NationStates Jolt Archive

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous, something that bothers me greatly about his show. Finally, someone came on and showed him up, thank you, Jesus. He was a genius, turning Colbert's own game around on him in an epic battle of wits and the witty. Touche, sir, touche!

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous, something that bothers me greatly about his show. Finally, someone came on and showed him up, thank you Jesus. He was a genius, turning Colbert's own game around on him in an epic battle of wits and the witty. Touche, sir, touche!

Touché. Accent.

Jesus was on Colbert?

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous, something that bothers me greatly about his show. Finally, someone came on and showed him up, thank you Jesus. He was a genius, turning Colbert's own game around on him in an epic battle of wits and the witty. Touche, sir, touche!

So which guest was this? I don't keep up with the show so I haven't seen this.

Jesus was on Colbert?

sorry, I forgot a comma, Jesus.

sorry, I forgot a comma, Jesus.

Why are you apologising to Jesus?

Why are you apologising to Jesus?

I was using it as an interjection, buddy, I just used another one to show my annoyance with you.

If you want to troll, go to a Harry Potter convention, sheesh. (That was another interjection, FYI).

I was using it as an interjection, buddy, I just used another one to show my annoyance with you.

If you want to troll, go to a Harry Potter convention, sheesh. (That was another interjection, FYI).

I'm not your buddy, guy.

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous

Actually the very simplicity and content of conservative views is what makes them ridiculous, not any misrepresentation of them by Colbert (the best way to insult conservatives, not much unlike the Bible/Quran/Younameyourstupidthinghere, is to quote them directly). That's what truly annoys you.

It probably wasn't the real Jesus. It was probably an actor who looks like Jesus.

I'm not your buddy, guy.

say it aint so, champ!

I'm not your buddy, guy.

he's not your guy, friend.

It probably wasn't the real Jesus.

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

I was using it as an interjection, buddy, I just used another one to show my annoyance with you.

If you want to troll, go to a Harry Potter convention, sheesh. (That was another interjection, FYI).

Buddy? As in Buddy Jesus (http://www.blainetucker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/buddy%20Jesus.jpg)?

Why don't you tell us who this guy actually was so we can Youtube or head to Comedy Central?

It probably wasn't the real Jesus. It was probably an actor who looks like Jesus.

Jim Caviezel?

So which guest was this? I don't keep up with the show so I haven't seen this.

George Will, the author of One Man's America

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

The obvious quip is to leave out the 'oxy'.

So I won't go there...

Uh... and... so what? I, mean, what did you want us to comment on given that we don't know who the guest was or why you think he did what you said he did.

I liked Buddy Guy when he was with Band of Gypsies.

Actually the very simplicity and content of conservative views is what makes them ridiculous, not any misrepresentation of them by Colbert (the best way to insult conservatives, not much unlike the Bible/Quran/Younameyourstupidthinghere, is to quote them directly). That's what truly annoys you.

Similar to how liberal views are so convoluted as to be absurd without distorting them at all?


And I say, I say, did y'all hee-uh what I done said about that thair guest? I say I say, who was that thair guest? [/Foghorn Leghorn]

Edit: Gotcha, CR. Thank you.

The obvious quip is to leave out the 'oxy'.

So I won't go there...

You did, and it's true.

found it


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eTwDHYTkM


EDIT: DAMN YOU VIACOM!! :upyours:

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

No one has ever made that joke before. Ever.

Colbert isn't funny. It is why I stopped watching the Daily Show, he brought it down a lot.

George Will, the author of One Man's America
George Will? *snort* I've read some of his arguments, and I use the phrase lightly. He couldn't out argue a balloon animal.

Similar to how liberal views are so convoluted as to be absurd without distorting them at all?

Adam Smith wasn't very convoluted, and if you do find him convoluted, that says more about you.

No one has ever made that joke before. Ever.

It's not a joke. It's a factual statement. It's not original since it's so apparent.

Adam Smith wasn't very convoluted, and if you do find him convoluted, that says more about you.

I just wanted to make the counterpoint because I could.

I just wanted to make the counterpoint because I could.

You "could" in the sense that you could make an attempt at best, but inevitably fail to make a counterpoint as you did.

He presented conservative views in a less blatently selfish and offensive manner than most. But the idea that the government should stand aside while a wealthy few maintain there advantage over the suffering masses, and that this some how constitutes freedom, is so fundimentally repulsive that no one can truly make it palatable. I can see how the idea of free enterprise and rising soley on merit is seductive, but at some point, unrestrained free enterprise creates an environment which is unfriendly to other rights and freedoms, as those with wealth and power actively use it to exploit others and hold them permanently down, regardless of merit. I think I understand what George Will is arguing. I can even say I respect him, in fact he has joined Schwartzenegger on the now two-man list of prominent conservatives who I respect. But his philosophy is fundimentaly flawed.

I'm not sure "simplifies" is the right word for what Colbert does. Its more exaggeration to get a point across. Apparently you still don't get it, so I guess the effort is wasted.:headbang:

If Colbert "bothers" you, you don't have to watch him. Just go watch Bill O'Reily and listen to Rush Limbau. They'll tell you everything you want to hear.:rolleyes:

Wow, George Will! He's better than Jesus but still not as cool as Buddy Guy.

Actually the very simplicity and content of conservative views is what makes them ridiculous, not any misrepresentation of them by Colbert (the best way to insult conservatives, not much unlike the Bible/Quran/Younameyourstupidthinghere, is to quote them directly). That's what truly annoys you.

Our simplicity comes from the efficiency of conservative governance.

Allow me to explain.

The key tenant of liberalism is the concept of equality, and as has been shown throughout human history, and by the laws of nature, equality does not exist. It must be artificially created, by a government by using a wastefully large amount of resources, and then maintained by a government with yet even greater amounts of wasted resources.

