that it requires coercion to take their resources for spending based on your perceived needs. Further, I think there might be more sympathy to higher taxes if there were a perception that funds as currently taxed are being spent appropriately or efficiently - do you believe that's currently the case?

    But back to the original point - is it fair to tax those who contribute most to a given society? These individuals already pay considerably more than most - in fact, if you look at the numbers the top 10% pay for well over half of the overall federal government.

    If wealth was obtained simply by taking it from others and transfers I might agree with you - but the reality is that it's created. Shouldn't services be paid for by those who use them? Is it fair that so many don't even contribute in taxes but still consume society's resources?

    Just a reminder of a Robert Heinlein quote:

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”"

    Incidentally, Google makes a point to counter what you consider radical right - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

    Given that I highly doubt most people would consider Google to be a radical right wing organization, have you considered that you may in fact be radical left?


    Do you even understand what it is you linked too? Because I don't think you do.


    This is why I think you often make such inept arguments and attack those on the right as if they are a cohesive group. I'm entirely opposed to SOPA and its derivatives. Your inability to actually see arguments for what they are and instead of a paint by numbers approach to ideas does you a terrible disservice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 7:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    riddler78 said
    conscienti1984 saidExamples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money


    Is that really that radical? Consider the inverse. Should take resources away from those who have them?

    Again with respect to that first point, if you go back to where I made the comment - I also pointed out that poor in the US are quite wealthy in absolute terms versus those who are poor in absolute terms elsewhere in the world. Should we therefore take resources away from the poor and rich in the US to give to the poorest elsewhere in the world?

    It's immoral for the simple reason that it requires coercion to take their resources for spending based on your perceived needs. Further, I think there might be more sympathy to higher taxes if there were a perception that funds as currently taxed are being spent appropriately or efficiently - do you believe that's currently the case?

    But back to the original point - is it fair to tax those who contribute most to a given society? These individuals already pay considerably more than most - in fact, if you look at the numbers the top 10% pay for well over half of the overall federal government.

    If wealth was obtained simply by taking it from others and transfers I might agree with you - but the reality is that it's created. Shouldn't services be paid for by those who use them? Is it fair that so many don't even contribute in taxes but still consume society's resources?

    Just a reminder of a Robert Heinlein quote:

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”"

    Incidentally, Google makes a point to counter what you consider radical right - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

    Given that I highly doubt most people would consider Google to be a radical right wing organization, have you considered that you may in fact be radical left?


    Do you even understand what it is you linked too? Because I don't think you do.


    This is why I think you often make such inept arguments and attack those on the right as if they are a cohesive group. I'm entirely opposed to SOPA and its derivatives. Your inability to actually see arguments for what they are and instead of a paint by numbers approach to ideas does you a terrible disservice.


    It's like you are making less sense on purpose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    hmmm, i'll get into this b4 it turns into a flame war. ooops, 2 late.

    free-thinkers (i.e., moderates, centrists), i think, r the actual majority of Americans. free-thinkers have the ability 2 do what is correct 4 our country, rather than behave (vote) in a reactionary manner. i tend 2 look at future consequences of my vote, rather than follow blindly.

    the major problem, as i see it, is that centrists candidates rarely make it past the primaries. thus we have the huge problems facing our nation today. those on BOTH ends of the political continuum destroyed what was once the greatest middle class in the world. this may spell the end of our representative democracy as we know it, if immediate action is not taken.

    i guess what i'm saying is that short-sighted, hate-based politics leaves us free-thinkers out in the cold. we've largely left both major parties 4 the "independent" category. or worse, we've become "disaffected non-voters" which is in itself a type of "vote." a vote of "no confidence" in either major party.

    until we free-thinkers stand up and demand an end 2 partisan politics, the future seems bleak 4 the USA.

    (these are my initial thoughts. your post brings up many things that i've been thinking about. i need give it more thought b4 i write more.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 3:56 AM GMT
    Define "moderate" with the following cartoon and the 1956 GOP platform (vs today's) in mind:

    Comproimise-GOP-Style.gif
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838#axzz1fLWfn2rd
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 4:50 AM GMT
    @q1w2e3
    -That was a great link! And isn't it funny how times have changed and the Republican Party, as of today for the most part, has gone from what it was in 1956 to the mess it is now?

