[jaxword]

Did gaf seriously use to be like this? Thank god I'm still relatively new. I wouldn't want to be part of a forum where this would be routine.

It still is a bit that way, just look at this thread at the people who are passive-aggressively whining about how they can't post their persecuted religious/conservative beliefs.


WHY CAN'T I OPENLY HATE THE GAYS/ATHEISTS LIKE THEY DESERVE??????

[Aaron Strife]

Did gaf seriously use to be like this? Thank god I'm still relatively new. I wouldn't want to be part of a forum where this would be routine.

That's hardly a gaf thing, though I don't think I've seen it here.

There are plenty of white teenagers (mostly male, mostly redneck) who ask, without irony, why there isn't a White History Month or WET or other such bullshit.

edit: And as jaxword says above, yes this totally applies to gays/atheists too it's not just a race thing. Conservatives basically asking "Is it a crime to be openly bigoted!?"

[blame space]

where's the my dick's history month?

[Bitmap Frogs]

Its not the idea of public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil. Its the idea of government-run public healthcare that they find intrinsically, irredeemably evil. Conservatism at its very core is for limited, smaller government and conservatives feel that government run healthcare mandated for every single person in the country is an over reach of government and that the government does not have the capacity to manage such a system without waste, fraud, abuse, and running deficits.

But that's a lie.

It's what they like to tell themseves and to everyone else but the truth is that conservatists LOVE to have the government get busy and big on everything they support. Starting with Defense, protection of marriage laws, "teach the controversy" laws, the war on drugs, tough on abortion laws...

This "small government" thing is just a false pretense. It is just political posturing.

Judging by the GOP's current policies, conservatists won't have any issue whatsoever with the government getting as big and inefficient and bloated on the policies they support while they will bash as "big government, overreaching" anything they don't support EVEN IF IT MEANS they will bash politicians who enact "small government" policies that they don't support. Ergo the matter of the size of the government is not at the core of conservatism.

Just look at the JSF program: the F-35 program is an unmitigated disaster and a by-the-book money blackhole. Lockheed has been missmanaging the entire thing (including at least one instance of gross accounting missmanaging). The F-35 was supposed to be technologically inferior to the F-22, but cheaper. Inferior it is, right... but it's gonna cost more to the taxpayer per plane!

But interestingly, conservatives do no care about this. They do care about the government mandating energy saving bulbs instead.

[Zaptruder]

It's pretty interesting that "liberals" refers to the left in the US, but the right in Sweden (and I imagine most other european countries).

That's because liberals are used in the sense of liberal values in America, while in Europe, the term has been coopted by conservative parties that use the name 'Liberals'.

[Dr. Pangloss]

I don't know why others are liberal, but for me it comes down to the way the main right wing party presents itself and social issues. I'm liberal on social issues and therefor can't stand those in the Republican party pushing their religious morals into law. That gives them a strike in my book.

Then it comes down to the contradictions in their arguments. Take for instance this Medicare dust up. Currently the Republican presidential candidate is campaigning on that he will make tough decisions for Medicare; that he will keep the defined benefits the same. But then he goes and blames Obama for making a tough decision on Medicare that extends its solvency for another 8 years. He also is going to change they way Medicare operates from a defined benefit plan to a defined compensation plan. Basically the Republican party does a lot of double talk which really turns me off, strike two.

Another thing I usually do is consider what each party would do if the situation is reverse. Say that Obama kept his tax returns secret and only released 2007 and 2008. Don't you think the Republican party would be all up in that? This is strike three in that they are unwilling to do what they demand others to do. And these are just some of the things that make me distrust the main right wing party. I'll give Libertarians props in that they actually put themselves out there and say what they actually believe. I also like them for their social views.

[Izayoi]

Social conservatism is inherently evil, and I think that's where the schism originates from.

It's a shame that fiscal conservatives feel like they're being persecuted merely by association, and as a result are less likely to publicly discuss their views (at least on NeoGAF). I personally don't agree with fiscal conservatism, but unlike its social counterpart, it is not inherently evil, and there is merit in discussing it.

I make no apologies for social conservatives who are rightfully removed from the forum, however. They have no place in modern society, let alone on a message board where rational thought and equality are championed.