Even in the largest attempt at large-scale equality (the Soviet Union) fail, due in part to the waste of resources, and in part to the unstoppable forces of social gravity (the seperation of people into higher and lower classes).

Liberty, the primary tenant of true conservatism, on the other hand is a natural phenomenon. If you are free, you stand on your own two feet, without any hinderance, you can rise to the top by your own actions, or fall to the bottom by your own actions. To me and other conservatives, this independence is a much fairer doctrine than the idea of equality and its sister forced mediocrity.

It's not a joke. It's a factual statement. It's not original since it's so apparent.
Jesus is rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off him and sticks to you.
Or am I not down to the appropriate level of childishness for this conversation yet?
What about this: Poopyhead! Pooooooooopyhead!

Our simplicity comes from the efficiency of conservative governance.

Allow me to explain.

The key tenant of liberalism is the concept of equality, and as has been shown throughout human history, and by the laws of nature, equality does not exist. It must be artificially created, by a government by using a wastefully large amount of resources, and then maintained by a government with yet even greater amounts of wasted resources.

Even in the largest attempt at large-scale equality (the Soviet Union) fail, due in part to the waste of resources, and in part to the unstoppable forces of social gravity (the seperation of people into higher and lower classes).

Liberty, the primary tenant of true conservatism, on the other hand is a natural phenomenon. If you are free, you stand on your own two feet, without any hinderance, you can rise to the top by your own actions, or fall to the bottom by your own actions. To me and other conservatives, this independence is a much fairer doctrine than the idea of equality and its sister forced mediocrity.

I quote you directly to enhance my point. Thank you for facilitating that.

It's not a joke. It's a factual statement. It's not original since it's so apparent.

Its factuality is a somewhat debatable.

But that is neither here nor there.

What is here AND there is this: If you were in fact not making a joke, why did you bring it up in a thread about Colbert getting schooled apparently by some old dude?

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

Wow, that was profound. I am sure that you are very proud of your accomplishment.

We have ourselves a genuine Baron d'Holbach over here.

I quote you directly to enhance my point. Thank you for facilitating that.

I can do that, too, see?

Jesus is rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off him and sticks to you.
Or am I not down to the appropriate level of childishness for this conversation yet?
What about this: Poopyhead! Pooooooooopyhead!

I was totally going to say that! You stole what I was going to say! You're a stupid head! Stop being such a stupid head dummy face!

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous, something that bothers me greatly about his show. Finally, someone came on and showed him up, thank you, Jesus. He was a genius, turning Colbert's own game around on him in an epic battle of wits and the witty. Touche, sir, touche!

I would hardly call that an epic battle of wits. It was an interesting fight, and Will did a decent job holding his own, but I would hardly call him a genius. He merely had good talking points, a quick tongue, and some balls. That's obviously an extremely rare combination on the right, since you're championing it here on the intarwebs.

found it

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eTwDHYTkM
That was great; I've never seen Colbert pushed so far.

Still, as quick-witted as both men are, and realising Colbert's a character, all their talk of liberals vs. conservatives is waffle.

Its factuality is a somewhat debatable.

Nope. Well, unless you mean "debatable" in the sense of "creationism vs. science" in a place like Alabama.

But that is neither here nor there.

What is here AND there is this: If you were in fact not making a joke, why did you bring it up in a thread about Colbert getting schooled apparently by some old dude?

I didn't bring Jesus up.

I can do that, too, see?

Again, as I mentioned earlier, you can attempt to, but inevitably fail, yes.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, you can attempt to, but inevitably fail, yes.

I don't see how I failed. I was making a point and directly quoting you enhanced the point I was making, which was that I can directly quote you to enhance my point.

The Soviet Union was not an attempt at equality, at least not for long. You don't think Stalin's cronies had it a lot better than the average Russian.

But I forgot.:rolleyes: Slyly equating liberals with communists is a favorite smear tactic of conservatives with little honesty, and one which I expect to see used liberally in the coming election, intersperced with a whole bunch of Islam and Reverend Wright BS.:rolleyes:

By the way, it always seems strange to me that most conservatives oppose evolution on religious grounds, and many even argue against it as the (fictitious) cause of social evils such as Hitler's eugenics program, as if evolution were a social theory as opposed to a scientific observation of the natural world. And yet these same conservatives are quite happy to practice Social Darwinism in their idealized view of a free economy. So many contradictions.

Adam Smith wasn't very convoluted, and if you do find him convoluted, that says more about you.

Adam Smith was a conservative, his views are genius, even in the modern economy. Sure, people say that we needed Keynesian principles to get us out of the great depression, but they did not do that. The Second World War was what allowed us to get back onto the Productions Possibilities Frontier (I cite the increase in both guns and butter production in the first years of the war). The only thing that Keynes and his economics are good as is creating stagflation. How was stagflation and the Great American Production Slowdown of the 1970's ended, you ask? By President Ronald Reagan (R) and his supply-sided economic policies that were decried by liberals as pro-business and pro-upper class policies. Did the deficit spending of the post-war liberal era do this, no, weaning the economy of its governmental crutch did.

Adam Smith was a conservative,

Hilarious. I could quote you directly all morning. That's almost siggable.

Adam Smith was a conservative, his views are genius, even in the modern economy. Sure, people say that we needed Keynesian principles to get us out of the great depression, but they did not do that. The Second World War was what allowed us to get back onto the Productions Possibilities Frontier (I cite the increase in both guns and butter production in the first years of the war). The only thing that Keynes and his economics are good as is creating stagflation. How was stagflation and the Great American Production Slowdown of the 1970's ended, you ask? By President Ronald Reagan (R) and his supply-sided economic policies that were decried by liberals as pro-business and pro-upper class policies. Did the deficit spending of the post-war liberal era do this, no, weaning the economy of its governmental crutch did.

The massive fiscal stimulus that WWII required was exactly the kind of policy that Keynes advocated.

