POL: Liberals are wide-eyed idealists and Conservatives are cold, heartless monsters.

[Groundhog]

Discuss.

[stevew]

Did you see that shot LeBron hit tonight to win the game?

[Groundhog]

I did. Now that Lebron is taking (and making) those shots in the clutch, how long till the media starts calling him a ball hog?

[ice4277]

Cavs/Wizards: Playing for the right to lose to the Pistons in five games.

[bulletsponge]

sports media are so predictable. they are either chewing an athletes a$$ off or sucking on his ----. my guess is he will get chewed on until he wins a championship, then they will fall over each other trying to kiss his butt

[Sidhe]

The problem isn't liberal or conservative, it's people, politics, and money.

In theory, both world views are made up of ideas and principles that are somewhat reasonable given the world works a certain way, with some central disagreements on the way the world works. It hasn't ever yet been proven that either theory of the world is worth fighting about.

In practice, at least in democracies, both theories about the nature of life, the universe, and everything are used and abused by extremely selfish people who appeal to the lowest common denomenator quite knowingly so that they can stay in power.

The best way to get folks on your side is to divide them.

So the conservatives attract the vast majority of people who are unreflexively selfish and believe, truly down in their hearts, that the world should be exactly as they think. So long as conservative politicians can figure out what the majority of conservatives think the world should be like, and parrot that back to them, it doesn't matter whether they actually do any of the things they promise to do.

The liberals attract the vast majority of pelople who are unreflexively angry and believe, truly down in their hearts, that everyone else should pay for their anger in the most rigidly exacting way. (It's just selfishness again, with a different emphasis.) So long as liberal politicians can speak to their anger in a convincing way, it doesn't matter whether they actually do any of the things they promise to do.

Both ideas have become, in the minds of their supporters, like football teams, each one the hated rival of the other. Nothing the other team does is good, it's shite from start to finish. Politicians believe this is an excellent state of affairs because it keeps them from being accountable to half the people, and keeps the people diverted. For this reason, politicians screech at the tops of their voices that they are different from one another in every conceivable way, when actually they are as similar as two peas in a pod.

Whlie the people cheer their teams, politicians do what you'd expect the ordinary human being would -- what's good for themselves. This has lead to, at least in the United States, the almost complete ownership of the government by monied interests. Until 2000, The Big Money went in fairly equal measure to both parties, but from 2000 until now money has concentrated in the Republican party. When/if there is a backlash, money will go straight the other way, because money doesn't care about appearances and teams. It only cares about making more money. And politicians, being only ordinary people, like money too.

So in this drama you have at least three players -- two "teams" of ignorant and unreflexive voters, the politicians who exploit them, and Money. Not one of these players is ever accounted for in the idealized questions we toss around about democracy.

But as the quote goes "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried." That was Winston Churchill, if it matters.

Ocassionally, the world/nation gets itself into real trouble, and at those times we've been lucky to have leaders arise who are wise enough to get us out of it, and they do it by ignoring the principles of liberalism/conservatism. They do it by being pragmatic. The way people can be when the shite is hitting the fan. Unfortunately, when there's no shite hitting the fan, we tend to suck at keeping things going, liberals and conservatives both.

In a nutshell, in the US, both political philosophies are deeply flawed until a crisis, when the government will then attempt act pragmatically, which means it doesn't matter which party is in charge, though it may matter which particular human beings are in charge. Abraham Lincoln was the right man in the right place during the Civil War, and that would have been true regardless of his political party.

This leaves us with the very reasonable concern, "What if the right individuals aren't in charge during the next crisis?" which, mark my words, is just around the corner.. Other civilizations have failed from lack of leadership. It can happen again. At some point, it will be just that serious.

But we'll be too busy cheering our teams to notice until it's too late. I think Lincoln said something about that too, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," though he got that from an ancient philosopher. If that's true, if a house divided against itself cannot stand, then what should we think of people who set out to divide the house? Should we applaud them, give them money and power? I think we should kick them right in the ass.

Politicians are all bastards. Ocassionally, they are useful bastards.

[flere-imsaho]

Tom Brady is God. Discuss.


HAHA!!! Beat you to it, st.cronin!!!

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I think that description fits me pretty well.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You know who was a true ball hog? Hitler.

[King of New York]

I wonder who has the greater grasp of macroeconomic theory: LeBron James or Tom Brady?

Hitler was not an easy player to coach. One time he was whistling a well-known tune, but doing so incorrectly. His secretary corrected him; Hitler turned around and shouted at her, "it is not I who am incorrect, it is the composer!"

[cartman]

When you Godwin a thread, God wins.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting take, sidhe. It seems like it is more important, then, to put people in charge who act competently rather than people who hold one beleif system or another.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I wonder who has the greater grasp of macroeconomic theory: LeBron James or Tom Brady?

Hitler was not an easy player to coach. One time he was whistling a well-known tune, but doing so incorrectly. His secretary corrected him; Hitler turned around and shouted at her, "it is not I who am incorrect, it is the composer!"

Le Bron barely graduated High School. Brady graduated from a reputable university. I'd submit that Brady has a much better shot of at least spelling macroeconomics.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tom Brady is God. Discuss.


HAHA!!! Beat you to it, st.cronin!!!

Preach it, brother!

[st.cronin]

dola

democracy is incompatible with itself - this i have proven using only a compass and a slide rule

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

You know who was a true ball hog? Hitler.

Hitler was a known chucker.

Plus, when you only have one ball, you try to protect it.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Hitler was a known chucker.

Welcome at the ICC then.


ATTENTION CITIZEN: YOU HAVE JUST OBSERVED A JOKE ABOUT CRICKET. PLEASE NOD GENTLEY, GIVE A POLITE CHUCKLE AND PATRONISE THE JOKE MAKER.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Welcome at the ICC then.


ATTENTION CITIZEN: YOU HAVE JUST OBSERVED A JOKE ABOUT CRICKET. PLEASE NOD GENTLEY, GIVE A POLITE CHUCKLE AND PATRONISE THE JOKE MAKER.

Heh. You are a comedic genius






















How was that?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

ATTENTION CITIZEN: YOU HAVE JUST OBSERVED A JOKE ABOUT CRICKET. PLEASE NOD GENTLEY, GIVE A POLITE CHUCKLE AND PATRONISE THE JOKE MAKER.

Actually, it was a ahh.. Seinfeld joke.

Sorry, didn't mean to get the cricket fans all giddy with an unintentional cricket reference.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Welcome at the ICC then.


ATTENTION CITIZEN: YOU HAVE JUST OBSERVED A JOKE ABOUT CRICKET. PLEASE NOD GENTLEY, GIVE A POLITE CHUCKLE AND PATRONISE THE JOKE MAKER.

Heym, I laughed. Daryl Hair was in charge then ?

[rkmsuf]

You see Elaine, Billy was a simple country boy. You might say a cockeyed optimist,

who got himself mixed up in the high stakes game of world diplomacy and international intrigue.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

You know who was a true ball hog? Hitler.

Isn't that because he only had one testicle?

[sabotai]

I didn't know today was National State The Obvious Day.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by ice4277

How was that?

Bzzzt, incorrect. The correct answer is "HOWZAAAAAAT!!".

[Bearcat729]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Isn't that because he only had one testicle?

Hitler has only got one ball,
Goering has two, but very small;
Himmler is very sim'lar,
And Goebbels has no balls at all.