# Discuss: In NYC, if you are not a Liberal.......



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

You must be a........" "?

I find it very annoying that people automatically assume that you are a Conservative Republican if you are not a Bush-bashing Liberal in NYC. Has anyone else had this experience?

For the record, I am a Fiscal Conservative and Social Moderate.

Knowledge is power.


----------



## chorse123 (Apr 14, 2004)

Live on Staten Island? Just kidding.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I am a fiscal and military conservative and a social moderate and I agree with your statement. However, I also have to remind myself that if you are not a Republican, you are not automatically a Bush bashing liberal. It's probable but not absolute. It kind of cuts both ways.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I go to school in NYC and I'm not a liberal. The best way to describe what I am is libertarian (with a lowercase "l"). I'm fically conservative and socially liberal on most issues, but mainly I just want the government out of my life as much as possible.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

If you think New York is bad, you might want to try San Francisco.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by arbitrage_
> 
> You must be a........" "?
> 
> ...


That's called a Republican.

A 'Conservative Republican' is more conservative than you. Usually on social(religious) issues(grounds).

Assuming you're only anti- what you consider to be _big government_ and not anti-government beyond the military you're not a libertarian.

Do you believe in or support Social Security? Dept. of Education? The IRS? The EPA? The FAA? The FBI? Federal Courts and Judges?

For me, these are easy 'no' answers.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Works both ways boys.

People automatically assume you are Democrat (or a Liberal in Canada) just because you _are _a Bush bashing liberal.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I do not think social moderation and being a Republican mix ksinc. Just my opinion there but it seems being undecided over abortion or even pro-choice, both socially moderate positions in my opinion, is not welcomed in the Republican party, period. I think social moderates would also tend to be lax on pot laws, something again that does not mix with any brand of Republican. It would seem also that homosexuality and lesbianism of any stripe is not welcome whereas I think most socially moderate people would be willing to accept less than "in your face" style alternative lifestyles. 

Warmest regards


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I do not think social moderation and being a Republican mix ksinc. Just my opinion there but it seems being undecided over abortion or even pro-choice, both socially moderate positions in my opinion, is not welcomed in the Republican party, period. I think social moderates would also tend to be lax on pot laws, something again that does not mix with any brand of Republican. It would seem also that homosexuality and lesbianism of any stripe is not welcome whereas I think most socially moderate people would be willing to accept less than "in your face" style alternative lifestyles.
> 
> Warmest regards


Maybe we need to distinguish 'being a Republican' from 'voting Republican'. I am socially moderate (if not liberal) and yet I still tend to vote Republican because of economic and philosophical factors. I would never say that I was a Republican.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> That's called a Republican.
> 
> ...


Libertarians aren't anti-government. Anarchists are anti-government. Libertarians are anti-excessive-government-involvment-in-our-lives. There is still a role for government in libertarian philosophy, but that role is that the government should only serve to mediate disputes among citizens and to provide for the common defense of citizens. The government can also serve as an adviser on issues (such as having an advisory role for the FDA) without making decisions on the part of citizens.

The Republican party, on the other hand, especially as it has been governing in the last few years, has expanded the role of government and has increased spending which citizens will have to pay for some day. For example, the Republican government has passed the PATRIOT Act, which allows the government unprecedented oversight into our lives, the Republican government has expanded the enforcement capabiliites of the FCC, the Republican government is running huge budget deficits, the Republican government has added a new Department of Homeland Security, the Republican government has increased the bureaucracy involved in immigration matters (there used to be one INS - Immigration and Naturalization Services, now there is the USCIS - United States Citizen and Immigration Service, there is ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and CBP - Customs and Border Patrol, all of which have immigration responsibilities spread among them). It's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I do not think social moderation and being a Republican mix ksinc. Just my opinion there but it seems being undecided over abortion or even pro-choice, both socially moderate positions in my opinion, is not welcomed in the Republican party, period. I think social moderates would also tend to be lax on pot laws, something again that does not mix with any brand of Republican. It would seem also that homosexuality and lesbianism of any stripe is not welcome whereas I think most socially moderate people would be willing to accept less than "in your face" style alternative lifestyles.
> 
> Warmest regards


Well, pot legalization is not 'socially moderate'. That's socially liberal.

There are pro-choice and tolerant Republicans in the ranks and even in elected positions. Cheney is tolerant and one of his daughters is a lesbian. You don't see people screaming for his head or not welcoming him. Is he not as Republican as they come? W is tolerant.

The distinction being:
Being tolerant, respectful, and not anti-gay is socially moderate.
Voting to allow gay marriage is socially liberal.
If/where gay marriage was/is legal I you find think most Republicans accept the rule of law. But when asked to vote they simply vote no. That's not an extreme or un-moderate position.