Nope. Well, unless you mean "debatable" in the sense of "creationism vs. science" in a place like Alabama.

You're wrong because I said so. I win, and it's not debatable, it's fact. They only debate that I won in places like Uzbekistan or Sri Lanka.

I didn't bring Jesus up.

The mention of Jesus was obviously done in jest. Taking it out of that context was deliberate on your part (apparently, according to yourself when you denied that you were joking). It was you who took it out of the context of a jest that had already established its place in this thread.

Stop acting more dense than you really are.

I don't see how I failed. I was making a point and directly quoting you enhanced the point I was making, which was that I can directly quote you to enhance my point.

Thing is though, you weren't making a point. You haven't so far, not a single one.

So, according to this guy Conservatives are for "freedom". If that's true then why do they want to make sure that gays are denied the freedom to marry?

You're wrong because I said so. I win, and it's not debatable, it's fact. They only debate that I won in places like Uzbekistan or Sri Lanka.



The mention of Jesus was obviously done in jest. Taking it out of that context was deliberate on your part (apparently, according to yourself when you denied that you were joking). It was you who took it out of the context of a jest that had already established its place in this thread.

Stop acting more dense than you really are.

Thing is though, you weren't making a point. You haven't so far, not a single one.

Will the two of you try to make a point that's on topic?

Thing is though, you weren't making a point. You haven't so far, not a single one.

Or have you missed the point entirely?

Will the two of you try to make a point that's on topic?

Nope.

The only thing that Keynes and his economics are good as is creating stagflation. How was stagflation and the Great American Production Slowdown of the 1970's ended, you ask? By President Ronald Reagan (R) and his supply-sided economic policies that were decried by liberals as pro-business and pro-upper class policies. Did the deficit spending of the post-war liberal era do this, no, weaning the economy of its governmental crutch did.

Stagflation was caused by massively increased oil prices in the wake of the OPEC embargo, and ended in the early 80s when the oil producing countries couldn't maintain it. Reagan pushed through some needed deregulation and government simplification, sure, but his policies mostly just increased the divide between the richest and the poorest in America.

Even if that was simply the result of 'fairer' tax law which allowed the rich to keep more of their 'justly gained' earnings, I'd argue the bad effects of increased wealth divide outweigh any slight increase in economic growth. And the Laffer curve is an interesting concept but was horribly selectively interpreted and abused to force ridiculous tax cuts through.

Of course, I'm sure you also believe Reagan singlehandedly ended the Cold War, too, and that the Iran/Contra deal was totally justified and Oliver North is a national hero :rolleyes:

e: oh god, and don't even start on deficit spending if we're talking about Reagan

If Republicans are so good with the economy, how is it that the last three have each run up a record national debt, including your precious Reagan? Maybe because cutting spending is fine, until it comes to starting unprovoked wars and then "staying the course?" And I suppose a hands-off aproach to business is fine, until its nescissary to intervene in a foreign country to help your buddies in the defense industry?

The truth is, the GOP interferes in people's lives just like the evil liberals do, its just that they do it in a different way. Maybe you think that way is less harmful. Maybe you really believe that the freedom to deny a child health care is more important than the freedom to criticize the President during a time of war. But if you do, then argue that. Don't BS me. (Just to be clear, this is a response to conservative idiocy in general, as well as to any specific post in this thread. However, this is the philosophy that conservative supporters in this thread have associated themselves with, at least partially, and I feel these are valid points to raise in a debate on conservative ideology).

Adam Smith was a conservative, his views are genius, even in the modern economy.
He was certainly a smart guy, but try to set up an economy in the modern day with "Wealth of Nations" in hand and you'll soon end up in difficulties.

The only thing that Keynes and his economics are good as is creating stagflation.
Yeah. Hence why President George W. Bush (R) is busily signing "stimulus packages" into law.

How was stagflation and the Great American Production Slowdown of the 1970's ended, you ask?
I don't have to, I know it quite well. The question is: do you?

By President Ronald Reagan (R) and his supply-sided economic policies that were decried by liberals as pro-business and pro-upper class policies.
First of all you need to thank Paul Volcker (who now happens to endorse Barack Obama, by the way). He killed inflation before Reagan ever got into office.

Did the deficit spending of the post-war liberal era do this, no, weaning the economy of its governmental crutch did.
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/bradford-reagan2.jpg
Hmmm...

Look, Reagan's policies did a lot of good things, but they didn't do them immediately. 90% of the time, that's what happens with supply side policies, because they take longer to go through the system.

Liberty, the primary tenant of true conservatism, on the other hand is a natural phenomenon. If you are free, you stand on your own two feet, without any hinderance, you can rise to the top by your own actions, or fall to the bottom by your own actions. To me and other conservatives, this independence is a much fairer doctrine than the idea of equality and its sister forced mediocrity.

And this is somehow the reason that most self-described conservatives want the government to regulate what we do in our own bedrooms, mandate religious principles, and remove equality under the law - a type of equality absolutely necessary to liberty?

Stagflation was caused by massively increased oil prices in the wake of the OPEC embargo, and ended in the early 80s when the oil producing countries couldn't maintain it.
Nothing has just one cause. There was "demand-pull" inflation because the government didn't understand the Phillip's Curve and thought they could stimulate aggregate demand with a bit of spending and get extra employment by creating a bit of extra inflation. Over time that just created inflation expectations. Those led people to keep asking for higher wages, which increased the cost of production and reduced aggregate supply. Both the Fed and the government accomodated that by then further increasing aggregate demand to get back to the long run unemployment and growth rates they thought were appropriate (but where in fact too low and high respectively).

The oil price shock fit right into that picture and set off the spiral at much accelerated speed, but it wasn't the only cause.

Our simplicity comes from the efficiency of conservative governance.Or conservatives' inability to grasp complex issues without simply resorting to cowardly acts like invasions, wars, character assassination, further attacks on constitutional rights and overall infantile approaches to most things. Generally speaking of course.

