Support NeoGAF

[flippymittens]

Being an independent myself, it seems GAF has always leaned very far into the left.. Why is this?
Is it an age thing? Younger people tend to be more liberal
Is it a location thing? More gaffers on the west and east coast?
Is it an ideology thing? Anti-religion

I feel that both parties have very stupid stances on certain issues and that the only way this country can move forward is if we govern somewhere in the middle. The two sides have become so distant from each other. I pray a relevant 3rd party makes it onto the scene at some point.

It puzzles me as well.

Educated people often tend to lean left in politics for the obvious reasons (common sense), and most people on gaf are educated.

Well more men with college degrees are conservative statistically speaking (although more liberal women hold college degrees than conservative women).
I am a very liberal and I would not consider myself to be particularly smart/charming.

You can be very intelligent and be a moderate, conservative, liberal , libertarian...

South Park's creators are libertarian, the hosts of Red Eye, Ron Paul(kind of libertarian).
Bill O'Reily, Dennis Miller, Newt Gingrich etc. Are conservative and while I disagree with them, I would wholeheartedly admit they are more intelligent than me.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Maybe we should just have a ConservaGAF thread, where conservatives can post their views without worrying about debate (so long as there are no KKK style posts). It would help allay fears about viewpoint suppression that seems to be a major undercurrent of this thread, while also providing an incubator for some decent arguments in the main PoliGAF thread.

 

[danwarb]

Empathy. Improve the well-being of others through fairer distribution of wealth versus more money jumping through tax loopholes.

 

[TommyT]

Often it seems, and not just here on GAF, that if you have conservative views towards how government should operate there is this almost immediate alignment you're thrown into with people that are radicals in the right. This tends to turn meaningful discussion (or rather the attempt) into having to almost defend yourself from this. It's as if you have to justify how you can be a conservative yet not be like people that are so polarizing that get a lot of media attention for what they say or do.

Heaven forbid you have a conservative outlook on many/most things yet having a liberal or progressive stance on things that just seem to make sense. Maybe in poliGAF views like this can be expressed rather freely and discussed without being lambasted, however the times I've tried to venture in (just reading) it hasn't seemed like the case. There is a rather large barrier to entry when discussion politics with a conservative view here I think. I don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean it as more matter-of-fact (even though it might not be a legitimate fact).

 

[i-Lo]

In an ideal world, the views would be more centrist. But given our current situation with oligarchy, corruption, hypocrisy, apathy, religious extremism, warmongering etc any caring human would lean to the left.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487633

That and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#State_law

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

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487623

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv99MYDk

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

and the list goes on.

 

[Dude Abides]

It puzzles me as well.


Well more men with college degrees are conservative statistically speaking (although more liberal women hold college degrees than conservative women).
I am a very liberal and I would not consider myself to be particularly smart/charming.

You can be very intelligent and be a moderate, conservative, liberal , libertarian...

South Park's creators are libertarian, the hosts of Red Eye, Ron Paul(kind of libertarian).
Bill O'Reily, Dennis Miller, Newt Gingrich etc. Are conservative and while I disagree with them, I would wholeheartedly admit they are more intelligent than me.

Yeah, but I bet you're funnier than Dennis Miller so it evens out.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Often it seems, and not just here on GAF, that if you have conservative views towards how government should operate there is this almost immediate alignment you're thrown into with people that are radicals in the right. This tends to turn meaningful discussion (or rather the attempt) into having to almost defend yourself from this. It's as if you have to justify how you can be a conservative yet not be like people that are so polarizing that get a lot of media attention for what they say or do.

Heaven forbid you have a conservative outlook on many/most things yet having a liberal or progressive stance on things that just seem to make sense. Maybe in poliGAF views like this can be expressed rather freely and discussed without being lambasted, however the times I've tried to venture in (just reading) it hasn't seemed like the case. There is a rather large barrier to entry when discussion politics with a conservative view here I think. I don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean it as more matter-of-fact (even though it might not be a legitimate fact).

That's the problem though, sensible voters of the conservative party think that non-social policies are more important than social policies - which is why they can support anti-women campaigners so long as they argue for fiscal responsibility.

Unlike a stupid conservative party voter, you probably don't like what they've been doing with social rights and freedoms, but you're still voting them in - which is why people give these types of conservatives so much flack I think.

 

[diffusionx]

Bill O'Reily, Dennis Miller, Newt Gingrich etc. Are conservative and while I disagree with them, I would wholeheartedly admit they are more intelligent than me.