[greyshark]

Social conservatism is inherently evil, and I think that's where the schism originates from. It's a shame that fiscal conservatives feel like they're being persecuted merely by association, and as a result are less likely to publicly discuss their views (at least on NeoGAF). I personally don't agree with fiscal conservatism, but unlike its social counterpart, it is not inherently evil, and there is merit in discussing it. I make no apologies for social conservatives who are rightfully removed from the forum, however. They have no place in modern society, let alone on a message board where rational thought and equality are championed.

Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.

[jaxword]

where's the my dick's history month?

February.













HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~

[JokerOfSpades]

It still is a bit that way, just look at this thread at the people who are passive-aggressively whining about how they can't post their persecuted religious/conservative beliefs. WHY CAN'T I OPENLY HATE THE GAYS/ATHEISTS LIKE THEY DESERVE??????

Yet we mustn't forget that ignorant people often hold the same beliefs as educated ones.

I'm not speaking of bigots, of course.

[akachan ningen]

the so called left in this country are just as bought the right. there is no true liberal party in this country.

true change starts at the bottom.

[maharg]

Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.

You cannot oppress oppression.

[cutmeamango]

You cannot oppress oppression.

Yes you can, that's how villains are born.

[Zaptruder]

You cannot oppress oppression.

Sure you can. It's just completely and utterly justifiable.

[jaxword]

You cannot oppress oppression.

How do you stop it?

[cutmeamango]

Sure you can. It's just completely and utterly justifiable.

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

How do you stop it?

Relinquish power or make it obsolete. Erase the notion of power afterwards too.

[Zaptruder]

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

Or you follow a consistent principled logic that allows you to tread the fine line between efficacy and principles.

Not easy, but certainly possible.

[cutmeamango]

Or you follow a consistent principled logic that allows you to tread the fine line between efficacy and principles. Not easy, but certainly possible.

I wish we could open a window to an alternative past to see how far Robespierre would have gone.

[Zaptruder]

I wish we could open a window to an alternative past to see how far Robespierre would have gone.

I don't know this character, but a quick Wiki-ing of his name tells me this is a dumb straw man of a comment.

[cutmeamango]

I don't know this character, but a quick Wiki-ing of his name tells me this is a dumb straw man of a comment.

Hold it cowboy! As far as mad men he was, his idealism of equality and power to contain power (as contradictory as it may be), and ignoring 'the terror', was interesting.

I personally, pessimistic enough, do not believe humans are capable of a horizontality in terms of power, I don't see the possibility as you do.

EDIT:
And to a totally off topic question, as this post is already totally off topic: Is there no obligatory world history class in the US?

[Zaptruder]

Hold it cowboy! As far as mad men he was, his idealism of equality and power to contain power (as contradictory as it may be), and ignoring 'the terror', was interesting. I personally, pessimistic enough, do not believe humans are capable of a horizontality in terms of power, I don't see the possibility as you do. EDIT: And to a totally off topic question, as this post is already totally off topic: Is there no obligatory world history class in the US?

I don't understand

"idealism of equality and power to contain power"

and "horizontality in terms of power".

On one hand, they kinda make you sound like a smarty pants. They also make you incomprehensible.

I mean... the first point is like... you don't believe in a constitutional frame work or something. I mean... isn't that in a sense the system that provides its constituents with an institutionalized sense of power?

And the second point is... what democracy?


But... neither of those ideas really relate to what I quipped?

What I was alluding to with "consistent principled logic that allows you to tread the fine line between efficacy and principles." was a form of utlitarianism that accounts for complex interactions and knock on effects as well as the uncertainty of outcomes...

A philosophy which gives us the handy rule of thumb - take as much time and resource as possible given the circumstances to determine the most effective outcome. With more time and resources, you get to consider a greater set of implications and knock on effects - but the goal is simply to trend towards the best outcome for all concerned.

As for the edit question, I wouldn't know. I grew up in Australia... and our world history generally extended to World War 1 and 2, and the English colonization of Australia. In retrospect, that's quite a failure of our education system to provide us with a well rounded understanding of the world... but there you go.

