Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Republicans seem to embody rapist mentality

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 25, 2012, 4:54 a.m. EST by matoinyanawacis (157)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Now before people lose their mind at the wording, people better look at the motivation behind the republican party's extreme behavior in regards to their consistent tendency to interject themselves into women's biology. McDonnell is only the most visible of late to show their true colors. Define a rapist...a rapist is a person bent on exerting control over another human being, against that persons will, with the intent to garner results beneficial to the one exerting the control... doing it for sexual gratification is not the only definition of rape. To put it bluntly... G.O.P. seems to have a new meaning of late with the extents that the party has gone to to interject itself into the private parts of women in America. G.O.P. seems to mean "The Gestapo of P**sy. I apologize if that sounds vulgar, but as far as I am concerned, the Republican party has way overstepped their bounds. And another thing for the pro-life extremists... get a clue, LIFE has a very specific meaning. For life to be truly considered life.. it has to be able to support that life, by breathing, beating heart and a few other biological necessities, all on its own. If an alleged life is WHOLLY dependent upon the biological life of another to exist, than it is not life, it is a by definition, and don't be offended, a parasite. Only parasites require the life of another being to maintain its existence. Once a living being is capable of breathing on its own, maintain its own heart beat to circulate its life carrying fluids to maintain the viability of its own flesh, excrete its own waste to remove toxins from its own flesh, then and only then is it considered a living being in its own right. Therefore for those rather undereducated individuals who seem to view a fertilized human ovum as being defined as a living being, they need to go back to school... and I don't mean some brainwashing institution of religious learning, I mean take a biology course to reeducate themselves about how procreation really works. A lot of uneducated people seem to forget that for 9 months, the gestation period of a typical human being, a baby is wholly dependent upon the life of the mother to exist. She dies, the baby dies unless it is capable of breathing on its own...etcetc... To close... NO MAN has the right to dictate to a woman that she HAS to bear a child. That DECISION is hers and hers alone. It is her body that will suffer the ravages of carrying said child, no one else. If she chooses to bear it, so be it, if she chooses not to, sad, but again her choice and so be it. The Republican Party is causing its own demise in this narrative and they are going to find that the vast majority of Americans are not going to put up with this violation of their personal space for very much longer.

112 Comments

112 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

The GOP's war on women is a reactionary response to lack of control over women , and they wish to turn the clock back to 1952.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the gop is not at war with women.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@B76RT: That's easy to say, but the facts dispute you, "facts are pesky things" Ronald Reagan's infamous quote.

GOP Anti-choice.

GOP Anti-Contraception.

GOP If you can limit a women's ability to control her reproduction you will erode women in college, in the work force and make them dependent on men.

That all equals a war on women.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Pay for your own damn contraception if you want it. Or buy it for your sweetie and keep your penis where it belongs If she isn't protected. Animals.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Kirby: That's what medical insurance is for, otherwise why buy it.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

they are not anti contraception, or anti choice. They are against forcing the catholic church to against its teachings, obliterating the 1st ammendment. women can practice birth control on their own. really how much does a box of condoms cost? if they are paying for college they can pay for their own birth control.

[-] 0 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

PTI, but if I may, I'd like to repeat what's been written elsewhere regarding this issue of 1st Ammendment rights: The Catholic Church put itself into public service arena. Their entities (hospitals, colleges and universities, etc.) hire people of all faiths and quite possibly those of no faith. Being subject to governmental requirements comes with delving onto the secular turf, as I see it.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@skylar: What if Jehovah's Witnesses open a hospital, would their employees get medical insurance that didn't cover blood transfusions.

Christian Scientists open a hospital, employees would get a prayer book for medical insurance.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

why don't you ask them?

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@skylar: Very intelligent reply, not, didn't have anything to offer did you. lol

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you asked me about jehovahs witnesses and christian scientists, i don't know anything about them, so i told you to ask THEM. you denigrate me for telling the truth. you're the one lacking brains.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@skylar You where being sarcastic pure and simple, because you had nothing to offer. So that is that.

There are to many reference sources to say you know nothing about anything.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

no sarcasm,........you have a question ask people that know about the subject. I dont.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I notice Breadwinner didn't respond. That's how it always is. When proven wrong they just go all mushy inside and run away, only to come back and spew the same lies all over again the moment your back is turned. That's Republican honor.

[-] -1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Reply to which? I have replied to everything that has popped on my screen.

[-] -3 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

You have alot to learn if you think it's just the GOP against anyone. The Dems are no less guilty.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Haven't been paying attention to the "debates"?

The GOP is MUCH guiltier.

BIG government all the way up until a Democrat gets in the White House.

Then they suddenly become all about small government.

Last time it was because they broke it.

Bush even kicked the Post office on the way out the door.

Kinda like kicking the dog, because it all crashed on his watch.

[-] -1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

I agree with you but guess what., government hasn't gotten any smaller since a Dem was elected so agian, if your on one side or the other, your accepting the current system.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Actually, is has.

On the other hand, it's gotten HUGE and personally invasive under the (R)s.

That's correct, even under that hater of government Reagan.

Repellent, isn't it?

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Breadwinner: Can you back up that assertion.

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Are you honestly suggesting that you don't think the Dems are any less guilty of doing the same things?

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Breadwinner Well you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claim, so that is that.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I have to agree! I mean, What does it say about the Republican Party when their Chief Spokesmen is a drug addicted degenerate who thinks it’s Ok to defame a defenseless College Girl.? Does Rush really believe he’s going to get away with this outrage?