I doubt this. Bill O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich are both very stupid people. Dennis Miller, can't say.

There was a good quote that floated around last year - "Newt Gingrich is a dumb person's idea of a smart person."

 

[not psycho]

Yes but that is one idiot just spewing his mouth to appease the religious idiots he is trying to get votes from
Roe vs wade will never be repealed

Paul Ryan also tried to make abortion illegal in cases of rape. And he tried to get fetuses and even just fertilized eggs counted as human beings, which would not only make abortion illegal, but would make some forms of in vitro fertilization illegal.

But yeah, the answer is that in America we have the extreme lunatic right like Ryan and the moderate right like Obama. There is no left.

 

[RDreamer]

I doubt this. Bill O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich are both very stupid people. Dennis Miller, can't say.

There was a good quote that floated around last year - "Newt Gingrich is a dumb person's idea of a smart person."

I kind of get the impression that Gingrich is smart in that he knows exactly what he's doing. He isn't advocating the things he's advocating because that's what he believes in his heart of hearts. I think he's advocating them because he's a power hungry sociopath, and that's the path that works.

 

[Enosh]

Maybe we should just have a ConservaGAF thread, where conservatives can post their views without worrying about debate (so long as there are no KKK style posts). It would help allay fears about viewpoint suppression that seems to be a major undercurrent of this thread, while also providing an incubator for some decent arguments in the main PoliGAF thread.

yeah right
a thread like this would turn to liberals bashing conservatives within 20 post

 

[Sirpopopop]

yeah right
a thread like this would turn to liberals bashing conservatives within 20 post

That's the point of creating the thread.

It would stop drive by trolling in its tracks.

 

[Angry Grimace]

What's this horseshit about blaming the moderators for holding down conservatives on GAF? Give me a break. It's not the moderators fault if you can't put together a series of posts without dropping something bannable in there.

Show me one example of a gaffer being banned for expressing a well-reasoned conservative viewpoint and which is not otherwise bannable and I will....be wrong.

 

[War Peaceman]

GAF doesn't lean left, it leans left of the Republican party. They are extremist, anti-science, pro big business/libertarian. Naturally there will be some sensible Republicans, but in general it is difficult to ignore the relentless spew of illogic that has become their public platform. I don't see there being anything wrong with them running on a particular idea - small government for example - but their platform is so virulent and disgusting. See: over four years of pointless personal vilification of Barack Obama, see the recent rape comments etc. What is clear is that they are not a party of big or bold ideas - ideas that can be respected if not agreed with - but of reactionary politics, obstruction and madness.

The Democrats by contrast are not a particularly invigorating or exciting party - if anything they lack a coherency of ideology, in part due to the shift to the right the Republican party has forced. However they at least tend to offer a respectful platform with some degree of goodwill.

Actually one of the biggest indictments of the Republican party is their failure to address Obama's real failures. They criticise him for big spending when his government has seen the smallest increase in governmental spending out of the last 5 or so presidents, they criticise him as a radical socialist when he has done little to change the traditional, hierarchies of society (Wall Street has come off largely unscathed for example). Overall, his presidency thus far has been a conservative one. I think once we are out of 'Red Scare 2' and Obama is long out of office, this will come to be appreciated more.

I personally do not believe the aphorism 'reality tends to have a liberal bias', but the political situation is the USA has become so polarised and distorted that it is unsurprising that you'd struggle to find genuine Republican supporters, because so much of their platform has become bigotry and anti-reality. If anything the current Democratic party is a conservative party by traditional measures (only slightly more socially progressive, but not to a large extent). Therefore many of the people who could be identified as 'left' because they are Democrats are more in line with classically conservative ideas. Part of the problem arises from the continued abuse of the word liberal but it depresses me too much to have to regurgitate that one...

Therefore I would conclude that Neogaf does not lean left, but it does lean against the Republican party in its current form.

 

[Schattenjäger]

Does anyone think Romney will govern more moderately than he appears to? His history dictates it - I really believe he says things to get the far right vote but will not govern with them in mind - his vp choice isn't very encouraging though

 

[diffusionx]

Does anyone think Romney will govern more moderately than he appears to? His history dictates it - I really believe he says things to get the far right vote but will not govern with them in mind - his vp choice isn't very encouraging though

Hell no.

If Dems control Congress, maybe (I doubt it, but maybe), but if Republicans have even slight control of both houses you will see a government so far to the right it will make Dubya look like FDR.