Just because someone won't wear a gay pride button doesn't make them a hater.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are confusing Federal and State Government roles in what I said. States should settle disputes between citizens. I said Federal Courts and Judges, didn't I?

Anarchists believe in abolishing government entirely. Libertarians believe in a minimal state government and a federal military. You would note I named Federal Agencies/Programs.

The rest of your point agrees entirely with what I said. Republicans are anti only what they consider Big Government or Excessive government and they feel HS and Patriot Act are not Big or Excessive, but necessary. So, you lost me there unless you meant to agree.

Obviously, since I don't support an FBI I would not support a HS either. I'm definitely not a Republican even a Conservative one. In another thread I said I registered in Florida as a Republican because I wanted to vote AGAINST GWB in the Primary in 2000 and you have to be a registered Republican to do so. I had a pretty good idea what he was about, like his father they believe strongly in a role for government.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You miss quote me my friend, I said "lax on pot laws" precisely not to say "pot legalization". The two are distinctly different.



> quote:
> There are pro-choice and tolerant Republicans in the ranks and even in elected positions.


And many usually call these people "RINOs", or Republicans In Name Only.



> quote: Cheney is tolerant and one of his daughters is a lesbian.


I do not think the sexual orientation of Dick's daughter has anything to do with this, that is rather a red herring. Just because a relative of mine was a habitual reckless speeder while driving would not mean I am tolerant of reckless driving you see.

Again ksinc, this is just my opinion, yours may vary. I base my opinion off observation over a period of years and if my conclusion differs from yours, so be it, no harm, no foul. I think what iammatt said has some merit, distinguish those that tend to vote Republican vs. those that *are* Republican. I cannot vote, being an immigrant to the US, but I always back the Repubs as it seems the Dems are always out to raise my taxes. One of the reasons I left Canada, was to avoid heavy taxation!

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Hey, you know what you would get a kick out of? You should read the Supreme Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore. It's very fascinating because the conservative justices, who normally base all of their decisions on state's rights, in that case voted against state's rights and an increased role for the federal government (and thereby guaranteeing that Bush is elected to the presidency). On the other hand, the liberal justices, who normally vote for a strong federal government, voted in favor of state's rights. Funny how nobody stuck to their original philosophies and the way that they have consistently voted so that they can vote to have their preferred candidate elected.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

iammatt, I agree with your general philosophy, but disagree with you on one thing. I AM a Republican. Conservative Republicans may consider me a RINO, but they are wrong. It's a big party, not a fringe group and I've got just as much right to the party as they. It is like the far left not accepting moderate Democrats as being in their party.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> You miss quote me my friend, I said "lax on pot laws" precisely not to say "pot legalization". The two are distinctly different.


I apologize for that.

Regards to you as well.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Hey, you know what you would get a kick out of? You should read the Supreme Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore. It's very fascinating because the conservative justices, who normally base all of their decisions on state's rights, in that case voted against state's rights and an increased role for the federal government (and thereby guaranteeing that Bush is elected to the presidency). On the other hand, the liberal justices, who normally vote for a strong federal government, voted in favor of state's rights. Funny how nobody stuck to their original philosophies and the way that they have consistently voted so that they can vote to have their preferred candidate elected.


True, that is odd. I did read it at the time. Wasn't the SCOTUS decision based on the fact that it was a Federal Election so Federal interests were superior?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

If someone calls a Republican a 'RINO' that means they are no longer a Republican? Do they keep a separate list of these 'unclean', 'tarnished' Republicas? Do they make them wear scarlet 'R's? 

I think your position loses some amount of credibility when you create your own parsing algorithms. You can't say the Republican party is not tolerant, because all the people that are Republican that are tolerant are in some separate group of RINOs.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

> quote: _Orignally posted by ksinc_
> 
> If someone calls a Republican a 'RINO' that means they are no longer a Republican?


A RINO is not considered by some conservatives to be a true Republican, which I think is a bunch of hooey. [:0]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. Per my edit.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Hey, you know what you would get a kick out of? You should read the Supreme Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore. It's very fascinating because the conservative justices, who normally base all of their decisions on state's rights, in that case voted against state's rights and an increased role for the federal government (and thereby guaranteeing that Bush is elected to the presidency). On the other hand, the liberal justices, who normally vote for a strong federal government, voted in favor of state's rights. Funny how nobody stuck to their original philosophies and the way that they have consistently voted so that they can vote to have their preferred candidate elected.


This is an argument I have with people all of the time.