[radioheadrule83]

My personal politics have been fluid for years - Labour is the traditionally liberal vote winner in the UK, and their lurch to the center wasn't why I didn't vote for them at the last election, it was that they'd blown things in a great many respects and I viewed the current party as unelectable.

Looking in from the outside, at the Republicans in America, they look wholly unelectable too. How anyone can even consider it with the way they act in congress, thinking about election year rather than the people they serve in these tough times, or how they acted when in power: blowing hundreds of billions on two stupid wars, the dispassionately slow fed reaction to the floods, stewardship of the economy and financial regulation that led to the sub prime crisis that nobody in the world has yet recovered from... What about the stupid things their figureheads say and do on an almost weekly basis.

I look at that and I am baffled. How can anyone want to vote for this party right now? Or is it more that they don't want to vote for the other one? I think perhaps the reason is that some people want some of what the Republican party offers, but not necessarily all of it. I am sure not all American conservatives are religiosos, gun nuts, war mongers or dispassionate welfare haters...

I am in favour of occupying a middle ground myself, and representing as much of the electorate as possible. Bill Clinton popularised that idea in the 90s. He called it The Third Way. And it makes sense if you think about it... It's only a minority at the politically extreme fringes who are wholly liberal or conservative, most of us are a blend of the two.

I am socially liberal, in that I believe law abiding innocents, the vulnerable and the elderly have a human right to survive in this awful, cruel life with a basic level of dignity. I believe the law should exist to protect us, not to impose fascistic ideological norms upon us. I don't believe that people should be subject to prejudice because of their sex, age, race or religion... I am abhorred by attempts to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. I am happy to be taxed as long as my government performs and uses that money to lift the whole country and not just their friends. I will change my voting habits dependent on how well a government represents me and spends my money, I don't vote based on the colour or logo of a party.

On the other hand, I believe a modicum of fiscal conservatism is healthy and vital. We can't spend and spend without consequence, tax should be simple and understandable, how it is spent should be as transparent as possible. I also believe in strong, tough law. Not in over legislation of the tiniest stupid thing, but in stern consequences for crimes that harm society.

What makes me err more liberal in voting habits is that its nearly impossible to vote for conservative parties without horrible social consequences: abandonment of the vulnerable, religious pandering, favouring employer rights over employee rights, a move away from regulation (despite many of the industries needing it being the most corrupt and profiteering in existence), disregard for international legal tenets like habeas corpus, war for oil or strategic assets and power projection...

I WANT a conservative party that can help me be free to be able to live and grow, build a life and a family, not one that just makes me free to profit.

[Emitan]

Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.

Poor conservatives. They just want to oppress others and bring society back in time with their completely outdated and laughable ideals. Poor guys ;~;

[chaosblade]

And to a totally off topic question, as this post is already totally off topic: Is there no obligatory world history class in the US?

Yes, but it basically just picks up where ancient history leaves off, and by the time they start teaching anything modern it becomes "US history, featuring all these other countries." You probably get more world history out of foreign language classes.

I look at that and I am baffled. How can anyone want to vote for this party right now? Or is it more that they don't want to vote for the other one? I think perhaps the reason is that some people want some of what the Republican party offers, but not necessarily all of it. I am sure not all American conservatives are religiosos, gun nuts, war mongers or dispassionate welfare haters...

I've mentioned I live in Alabama, and unfortunately there are an awful lot of people like this. You'd seriously be surprised.

[miksar]

Well, living in a post-communist state I do think that GAF leans too much left.

[zoukka]

Sure you can. It's just completely and utterly justifiable.

Just requires a certain black & white mindset and you're good.

[Zaptruder]

Just requires a certain black & white mindset and you're good.

We should always take a proactive stance against those who would seek to subjugate us and reduce our freedoms and dignity as human beings.

No?

[zoukka]

We should always take a proactive stance against those who would seek to subjugate us and reduce our freedoms and dignity as human beings. No?

That sounds like some slogan carved on a statue. Sure we should defend ourselves, but oppression doesn't turn into something else if you change the motivations behind it. Which is again a different matter from "whether we should oppress or not".