If you don't believe me, study the states. See what happened in states where the right took over.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Does anyone think Romney will govern more moderately than he appears to? His history dictates it - I really believe he says things to get the far right vote but will not govern with them in mind - his vp choice isn't very encouraging though

He's spineless. Strikes me as the type of person who will do as he's told.

 

[Devolution]

Not a fan of chastity belts.

 

[War Peaceman]

Does anyone think Romney will govern more moderately than he appears to? His history dictates it - I really believe he says things to get the far right vote but will not govern with them in mind - his vp choice isn't very encouraging though

Wishful thinking. His campaign has given no indication that he would do so. There was some speculation that following the primary he would move back more to a more centrist position, which fits with his prior governorship but this has not happened.

 

[ronito]

Does anyone think Romney will govern more moderately than he appears to? His history dictates it - I really believe he says things to get the far right vote but will not govern with them in mind - his vp choice isn't very encouraging though

As I've pointed out he's an active Mormon that used to be on a board of companies that sold adult entertainment and provided abortions while he would make speeches deriding the two.

That's all you need to know about Romney.

He's a pragmatist. He'll do whatever it takes to get what he wants done. Personally I'm indifferent on that subject. I can appreciate pragmatists the trick is to know that's what they are. But I cannot abide anyone that's a pragmatist taking a moral high ground.

 

[Sirpopopop]

What's this horseshit about blaming the moderators for holding down conservatives on GAF? Give me a break. It's not the moderators fault if you can't put together a series of posts without dropping something bannable in there.

Show me one example of a gaffer being banned for expressing a well-reasoned conservative viewpoint and which is not otherwise bannable and I will....be wrong.

That's not the point. The point is that debate stops when you have 20 members piling on other members insinuating that they are morons.

 

[ronito]

That's not the point. The point is that debate stops when you have 20 members piling on other members insinuating that they are morons.

Is it?

Cause I still see some bastions of conservative thought here just fine and unbanned (Gaborn and Guileless come to mind).

 

[Lambtron]

It's the moderators plus the fact that many gaffers are influenced by Gaf itself. It's the hive mentality here. The conservatives are silenced here, but we do exist. Most of us just don't care enough to make a fuss or get banned because we like Gaf for the non political stuff.

Ehhh. When a "conservative" poster is like BigSicily or Kosmo, I'm glad they get piled onto for spewing hateful/stupid talking points from Rush, Hannity, et al. I'm sure if they wanted to have a well reasoned discussion, that wouldn't happen. See: ToxicAdam.

I consider myself far left of the Democrats. What constitutes "right" today in the US is frightening.

 

[CrushDance]

That's the point of creating the thread.

It would stop drive by trolling in its tracks.

So there would be a dedicated thread for people to sit in and talk about their stances without having to answer for them and be challenged? Not to sound like a level 99 jerk. But that doesn't sound very different from a lot of conservative websites I've stumbled across.

 

[RDreamer]

Perhaps things like inciting armed rebellion if they don't get their way and oust the supposed socialist tyrant don't exactly win rational people to their side.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Is it?

Cause I still see some bastions of conservative thought here just fine and unbanned (Gaborn and Guileless come to mind).

Gaborn is conservative?
He sounds pretty rational from what I've seen from him, and I would be mighty surprised if he would actually vote for the conservatives.

 

[Lambtron]

What constitutes the "left" frightens me more. Even the most middle of the road democrats seem to be convinced by all the alarmist rhetoric that they are super liberals of some sort. The entire conversation has shifted to the right, and people seem to think that by virtue of not being anti-science and so on, that they are special liberal heroes.

So now the left isn't even part of the discussion. The right may very well be on the path towards self-destruction in a decade as voters run for the hills and Latino voters come of age, but what are we left with? 90's style republicans, basically.

Yeah, I absolutely agree with this. Obama has been labeled a socialist tyrant with policies that are very firmly right of center.

 

[Kusagari]

Hell no.

If Dems control Congress, maybe (I doubt it, but maybe), but if Republicans have even slight control of both houses you will see a government so far to the right it will make Dubya look like FDR.

If you don't believe me, study the states. See what happened in states where the right took over.

Romney will be moderate with a Dem controlled congress and crazy nuts if the Republicans control congress.

Which is the real issue here. Romney will bow to the Tea Party's whim if they're given the opportunity to make him.

 

[Tex117]

Whats funny to me are the inconsistent positions of each ideology.

You have the Republicans who claim they are "conservative." Small government, less regulation, etc. etc., yet have little problem with social legislation that invades personal lives. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.

