Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

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.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. This isn't a stance of Democrats at all. I don't think you'll see anyone say we need more regulation that's less effective. Surely effective regulation to the extent that it's actually needed is the real goal. Yes it doesn't come out that way sometimes, but, I mean, we're all bound to make mistakes. Regulating things and predicting how it'll work is hard. You're going to fuck up sometimes.

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

And this seems kind of like odd semantics.

 

[TommyT]

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.

You know... what if he's really Penn Jillette!?

 

[Kinitari]

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.

I don't think we have libertarians in Canada, the concept is still a bit new to me. When I think Libertarian I just see Fallout II-Vegas in my head. Maybe not so much Vegas actually.

 

[Tex117]

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. This isn't a stance of Democrats at all. I don't think you'll see anyone say we need more regulation that's less effective. Surely effective regulation to the extent that it's actually needed is the real goal. Yes it doesn't come out that way sometimes, but, I mean, we're all bound to make mistakes. Regulating things and predicting how it'll work is hard. You're going to fuck up sometimes.



And this seems kind of like odd semantics.

No, not odd semantics. The HOW is just as important as the end goal.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I don't think we have libertarians in Canada, the concept is still a bit new to me. When I think Libertarian I just see Fallout II-Vegas in my head. Maybe not so much Vegas actually.

I see Ron Paul.

So just as bad, I guess.

 

[Rookje]

 

[Schattenjäger]

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."

well I would have been worried if Romney didn't criticize and distance himself from the dumb senator and his comments - at least he did

 

[maharg]

I don't think we have libertarians in Canada, the concept is still a bit new to me. When I think Libertarian I just see Fallout II-Vegas in my head. Maybe not so much Vegas actually.

They're all in rural ridings in Alberta.

 

[RDreamer]

No, not odd semantics. The HOW is just as important as the end goal.

Yeah, I suppose. It just depends on your goal, I guess.

 

[Jackpot]

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.

mmm, you should see the Libertarian thread he started a while back. Came out as pretty crazy when he started explaining why business should self-regulate.

 

[RDreamer]

http://www.japersonalfinance.com/gsjapf/activities/UploadImages/paycheck.gif

What exactly are you getting at here?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

mmm, you should see the Libertarian thread he started a while back. Came out as pretty crazy when he started explaining why business should self-regulate.

Yeah, but on the Libertarian sanity scale he's about as sensible as you get.

 

[Jackben]

Why does my GF lean so much to the left?

 

[TommyT]

Why does my GF lean so much to the left?

To avoid your penis that's curved to her right?

 

[Magnus]

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

First post as always.

 

[flippymittens]

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

I doubt I am ha ha. Maybe more funny looking.

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 do not know, they both seem pretty intelligent to me listening to them ( I completely disagree with most of what they say though, except O'Reilly sometimes is a moderate and sticks up for the President).

Dennis Miller, is very well eduacated... He has a pretty great vocabulary and knowledge of events. I can not prove he is intelligent but he certainly is well eduacated.

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.

Gingrich has a doctorate (not saying that is proof he is intelligent or eduacated) does he not. He does however bring up history and seem to be well eduacated.
I guess people put intelligent people on a pedistool when alot of intelligence is inherited and basically just gives you an easier life much like looking good would (does not mean you will live the good life but it helps pave the way).

Not being intelligent is apparently frowned upon despite alot of people not necessarily being able to help their IQ level.

 

[Zaptruder]

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

It's not pure hypocrisy. It's pure insanity and ignorance.

Because of this sort of illogical contradictary, don't give a shit about actual results positions republicans take...

I continue to maintain that they are the worst, most deleterious group of people in the world today.

They may be less evil then various criminal and war mongering organizations around the world - but no one has the power or money to exceed their total negative influence on the world.

 

[Zaptruder]

mmm, you should see the Libertarian thread he started a while back. Came out as pretty crazy when he started explaining why business should self-regulate.

Dude is a survivor. He's been trained by GAF to keep in the crazy. It'd be interesting to see how he'd change in an echo chamber of like minded thinkers with soft targets to pelt on.

What would Gaborn be like if NeoGAF were libertarian leaning?

 

[Mumei]

He's definitely a conservative, but I doubt he would identify as a republican.

Believe it or not, smart rational people can be conservative... Just not the popular definition in the US right now.

He would not call himself conservative. He identifies as libertarian, and not Republican-in-everything-but-name libertarian or complete Ayn Randian acolyte nutjob libertarian. I mean he's still a nut on some issues (employer discrimination! most anything relating to economics!), but he's pretty moderate in his libertarianism on many issues and more willing than most to make some concessions to reality.

 

[Finn of Ooo]

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.

I think the real issue is that the two party system promotes polarity over compromise. Anyone caught in the middle is quickly shunned by their own side because they need a mascot instead of a leader.

