Which party is more stifling...

[jakethebake]

In total, define it way way you personally want to, which political party steps on personal liberties more? I'm talking economically/taxation, not letting you do drugs, preventing you from marrying who you like, whatever you feel is important. Which parties policies are more stifling of liberty?

[coffeecrazy1]

Both are very much so.
Both are hopelessly paternalistic.

Right now, my vote is with the Republicans(for more stifling).
After the 2006 election, maybe it will shift to the Dems.

It's all the same.

It's either the Republicans wanting to put a steeple on public schools and locking up my buddy with glaucoma, or the Democrats raising the tax rate as close to 100% as possible in order to provide the same level of customer service at government clinics that one gets at the DMV.

[shakingspear]

You know, I gut reacted Republican because I tend to agree with Dems more, but really they both suck. Republicans don't want homosexuals getting married and talk about Jesus too much (and a million other things), Dems don't want me listening to certain music or playing certain video games (and a million other things).

I think it's time to turn towards anarchy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Dems don't want me listening to certain music or playing certain video games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're referring to the Tipper Gore drive to keep "teenagers" away from "obscene" lyrics - you're right on.

If you're not - what are you talking about?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Dems don't want me listening to certain music or playing certain video games (and a million other things).


[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is mostly a function of

1) overly-concerned conservative Christians (who I daresay tend to vote Republican) and

2) overly-concerned suburbanite mothers, who we might not be able to pigeon-hole into a political ideology (other than one that believes in ridiculous amounts of over-attention paid to their children and even heartier amounts of Dr. Phil).

I might say these mothers tend to vote Republican (although with much less intensity than their conservative Christian counterparts, even though these two groups aren’t mutually exclusive); but I don't doubt there are plenty of left-leaning mothers who disapprove of the misogynist/violent nature of what constitutes some modern popular culture, like rap music and video games.

So I'm putting the crowd who 'doesn't want you listening to certain music or playing certain video games' into the somewhat-Republican leaning column, with the proviso that I have no bones about criticizing some on the left who would gladly limit access to music/video games if they had their druthers.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Dems don't want me listening to certain music or playing certain video games.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're referring to the Tipper Gore drive to keep "teenagers" away from "obscene" lyrics - you're right on.

If you're not - what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary Clinton had made some moves on this front, namely in regards to video games. Im sure its all calculated to try and position herself as a moderate.

[shakingspear]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're referring to the Tipper Gore drive to keep "teenagers" away from "obscene" lyrics - you're right on.

If you're not - what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Tipper. And lately it's been Lieberman (though he's always had his hand in this debate) and Hillary Clinton.

Apparently everyone here favors social freedom rather than economic freedom. Post-materialism isn't for me.

[Beer and Pizza]

The big difference between the parties is this:

The Republicans talk about restricting social freedoms, but in the real world, people end up doing what they want regardless how hard the Republicans try to stop it. (All talk, no real effect on real people in most cases).

The Democrats actually get your money. When they raise your taxes, people overwhelmingly end up paying those extra taxes.

So in the real world, the Democrats restrict us more, simply because we just can't get around their restrictions like we can get around the Republican restrictions.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
The big difference between the parties is this:

The Republicans talk about restricting social freedoms, but in the real world, people end up doing what they want regardless how hard the Republicans try to stop it. (All talk, no real effect on real people in most cases).

The Democrats actually get your money. When they raise your taxes, people overwhelmingly end up paying those extra taxes.

So in the real world, the Democrats restrict us more, simply because we just can't get around their restrictions like we can get around the Republican restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, except that Republicans need your money to fight their battles, too. That's why government has grown consistently, throughout every single administration in the last 30 years, no matter what party is in power. Both parties believe their cause to be just, worth fighting for, and definitely, worth every penny of our money...especially if children are involved.

Seriously, the OOT thread about five-year-olds was so cathartic for me after the neverending litany from both sides of the aisle of "If we can prevent just one child from xxxxxxx, then the money is well-spent."

Bullshit. If we are spending government funds on a project that works once, then that project is a failure. The other poster talking about suburbanite mothers hit the nail right on the head. I think we all need to calm down about the children, and care just a little bit less about "our children's future."

Our children's future would be much brighter if more parents acted like parents, rather than blame video games for the Columbine shootings, and quit whining about how they can't control their kids.