Then you have the Democrats who claim they are "liberal." Personal liberty, personal freedom, few social restrictions, yet have little problem with heavier regulation, more taxation, the role of government bigger in daily life, etc. etc.

Leaves little choice really.

 

[Mumei]

Yes but that is one idiot just spewing his mouth to appease the religious idiots he is trying to get votes from
Roe vs wade will never be repealed

He isn't one idiot; he is one idiot who is representative of a ideological perspective that holds sway in the current GOP, and by extension in American social conservatism. You can't just dismiss it as "It is just this one guy."

 

[TommyT]

That's the problem though, sensible voters of the conservative party think that non-social policies are more important than social policies - which is why they can support anti-women campaigners so long as they argue for fiscal responsibility.

Unlike a stupid conservative party voter, you probably don't like what they've been doing with social rights and freedoms, but you're still voting them in - which is why people give these types of conservatives so much flack I think.

The problem* is that we need more Democratic Republicans to vote for. It's unfortunate that every candidate party has flaws with their outdated views. Some of which can and will change over time; others where time is a limited commodity and things need to happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Whats funny to me are the inconsistent positions of each ideology.

You have the Republicans who claim they are "conservative." Small government, less regulation, etc. etc., yet have little problem with social legislation that invades personal lives. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.

Then you have the Democrats who claim they are "liberal." Personal liberty, personal freedom, few social restrictions, yet have little problem with heavier regulation, more taxation, the role of government bigger in daily life, etc. etc.

Leaves little choice really.

The thing that drives me nuts is that social ideology has become the topic of choice as opposed to you know, actual governance.

 

[Devolution]

The thing that drives me nuts is that social ideology has become the topic of choice as opposed to you know, actual governance.

Let's be real, it's the republicans fault on this one. Gays should be able to be marry. Women should have subsidized or better health insurance for birth control and access to abortion. Kids should be taught sex ed, and whatever else I forgot that republicans love to block and defund.

 

[Tex117]

The thing that drives me nuts is that social ideology has become the topic of choice as opposed to you know, actual governance.

Agreed.

 

[Tex117]

Let's be real, it's the republicans fault on this one. Gays should be able to be marry. Women should have subsidized or better health insurance for birth control and access to abortion. Kids should be taught sex ed, and whatever else I forgot that republicans love to block and defund.

I will never quite understand how Republicans can say they are for "small government" when they "love to block and defund" the issues you listed.

Im not saying I agree or disagree with each of the topics you listed.

 

[Devolution]

I will never quite understand how Republicans can say they are for "small government" when they "love to block and defund" the issues you listed.

Im not saying I agree or disagree with each of the topics you listed.

Because "small government" sounds nice to people who want to be left alone but ultimately rings hollow when it comes to their pet issues.

 

[NYCrooner]

Whats funny to me are the inconsistent positions of each ideology.

You have the Republicans who claim they are "conservative." Small government, less regulation, etc. etc., yet have little problem with social legislation that invades personal lives. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.

Then you have the Democrats who claim they are "liberal." Personal liberty, personal freedom, few social restrictions, yet have little problem with heavier regulation, more taxation, the role of government bigger in daily life, etc. etc.

Leaves little choice really.

It's the pandering that really makes this scale so uneven.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I will never quite understand how Republicans can say they are for "small government" when they "love to block and defund" the issues you listed.

Im not saying I agree or disagree with each of the topics you listed.

If you ban everything then you dont need to pay for it with Gubmint money which makes it "small government".

 

[Devolution]

If you ban everything then you dont need to pay for it with Gubmint money which makes it "small government".

The best part is it usually takes more money to enforce bans.

 

[Tex117]

Because "small government" sounds nice to people who want to be left alone but ultimately rings hollow when it comes to their pet issues.

Exactly. It is very irritating.

Its really hard to like Republicans, but equally hard to like democrats (for me anyway) in the opposite direction.

 

[Tex117]

If you ban everything then you dont need to pay for it with Gubmint money which makes it "small government".

HAHA, true, but I don't think thats the reasoning.

(due to what Devolution said).

 

[ronito]

Let's be real, it's the republicans fault on this one. Gays should be able to be marry. Women should have subsidized or better health insurance for birth control and access to abortion. Kids should be taught sex ed, and whatever else I forgot that republicans love to block and defund.

I've given up on the whole "small government" thing, they just mean "smaller government for me!"