Who is going to defend him? What Self Respecting, Red Blooded, American Woman (which apparently excludes all conservative women) can support a Multi-Millionaire with the power of a Nationwide Radio show, who doesn’t just slander a hard working American Co-Ed, but goes on to call 99% of American Women Sluts?

What Red Blooded American man can accept such behavior? What man can stand silently by while his wife is being called a slut by a drug addict? That might be Ok with Callista, but I can tell you right now, my God Fearing Wife is offended! As are my two daughters, and all the other women in my family! Rush has got to go!

Rush has become Pornographic! He has no “Redeeming Social Value!” He’s a scab on the body politic! Why does anyone condone his ravings? Has the Republican Party lost all sense of Decency! The silence on the Right is more than deafening, it’s disgusting! If you can’t find a place in your Christian Heart to defend a young American woman who’s being verbally raped by a millionaire, something is wrong with your heart.

Rush should be fired, and he should be fired now! Everybody in America has the right to Freedom of Speech. Nobody has the right to have a Radio Show! That is a privilege! A privilege Rush Limbaugh should have lost a long time ago.

[-] 2 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Its nice to know there are other men out there who understand the concept of common decency. Most don't understand why the GOP is treating women like this, but the matter is simple if you look at it the right way... what is the most important thing to the GOP right now...power, "Taking" the white house... and the congress... and the house of representatives.... and all the state capitols... in other words, a hostile takeover... and what better way to supposedly do within the "alleged" law.. disenfranchise voters from being unable to repeal their corrupt bills and laws,... they have managed to make minorities lose the greater portion of their rights by turning them into felons, and now of late this new photo ID crap... but women are still the majority voting block in this nation. How do you nullify that voting strength... I know, you make even the most minor of health decisions a woman may make a crime, thereby she becomes a felon.... Wahlah.. the majority voting block is shrunk. I simply don't understand why no one can see or deduce why the GOP does what it does.. Power. Money. Control. The Rich want to return to the good ole days of Aristocracy, where they control life and death of the peasants.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Republicans pledged to "show the constitutional justification of every bill" when they were elected in 2010. The first thing they worked on were the Defense of Marriage" and re instituting "Don't ask Don't Tell" neither of which have a constitutional justification.

The Democrats hide behind altruistic endeavors and line their pockets and the pockets of the friends.

I tend to agree with Democrats on social issues and Republicans on fiscal issues. I don't agree with either on defense spending, the greatest excuse for spending. Scare the people into spending trillions on blowing things up.

That is why I wish there were a third party that had a chance in hell to knock these two parties down.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Besides the Tea Party, who want to slash and burn, cut no matter who will feel the pain, Republicans are just as colpable when it comes to lining the pockets of the ones who got them in office. I believe nothing has changed from the times of political patronage from back in the day. After all, trickle down economics is the ultimate form of pocket lining. But i do agree, I would love to see a third perspective in the two houses. One that is looking out for the average American and is not in it for the graft.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Totally agree, though repub fiscal priorities tend to be far to spartan to the financially challenged and far to extravagantly indulgent to those already swimming in financial freedom. When their are those who make billions in profits by dipping in my wallet and then also get billions from me by subsidizing my taxes, I find such inequality not only unfair, but what some would call evil.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"I tend to agree with.....Republicans on fiscal issues."
Excuding the glut of military spending, the Rs major fiscal plans are
lower corporate tax
no capital gains tax
no inheritance tax
cut social security
cut medicare
cut medicaid
[I know I'm simplifying]
Which of these do you agree with?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

none

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

inheritance tax should not be necessary

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I agree with: lower corporate tax

leave capital gains where they are

cut social security (raise retirement age)

cut medicare (raise retirement age)

don't touch medicaid

I simplified as well

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I disagree about cap gains - if I buy $1000 of stock and sell it to you for $2000, why should I be taxed more than someone who works for it. Please acknowledge that MY sale does not benefit the country or the company. so why?
How does lowering GE's tax below zero make sense? How about an AMT for corporations? (sort of) agree with YOUR others - not Rs

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are mixing things.

GE paid no taxes because of loopholes. I did not say we should not close loopholes. If GE made money in the US it should pay taxes in the US.

The reason I would not raise the capital gains tax is because the last time it was done the revenue from the tax went down. When it was lowered (three times during Clinton and Bush) the revenue from the tax went up. It turns out that when the tax was lowered people traded more and the revenue went up. I would not raise the rate in the interest of "fairness" that is just silly.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

JoeTheFarmer:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

The Act made significant changes in several areas of the US Internal Revenue Code, including income tax rates, estate and gift tax exclusions, and qualified and retirement plan rules. In general, the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement and qualified plan rules such as for Individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans, 403(b), and pension plans. The changes were so large and numerous that many books and analysis papers were published regarding the changes and how to best take advantage of them. All the 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010 when Congress extended them.

Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.

So much for Republican Economics, the highest DEFICIT since WWII.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JoeTheFarmer: What are the sources for your opinions.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. If you were not spending trillion on wars, bailouts, and hand outs to both corporations and individuals we would not have the highest deficit since WWII (another war)

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JoeTheFarmer: No facts or rebuttal to my post. Just your opinion which is not backed up by the evidence I presented.