 

[Gaborn]

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.

Libertarian, rather than conservative. The (very short) version of that is I want the government to do a lot less and for people to be able to do a lot more. Think of me as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I've got my disagreements with the left and the right depending on the issue (sometimes its both!)

He would not call himself conservative. He identifies as libertarian, and not Republican-in-everything-but-name libertarian or complete Ayn Randian acolyte nutjob libertarian. I mean he's still a nut on some issues (employer discrimination! most anything relating to economics!), but he's pretty moderate in his libertarianism on many issues and more willing than most to make some concessions to reality.

Yes, exactly I would add though that a lot of times liberals tend to engage libertarians in philosophical discussions rather than trying to get us to have a serious policy discussion. In that sense I don't find it useful to engage people because we're portrayed as weird extremists for articulating principles anathema to the left. So in that sense things like employer discrimination as an example should be viewed in the context of the society we live in rather than the relevancy of my opinion of how a society should ultimately be in a perfect world.

I think that ultimately everyone regardless of political ideology though wants the government to work for the people (well, except for true anarchists of course who believe the government is a hindrance to personal interactions). More often than not though in the real world arguments come down to how much or how little government individuals are willing to accept. I draw the line at one point, liberals at another, conservatives at another. The reality is though we all have a lot of common ground where we can agree on key issues, and we have areas where we will fundamentally disagree. I don't see the point in beating my head against the wall debating that very much though.

 

[SouthernDragon]

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 was elected as a Republican representative to the Congress of the U.S. and he sponsored a bill to redefine rape that was signed by every Republican Representative.

 

[Devolution]

He was elected as a Republican representative to the Congress of the U.S. and he sponsored a bill to redefine rape that was signed by every Republican Representative.

That's the scary part. This idea that he's a lone nut. He's not.

 

[Pollux]

Where the hell do I fall on the political spectrum?

I'm pro-life.

I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm in favor of a complete rework of America's immigration laws to be more humane.

I'm in favor increased sex education and access to contraceptives and birth control.

I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of America's foster/adoption system to provide for the increased number of children that would inevitably happen due to the dramatic decrease in abortion.

I want a Planned Parenthood type thing to provide all the services women might need but without abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I think if women had a better option other than abortion or the shit system we currently have they might choose the other option.

I'm in favor of a reduction in defense spending to help pay for that foster/adoption system.

Any other hot-button issues I'm missing? It's late.

 

[Chumly]

That's the scary part. This idea that he's a lone nut. He's not.

Doesn't stop conservative gaf from pretending that he is.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I don't even consider myself a leftist by nature. It's just that republicans in the U.S are just batshit insane and corrupt for the most part.
Edit: Dems are corrupt too, but at least they act sane D=

 

[RkOwnage]

I consider myself a Republican...

inb4juniormembersdontcount

 

[Dead Man]

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.

Excellent post.

 

[abusori]

First page of gaf can help with that question rather well now.

 

[maharg]

Where the hell do I fall on the political spectrum?

I'm pro-life.

I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm in favor of a complete rework of America's immigration laws to be more humane.

I'm in favor increased sex education and access to contraceptives and birth control.

I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of America's foster/adoption system to provide for the increased number of children that would inevitably happen due to the dramatic decrease in abortion.

I want a Planned Parenthood type thing to provide all the services women might need but without abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I think if women had a better option other than abortion or the shit system we currently have they might choose the other option.

I'm in favor of a reduction in defense spending to help pay for that foster/adoption system.

Any other hot-button issues I'm missing? It's late.

Well, in the American system at least, you'll get more of what you want out of the democrats by far. The only poor alignment there is being pro-life.

Overall I'd say you're a socialist.

 

[RDreamer]

Where the hell do I fall on the political spectrum?

I'm pro-life.

I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm in favor of a complete rework of America's immigration laws to be more humane.

I'm in favor increased sex education and access to contraceptives and birth control.

I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of America's foster/adoption system to provide for the increased number of children that would inevitably happen due to the dramatic decrease in abortion.

I want a Planned Parenthood type thing to provide all the services women might need but without abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I think if women had a better option other than abortion or the shit system we currently have they might choose the other option.

I'm in favor of a reduction in defense spending to help pay for that foster/adoption system.

Any other hot-button issues I'm missing? It's late.

You're obviously a communist.


heh, but really you're pretty liberal. The only thing you're near the other side on is your stance on abortion. Realistically you are close to the truth with your statement that with other systems in place women would choose other options. Most other European countries and Canada all have much lower abortion rates than we do, even though they are perfectly 100% legal and fine to have done. The reason for that is because they have better access to contraception, they have probably a healthier view on sex in general, they don't have the kind of inequality we have here, and they have a nice safety net. They can feel fine having their child, because they know they and the child will have health care. They know if they lose their job they'll have a better safety net to help them bounce back. If you get all these things figured out the abortion rate goes down.