    The Republican Party of 1956 was very moderate and balanced with a very respectable and progressive view on life, government, and world relations. While I don't agree with everything, it is very balanced and moderate...at least to me.

    Some great highlights from the Declaration of Faith:

    -We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

    -We hold high hopes for useful service to mankind in the power of the atom. We shall generously assist the International Atomic Energy Agency, now evolving from President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" proposal, in an effort to find ways to dedicate man's genius not to his death, but to his life.

    -We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

    -We shall continue to oppose the seating of Communist China in the United Nations.

    -We hold that the major world issue today is whether Government shall be the servant or the master of men. We hold that the Bill of Rights is the sacred foundation of personal liberty. That men are created equal needs no affirmation, but they must have equality of opportunity and protection of their civil rights under the law.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 02, 2011 6:18 AM GMT
    I consider myself a moderate gay conservative, but more of an Independent. I likely won't decide who I will vote for until very close to the election, and it will be determined by a variety of issues and how the various candidates stack up. The only candidate I could say right now that I would definitely vote for if he were nominated is Jon Huntsman. Other than that, depending on the campaign once the GOP nominee is chosen, and the debates, I could end up voting for Obama at the end of the day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 7:20 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    conscienti1984 saidExamples:
    *Stating that it's immoral to tax rich people more just because they have more money


    Is that really that radical? Consider the inverse. Should take resources away from those who have them?

    Again with respect to that first point, if you go back to where I made the comment - I also pointed out that poor in the US are quite wealthy in absolute terms versus those who are poor in absolute terms elsewhere in the world. Should we therefore take resources away from the poor and rich in the US to give to the poorest elsewhere in the world?


    This is a poor argument. It is in our country's interest to help our citizens in need lest they would create more problems without help (charities could never take over the role played by the government); it is not directly in our nation's interest to care for the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa. Secondly, we already do help poor countries even if that help is through loans. And yes, I do believe your statement is radical--I think most Americans regardless of political persuasion would feel the same. And I didn't even bring morality into the discussion.

    riddler78 said It's immoral for the simple reason that it requires coercion to take their resources for spending based on your perceived needs. Further, I think there might be more sympathy to higher taxes if there were a perception that funds as currently taxed are being spent appropriately or efficiently - do you believe that's currently the case?


    I view taxes as a membership fee to keep this country functioning properly and smoothly. Those who have benefitted most from our society should pay more--even many millionaires feel the same way. Your second point is a valid issue; however, it is a different issue. And taxes are NOT spent on MY perceived needs. We are a democratic republic--the needs of our country are decided by the voters through their representatives. Such needs are met to reduce sociological vices and failures.

    riddler78 said But back to the original point - is it fair to tax those who contribute most to a given society? These individuals already pay considerably more than most - in fact, if you look at the numbers the top 10% pay for well over half of the overall federal government.

    If wealth was obtained simply by taking it from others and transfers I might agree with you - but the reality is that it's created. Shouldn't services be paid for by those who use them? Is it fair that so many don't even contribute in taxes but still consume society's resources?


    We are discussing whether your statement is or is not radical (it's immoral to tax rich people more). I am not suggesting that the top 10% give half of their wealth in taxes. The discussion of HOW much more/less should they pay is in the gray area. And in that gray area I might suggest they pay more than what a moderate conservative would say suggest. The relevant question is would that moderate take your position or compromise in the gray area with me?

    riddler78 said Just a reminder of a Robert Heinlein quote:

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”"


    This is a straw man. I do not despise rich people simply for being rich; but they are very powerful, and some misuse that power causing great harm to hundreds of millions of families. I do not believe greed is always good. I can tell you work in finance/business--you see the world through the lens of money. Paying more in taxes would hardly stop scores of people from inventing new products/ideas or starting new businesses (Bill O'Reilly used this argument stating that he might not do his show anymore if the Bush Tax Cuts expired--bullshit). Furthermore, your premise is based on the idea that money is the sole motivator for "job creators."


    riddler78 said Incidentally, Google makes a point to counter what you consider radical right - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

    Given that I highly doubt most people would consider Google to be a radical right wing organization, have you considered that you may in fact be radical left?