You have nothing to offer this discussion, goodbye.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Here's my idea on cap gains- AND FAIRNESS does matter. "Normal" stock trades taxed as income - all it is is a gamble - like Las Vegas - it does America & the company no good at all The new computerized near instant buy-sell trades that can wreck havoc should have an extra tax - yes to slow it down
I would create a new kind of "trade"
If company C sells shares ( primary or secondary ) to person P with a legal commitment to spend the raised money on hiring or building or spending in America, when person P sells to person Q, there is NO cap gains tax This would help BOTH the company & the country.


FYI - I'm listning to CNBC - a guy was saying he would have no objection to equating cap gains tax rates to income tax rates - you may have heard of him
I dont think he's a novice - Warren Buffet

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Fairness does not matter in this case.

The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. That is it. That is all. There is no other reason for taxes. The purpose is not and should not be to make things "fair".

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JoeTheFarmer: Its the way the State raises taxes that is at issue, not the fact that there are taxes.

[-] -2 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," says Obama.

[-] 6 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I may not agree with Obama on many issues but let's not spin the story here.

That quote is actually a misrepresentation of the text from his book. He was talking to American citizens in Muslim communities in his state of Illinois after 9/11. He was calming their fears concerning what happened to the Japanese in this country after Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941.

Here is the actual text from the book:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

How dare you -
put truth in front of a liar

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

This is the first sign of reason, and a willingness to sway from established dogma, from someone not on the left that I have seen on this forum in I don't know how long. I'm stupified.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am glad you worded that correctly. While I do not consider myself on the left I also do not consider myself on the right. Many here assume I must be.

I simply look for truth and facts. Sometimes I am called a right winger for it and sometime I am called a liberal. I try to look at each issue with an open mind. It is often hard for people to look at things without pre conceived notions.

I have been seeing this quote from Obama all week and knew there must be something more to it. I found the text of the book and when you put it into context it makes sense. After Pearl Harbor FDR issued an executive order allowing Japanese in America to be rounded up and placed in internment camps. The folks in Muslim areas of Illinois were hearing about this. It was the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thanks for that Joe.

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Reality 101 How it works!

We take turns getting you down and the other party holds you that way while the "opposing" party members heat theirs members red hot prior to breaking them off in you.

We all have enough of YOUR money to buy brand new better ones to continue breaking off in you repeatedly!

Oh yeah, it's just the republicans that do the raping! ;-)

[-] 2 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Enlighten me...what proportion of the DEMOCRATIC party in relation to the Republican menace is ACTUALLY endorsing the single minded attack on women's rights to their own person...you know, their health, their right to choose whether they want to be a brood cow, etcetc....! What proportion of the DEMOCRATIC party in relation to the Republican menace is focusing their efforts on making the poor even more poor, especially women, and women with CHILDREN, the one thing the Republican menace is trying to get women to be forced to make more of...children that is. I don't see one good Goddn job being CREATED by this masoginistic patriarchial attack on womens rights to decide the course of their own life. This is not the Fg middle ages. Women are not your chattel. They are not your property. They are A MAN'S caring obligation. They are the origins of life, not a man's sperm incubator. In exchange for her carrying and nurturing the continuation of our species, it is mans obligatory responsibility to protect and provide sustenance and shelter for a woman while she protects and provides sustenance to the continuation of our species. That does not mean man thereby owns her. Any moron who manages to garner such a misconception about his role as protector and provider really needs to have his genes removed from the overall gene pool. A woman's responsibility for the continuation of our species is hers and hers alone, and NO MAN, I repeat, NO MAN!!, has any right to override a woman's choice with his own. She is the one to suffer the ravages of childbirth, of nurturing any such child and likely to be forced to rear that child alone, considering the general mentality of men who believe that its a woman's job to deal with the child. Men just want their beer and sports...with the basic line of "keep those brats out of my face, I watching the game Goddnit... get me another beer woman!" and then proceed to scratch their balls. Oh.. and before you get the misguided impression that a woman is writing this... think again. I am a Native American Male who actually has a decent understanding of what the meaning of life is really about and how balance in nature is required for life to have any meaning. In conclusion, per your rhetoric, you and the Democrats, much less Jesus himself, have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common. Of course, I'm sure you'll use the tired excuse of all bully's, racists and masoginists... "hey, don't you recognize I was only joking" or "you took what I said out of context". To that I say.. "Go join some middle eastern Muslim tribe or some republican enclave...there's not much difference." The present day GOP are espousing the belief's and manners of the current day and past day mentality and behavior of the most devout anti-woman and anti-free thought Muslim beliefs of any backwards middle eastern nation. To finish, Democrats are not the ones who are espousing Anti-American values and beliefs... that distinction is the Republican party's all alone to date..and if you are to blind to know the difference.. do humanity a favor.. please do not have any children. Because such hateful and masoginistic rhetoric as you espoused in just a few short sentences proves that you are Anti-life, Anti-choice and worse yet, Anti-Intelligence. Any child who would be exposed to such ideologies would be so severely mentally and emotionally damaged that they would virtually be soulless, and would spend its days going from one act of violence to another until it died its own savagery. That's right, it wouldn't even qualify to be called an animal. Animals live in balance and harmony with their environment. No the child would be what most humans are defined as... viruses. They consume, destroy and deplete all available resources and then move on to consume, destroy and deplete all the available resources in the next line of their path. The vast majority of humans only qualify for parasite status. They feed off the life around them til they have killed the host, then they move on to the next host. At the rate that these particular humans are depleting Mother Earth and fouling her remaining resources, it won't be long before carbon based lifeforms won't be able to survive on Mother Earth. Mother Earth will always continue, the fleas on her back won't. Get ready friends, She's about to scratch...She just scratched herself along the midwest and east coast... but She is by no means done scratching. I hope you are ready for your next journey...oh that's right.. you probably believe in that religious tripe of heaven and hell... oh well, then I guess you need to prepare to burn for eternity for the harm you have done others, and failed to recognize the wrong you have done in life. If I recall my religious studies, Jesus knows and hears your heart, not your words and prearranged actions...you know pretend good deeds. In any event, have a good life, Wastealo, Mitakuye Oyasin Gopa ognamawani