The key tenant of liberalism is the concept of equality, and as has been shown throughout human history, and by the laws of nature, equality does not exist.Which would justify, of course, "conservative" bigotry and elitism, ultimately reinforced with corporal force and consequence.

Liberty, the primary tenant of true conservatismExcept where Patriot Acts and the like are involved, of course. Or freedom of speech, where "conservative" cowards invoke "slander" "sedition" and "treason", being the cowards they are, of course.

If you are free, you stand on your own two feet, without any hinderance, you can rise to the top by your own actions, or fall to the bottom by your own actions. To me and other conservatives, this independence is a much fairer doctrine than the idea of equality and its sister forced mediocrity.With the obvious exception, of course, of what someone else MIGHT do with their personal life/sexuality/body/spiritual alignment/money since again, as mentioned just above, they're cowards.

He presented conservative views in a less blatently selfish and offensive manner than most. But the idea that the government should stand aside while a wealthy few maintain there advantage over the suffering masses, and that this some how constitutes freedom, is so fundimentally repulsive that no one can truly make it palatable. I can see how the idea of free enterprise and rising soley on merit is seductive, but at some point, unrestrained free enterprise creates an environment which is unfriendly to other rights and freedoms, as those with wealth and power actively use it to exploit others and hold them permanently down, regardless of merit. I think I understand what George Will is arguing. I can even say I respect him, in fact he has joined Schwartzenegger on the now two-man list of prominent conservatives who I respect. But his philosophy is fundimentaly flawed.

I'm not sure "simplifies" is the right word for what Colbert does. Its more exaggeration to get a point across. Apparently you still don't get it, so I guess the effort is wasted.:headbang:

If Colbert "bothers" you, you don't have to watch him. Just go watch Bill O'Reily and listen to Rush Limbau. They'll tell you everything you want to hear.:rolleyes:

First off, Rush and O'Reilly are not conservatives, they are capitalists who have noticed that making outrageous comments on air will pay the big bucks, so why not do it. Colbert doesn't bother me, he simply annoys me when he tries to fallaciously satire conservative views.

I am glad that you have finally seen real conservative views, (Arnold and Will are libertarian conservatives, Bush and Cheney are neo-conservatives, there is a difference), however the effort to quote you is wasted :headbang:
I quote you directly to enhance my point. Thank you for facilitating that.

I bet you think that was witty huh, you sly devil you.

Nope. Well, unless you mean "debatable" in the sense of "creationism vs. science" in a place like Alabama.



I didn't bring Jesus up.

One of your cronies did.

The Soviet Union was not an attempt at equality, at least not for long. You don't think Stalin's cronies had it a lot better than the average Russian.

But I forgot.:rolleyes: Slyly equating liberals with communists is a favorite smear tactic of conservatives with little honesty, and one which I expect to see used liberally in the coming election, intersperced with a whole bunch of Islam and Reverend Wright BS.:rolleyes:

By the way, it always seems strange to me that most conservatives oppose evolution on religious grounds, and many even argue against it as the (fictitious) cause of social evils such as Hitler's eugenics program, as if evolution were a social theory as opposed to a scientific observation of the natural world. And yet these same conservatives are quite happy to practice Social Darwinism in their idealized view of a free economy. So many contradictions.

It was founded on the ideas of Marx, who called for elimination of the classes in Das Capital, therefore, for equality. That is the exact point I am making, it started out as a attempt at eqaulity of man, however it was soon stratified into the two classes, the Party leaders who in fact controlled the property, despite the communist ideals of common property owned by all. Even they could not resist the pull of social stratification.

Slyly equating conservatives with crazy southern hillbillies who polish their guns and hope to kill a black man is a favorite smear tactic of liberals with little honesty. By the way, I know that if a man in my church said things about blacks that the Rev. Wright did about whites, I would get up and leave.

And just for the record, I am a Darwinist (I believe that it is the manner in which my Lord created the world, and please, to all those about to jump on my comments with an "OMG CRISTAN :eek: !!!!!!!!11!!!!" outburst, please leave my beliefs alone, they are my beliefs, I do not try and discount your agnosticism/atheism or whatever, I respect your beliefs, do the same to mine).

And this is somehow the reason that most self-described conservatives want the government to regulate what we do in our own bedrooms, mandate religious principles, and remove equality under the law - a type of equality absolutely necessary to liberty?Yeah, i noticed that bullshit too.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

So, according to this guy Conservatives are for "freedom". If that's true then why do they want to make sure that gays are denied the freedom to marry?

I think it's like the OP'rs assertion regarding superiority in the first paragraph and how conservatives seem to assume they're superior to everybody.

Hilarious. I could quote you directly all morning. That's almost siggable.

Well in one post, you said that free enterprise was a conservative ideal, then in the next you try to say that its creator was not a conservative. Make up your mind compadre!

The massive fiscal stimulus that WWII required was exactly the kind of policy that Keynes advocated.

WWII brought about an increase in the demand for products naturally not through the artificial stimulus that Keynes called for.

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous, something that bothers me greatly about his show. Finally, someone came on and showed him up, thank you, Jesus. He was a genius, turning Colbert's own game around on him in an epic battle of wits and the witty. Touche, sir, touche!

You should link I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eTwDHYTkM

My apologies if it was already done elsewhere...

[snip].

Those are all views of the neoconservatives, we are discussing the economic ideals of conservatism and the ideals of libertarian conservatism (What Will is)

First off, Rush and O'Reilly are not conservatives, they are capitalists who have noticed that making outrageous comments on air will pay the big bucks, so why not do it.Yes, of course, but it's a "liberal media" making outrageous assessments and frenzies and they obviously need to be stopped.
Colbert doesn't bother me, he simply annoys meDone there.

One of your cronies did.Is this more of that elitism you mentioned earlier?