A good example is this whole "Drug tests for welfare checks!" When I point out that drug tests to analyze themselves nor do they give themselves nor do they catalogue or communicate themselves and that you'd have to expand government to not only have the right to do it but also have to setup a bureaucracy to maintain it they're just like "Well I want it anyway!"

They use the "smaller government" as a way to screw everyone in hopes that it'll save them money. Fact is, I get it. A hick out there in podunkville USA is not gonna see the value of social programs. They're just gonna look at the caricatures their Fox News gives them and then they get pissed that their money is out there funding stuff. That's why rural areas tend to be republican instead of democratic. They don't see people on the programs and if they are on the programs themselves (which they often are) they think they're the exception. People in larger metro areas know better, they know people who need those programs and they know why they're necessary. Really the republican/liberal divide has become the death throes of an agrarian society in its movement to a modern age. Sadly, I think we're losing that fight.

What's so infuriating about it is the sheer stupidity of the argument. For example, You wanna stop abortion? Great, give everyone free and a easy access to birthcontrol. You want less crime? Great, give people an education so they don't feel like crime is their only choice. Study after study shows that every dollar spent on education saves a multiplier of the same amount in prisons. But when these come up time again they vote them down.

 

[LosDaddie]

Ah, I see the ageless conservative Persecution Complex is alive & well here.

There are 3 main things to GAF that work against the forum leaning Right:
- Demographics: MOst of GAF is young....less than 30yo. Younger people tend to skew Left.

- Diversity (The achilles heel of the modern GOP): GAF is an international community, with a very diverse population. We have people from all over the world here, people who don't have a kneejerk negative reaction to ideas like National Healthcare (a very popular boogeyman in the GOP) because they've experienced it firsthand. Combine that with the various sub-communities on GAF (Gay/Lesbian-GAF, Negro-GAF, Atheist-GAF, etc), and it's a crowd almost polar opposite of the Tea Party REpub base.

-Gaming Age Forum: While I don't have any proof, I would imagine video game forums attract a more Left leaning crowd than usual. Just like sports and sport car forums attract a more Right leaning crowd. The "numbers" are just naturally aligned against conservatives being the majority here.


That being said, Conservative-GAF should drop the Persecution Complex, and show some more backbone. If you want an civil, intellectual debate on an issue, then there's someone who will engage you. Just don't expect to regurgitate the AM radio talking points, and not be called out on it, or not have to defend your opinions. Ignore the piling on (yes, I know it happens), and PM the mods if you feel someone steps out of line.

You don't get banned for being a conservative, or having conservative opinions, on GAF. You get banned because you break the TOS. There are conservatives who survive on GAF just fine.

 

[Devolution]

I've given up on the whole "small government" thing, they just mean "smaller government for me!"

A good example is this whole "Drug tests for welfare checks!" When I point out that drug tests to analyze themselves nor do they give themselves nor do they catalogue or communicate themselves and that you'd have to expand government to not only have the right to do it but also have to setup a bureaucracy to maintain it they're just like "Well I want it anyway!"

They use the "smaller government" as a way to screw everyone in hopes that it'll save them money.

What's so infuriating about it is the sheer stupidity of the argument. For example, You wanna stop abortion? Great, give everyone free and a easy access to birthcontrol. You want less crime? Great, give people an education so they don't feel like crime is their only choice. Study after study shows that every dollar spent on education saves a multiplier of the same amount in prisons. But when these come up time again they vote them down.

Yup they cut the very same programs that would lead to less abortions, less crime, then complain about the numbers. It's pure hypocrisy.

 

[Tex117]

I've given up on the whole "small government" thing, they just mean "smaller government for me!"

A good example is this whole "Drug tests for welfare checks!" When I point out that drug tests to analyze themselves nor do they give themselves nor do they catalogue or communicate themselves and that you'd have to expand government to not only have the right to do it but also have to setup a bureaucracy to maintain it they're just like "Well I want it anyway!"

They use the "smaller government" as a way to screw everyone in hopes that it'll save them money.

What's so infuriating about it is the sheer stupidity of the argument. For example, You wanna stop abortion? Great, give everyone free and a easy access to birthcontrol. You want less crime? Great, give people an education so they don't feel like crime is their only choice. Study after study shows that every dollar spent on education saves a multiplier of the same amount in prisons. But when these come up time again they vote them down.

Re-quoted due to a good post.

We are bashing on Republicans a whole lot, but Democrats are equally as to blame for pandering to their bases. A few people off the reservation (Maxine Waters or Shelia Jackson Lee). All that jazz.