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

No, that seems to be your definition... My definition is the "act of taking anything from anyone without their willing consent. Whether through violence, or through any devious or corrupt methods designed to garner power over anothers life, property or body. By subjecting women to mens definition of what constitutes personal health care for women, the GOP has proven that they are forcing women to "THEIR WILL". Far as I can tell, that when a man forces a woman against her will, that is rape. So again what is your definition.... oh let me guess you're another satirist... or is it a masogonistic sadist. Who can tell nowadays

[-] 0 points by PriusLover (-2) 2 years ago

I am Pro choice but your comments are extremely offensive. By your definition, if during the birth process, someone in the room doesn't like the color of the "Parasites" eyes, there is nothing wrong with crushing is't skull and throwing away the bio-hazard? I agree that no one has the right to force a woman to carry a child to full term but that is based on her beliefs, not yours or anyone elses. The parasites you describe can and easly do survive even several month early so do not pretend that life begins at birth. For any parent that has seen the ultrasound of thier "Child" in utero, there is no other conclusion to that mother, than that she is carrying a human life. Now, if she chooses to terminate it, for her own reasons, that is between her and her god, if she so believes.

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Wow, I'm not sure where or when I said that a child born into the world...Able to breathe on its own, beat its own heart...etcetc.. qualified as a parasite to be disposed of because of the color of its eyes, let alone even remotely came close to inferring such a child should be so spartanized, but if that is what you got out of what I wrote, then either you read it wrong or you are just unable to really translate the meaning of my words. I am very pro-life with the belief that no life should be arbitrarily murdered, but my pro-life stance applies only to those beings nature has given the ability to sustain that life on its own. But I am even more stringently ardent in my pro-choice stance that no one be told what to do with their own bodies. A woman choice to carry a fetus to living status is her own. However I do believe their is a cutoff time for that choice, which is when the woman has carried the child to a point in its gestation when it could conceivably support its own life, which scientifically has been shown possible in the last trimester. So how you managed to garner that I was advocating conception=life argument puzzles me. Hope I managed to clear up the confusion.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Here's a point I have never seen discussed before-


It seems to me that many of the policies of the Rs are based on exactly one thing-


DON'T SPEND MONEY


abortions
gay rights
contraception
gay marriage
flag burning
ultrasound
terry schivo
us motto


ALL BS that ties up government time and resources - WITHOUT ANY SPENDING
of course war is the big exception


[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Definitely a misguided priority of theirs, no doubt about that. All spending is bad... except for their spending...So their intelligence starved mentalities tell them.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

There would have to be a good explanation for this when its obvious we would not have men without mothers, women.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And there are none. This world is dumbed down.

Okay, then explain how this happens without one mention of what the Declaration of Independence says above. Besides the persistence of a large movement of women. I'm not going to beleve that IF the women knew, they would not say.

In 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provided: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Maybe NOW this point is made.

I suggest humanity has a secret history.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

In the fight for suffrage (the woman's right to vote),

the national movement targeted the ruling party (Wilson democrat)

because they were not allowing passage for women voters.

.

The woman's activist worker on getting women votes state by state

denounced the the national suffrage party

because they felt the democrats would keep the US out of world war 1.

.

Once the democrats committed to the war,

the national suffrage party force the issue of women's right to vote

by hunger strike and getting arrested.

.

To make the issue of suffrage was in line with the war effort,

the US claimed to be more democratic than the Kaiser

by giving woman the right to vote.

.

While social issues are often entangled with war,

war is not responsible for their inception.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think one of the great aspects of OWS early on was its great success in avoiding so-called "social" issues. Michael Moore and other public intellectuals have pointed this out as a salient aspect of the movement. There was virtually not discussion in the movement regarding the "pro life vs. pro choice" discourse. There has been no discussion in the movement regarding gun control. And to a considerable degree the explosive success of the movement early on can be largely attributed to is successful avoidance of such social issues and stick to matters of economic inequality.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

So it is your contention that certain individuals in this nation who in attempting to return women to virtually the status of chattel, you know 'property', doesn't seem to have something to do with the economy, or the fact that women spend the vast unequal amount of money for contraceptives, which are used for more than just birth control, yet a man can get all the boner pills he wants absolutely free on his insurance doesn't fall under economic equality, then I advise you to return to school and refresh your studies on just what qualifies as relevant economic inequalities

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course we need to do everything possible to challenge the reactionary efforts of the state at every level. Elected officials at every level (both Republicans and Democrats) seem hell bent on using the state to undermine democracy everywhere and they seem to be open to fighting on every front to do this. My only point in that regard is that a very significant factor in the initial success of OWS was its ability early on to effectively avoid what are commonly understood as cultural issues. Clearly one of the aspects of state sponsored opposition to OWS is to create a situation in which it is impossible for OWS to avoid such issues.