Slyly equating conservatives with crazy southern hillbillies who polish their guns and hope to kill a black man is a favorite smear tactic of liberals with little honesty.Lots of honesty. Review the vote record. They do it for themselves, and don't need "liberals" to do it for them.
By the way, I know that if a man in my church said things about blacks that the Rev. Wright did about whites, I would get up and leave.Why? Can't handle their liberty of speech, or the assessment they might have about superiority?
please leave my beliefs alone, they are my beliefs, I do not try and discount your agnosticism/atheism or whatever, I respect your beliefsWhat if your beliefs are inferior? Should they be respected or should they just meet the predictable fate that any inferior philosophy faces on a regular basis?

It was founded on the ideas of Marx, who called for elimination of the classes in Das Capital, therefore, for equality.
If you say "Das", you're using the German title, which means you need to spell it "Kapital".

And he didn't so much call for their elimination as he concluded that their elimination is a necessary consequence of their existence. Marxism is first and foremost the belief that by looking at the material, economic conditions and their influence on politics we can explain, understand and predict political, social and economic events. In Das Kapital, this was done in a fairly rational, scientific way.

You're thinking of the Communist Manifesto, which was more a political rallying cry than an exercise in analysis.

Slyly equating conservatives with crazy southern hillbillies who polish their guns and hope to kill a black man is a favorite smear tactic of liberals with little honesty.
Conservatism is no better defined in common language than liberalism. There's actual conservatism, which you have to go back to Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and the like, which is a (potentially religion-based) belief in tradition as a naturally developed way of social organisation so complex that an outsider can't hope to understand it as a whole. Therefore the rejection of grand social experiments like the French Revolution.

There's neo-conservatism, which isn't really that conservative at all in many ways. There's the belief that traditional American values (again, religiously influenced) are the source of strength of the country, which makes them important for the true cause of a neo-conservative: a sort of world-revolution of liberal, democratic capitalism.

There are European conservative parties like the various Christian Democrats, who by American standards would be seen as quite collectivist and closer to the Democrats than the Republicans.

And then there are those many people who call themselves "conservative" in modern-day America without ever bothering to define it as anything but "not liberal". You would probably know more about that sort than I do sitting here.

Suffice to say that any connection between all of these and capitalism is coincidental at best. Hence why conservatives are happy to interfere in markets all the time, be it as corporate welfare (particular in defense industries), tariffs and quotas (particularly for political reasons) or as immigration restrictions (because the logical conclusion of making public policy in a capitalist way is to see the labour market as a market like any other).

You should link I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eTwDHYTkM

My apologies if it was already done elsewhere...

Sorry I forgot to do that

*points at self* n00b!

Those are all views of the neoconservatives, we are discussing the economic ideals of conservatism and the ideals of libertarian conservatism (What Will is)
If you are willing to be this specific about what makes a qualified, respectable argument about conservatism, then you sorely need to do the rest to pull the vocal conservative majority up to speed, as the vocal majority are woefully pathetic. You should do more to correct the obvious belligerent fallacies they espouse on such a regular basis.

WWII brought about an increase in the demand for products naturally not through the artificial stimulus that Keynes called for.

There are no such thing as artificial stimuli in economics as opposed to natural stimuli.

[snip]

I am just saying that we need a president who shows good judgement. In my opinion, a man who sits in a pew while his pastor spits out racist rhetoric for twenty years, and just sits there and takes it, does not have good judgement.

There are no such thing as artificial stimuli in economics as opposed to natural stimuli.

government intervention, sorry for my faulty diction.

government intervention, sorry for my faulty diction.

Spending money on a war is government intervention. There was quite a lot of government intervention during WWII including price controls, wage controls, the draft, and massive government spending.

I am just saying that we need a president who shows good judgement.That's just the thing, the judgment. So far, we've been dealing with a complete lack of sensible judgment in anything other than skulduggery and corporate malfeasance on part of the "president". Seriously. What kind of judgment do you expect from someone like Bush and his "cronies" if they're not held accountable for any cost they EVER incur? For their life?
In my opinion, a man who sits in a pew while his pastor spits out racist rhetoric for twenty years, and just sits there and takes it, does not have good judgement.How do you think we feel in putting up with Bush and his believers' bullshit for the past near-decade ... big and small, media fronts of all types, including forums? Seriously?

What if your beliefs are inferior? Should they be respected or should they just meet the predictable fate that any inferior philosophy faces on a regular basis?

Battle tested for two thousand years can't be that inferior.

And as I said in that post, please do not try to move the goalpost, let's try to stick to the issue at hand, mmmkay, if you can't handle that please leave.

Battle tested for two thousand years can't be that inferior.Including, of course, all the translations, re-translations, and debunking, right?
I think that pretty much defines "inferior". And when you say "battle tested", you're including more than ONE of the "Crusades", right?
Like Scopes trials?

And as I said in that post, please do not try to move the goalpost, let's try to stick to the issue at hand, mmmkay, if you can't handle that please leave.You did, actually. I called your OP to task right off the bat. If YOU can't keep up, not my fault. Is this a typical conservative trait?

Spending money on a war is government intervention. There was quite a lot of government intervention during WWII including price controls, wage controls, the draft, and massive government spending.

Yes, but the demand by the government was what created the boost, the government needed guns, labor, and trucks, so the demand of labor increase to meet the supply and that is why the unemployment rate fell.

Well that's all for tonight folks, see you all soon, and try not and get to far ahead of me, I have a bunch of II stuff to do as well.

Including, of course, all the translations, re-translations, and debunking, right?
I think that pretty much defines "inferior".
You did, actually. I called your OP to task right off the bat. If YOU can't keep up, not my fault. Is this a typical conservative trait?

His belief in Christianity is inferior to what, exactly?

Anyways, on topic.

I thought that was an excellent talk/debate/whatever between Colbert and Will.