Personally, that's a large part of why I'm pro-choice. The abortion rate isn't affected by making it illegal. In fact it's illegal some of the countries with the highest rates. Also, this really affects women when they need to have an abortion due to complications. If they have to go all through this red tape, or if there really is no exception for the life of the mother, then you're putting people's lives in danger.

 

[Pollux]

Well, in the American system at least, you'll get more of what you want out of the democrats by far. The only poor alignment there is being pro-life.

Overall I'd say you're a socialist.

You're obviously a communist.


heh, but really you're pretty liberal. The only thing you're near the other side on is your stance on abortion. Realistically you are close to the truth with your statement that with other systems in place women would choose other options. Most other European countries and Canada all have much lower abortion rates than we do, even though they are perfectly 100% legal and fine to have done. The reason for that is because they have better access to contraception, they have probably a healthier view on sex in general, they don't have the kind of inequality we have here, and they have a nice safety net. They can feel fine having their child, because they know they and the child will have health care. They know if they lose their job they'll have a better safety net to help them bounce back. If you get all these things figured out the abortion rate goes down.

Personally, that's a large part of why I'm pro-choice. The abortion rate isn't affected by making it illegal. In fact it's illegal some of the countries with the highest rates. Also, this really affects women when they need to have an abortion due to complications. If they have to go all through this red tape, or if there really is no exception for the life of the mother, then you're putting people's lives in danger.

So basically if I want to be happy I should move to Sweden? :jnc

 

[hateradio]

So basically if I want to be happy I should move to Sweden? :jnc

I know I would.

Hej! Jag cool.

 

[Chojin]

Personally, that's a large part of why I'm pro-choice. The abortion rate isn't affected by making it illegal. In fact it's illegal some of the countries with the highest rates. Also, this really affects women when they need to have an abortion due to complications. If they have to go all through this red tape, or if there really is no exception for the life of the mother, then you're putting people's lives in danger.

This is how I at the risk of being Excommunicated (only if I ever have one done I guess) call myself Pro-Choice and Pro-Life at the same time. Pro-Life in the US just means "Anti-Abortion" to me in that if they really WERE pro-life then they'd actually give a shit about the kid after it's born. I want a reduction in abortions, I think EVERYONE wants a reduction in abortions. Anti-Abortionists want a zero sum abortion rate, which frankly is going to be impossible. Making it illegal is the worst thing you could possibly do, as it won't end it. Social programs for mothers and children will reduce abortions. Making having a child not a burden in today's society will reduce abortions. Sexual Education will reduce abortions. General education will reduce abortions. Equal pay between women and men will reduce abortions. Reducing domestic violence will reduce abortions, and will reduce asshole shitdicks. It would be insane to ever hope for zero abortions ever. You want to reduce it as much as possible, why? It's an actual obtainable goal rather than some bullshit potential that could never be.

It's like the war on terrorism, or the war on drugs or the war on the poverty(?!). None of these could ever be 100 percent completed. It's not a checklist. A better approach is to reduce each of those things as best you can and to do that is to find the underlining cause. You can't just kill every terrorist, confiscate every drug or let every poor person die off.

Now can you see something here? Can you see why GAF leans left? It's very simple. Social Conservatives live in absolutes. The world is black and white to them. Abortions suck? ILLEGALIZE IT! What about rape babies? REDEFINE RAPE! Two queers in a wedding dress make your pants feel strange? OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE. American children lowest test scores in the developed world? TEACH THE KIDS HOW TO PASS THE TEST INSTEAD OF EDUCATING THEM.

This is what people mean when reality has a liberal bias. The world isn't black and white. The world does not belong in absolutes. Hell even fucking science lives in a world of probabilities, VERY EXTREMELY LIKELY probabilities, but probabilities none the less. And to cap off my blathering blather, even something absolute like Absolute Zero is something that can't even be achieved.

 

[Ikael]

Libertarian, rather than conservative. The (very short) version of that is I want the government to do a lot less and for people to be able to do a lot more. Think of me as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I've got my disagreements with the left and the right depending on the issue (sometimes its both!).

So... you are... a sane American right winger? Woa, hold on there buddy, who can assure me that you are not an AI algorythm or something?

Yup, my positions are more or less similar to yours, but nowadays the total number of people that follows liberalism in the classic sense in the world probably amounts to you, me, and some crazy hermit guy in Tanzania. Our political clout and weight in the real world amounts to nothing, but it is nice to know other people like that, feels good man

 

[OttomanScribe]

The core of all modern leftist politicians lies in the socialist principle of solidarity. Be it with nature or fellow workers etc.
I don't see how you could be a lefty without wanting solidarity ?