I've mentioned this in previous posting, but it seems to apply here has well. In my experience people who are engaged face to face at occupations and GAs tend to be much nicer to each other than are people who know each other only through internet connections even when they profoundly disagree. That applies not just to this forum but basically to every internet list serve I have ever participated in. We, after all, know virtually nothing about each other, our gender, our educations or anything else, excepting what we choose to post, so that's not much of a basis on which to make any kind of personal criticisms.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Then accept my apologies as I accept your criticisms for being harsh in my response to your previous post. I too wish that we could separate the economy from social issues, but in truth they are truly one and the same. How we treat each other on a personal level is fully symbiotic with how we 'treat' with one another on economic levels. Selfishness and avarice are the direct results of an unequal economy. If a man can claim to own an apple tree he did not create, and subsequently deny anyone to retrieve an apple from the tree when they are hungry, that is the core definition of inequality. That was mostly my point in my post. We as only one of the viable species on this planet need to stop this greed and avarice and false belief that we can do as we will with others lives, because until we do, there will never be economic justice and equality.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

So, do you think that you "own" the house or apartment that you live in? Do you feel you have the right to keep people that don't have a house from enjoying your house?

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

If I personally built the house... damn right I own the house. I do not believe that I own the land around my house and anyone is free to use it as they wish...so long as they do not harm the house I built or those who live in it with me. As for staying in my house.. I have been known to share my house on occasion with friends and acquaintances who have fallen on hard times in order to give them respite and time to allow them to regain their feet. Hope that doesn't make me sound too selfish. My point is however, is that until people stop trying to compete with each other... stop trying to outdo one another... stop trying to take what others have simply because they want it.. this world will never find peace or balance. I find it hilarious when I listen to the selfish attitudes of some of these racially biased republicans who spout garbage about the Mexicans being in America or any other nationality... or like with this idiot Sherrif Arpeo who is trying to say that the President isn't legally born a citizen because the constitution was written before blacks were freed or some other such nonsense... his essential meaning being that the President wasn't a native born American. What I find hilarious is that aside from the Native Americans, which I happen to have been born from the family of on this continent... are the only true Americans by his standards. His and the vast majority of "Americans" ancestors were not born on this continent... so by his standards.. he too is an illegal immigrant. But unlike idiots like him, I do not claim to own the land, or the trees, or the waters or the animals who depend on them. There is plenty of space for humanity to thrive, its humanity who bunches together and cannibalizes itself all in a misguided attempt to achieve some perceived ideal of comfort and luxury. Happiness comes from experiencing life, not controlling life. Life has a beginning and an end, no one can predict the exact timing of either, they both come as they will, so why worry about either. Nature provides all we "really" need, not the excesses of what we want. The Mothers Wrath will be felt sooner than most think. She is very angry with our treatment of her in just the last few centuries. Not even a blink in history, and we have done more damage to the Mothers balance in the last two centuries than has occurred naturally in the last 10,000 years. But I ramble, sorry to sound so preachy. Have a nice life.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Right, because those are wedge issues that can only serve to divide the 99% instead of unite us.

But Occupy was started by radical liberal activists, and they're at the core. So when Occupy's discipline stumbles, talk about abortion and "Repelicans" is the result.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Actually, it is widely reported that the intiators of OWS were for the most part neither liberal nor radicals (and it is important to note the distinction between those two tendencies) but were rather strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. Some people hold that pointing this out is akin to red baiting, but in my personal experience OWS activists are quite open about their political views, much moreso than in any other social movement I have been involved with in nearly 50 years of activism.

Others hold that the notion of an anarchist intellectual tradition is an oxymoron but all such a view reveals is a paucity of knowledge in the area of political theory.

It has been those anarcho-radicals who have been at the core of the movement from its very beginning and who are largely responsible for its successes, especially the first alliance between the radical intelligentcia and sections of the labor movement since the 1940s while liberals do little more than carp about radicals "taking over" the movement. They didn't take it over. They started it and so far have been its most effective leadership, which is not to say that they are above reproach. The decision making processes of the GAs are, after all, extremely problematic to say the least.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"anarchist" is an even less unifying word than "abortion".

Most Americans, middle-class Americans, are invested in the current system. They may want to see certain changes, but they don't want to burn it all down. So the idea of a bunch of anarchists representing the 99% is the true oxymoron.

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The fact is, it was anarchists, or at least people strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition who were the initiators of OWS. It was specifically to their initiatives that tens of thousands of nonanarchists were responding. Radicals of all stripes are quite cognizant of the fact that they represent considerably less than one per cent of the American population. Nevertheless they have almost universally been the best organizers of social movements even though the vast majority of people who joined in those social movements would never have agreed to the basic analytical premises of the movement's initiators.

That is as true today of OWS as it has been of most social movements of the past, moreso, in fact as OWS radicals have been considerably more open regarding their political views than has been the case with radicals in social movements of the past, but it is also the case that it has been the radicals in OWS that have been and continue to be its most effective organizers. This is not to suggest that they are without shortcomings. For example the decision making processes of the GAs leave much to be desired, but taken as a whole the radicals in OWS have been truly outstanding in their organizational skills.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You do realize that prediction markets are projecting that the Republicans maintain control of the House and also give them a 74% chance of also taking the Senate? Stuff like this is what will be the downfall of Occupy because there are already enough completely partisan groups out there.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, definitely. There are plenty of partisan groups already, and if Occupy devolves even further into Republican bashing then it will simply alienate half of the country and fail to unite the 99% around a common goal. This rapist thing is over-the-top hyperbole, even for this web site. He even managed to work in the word "Gestapo". Pretty amazing.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TechJunkie: I don't think it is, what would you call the war on women?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The War On Women! More hyperbole!