[Huff]

Because if you go to chick fil a you will be banned

[Zaptruder]

That sounds like some slogan carved on a statue. Sure we should defend ourselves, but oppression doesn't turn into something else if you change the motivations behind it. Which is again a different matter from "whether we should oppress or not".

I won't say you don't have a point here - because you obviously do have one. To rephrase your general point (in a way I can agree with) - you're saying that by oppressing the voices of those you disagree with, you run the risk of oppressing legitimate points... assuming that you label those that you disagree as oppressors, or bigots or some such.*

*in fact, this isn't quite what you're expressing, but I try to exercise argumentative charity where I can.

To which the correct response is to ensure a clarity of thinking - that oppressive thoughts are not oppressed in the traditional sense; denying, attacking - but in a more liberal minded sense of been equipped with the correct knowledge and cognitive tools to allow people to naturally and correctly arrive at the conclusion that bigotry and other forms of oppression is in no way a positive thing for both the person or society. Also, to not pretending as though logically and morally broken positions should be given equal weighting or consideration as the modern media tends to be doing way too much of in this era.

[scorcho]

We're dealing with a younger demographic that is more likely to critically analyze a given statement or fact. That this group has flowed towards liberal politics in the US says more about the streak of anti-intelllectualism currently degrading conservative orthodoxy. A generation ago the ivy leagues were the bastion of young Republicans. That's no longer the case.

[Terra Firma]

The question posed in the title of this thread is flawed. GAF's stance being called "so much to the left" only shows OPs extreme right wing bias. Of course, that would be the case outside of 'Merika. OP considers himself an "independent", the "centrist" equivalent in the US but "centrist" in a relevant manner, since a centrist outside the US would probably be called someone who leans "so much to the left" by the OP.

In essence, 'Merika already leans way to the right for anyone to use its political spectrum seriously.

[POWERSPHERE]

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

boom.

[animlboogy]

Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.

It's a forum meant for civil discussion. You're basically claiming that if someone calls me a faggot, I'm being a bigot by asking a mod to give them the boot?

Come on, dude. Time to self-evaluate and start figuring out this world before its too late. Playground logic doesn't work for adults.

[Manmademan]

But that's a lie. It's what they like to tell themseves and to everyone else but the truth is that conservatists LOVE to have the government get busy and big on everything they support. Starting with Defense, protection of marriage laws, "teach the controversy" laws, the war on drugs, tough on abortion laws... This "small government" thing is just a false pretense. It is just political posturing. Judging by the GOP's current policies, conservatists won't have any issue whatsoever with the government getting as big and inefficient and bloated on the policies they support while they will bash as "big government, overreaching" anything they don't support EVEN IF IT MEANS they will bash politicians who enact "small government" policies that they don't support. Ergo the matter of the size of the government is not at the core of conservatism. Just look at the JSF program: the F-35 program is an unmitigated disaster and a by-the-book money blackhole. Lockheed has been missmanaging the entire thing (including at least one instance of gross accounting missmanaging). The F-35 was supposed to be technologically inferior to the F-22, but cheaper. Inferior it is, right... but it's gonna cost more to the taxpayer per plane! But interestingly, conservatives do no care about this. They do care about the government mandating energy saving bulbs instead.

Absolutely this. And the opposition to "government run!" healthcare is total bullshit. Obamacare is:

1.) Not government run by any definition, it's run completely by private healthcare companies

and

2.) A Carbon Copy of a plan not only proposed by congressional republicans during the Clinton administration, but one actually implemented in massachusetts by a republican governor in 2006. they're protesting their own plans as socialism, just because democrats are proposing them.

Meanwhile there's a current (again, bullshit) attempt by Romney/Ryan to paint Obama as someone slashing Medicare which IS a government run healthcare program that everyone loves. This is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously when they say things like this.

[animlboogy]

Absolutely this. And the opposition to "government run!" healthcare is total bullshit. Obamacare is: 1.) Not government run by any definition, it's run completely by private healthcare companies and 2.) A Carbon Copy of a plan not only proposed by congressional republicans during the Clinton administration, but one actually implemented in massachusetts by a republican governor in 2004. they're protesting their own plans as socialism, just because democrats are proposing them. Meanwhile there's a current (again, bullshit) attempt by Romney/Ryan to paint Obama as someone slashing Medicare which IS a government run healthcare program that everyone loves. This is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously when they say things like this.