Its all just reality TV for people who think they are smart. (Including all of us on this thread...unless you are involved in politics in which case you are a participant in the show).

Money...and puppets.

 

[RDreamer]

Whats funny to me are the inconsistent positions of each ideology.

You have the Republicans who claim they are "conservative." Small government, less regulation, etc. etc., yet have little problem with social legislation that invades personal lives. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.

Then you have the Democrats who claim they are "liberal." Personal liberty, personal freedom, few social restrictions, yet have little problem with heavier regulation, more taxation, the role of government bigger in daily life, etc. etc.

Leaves little choice really.

I don't get how the Democrats are that inconsistent. They're for personal liberty, yes, but heavier regulations comes from the fact that they are not necessarily for complete corporate liberty, since that has a tendency to squash the personal liberty of others. More, progressive taxation, can increase your personal liberty overall, because it helps equalize the playing field and raises upward mobility. And you have more personal freedoms to exercise if you're not worried about things like your health as much, since that's taken care of for you. And I don't see how the role of government getting bigger in a general sense necessarily squashes your personal freedom. I realize that it can in some ways, sure, but not necessarily. Government programs can and do help many people exercise even more freedom. Aside from the healthcare argument I already brought up, where you don't have to worry about being dropped into abject poverty just because you got sick, there's also things like public transportation. Because of those programs you might have much more freedom of mobility. And if you happen to be lower on the economic rungs, you will have a lot more freedom, because you may have access to programs to help you out when you need it. Things like grants might allow you the freedom to go back to school. Unemployment gives you enough peace of mind to bounce back and get into the workplace again without having to worry about literally starving.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Agreed.

I would add that I'm just getting really tired of completely generalized ranting, e.g. complaining about how much taxes suck as a generalized proposition, as opposed to making some kind of coherent argument about how altering tax rates in some particular bracket will stimulate the economy and then provide some kind of evidence to support this argument.

I'm not old enough to say to certain, but I can't really fathom that the level of political discourse has ever been more focused on vague ideological generalities and devoid of conversation on the issues that actually make a goddamn difference.

 

[Tex117]

I don't get how the Democrats are that inconsistent. They're for personal liberty, yes, but heavier regulations comes from the fact that they are not necessarily for complete corporate liberty, since that has a tendency to squash the personal liberty of others. More, progressive taxation, can increase your personal liberty overall, because it helps equalize the playing field and raises upward mobility. And you have more personal freedoms to exercise if you're not worried about things like your health as much, since that's taken care of for you. And I don't see how the role of government getting bigger in a general sense necessarily squashes your personal freedom. I realize that it can in some ways, sure, but not necessarily. Government programs can and do help many people exercise even more freedom. Aside from the healthcare argument I already brought up, where you don't have to worry about being dropped into abject poverty just because you got sick, there's also things like public transportation. Because of those programs you might have much more freedom of mobility. And if you happen to be lower on the economic rungs, you will have a lot more freedom, because you may have access to programs to help you out when you need it. Things like grants might allow you the freedom to go back to school. Unemployment gives you enough peace of mind to bounce back and get into the workplace again without having to worry about literally starving.

Well stated position for sure and certainly the goal. I just disagree with the HOW Democrats reach that goal. (and Republicans for that matter).

There is no question that the disparity of income is becoming more and more of an issue. Nor am I advocating that big business have the power to do what they want...not even close.

What I am saying (without writing policy here on NeoGaf...so I'll state very generally) is that there should be less regulation but more effective regulation.

Im for a lower tax rate PERCENTAGE, yet closing of more loopholes. Make it simple. (just as an example).

All of this is lip service anyway.

 

[Tex117]

I would add that I'm just getting really tired of completely generalized ranting, e.g. complaining about how much taxes suck as a generalized proposition, as opposed to making some kind of coherent argument about how altering tax rates in some particular bracket will stimulate the economy and then provide some kind of evidence to support this argument.

I'm not old enough to say to certain, but I can't really fathom that the level of political discourse has ever been more focused on vague ideological generalities and devoid of conversation on the issues that actually make a goddamn difference.

Come on man...if you can't put it on a bumper sticker, its not politics.

</joke>

 

[The Technomancer]

Gaborn is conservative?
He sounds pretty rational from what I've seen from him, and I would be mighty surprised if he would actually vote for the conservatives.

Gaborn is the only self-proclaimed libertarian that I've met on here (and in real life really) who is both articulate and not completely unrealistically idealistic.