    I don't see how that article has anything to do with the specific statement we are discussing. Perhaps you are referring to my comment about the free market? I do not know much about this issue and have not read the bill--however, I doubt Google is lobbying strictly on political ideology... rather they are fighting for what is best for their business. Nonetheless, my position is not that the markets should have no involvement in settling issues like this. It is all a gray area; my comment was concerning people like Ron Paul who believe the market best solves everything.

    Finally, could I be on the radical left? Perhaps, yes. There is no doubt that I am liberal. But I doubt that I am on the far left--I think most people find libertarianism to be radical, unethical, and unreasonable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    Finally, could I be on the radical left? Perhaps, yes. There is no doubt that I am liberal. But I doubt that I am on the far left--I think most people find libertarianism to be radical, unethical, and unreasonable.


    Of course you think that.

    Political ideology is like a fish eye lens. After about 5 feet in either direction, everything suddenly appears radical!!1!

    Lists like the OP made really say more about the position of the OP than about 'radical' libertarianism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    conscienti1984 said
    Finally, could I be on the radical left? Perhaps, yes. There is no doubt that I am liberal. But I doubt that I am on the far left--I think most people find libertarianism to be radical, unethical, and unreasonable.


    Of course you think that.

    Political ideology is like a fish eye lens. After about 5 feet in either direction, everything suddenly appears radical!!1!

    Lists like the OP made really say more about the position of the OP than about 'radical' libertarianism.

    Exactly. That is why I considered his thread a waste of time and not worth any substantive response, e.g. charged terms such as "blindly", "little care for".
  • austex85

    Posts: 572

    Dec 02, 2011 3:45 PM GMT
    so what is radical libertarianism? anarchy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 4:55 PM GMT
    austex85 saidso what is radical libertarianism? anarchy?


    yes, outside the US. maybe w/i the US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:04 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said

    All the center-right moderates have been run out of the conservative movement and the Republican party.

    These people are now known as Obama administration officials.


    WIN
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 9:52 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    conscienti1984 said
    Finally, could I be on the radical left? Perhaps, yes. There is no doubt that I am liberal. But I doubt that I am on the far left--I think most people find libertarianism to be radical, unethical, and unreasonable.


    Of course you think that.

    Political ideology is like a fish eye lens. After about 5 feet in either direction, everything suddenly appears radical!!1!

    Lists like the OP made really say more about the position of the OP than about 'radical' libertarianism.


    II understand and share many libertarian views, although certainly not to the same extent as someone like Ayn Rand or Ron Paul. I would even be willing to compromise with those views. I don't pretend to postulate that my political viewpoint is absolutely correct or that other viewpoints should be discarded. I believe we should have more political parties in this country.

    I don't believe CurisousJockAZ to be radica,l and he is conservative/libertarian. I believe Mocktwinkie is reasonable at heart when not involved in flame wars with people on the left. Riddler78 is a great debater and usually tactful; however, I don't believe his views are mainstream (I may be wrong). He is even a self-described contrarian. This doesn't mean he is wrong nor does it mean his views are invalid. Then there are those like southbeach who are—I believe--extremely partisan and hyperbolic; or maybe they just enjoy flame wars.

    Your descriptions of me are uncalled for--I have no problem admitting my bias. And perhaps I should amend my last statement (“I think most people find libertarianism to be radical, unethical, and unreasonable.”). I did not mean to imply that libertarianism is radical or unethical or unreasonable. (I was quite tired when I wrote that.) As for the list I made, I wanted to merely point out that there are radical libertarians... nothing more or less. It was not meant to be a litmus test nor a perfect description of radical libertarianism. I believe each person should be judged separately; some people may hold several of those views but are not necessarily radical. Some may be willing to compromise or at least sympathize with the liberal point of view. Some may be very open to altering their views or changing them completely in the face of a good counter argument. The list was a set of examples not an absolute description.

    Furthermore, the point of this thread was to see more conservatives come out of the closet--conservatives that don't believe Obama is a radical socialist intent on destroying capitalism and America (I am good friends with such a conservative). I suspect there are more conservatives on this site, and maybe they are afraid to come out because of the harassment they would receive from certain RJers.