Stuff like that is why I don't take Democrats seriously (repurposing Republican plans? And then seemingly not having the balls in debates to at least point out that that's actually what's going on?)... And why modern republicans are just impossible to even being seeing as anything but a joke. There's some truth to that dumb simple saying that they're "the party of No". Their entire platform seems to be to cry extremism (socialism, currently) and class warfare over every single thing the Democrats do, when the reality of it is the Democrats aren't even representing a true left wing, but simply nudging themselves to the left of the republicans and taking advantage of the perception of being progressives, when they're just pre-2001 Republicans.

It's just all a big joke, and there's not enough good, accessible journalism out there to inform enough people that this is what's happening.

[PastorOfMuppets]

Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.

This is a classic (and stupid) piece of internet logic which loosely translates into "If you complain about the guy who's calling you a nigger/chink/faggot/bitch/homo etc, you are no better than he is."

[Zaptruder]

Stuff like that is why I don't take Democrats seriously (repurposing Republican plans? And then seemingly not having the balls in debates to at least point out that that's actually what's going on?)... And why modern republicans are just impossible to even being seeing as anything but a joke. There's some truth to that dumb simple saying that they're "the party of No". Their entire platform seems to be to cry extremism (socialism, currently) and class warfare over every single thing the Democrats do, when the reality of it is the Democrats aren't even representing a true left wing, but simply nudging themselves to the left of the republicans and taking advantage of the perception of being progressives, when they're just pre-2001 Republicans. It's just all a big joke, and there's not enough good, accessible journalism out there to inform enough people that this is what's happening.

It really is a fat load of fucking shit. The republicans have won. Both parties are actually republicans - one is insane, emotional and irrational, using the dirtiest tactics possible to pull the discourse continually over to the extreme right. The democrats are simply there to hedge the republican bet. Both parties dance on the string of their corporatist masters.

The left has lost their representation - but most just don't realize it yet.

[Dead Man]

This is a classic (and stupid) piece of internet logic which loosely translates into "If you complain about the guy who's calling you a nigger/chink/faggot/bitch/homo etc, you are no better than he is."

Yep. Pathetic, but to the ignorant it seems to score points.

[Manmademan]

Stuff like that is why I don't take Democrats seriously (repurposing Republican plans? And then seemingly not having the balls in debates to at least point out that that's actually what's going on?)... And why modern republicans are just impossible to even being seeing as anything but a joke. There's some truth to that dumb simple saying that they're "the party of No". Their entire platform seems to be to cry extremism (socialism, currently) and class warfare over every single thing the Democrats do, when the reality of it is the Democrats aren't even representing a true left wing, but simply nudging themselves to the left of the republicans and taking advantage of the perception of being progressives, when they're just pre-2001 Republicans. It's just all a big joke, and there's not enough good, accessible journalism out there to inform enough people that this is what's happening.

Well, the problem isn't one of "balls." The problem is that the current system makes it very hard to pass anything productive- as watered down as Obamacare is, it only passed by the slimmest margin possible, and even then because a republican senator (Specter) defected because he was getting primaried by a tea party candidate. Passing TRULY progressive legislation like single payer is an impossibility.

In addition, conservatives have spent a VERY long time building up conservative media networks that basically function as the propaganda arm of the republican party. AM radio, Fox news, print outlets like the WSJ and blogs like drudge and breitbart actively coordinate republican talking points to give the illusion of truth to bullshit, so it doesn't actually matter what's actually said in a debate.

The country has been moving farther and farther rightward and getting increasingly polarized because of it.

[animlboogy]

This is a classic (and stupid) piece of internet logic which loosely translates into "If you complain about the guy who's calling you a nigger/chink/faggot/bitch/homo etc, you are no better than he is."

You see this logic everywhere. It's just schoolyard logic. "you hit me, I hit you. Or nobody can hit anybody." it's deeply immature and solves no problems.

I'd say this logic is really pertinent to this thread in general. It shows up in popular American conservative punditry again and again, and informs the worldview of millions. It is by far the prevailing image of how the American conservative views the world, and if the intellectual wing would like to be taken more seriously, that kind of thinking should be their first major target.