Yes, but the demand by the government was what created the boost, the government needed guns, labor, and trucks, so the demand of labor increase to meet the supply and that is why the unemployment rate fell.
Which is what Keynesian intervention is.

You did, actually. I called your OP to task right off the bat. If YOU can't keep up, not my fault. Is this a typical conservative trait?

Buddy, I will tell you one more time before I launch an ignore cannon attack on you. We are discussing libertarian conservatism as shown by Will on Colbert, and we are not discussing the neoconservatives who have taken over my party. And by the way, please do not try digress this into random name calling, thanks.


Oh, and last but not least, when someone asks you to respect their beliefs, respect their beliefs. If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face, so knock it off.

Has anyone ever noticed how people love being dickheads on forums because they don't have to face the consequences

Yes, but the demand by the government was what created the boost, the government needed guns, labor, and trucks, so the demand of labor increase to meet the supply and that is why the unemployment rate fell.

Your point? Keynes wanted a massive fiscal stimulus to change expectations for people to consume and entrepeneurs to invest. Why and how it was spent was less important.

His belief in Christianity is inferior to what, exactly?
Did you not take note of the examples of translations and debunking? Guess you missed it. that's not as important a concept, though, as the realization that there is no superiority to be found in the belief, which pretty much defeats the intended purpose anyway.

I thought that was an excellent talk/debate/whatever between Colbert and Will.
The only part that was particularly agreeable on Will's part was his defining stance as the "difference" between "liberals" and "conservatives".
Other than that, he may have been pretty monotone in his delivery, which may be interpreted as "not straying from message", but there was little to agree with on his part. Also, his juvenile shot at "reality" demonstrates that whole superiority delusion well.

Which is what Keynesian intervention is.

Well if you include military Keynesianism, then I guess you would be correct, but Friedman and some others considered that a seperate practice.

I guess you raised a good point, well done.

I was not trying insinuating that you are racist, nor that you personally disbelieve in Darwinism. I should have made it clear that certain parts of my response were aimed towards the flaws of Conservatism as as whole, and not towards anyone in this thread. I apologise for the misunderstanding, and my carelessness. Having read your response, you actually seem fairly reasonable, and some one I could respect as an opponent in a political debate, as opposed to the scum at the bottom of the Republican Party. I did not mean to unfairly focus my anger at those individuals on you.

However, I stand by my point that Soviet Russia was hardly a genuine attempt at equality after Lenin's death, nor was it faithful to Marx's ideas, flawed though they were(and don't think for a moment that I have any sympathy for Communism. I can see when a system has abundantly failed in its goals, and besides Communism's philosophy of violence to achieve its goals and its opposition to freedom of expression are deeply repugnant to me). I also stand by my view that unrestrained free enterprise is ultimately an enemy of just about every other freedom, and that it is a hypocritical and untenable philosophy.

BuddySlow learner, huh?
I will tell you one more time before I launch an ignore cannon attack on you. We are discussing libertarian conservatism as shown by Will on Colbert, and we are not discussing the neoconservatives who have taken over my party. And by the way, please do not try digress this into random name calling, thanks.So the term "conservative" suddenly became "random"?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif
M'kay.

Oh, and last but not least, when someone asks you to respect their beliefs, respect their beliefs. If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face,Ah, when pressed with a problem of judgment and philosophy, your obvious conclusion to resort to physical violence. As i'd pointed out in my first reply, sadly. You are doing a poor job of distancing yourself philosophically from the "neocons" you mentioned.
so knock it off.That's okay, the market will sort it out.

Has anyone ever noticed how people love being dickheads on forums because they don't have to face the consequencesAppeal to popularity? Is your position really that weak? :D
Anywho, usually the conservatives do that, because as i said, a lot of what they do can be clearly defined as cowardice, what with the "slander" "libel" and "sedition" bullshit they bandy about. Good point.

Well if you include military Keynesianism, then I guess you would be correct, but Friedman and some others considered that a seperate practice.

I guess you raised a good point, well done.

Why did they think it was a seperate practice?

Did you not take note of the examples of translations and debunking? Guess you missed it. that's not as important a concept, though, as the realization that there is no superiority to be found in the belief, which pretty much defeats the intended purpose anyway.



What do you mean by superiority, isn't a Supreme Being through whom you achieve eternal life and happiness superior enough for you!:confused:

What do you mean by superiority, isn't a Supreme Being through whom you achieve eternal life and happiness superior enough for you!:confused:
I appreciate you not giving me the ignore cannon on that, for reason that i couldn't have made a better example of what my point has been all along about delusion. I thank you. *bows*
I'll understand you not wanting to go further with it.

We are discussing libertarian conservatism as shown by Will on Colbert...
I watched the video, and he jumped from one issue to another (prompted by Colbert's interuptions and questions) without giving a clear outline of what sort of conservative (or libertarian) he is.

So summarise him properly for me, please.

Why did they think it was a seperate practice?

In the Economics U$A video series, they considered the government as a business in the industry of war-making, out to by labor (troops) and capital (guns...tanks, etc.) as any other business would. It was an industrial recovery brought about by a boom in one industry that quickly spread to all related industries.

If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face, so knock it off.



Like the good Christian you are Id imagine.

In the Economics U$A video series, they considered the government as a business in the industry of war-making, out to by labor (troops) and capital (guns...tanks, etc.) as any other business would. It was an industrial recovery brought about by a boom in one industry that quickly spread to all related industries.

That's a pretty limited way to look at the government.

Like the good Christian you are Id imagine.
Surprisingly, there's apparently a limit to the amount of cheek that particular religion can dish.
:(

Well if you include military Keynesianism, then I guess you would be correct, but Friedman and some others considered that a seperate practice.
It can only be considered seperately because economic considerations weren't the reason for the big spending. The massive economic growth was an unintended consequence of wanting to bomb the shit out of various people abroad. But the principle is the same: expansion of government spending (either directly or in the form of tax cuts to those who will spend the money) to boost aggregate demand.