Solidarity isn't a socialist principle, and it isn't fundamentally leftist either.

Depending on who you talk to, even classical liberalism is defined as being left wing. Burkian conservatism would arguably represent a respect to solidarity in a way more clear than liberalism that is for sure.

I think it is difficult to talk about left leaning this or that, because it is such a useless definition! People throw around words like conservative all the time, but unless people go back to a classic definition of left/right (radical versus reactionary) then conservatism is inherently neither.

I don't really fit, but political Islamism is neither left nor right really, which is part of the problem with the whole spectrum, it only really applies to a small collection of European political theories, and many have moved on from such things anyway.

 

[keuja]

Well, in the American system at least, you'll get more of what you want out of the democrats by far. The only poor alignment there is being pro-life.

Overall I'd say you're a socialist.

I’ve always wondered why in the US, the proponent and opponents of abortion feel the need to call themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life". Implicitly implying that if you belong to the other camp you are either anti-life or anti-choice.

In Europe, you’re just pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
Just calling it as it is would make for more neutral debates I think, without emitting a judgement before even starting a discussion…

 

[jorma]

Well, in the American system at least, you'll get more of what you want out of the democrats by far. The only poor alignment there is being pro-life.

Overall I'd say you're a socialist.

Why socialist? There was nothing there about public ownership of the means of production. I don't see anything in that list that would make me call him socialist. He'd fit just as well in a swedish right wing party as in a left wing party with that set of opinions. Except for the abortion stuff obviously since that is a complete non-issue here.

 

[mclem]

There's no such thing as left in American politics.

There's this, after a fashion. GAF is international, and the US is actually politically right of a great many other western industrialised countries. Most Europeans - even those who'd consider themselves conservative - would probably look left-leaning from an American perspective.

 

[Hitokage]

Why socialist? There was nothing there about public ownership of the means of production.

That's not what socialism implies exactly. You're thinking of communism.

 

[jorma]

That's not what socialism implies exactly. You're thinking of communism.

No, socialism does not necessarily imply a classless society as communism does. Communism is a socialist ideology of sorts but you cannot be a socialist and still want all the means of production to be privately owned.

Since there was nothing in that list that indicated a preference of who should own what, there is nothing there that indicates that he is a socialist. (There is nothing that indicates that he isn't a socialist either, mind you.)

Note: maybe the word means different things in america like "liberal" does, i'm going with the european use of the word here.

 

[Hitokage]

Even in cases like liberal socialism or social democracy?

 

[Damon Bennet]

the term socialist is thrown around so much in america that it lost all its meanings there. mostly as a fear mongering term to bring out the memories from the cold war

 

[jorma]

Even in cases like liberal socialism or social democracy?

Social democracy is not socialism, it's capitalism with a safety net. It's what we have in scandinavia, and scandianvia is not even remotely socialist.

Liberal socialism (it's pretty much what i would call myself), you are big on social freedoms and want no state interference in your everyday life, but still want a strictly regulated economy. Important infrastructure should be state owned. Well that would be my definition of liberal socialism anyway but it might be tainted by the fact that these are my personal opinions

 

[mclem]

the term socialist is thrown around so much in america that it lost all its meanings there. mostly as a fear mongering term to bring out the memories from the cold war

And indeed WW2, from people who latch onto the *name* of the National Socialists without focussing on the fact that that part of their name had little to do with their policies.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I’ve always wondered why in the US, the proponent and opponents of abortion feel the need to call themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life". Implicitly implying that if you belong to the other camp you are either anti-life or anti-choice.

In Europe, you’re just pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
Just calling it as it is would make for more neutral debates I think, without emitting a judgement before even starting a discussion…

Attacks via terminology can be very effective, which is why they continue to do it.

I'm not sure even "pro-abortion" is a great term. I'm against the banning of abortions, but I certainly hope their utilization is minimized.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

And indeed WW2, from people who latch onto the *name* of the National Socialists without focussing on the fact that that part of their name had little to do with their policies.

Don't think that's accurate. In German it's written together to form a new word "Nationalsozialismus". The meaning is exactly that socialism but only for members of the own nation. If you look back they actualy had some pretty left leaning policies for their own "race" like the "strenght through joy" program for instance.
If Hitler wasn't so dependant on the capitalist industry for his war i think even more of that would have shown.

 

[Hitokage]

I remember hearing a good explanation of just how the concepts of Nationalism and Socialism were supposed to be blended in that case, but I forget what it was exactly.

Regardless, the Nazis had a really REALLY weird mix of ideology in general.

 

[Brera]

Poli-GAF is like Stormfront for lefties.

 

[Opiate]

First post as always.

This isn't true. While the left has done better with post graduates than the right for quite some time, Republicans and the right have done better with college educated workers for a long time. It is fair to say that this advantage is evaporating, however.