As mentioned previously, conservatism outside of the social realm can be logically sound, albeit different from leftist thought. I'd think that the guys who can discuss their ideas smartly and avoid that, "but HE said...!" kind of shit bleeding into the conversation the way it so often does when chatting with republican types.

[metalslimer]

Because many people actually come from Europe so the idea of government healthcare, higher taxes, and gay rights seem so far left to the American conservatives. The truth is Gaf is probably in the center which the far right conservatives of America (and Gaf) interpret as being evil socialists commie liberals. The idea of conservatism is limited government? Give me a fucking break. This is only used as an excuse, but when the religious nuts try anld pass anti gay legislation the conservatives will eat it up. American conservatives are only limited government when a democrat is in office. And no I won't use the world liberal because there are very few liberal democrats

[animlboogy]

Well, the problem isn't one of "balls." The problem is that the current system makes it very hard to pass anything productive- as watered down as Obamacare is, it only passed by the slimmest margin possible, and even then because a republican senator (Specter) defected because he was getting primaried by a tea party candidate. Passing TRULY progressive legislation like single payer is an impossibility. In addition, conservatives have spent a VERY long time building up conservative media networks that basically function as the propaganda arm of the republican party. AM radio, Fox news, print outlets like the WSJ and blogs like drudge and breitbart actively coordinate republican talking points to give the illusion of truth to bullshit, so it doesn't actually matter what's actually said in a debate. The country has been moving farther and farther rightward and getting increasingly polarized because of it.

You're very right about how difficult bills are to pass. What I meant was, why don't Democrats use their repurposing of old republican plans to an advantage? Except for the tea baggers, many of the republicans in office were around when their party proposed these things. Instead they just sit and take the accusations of socialism, when if that were true, most of the guys saying it would have been socialists only 15 years ago or less!

But in the end, you're probably right... It doesn't matter what's said in a debate. Fucking Acorn still comes up as though that is a legitimate part of the democrats vs. republican discourse. I'll even hear people who vote democratic talking about that and other, similar non-issues ("we have got to stop voter fraud! We need to require DMV IDs!") as examples of where they disagree with how the left operates. They've already won.

I wonder if there is a formula, where the louder the witch hunters get (commies! Socialists! Hell, even just liberals!) the fewer actual examples of such people there are with any power.

Because many people actually come from Europe so the idea of government healthcare, higher taxes, and gay rights seem so far left to the American conservatives. The truth is Gaf is probably in the center which the far right conservatives of America (and Gaf) interpret as being evil socialists commie liberals. The idea of conservatism is limited government? Give me a fucking break. This is only used as an excuse, but when the religious nuts try anld pass anti gay legislation the conservatives will eat it up. American conservatives are only limited government when a democrat is in office. And no I won't use the world liberal because there are very few liberal democrats

I'd say limited government has been thoroughly debunked as an actual platform in this thread, at least for republican voters. GAF itself has conservative thinkers who have illustrated small government concepts nicely in the past, but I doubt those guys are particularly excited about Romney and Ryan.

They don't even want to shrink the biggest, most expensive, and powerful arms of the government, like the military. What they mean by small government and reigned in spending is actually cutting off a couple million dollars for NPR here, and maybe a couple million dollars for a social program there. They have no interest in targeting the largest sums in the budget, in spite of the fact that we could fire every fucking government employee and still not balance the budget.

They talk about balancing the budget constantly, but they never, NEVER support ideas that would do so. They just paint every single social cut or funding program for something perceived as "liberal" as somehow another step towards saving us from oblivion. I mean, come on, making tax cuts a huge part of the conversation while claiming to want to balance the budget? That reads as bullshit immediately after it flies out of their mouths.

[PastorOfMuppets]

You see this logic everywhere. It's just schoolyard logic. "you hit me, I hit you. Or nobody can hit anybody." it's deeply immature and solves no problems. I'd say this logic is really pertinent to this thread in general. It shows up in popular American conservative punditry again and again, and informs the worldview of millions. It is by far the prevailing image of how the American conservative views the world, and if the intellectual wing would like to be taken more seriously, that kind of thinking should be their first major target. As mentioned previously, conservatism outside of the social realm can be logically sound, albeit different from leftist thought. I'd think that the guys who can discuss their ideas smartly and avoid that, "but HE said...!" kind of shit bleeding into the conversation the way it so often does when chatting with republican types.