I would submit that O'Connor and (somewhat) Kennedy were true to their convictions. O'Connor was constantly on the side of what she thought was the right decision for the country. She had no judicial philosophy. I would bet that she voted for Bush twice: once inthe general when she thought he was the best choice, and again in SCOTUS when she still thought he was the best choice. Kennedy can be tarred with the same brush, but a bit less so.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> iammatt, I agree with your general philosophy, but disagree with you on one thing. I AM a Republican. Conservative Republicans may consider me a RINO, but they are wrong. It's a big party, not a fringe group and I've got just as much right to the party as they. It is like the far left not accepting moderate Democrats as being in their party.


I hear you and agree that there is room for a lot of different republicans. I just do not see myself as part of the team. I will happily vote for whomever I agree with.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe so, but the SCOTUS justices weren't supposed to be voting on who they thought was the best choice - they were supposed to be interpreting the constitution and the law and applying it in an impartial manner.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree with you completely. I just reject the idea that O'conner (since deified) actually ever interpreted or applied law. She made a career of dictating what she thought was right from the bench.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Why does the republican or democratic party get to decide who's conservitive? I'm for gay marriage, for choice in abortions, and agianst churches getting involved in government. That automatically makes me a flaming liberal democrat, right? 
But I'm for gay marriage and for choice only because I think the government should leave people the hell alone. I actually thing that abortion is a horrible thing and wish that it didn't have a place in society, but I don't think it's my job to decide that. I think churches shoudl stay out of government for the same reason that government should stay out of churches, it's just not right to mix up the two up, let your faith guide you but don't let preachers tell people how to vote. 
I'm certanly a financial conservative, but I support some level of social services and I'm a big fan of public education even if I don't like how it's done some times. 
So people will decide for me where I fit and label me. Decide for me where they think I should vote because of certain issues that I speak out on. Even worse, corrupt a party that I really believed in 15 years ago but now isn't even hardly a shell of what it once was. 
Why do people get sucked into the labels, why do we have to be with one group or another and why do people love to pigeon hole us. 

Ok, go on, tell me what I am and how I vote. Even better tell me why.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I find NYC to be fairly accepting of varying political views. There is certainly some party hating in the streets, but most people I have encountered are pretty reasonably willing to discuss opposing viewpoints in a civil manner (without demonizing the other side).


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

Where are these "accepting" people you refer to? I have yet to encounter them. Then again, I work next to that bastion of conservatism, Columbia U. You are either a Liberal or the Devil around here, with no middle ground. 

Polishing my horns as we speak.

Knowledge is power.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I refuse to talk politics here in NW Conn. The discussion immediately cleaves into the two usual shrill camps - complete with empty rhetoric and a total lack of thought.

Hence my interest in the more bizarre conspiracy theories. There's nothing like bringing up the Lizard People or opining that Bush and Kerry were censured by the Knights Templar at a top-secret meeting in a bat cave in Malta to get me away from the screechers and over to the sane corner where people talk baseball, fishing, gardening, clothes, movies...


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

It may be interesting to ask how people fall with respect to the federal government as opposed to the state governments. For example, 
______________________Fed_______________State
Government Size______small______________vote on it
Abortion________can't regulate__________voters can allow or disallow
social services_______none______________voters can do whatever
gay marriage____can't regulate__________vote on it
religion_________no establishment_______vote on it
everything else___see Constitution______see Constitution, then vote on it.

CT

Sorry about the underscores. This forum treats whitespace oddly.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ksinc, I thought we Republicans wanted the government to follow the Constitution. The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to establish federal courts. While only naming the Supreme Court in the Constitution, the Framers enumerated in Congress the power to establish the federal judiciary. Maybe you would just like to see a smaller federal judiciary.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, as a libertarian, I was explaining the distinction between a libertarian and a Republican - even a 'limited government one'.

Yes, I agree that Republicans support Federal courts. I was saying that to be a libertarian you would need to say "no" - as I do - to those federal entities and agencies. IMHO, of course. Some people seem to think it is 'in fashion' to claim to be libertarians when they are really just Republicans with wider viewpoints then they think Republicans are allowed to have. As a previous poster said, Republican means a lot of things and it's a big tent.

I describe myself as libertarian. I don't support the existence of any of the entities I listed (FBI, IRS, EPA, Federal Courts, Dept of Education, etc.). Although I accept and embrace them as the laws of society and obey their mandates, I would certainly vote to abolish them.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear. Or maybe it was and now I'm confused by your post. Hey, I'm in the middle of taxes and my mind is going ... Another reason I *hate* 'the man' [}]


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> If you think New York is bad, you might want to try San Francisco.


Did you happen to catch the South Park a few weeks ago entitled "Smug Alert"? If not, I think you should find a way to see it, it was hilarious. Quite a bit took place in San Francisco.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Well, at least we can conclusively say that neither Republicans nor Democrats 'blindly follow' the US Constitution. [8]


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I refuse to talk politics there as well.....although the folks I run into are probably more in line with how I think I am never willing to risk it... a very conservative area.