I don't support Republicans who are trying to turn the HHS contraceptives regulations into a political hot potato. But come on, "Gestapo"? "Rapist"? "War On Women"?

If your rhetoric goes totally over the top, then you risk turning off people who actually agree with the core ideas behind what you're saying. I don't think that it's right for a Catholic hospital's health insurance coverage to refuse to cover contraceptives if that's the rule for everybody else. But at the moment I'm far too distracted by the "rapist" hyperbole to agree with you.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TechJunkie: Then you have a lack of understanding about Republican policy's and principles.

I suggest you do some research and get back to me.

Or if you wish we could debate them now, I'm ready.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

thank you

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Your definition of life would support euthanasia; those intubated patients on life support do not function according to your definition.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your education or ethics.

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

You know you are right, gosh I guess that was why I said it had to achieve it on its own to begin with. People on life support began alive, but to complete your point, personally I would not care to be on life support. If my body cannot maintain my life with only basic, short time, periods of resusitation, than my body was not meant to continue existing and my will specifies, don't place me on life support, basic resusitation only. People are so afraid of death with this constant concern about cheating death, and prolonging life with artificial means that they more often than not fail to appreciate and enjoy the time they are allotted to be here. As for others choices for euthanasia, that is theirs to make, NOT mine. I make choices of that nature for me and me alone as it should be. NO ONE has the right to tell me what to do with my life, or death, same goes for a womans choice, which is what this whole conversation began as. But as usual, people tend to get stuck on the words of a message, and fail to understand the entirety of the message.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TitusMoans: Its you who needs to exercise that logic area of your brain.

A person on life support is already a human person, and has all the rights of the Constitution, a fetus doesn't.

[-] 0 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

If the "conservatives" actually institute these laws on women and take away their right to choose the women should be given the right to file law suits against all those who forced her to have a child. These do-gooders should be financially responsible for all the children born due to their decision. They should pay for EVERYTHING it takes to feed, clothe, educate through college, medical expenses, EVERYTHING. If this was enacted then they would be singing a WAY different tune.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Women already have the right to murder their baby. Just dont ask the taxpayer or any religious org. to pay for it

[-] -1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

You pay for it anyway if a child is unwanted. You pay for prison, welfare, or whatever else might arise from brining an unwanted child into this world. In the worst case you might have to pay for their execution if they end up being abused all their lives and that is what they begin to do to others.

You claim it is murder but you would allow a child to be born into hunger and abuse? You don't want to support poor people and their children but you don't want to help them prevent an unwanted birth. You can't have it both ways and still claim you are "pro life".

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

your right - kill the little bastard. Nice to play God isn't it?

[-] -1 points by newbornsheep (3) 2 years ago

and democrats have fag mentality

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

A fag is a cigarette.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

well if you mean by fag mentality that they believe that "EVERYONE" has the right to decide for themselves what they want to "pursue happiness" so long as it in no way harms anothers life or property as our constitution promises, then I guess they do. You however sound so homophobic, so strident of other peoples personal choices, that one could psychoanalyze such vehemence as you seem to have as having gay tendencies that they are desperate to deny in themselves, so they attack that which they hate about themselves. Look deep, and realize there is nothing wrong with you if you do have such affectations. I personally love women too much and enjoy being with them, and the thought of being with a man makes me shudder, But I am an American, a Human Being and an Intelligent enough man to know that what others choose to do with their lives is NONE of my business so long as it causes NO harm to anyone, is between consenting adults, harms no one's property and without question does no harm or abuse to any child, animal, woman or man. And men have "ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT" to make any decision about a woman's choice whether to carry a child or not. She is the one to suffer the ravages of childbirth and the requirement to supplant her life to the sustenance of a child. NO MAN has any right to even have an opinion that supplants her own.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Yeah. This will bring in the allies.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

in your case, i agree you should be able control your body and not have any children

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

"NO MAN has the right to dictate to a woman that she HAS to bear a child."

Okay. It also follows that no one has a right to make me care for ANY human, right? Good, no universal health care. We agree on something!

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Hardly! , but you're right about one thing, no one can force you to care about anyone, but together we can force you to do harm to NO ONE. That is the basis of civilization. As for health care, well though I am not a religious man, there is a adage I wholly agree with, 'do unto others as you would have done unto you. We all would like to be healthy, so we all pinch in together to make sure everyone is cared for. You know, I do believe that that is what our taxes do for the vast majority of our elderly. With a slight adjustment of a few extra pennies in taxes, all Americans could receive the same, oh well except for the selfish ones who can only think of themselves. That sounds like someone familiar....hmm?

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Who?

Don't tell me you are making assumptions about the charitable contributions of people you have never met. That is actually called a "predetermined conclusion" and the right wing apparently does not have a lock on them.

Go back to pushing religious beliefs on other people, you right wing troll. Some of us want to keep religion out of government, instead of picking passages from religious texts that agree with our predetermined conclusions and using them to support our arguments.

Secondly, I do to others what I would have them do to me. If I get a serious illness, I have a right to die a natural and peaceful death. Which is what I would like to do. Now go ahead and repeat after me, I have your response all ready for you: "But Juan, you should treat others BETTER than you treat yourself! Unless the other person is your own fetus! Then you can suck its brains out with a vacuum hose!"

So, together we can force people not to do harm to someone? You sound like another right wing troll, complaining about abortion. Unless of course, you think a prematurely born child is not a person, in which case the mother may kill it at any time until it is nine months old.