Don't forget the free speech argument.

Some guy: "I believe that all Mexicans should be sent back to Mexico unless they serve three years in the army!"

Some other guy: "Dude, that is racist."

Original guy: "Why are you against free speech you liberal fag?"

[animlboogy]

Don't forget the free speech argument. Some guy: "I believe that all Mexicans should be sent back to Mexico unless they serve three years in the army!" Some other guy: "Dude, that is racist." Original guy: "Why are you against free speech you liberal fag?"

Heh. Always a classic. Just ignoring completely the difference between your ability to comment on whatever he says however you want, and the idea of suppressing speech (you're not suppressing a damn thing).

That this was a huge part of the conservative argument against gay rights activists during the Chic fil a meltdown says a hell of a lot to me about how certain people view the world. I have a couple family members who still won't back down from thinking that the boycott is somehow a violation of Chic fil a exec's first amendment rights. Because no way are liberals smart enough to boycott due to not wanting their money to go a certain place that they disagree with, right?

[Manmademan]

You're very right about how difficult bills are to pass. What I meant was, why don't Democrats use their repurposing of old republican plans to an advantage? Except for the tea baggers, many of the republicans in office were around when their party proposed these things. Instead they just sit and take the accusations of socialism, when if that were true, most of the guys saying it would have been socialists only 15 years ago or less! But in the end, you're probably right... It doesn't matter what's said in a debate. Fucking Acorn still comes up as though that is a legitimate part of the democrats vs. republican discourse. I'll even hear people who vote democratic talking about that and other, similar non-issues ("we have got to stop voter fraud! We need to require DMV IDs!") as examples of where they disagree with how the left operates. They've already won.

That's the thing. The fact that Obamacare IS a copy of what Republicans wanted to do in 1994, and what romney actually DID in 2006 HAS been brought up. Repeatedly.

But right wing media will either refuse to acknowledge it, or deliberately misrepresent it. Remember "Death Panels?" Meanwhile, these outlets will paint any other outlet that doesn't agree with them (say, CNN, or NPR) as "mainstream media" controlled by democrats that is lying to their audience, when the exact opposite is true. Thus we get a feedback loop of conservative nonsense, and an environment where those who get their information from conservative media ONLY get their information from conservative media, and will not entertain any sources that challenge republican talking points.

[dIEHARD]

because any opposition to a poligaf thread where everyone agrees with each other is seen as upsetting the heard, and earns you a ban.

[animlboogy]

That's the thing. The fact that Obamacare IS a copy of what Republicans wanted to do in 1994, and what romney actually DID in 2006 HAS been brought up. Repeatedly. But right wing media will either refuse to acknowledge it, or deliberately misrepresent it. Remember "Death Panels?" Meanwhile, these outlets will paint any other outlet that doesn't agree with them (say, CNN, or NPR) as "mainstream media" controlled by democrats that is lying to their audience, when the exact opposite is true. Thus we get a feedback loop of conservative nonsense, and an environment where those who get their information from conservative media ONLY get their information from conservative media, and will not entertain any sources that challenge republican talking points.

I have people close to me who suffer from this feedback loop. It's just dangerous, especially the way it seems to convince them that the one or two sources they use are somehow more well rounded than someone getting their news from many different places. Whatever liberal slant the several dozen sources I read might have, none of them tell me only to read their reporting. It's a really scary concept.

[RDreamer]

because any opposition to a poligaf thread where everyone agrees with each other is seen as upsetting the heard, and earns you a ban.

Definitely not true.

[Zaptruder]

because any opposition to a poligaf thread where everyone agrees with each other is seen as upsetting the heard, and earns you a ban.

No. ignorant inflammatory statements that lack factual or logical basis earns you a ban. Kinda like the one you're making. (Don't worry, you won't be banned, otherwise there'd be a graveyard in here already. But seriously, that's the kind of shit that people pull repeatedly to earn themselves a ban).