The possibility that this will actually work is not lessened by what happened in the 70s. Keynesianism had one big flaw, and that was the failure to expand the model to allow for expectations and many sorts of intertemporal decision making, which led to a misrepresentation of monetary policy. And secondly, Keynesian empirical studies relied heavily on the relationships between variables without going into enough theoretical details into explaining just how they are related. That was how the Phillips Curve was created.

But that doesn't mean that Keynesianism isn't good for anything other than stagflation. Neo-Keynesianism (ie Keynesianism modified to account for rational expectations and other microeconomic theories) can explain stagflation quite comfortably, and is, in the short run at least, probably a better guide for economic management than neo-classical supply side economics.

I guess you raised a good point, well done.
I reckon I've raised better one already in this thread, but you seem a bit selective in your responses.

I actually think this thread has gone in a very interesting direction: the difference between Neo-cons and other forms of condervatism. I will freely admit that I may have been too quick to assume that most conservatives would support the Neo-con viewpoint. I agree its an important distinction. I for one would like to see more Conservatives like Will, Arnold, or for that matter Crimean Republic. After all, a functioning political opposition is necisary for a functioning democracy. I would like to see the GOP take back its role as that political opposition that America needs, rather than continue as the abortive criminal enterprise mixed with theocratic ravings that it has descended to in recent years. Its so sad to see the Republican Party today and think that it was once the party of Abraham Lincoln.:( As it is, the GOP is a threat that must be fought. What it needs to be is a worthy competitor in a free and equal democracy.

What it needs to be is a worthy competitor in a free and equal democracy.
The problem is the two-party system. By tradition and by the way the electoral process works, it's very difficult for a third party to get a hold at the moment.

So you get one broad "left" party, which includes quite serious socialists, civil libertarians, social democrats, anti-war types, greenies and environmentalists, mildly interested centrists and combinations of those, which in reality can have very different views on many issues. The stance of the Democratic party ends up being either a victory of one faction over another, or a broad compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone.

That's even worse in the Republican Party. You get theocrats and religious nuts, neo-cons, small-government conservatives, paleoconservatives, hicks with guns, true libertarians, "passionate conservatives", nationalists and "let's kick them foreigners' asses"-types, more mildly interested centrists and so on. Some of these are openly opposed on every issue. But the American political system forces them together in a way that isn't healthy.

Realistically, that's why politics in the US is all about the character of individual politicians rather than parties and stances: just because there's an "R" behind a guy's name you don't know a thing about what he wants. And it also means that more important than who happens to win Congress or even the Presidency is the question of which faction within each party happens to gain the upper hand at any one point in time.

A viable independent would be a very good thing (provided they weren't nuts).

The problem is the two-party system. By tradition and by the way the electoral process works, it's very difficult for a third party to get a hold at the moment.

So you get one broad "left" party, which includes quite serious socialists, civil libertarians, social democrats, anti-war types, greenies and environmentalists, mildly interested centrists and combinations of those, which in reality can have very different views on many issues. The stance of the Democratic party ends up being either a victory of one faction over another, or a broad compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone.

That's even worse in the Republican Party. You get theocrats and religious nuts, neo-cons, small-government conservatives, paleoconservatives, hicks with guns, true libertarians, "passionate conservatives", nationalists and "let's kick them foreigners' asses"-types, more mildly interested centrists and so on. Some of these are openly opposed on every issue. But the American political system forces them together in a way that isn't healthy.

Realistically, that's why politics in the US is all about the character of individual politicians rather than parties and stances: just because there's an "R" behind a guy's name you don't know a thing about what he wants. And it also means that more important than who happens to win Congress or even the Presidency is the question of which faction within each party happens to gain the upper hand at any one point in time.

How would you mitigate problems from the electoral system?

A viable independent would be a very good thing (provided they weren't nuts).

The current electoral system generally makes one inviable.

One of your cronies did.

I'm back, and I'm offended - I am not a crony of Fassitude, take that back!

I'll now read the thread properly and see if there's anything else I might reply to but I would say, Crimean Republic, that you might want to grow a thicker skin and lighten up a little.

Anyway, I want to watch the actual episode now...

Adam Smith was a conservative

Well there is your first mistake, Adam Smith was a libertarian not conservative. Because some loonies have decided to put their own twisted ideals onto liberalism doesnt mean that Adam Smith wasn't one or a conservative. Remember there are different 'streams' of Liberalism.

So, according to this guy Conservatives are for "freedom". If that's true then why do they want to make sure that gays are denied the freedom to marry?

Define Conservatism?

It is a shame that over the past few years a few people have twisted conservatism in people minds which isn't close to true conservatism, which is why I am ashamed sometimes to call myself a conservative because people will place me in this group.

Well I thought it was a pretty good show, not much of substance came out of it but it was good-humoured and funny and probably far more entertaining than when someone crumbles in the face of Colbert's constant interruptions.

I mean, they are what they are - if you ever watched the difference between how Jon Stewart conversed with Bill O'Reilly and how Stephen Colbert did, I think Jon Stewart is by far the smarter of the two but then they're different types of humour.

...and ultimately, Colbert was right, no society functions as a purely free market, it's unsustainable in the end since it leads to money and power concentrated in the hands of the few.

There needs to be a balance.

As for, I think, Neu Leonstein's complaint over two-party systems, I'd say there's a huge variety among both conservatives and liberals in each party, it's simply that we, as the public, tend to simplify by using the extremes - no bad thing, to guard against the extremes but it's not a fair representation of the huge variety in each party - I'd prefer it to any multi-party system that I can think of.

EDIT: Having read even more thoroughly, Neu Leonstein had previously pointed out the disparity in types of conservatives, so small apologies despite the fact that I'll arrogantly continue to believe that I still made a point in terms of two parties :)

It's not a joke. It's a factual statement. It's not original since it's so apparent.