I do find that even people I talk that support a different party than I do really do not think all that differently, it is very interesting...our biggest problem is that our political party works badly and badmouthing, although successful for one party is not a pretty thing.



> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I refuse to talk politics here in NW Conn. The discussion immediately cleaves into the two usual shrill camps - complete with empty rhetoric and a total lack of thought.
> 
> Hence my interest in the more bizarre conspiracy theories. There's nothing like bringing up the Lizard People or opining that Bush and Kerry were censured by the Knights Templar at a top-secret meeting in a bat cave in Malta to get me away from the screechers and over to the sane corner where people talk baseball, fishing, gardening, clothes, movies...


guit


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL... these days I've figured out that when it comes to politics the grading system for most people mirrors your evaluation of those on the freeway.

Those driving 10MPH faster are maniacs, those driving 10MPH slower are Morons.

Here the grading system is different.

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I refuse to talk politics here in NW Conn. The discussion immediately cleaves into the two usual shrill camps - complete with empty rhetoric and a total lack of thought.
> 
> Hence my interest in the more bizarre conspiracy theories. There's nothing like bringing up the Lizard People or opining that Bush and Kerry were censured by the Knights Templar at a top-secret meeting in a bat cave in Malta to get me away from the screechers and over to the sane corner where people talk baseball, fishing, gardening, clothes, movies...


You should check out the book "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson. I think you would find it very interesting.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just downloaded it. Hilarious and frighteningly accurate.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> You should check out the book "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson. I think you would find it very interesting.


That's where I found out about the Lizard People in the first place!

It's very amusing. David Icke, the English football star who dropped out of sight after retiring, only to reappear with this rather novel worldview, was invited to speak by the Aryan Nation (Ronson recounts).

They figured he was solid on the Zionist conspiracy, ZOG, all that stuff.

But once he started in with the otherworldly reptile material they shut him down. "No, man, you can't say that stuff here. We may be nuts, but that's crazy!"

It takes a serious level of derangement to put the freak on a bunch of armed neo-Nazis living in Quonset huts in Idaho. []


----------



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

It is hard living on the Upper West Side, especially when seeing those "Another West Sider for Hillary" buttons. Makes me wish I was packing my Colt Model 1911 .45 ACP w/ extra capacity magazine. Ball Ammo.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I seriously think that that book is one of the best books ever written and that anybody who hasn't read it is missing out on something very entertaining and informative, with a touch of humor all at the same time.

I also regularly drive home from my girlfriend's house after midnight and I always listen to Coast to Coast AM. I figure that about 95% of what they say on there is pure and utter bulls**t. But, I think that the fact that about 5% of it may actually be true is really fascinating. I love that stuff - nanotechnology, Lizard People, the Knights Templar, the Gospel of Judas, UFOs and alien abductions, remote viewing, astral and time travel.

I know, it sounds kind of crazy, but if you change the station to all the talking political heads - be they liberal or conservative - about 95% of what they say is bulls**t too and the stuff about aliens, microscopic chips sewn into the threads of our jeans, big foot and the New World Order are a lot more interesting.


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Long before Mr. Icke bumped his head and got the notion of lizard people . . . in fact, before any of Mr. Ronson's subject extremist personalities were showing us their visions, two editors, Shea and Wilson, at Playboy Magazine were busy having the same type of fun as Mr. Ronson. Shea and Wilson authored three books that ultimately were complied into a trilogy.

Grab a copy of the _The Illuminatus! Trilogy_ and be prepared to have some *seriously* fun reading on all of the above. These authors were having great fun in 1969 with the various subjects.

Here's a copy of the trilogy's HB dust jacket. I see it on remainder tables from time to time. Certainly it's available on Amazon or eBay.


____________________________________________


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

to respond to some of the above posts:

New York is very democratic, but by and large votes in some fairly moderate people: hilary, bloomberg, guiliani, etc.

San Francisco is a whole different story: they don't even bother to run republicans. Just let the green party and the democrats hash it out.

Bush v. Gore is probably the worst reasoned supreme court decision of all time. It makes Roe v. Wade look like judicial brilliance and the more you know about con law, the worse the decision reads. But after 9/11 people mostly forgot about it. I have to say I am very glad the two didn't occur together. Could you imagine 9/11 happening in the middle of all of that? Not knowing who the next president was going to be and us being attacked?

Oh, and the Illuminatus! trilogy is great fun. Beware though, like pretty much every book written in the last 50 years there is a great deal of sex in it.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Full Canvas_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One of my favorite set of books ever. I actually recommended them to Patrick a couple of weeks ago. He emailed me to tell me he's been reading them and enjoying them immensely (as I was sure he would).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------