Do you think all public policy should be decided based on what the Bible says? Or just where it agrees with what you already think?

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Wow that was vicious. First off, I am not religious. In fact I am Native American. As for being right wing, I will admit you are the first person to ever accuse me of have republican views. As for reciting religious passages, there are some I agree with in common sense, others I savagely disagree with. Unlike most, I spent a great portion of my life Learning about faiths and religions and their subsequent dogma so that I could intelligently discuss common and opposing views with any of them without offending their faith held beliefs. Call it a sign of respect for others beliefs. As for how you treat others that's yours to decide. But as nature decrees, all actions have consequences, and civilization has spent some time on determining what those consequences should be in proportion to the actions committed. As for abortion, that is a womans right to choose, not mine. never said otherwise regardless of what you seem to believe. And lastly, as for assuming characteristics of those I have never met, if your contention is to imply my selfish comment was about you, then you should re-read my statement and notice my consistent reference to the republican party (who represent the 1% in near totality) and I have met a great number of truly right wing republicans, and my statement stands as fact in their own words in their belief's of their own manifest destiny to take what they want regardless of how many suffer as a result of their avarice. So do all a favor, take a break from your own right wing stance in assuming things not said.

[-] -3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Vote Libertarian!

Personal Freedom , Individual Liberty

What could be better than that?

[-] 5 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JoeTheFarmer:

Libertarianism is a cult.

If you want the information I will post it for you again .

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Let us control you! You'll like it after the treatments!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: I see you know nothing about libertarians, except what you see on the news.

You can stay fat, dumb and happy, or learn the truth.

Its easy to find in this information age we live in.

I would post a link or two, but I won't make it easy for you. Tell me how I'm misguided, for I am eager for this to begin.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

You're right, libertarians are stupid. Freedom is over rated. And the news media lies constantly with their ever-present Libertarian propaganda. Governments never do anything bad and we can't go wrong with more Federal power. People shouldn't have freedom of choice when it comes to making bad decisions and where it's obvious that the establishment knows better than they do concerning their own bodies. People should have to care for other people. Unless it is your own fetus. Please don't hurt me...

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: I'll educate you if you will read and understand the following about Libertarianism:

The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism.

From proponents, you might be told:

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.

To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic.

Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory.

Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion).

But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.

Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as:

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.

Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it.

Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms.

What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms.

They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions.

If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".

In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

Just to pick an example from one public exchange:

Too complicated. All you need is one proposition:

No person should initiate the use of force against another person.

All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."

So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions.

This is the difference between him and a libertarian.

Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.

Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.

My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism".

The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ...

On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology.

And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic".

Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept.

When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force.

It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda.

They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology".

It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.

While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business.

The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business".

That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.

The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals.

The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals.

The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business".

That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this.

It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".

This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms.

This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed.

Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions.

But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right.

It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

"It can be quite difficult to spot"... Yeah, for some people it is. You just found me (us) out. I can't believe someone discovered the secret all of us libertarians have been hiding all these years. We really hate individuals and want them to die. We aren't stupid, we KNOW all regulations are good. We just don't like them. You know, at the secret cabal meeting last year, in Area 51, there was a bet taken about whether 2012 would be "the year" in which the secret of libertarianism was discovered and the whole ideology withered into nothing due to someone writing a quasi-intellectual manifesto on the internet. Thanks to people like you, our coveted world in which all people are slaves to corporations may never come to fruition.

I'm going to go drink some raw milk now. Thanks for wasting your time, I enjoyed it very much. lol

[-] -1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: Well I knew you would have no come back.

It was a rather accurate description of Libertarian Philosophic thinking.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Comeback? Make a statement and I will tell you what I think. I already told you what I thought of the first post, and I absolutely despise identity politics. I hate arguments that try and decipher identities and groups of people in quasi-intellectual basement blogger sociology. You can usually tell them when they describe people in broad and vast terms, such as "Communists think..." It's bunk. The way it is done is, you identify people by a common belief, "Athiests" for example, expand on assumptions made about people in the group "Athiests all believe...", and use it to disprove an ideology. I despise such arguments as they have no intellectual depth and amount to little more than partisan bickering. Start talking about the role or limits of government and I will be more than happy to debate. I will not engage in theoretical arguments about fictitious people's beliefs.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: Well here's a statement for you, it seems you don't want an understanding of the root of Libertarinism.

After you read the below information go back to my original post and you may then understand what I was attempting to communicate.

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

A Government that is funded voluntarily, I wonder how well that would work.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.

Some schools accept minimal public assistance for the poor.

Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.

Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system.

Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified.

Some Libertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.

In most parts of the world, the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with Left anarchism.

It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.

This is based on the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I went ahead and read the Libertarian party platform, which is something I had never done. It doesn't say anything about a government funded by voluntary contributions. Could you provide a link about that? Even if it was the official position of the LP, they don't speak for all Libertarians. I agree that taxation is necessary in certain circumstances and a government funded in this manner would not work.

Secondly, if you think that all Libertarians get their talking points and information from leaders in the party and talking heads, you are wrong. I read a smattering of opinion columns, and don't agree with hardly any of them. I rarely read people I agree with often. I get my political and sociological philosophy from myself, it is something I developed from thought and conviction. I analyze issues to see if they are logical, complete, and sensical and reject those that are not. You seem to be more interested in debating things about Libertarianism as a whole, rather than specific issues and base convictions, which is what I am interested in. Do adults have a right to engage in activities that are consensual and not infringing on the rights of third parties? Those are the kind of things I like thinking about. What are rights? Is there altruism in government?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: Your grasping at straws, what do you mean they don't get their talking points from the leaders! If they didn't they wouldn't be the leaders.

