Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Isn't that kinda like saying beer and marijuana are the same since they both give you the munchies and the giggles? All Washington politicians are in the pocket of big business. I think you're downplaying the rhetoric a bit too much, as their rhetoric influence 2 distinct styles of policy. Bush governed from the pulpit of conservative, evangelical Christianity, while Obama stands on his neo-Marxist soapbox, promoting secularism.
Dak
mentat
Name one "conservative" thing Bush did, other than cut taxes (but he didn't cut spending, in fact he dramatically increased it, thus creating huge deficits. Deficits are not conservative.)
As for Obama, he has expanded military spending, ramped up the war on terror, increased the scope of the federal government, etc. etc.
It's all merely more government. If anything, "conservative" is a worthless label these days, since it really means "Republican" in politi-speak, and Republicans aren't conservative at all.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Fine, so excluding the word "conservative", tell me how Bush is identical to Obama. Two sides of the same coin, yes, but carbon copies? I still say no. Besides, I'm sticking to this debate because I don't think that using only left or right to describe politics is descriptive enough. Using more "celebrity" examples (and going back to your linear graph), how the hell is Hunter S. Thompson to the right of Bernard Goldberg?
Dak
mentat
I don't know who either of those guys are, would have to look and see what they say. Honestly, I don't see what celebrity opinions have to do with anything.
We are talking about literal outcomes and effects, policy in action. Not empty rhetoric and feel good speeches.
Bush and Obama both support expanding the government, both domestically and internationally, while simultaneously reducing American sovereignty, especially in a regional sense.
That Bush bailed out the banks while Obama bailed out more banks, the automakers, and the insurance companies (that is what the Health Care bill did) is not some sort of defining difference difference.
It's government expansion or government contraction.
We are talking about literal outcomes and effects, policy in action. Not empty rhetoric and feel good speeches.
Bush and Obama both support expanding the government, both domestically and internationally, while simultaneously reducing American sovereignty, especially in a regional sense.
That Bush bailed out the banks while Obama bailed out more banks, the automakers, and the insurance companies (that is what the Health Care bill did) is not some sort of defining difference difference.
It's government expansion or government contraction.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The celebrities are presented merely as examples. What I'm talking about are real ideological differences, which are important. Sure, they're means to the same end, but I think there's a distinct difference between "Do I think faith will be an important part of being a good president? Yes, I do." (Bush) and "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." (Obama). Yes, they're both autocrats, but they approach things differently. Also, I just can't agree with the idea that anarchists should be classified as the extreme right wing. Most anarchists are atheists, tolerant of homosexuals, tolerant of the practice of abortion, and tolerant of mind-altering drugs. Those are all very leftist characteristics.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You should check out Hunter S. Thompson, Dak. I think you'd appreciate him (he wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, among other things).
Dak
mentat
I am not arguing there isn't a "left/right" idealogy outside of politics. I am talking about how it affects practical matters in government.
Why would I care if a fellow libertarian wants to believe in no religion and get high? That's the beauty of it. I do my thing and he does his.
On the other end of the slider, it doesn't matter what figurehead is standing behind a podium telling whichever group of people what they want to hear, because government in America (and basically the whole world) is bought and paid for by the same people, and the same continuous agenda is pushed regardless of who is in office, and that agenda is total control.
@ Einherjar: Never saw that movie, was told it was a stoner flick and I generally avoid those.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Don't see the movie, read the book. It's not a stoner book; it's a book about drug culture and the contemporary state of the "American Dream." Thompson is a gun-owning, whiskey-drinking libertarian who believes that the government should allow him to do what he wants to. You should give the book a shot before you write him off.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
So we agree?
And yes, read some Hunter Thompson. I'm quite sure you will enjoy his work.
Dak
mentat
damnromulans
Klingons do not faint
Xorv
Drug the Priest
Dak
mentat
Srontgorrth
Member
Dak
mentat
Economic outlook is driving it down, this should last until new supposed-environmental-helping taxes get tacked onto gas prices, or war breaks out in the Middle East. Everything I am reading is expect war in the Middle East by November.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Government should not be able to tell me that I don't have to pay to read books.