Libertarianism generally refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

You can like to think what you want its your opinion, the libertarians believe in limited government to point that business will rule the roost. Who will enforce contracts, protect consumers, that's something you don't think about.

Konkin's agorism, as exposited in his New Libertarian Manifesto, postulates that the correct method of achieving a voluntary society is through advocacy and growth of the underground economy or "black market" -- the "counter-economy" as Konkin put it—until such a point that the State's perceived moral authority and outright power have been so thoroughly undermined that revolutionary market anarchist legal and security enterprises are able to arise from underground and ultimately suppress government as a criminal activity (with taxation being treated as theft, war being treated as mass murder, et cetera).

The fundamental principle is to trade risk for profit, although profit can refer to any gain in perceived value rather than strictly monetary gains (as a consequence of the subjective theory of value).

Various practices of counter-economics include these voluntary practices:

Arms trafficking, Bartering and alternative currency use, Being or hiring illegal immigrants, Drug trafficking, Smuggling, Subsistence farming, Tax evasion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I do think about who will protect customers and enforce contracts. Some libertarians advocate for a government that does not attempt to protect customers, but I have yet to talk to one that does not want them to enforce contracts. That is getting more toward the anarchy side of things, and I have never heard one say that. Maybe they exist, but I sure am not one of them. Without contracts, there is no capitalism.

Wikipedia is not a citeable link for the Libertarian party. The citation they give for that statement is a book, which I do not have, and as I said, the Libertarian party's platform revealed nothing about that.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFento: The book is Watts, Duncan (2002). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 246.

ebooks.lib.unair.ac.id/download.php?id=1281

Here is the Link to the E-Book, you can download it for free its a PDF file.

Now you have no excuse to plead ignorance.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

That link will not open for me. Do you have anything from the Libertarian party or a mainstream libertarian source?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JuanFenito: Your argument is foolish, Wikipedia quotes Libertarian sources and written policy. For you to say its not reliable renders you immaterial and a TROLL.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No, Wikipedia quotes a book which I don't have as their sole source for the claim that libertarians advocate a government paid for voluntarilty. I asked you for a more reputable citation, and instead I get anger and name calling. Nice. I guess you will believe anything that reinforces your predetermined conclusions, whether it is true or not, you would make a good Republican. Lol have a nice day :)

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

First off, I don't care one whit what your opinion is on freedom, because just from the few excretions of bile you've written already, it is very apparent that you are either a nazi / white supremesist or a... nevermind. Understanding the concept of freedom will likely ever be beyond your ken. So I shall forego attempting to enlighten someone lacking the basic fundamental human intelligence to grasp natural balance of survival. In fact the way you talk, you remind me much of Charles Manson ideology of freedom. That is why society gathers together, to protect themselves and their young from poisonous beings like yourself. Go find someone more gullible to spout your bile at, like yourself, you seem to already be your own true believer, "Juan"

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

LOL

You realize I'm mocking the people you claim that I am?

"I'll take "sarcasm" for 400 Alex..."

"Answer: This person on OccupyWallSt.org is weak minded and cannot understand someone who is mocking right wingers"

"Who is... matoinyanawacis?"

"Correct! You get to pick again!"

"I'll take...fat people who smoke and whine about the establishment for 1,000 Alex"

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

No, I see no mocking in what you say, I only see true belief in the way you say it. Spent to much time among such believers, the idioms are just to indicative of the standard vernacular of typical right wing zealots. Sarcasm tends to have humorous undertones, yours carried none that I could detect. So if you don't want to be mistaken for a zealot, try to learn some better jokes, because if your "alleged" sarcasms are attempts at mocking humor, then they need some serious work. Don't go on stage anytime soon, I think they would likely skip the tomatoes and simply start launching shoes, boots, rocks... etcetc... See, that has a humorous undertone. Wastealo

[-] 0 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

So sounds like your a rapist? think you have the right to reeducate a woman to your views huh? Well when you find a way to look me up, come on by, I'll reeducate you. By the way, just in case you're under the mistaken impression that I am a woman, think again, I'm a 45 year old man still capable of reeducating a miscreant.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

What are you talking about? I'm mocking the right wingers who want to control women's bodies and make them pay for the health care treatments of others. I said nothing about reeducating women on health issues, so it sounds like you are either paranoid or getting there fast.

[-] -3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

How do you define a cult?

Cult - Noun : a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Liberty is the rite and freedom is the ceremony.It is a cult I am happy to participate in.

If the Libertarian Party is a cult than so is the Democrat and Republican party.

My cult's better than your cult, my cult is better than yours!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JoetheFarmer: The following is rather lengthy, so if your interested in knowing why Libertarianism is a cult you'll need to read it.

The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism.

From proponents, you might be told:

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership.

Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property.

Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.

However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.

To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic.

Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory.

Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion).

But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.

Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.

Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it.

Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms.

What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms.

They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions.

If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".

In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

Just to pick an example from one public exchange

Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.

All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."

So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions.

This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.

Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.

My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ...

On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic".

Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept.

When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force.

It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda.

They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force".

The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.

While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business.

The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business". That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.

The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals.

The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals.

The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business". That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this. It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".

This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms. This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed.

Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".