Proof?

Proof?

Oh no please, let Fass believe what he wants to believe, he should let you what you want to believe.

The fact that Christianity has even been mentioned on this thread shows why the US political arena is fucked.

And that goes for people on both sides of the situation.

Buddy, I will tell you one more time before I launch an ignore cannon attack on you. We are discussing libertarian conservatism as shown by Will on Colbert, and we are not discussing the neoconservatives who have taken over my party. And by the way, please do not try digress this into random name calling, thanks.


Oh, and last but not least, when someone asks you to respect their beliefs, respect their beliefs. If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face, so knock it off.

Has anyone ever noticed how people love being dickheads on forums because they don't have to face the consequences

Nope, no irony here. None at all . . .

Ah, Stephen Colbert. Irredeemably smug. Much like Chris Morris, but then Morris is more of a laugh than Stephen Colbert.

As we all know, Stephen Colbert is known for his simplification of conservative views to make them look ridiculous.

So basically you're butthurt? It's not our fault that conservative values, when you boil them down to their basic components, are ludicrous.

Call the waaaambulance if you must BAWWWW.

How would you mitigate problems from the electoral system?
I'm not that familiar with the details, but there are a lot of rules that put small parties at a disadvantage when it comes to securing funding, places on ballot papers and so on. They'd need to be fixed first.

Secondly, there'd have to be a break in people's minds from the two party system. Realistically, it would take many, many years before any alternative party could get beyond the "upstart third party" image, so maybe the best option would be to somehow break up the Democrats and Republicans into their individual factions and let them all run against each other. You might end up with a system like the one common in Europe where you get large centre-right and centre-left parties but a lot of relatively large and powerful specialised alternatives, like Greens and Liberal parties.

Not necessarily realistic, but still desirable if you ask me.

Well there is your first mistake, Adam Smith was a libertarian not conservative.
I think Adam Smith would be quite appalled at some streams of libertarian thought. He was a moral philosopher, involved in the study of obligations we have for others and particularly concerned with issues of our interaction with society as a mirror of ourselves.

That's quite different from a strict libertarian idea, which would be the denial of the existence of many obligations and limiting talk of society and collectives as much as possible (at least when represented by the state and lawmakers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

Remember there are different 'streams' of Liberalism.
Yeah, but libertarianism is a very, very distant cousin. Classic liberalism was very concerned with morality, with proper rules of behaviour when confronted with an evil or someone in need. J.S. Mill didn't make the strict distinction between an obligation not to hurt and an obligation to help. I mentioned Adam Smith above. Thomas Paine endorsed guaranteed minimum incomes, a right to free education, state pensions for everyone and so on. And Rosseau hasn't exactly been a champion of the Libertarian Party.

Modern libertarianism either comes in the form of Friedman or the CSE, which is essentially a utilitarian proposition of sorts but doesn't make any philosophical claims beyond those implied by its most basic foundations and assumptions regarding human behaviour. Or it comes in the form of the denial of moral obligations, such as the one proposed by Ayn Rand, as being contrary to what being a human being is all about.

You could argue that a few of the old-school classic liberals would be happy with the CSE-sort of view (though presumably they'd still be appalled by some of the further implications...Gary Becker's work comes to mind). But I don't think there would be any of them who would be able to agree with Ayn Rand on the marginal issues.

found it


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eTwDHYTkM
Great segment... Will absolutely stopped him dead a couple times, but telling Colbert that he was "...not decisive enough to be an atheist" was the best.

I watched the video, and he jumped from one issue to another (prompted by Colbert's interuptions and questions) without giving a clear outline of what sort of conservative (or libertarian) he is.

So summarise him properly for me, please.

But you mistake this show for news. The point is entertainment. If the answers aren't short and snappy, viewers lose interest.

So.. errrm... when did the word liberal become interchangeable with democratic socialist? Either way however, I have to admit, in that debate, Colbert was fucking destroyed, he really did look like an immature douche bag.

The problem is the two-party system. By tradition and by the way the electoral process works, it's very difficult for a third party to get a hold at the moment.

So you get one broad "left" party, which includes quite serious socialists, civil libertarians, social democrats, anti-war types, greenies and environmentalists, mildly interested centrists and combinations of those, which in reality can have very different views on many issues. The stance of the Democratic party ends up being either a victory of one faction over another, or a broad compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone.

That's even worse in the Republican Party. You get theocrats and religious nuts, neo-cons, small-government conservatives, paleoconservatives, hicks with guns, true libertarians, "passionate conservatives", nationalists and "let's kick them foreigners' asses"-types, more mildly interested centrists and so on. Some of these are openly opposed on every issue. But the American political system forces them together in a way that isn't healthy.

Realistically, that's why politics in the US is all about the character of individual politicians rather than parties and stances: just because there's an "R" behind a guy's name you don't know a thing about what he wants. And it also means that more important than who happens to win Congress or even the Presidency is the question of which faction within each party happens to gain the upper hand at any one point in time.

The electoral college was created back in the day by a group of men who were afraid of the masses and their influence. These were the men who saw Shay's Rebellion (they had a little Revolution against taxes of their own, but whose counting lol), and it scared them. IN addition, their country lacked a large population of consciencious, literate people, therefore they sought to prevent elections based on which candidate is better looking (hmm...;) and on who has on a flag lapel pin on (that one looks familiar too).

Adam Smith wasn't very convoluted, and if you do find him convoluted, that says more about you.

Opening sentence of chapter III - Of the Influence and Authority of Conscience in The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith
But though the approbation of his own conscience can scare, upon some extraordinary occasions, content the weakness of man; though the testimony of the supposed impartial spectator, of the great inmate of the breast, cannot always alone support him; yet the influence and authority of this principle is, upon all occasions, very great; and it is only by consulting this judge within, that we can ever see what relates to ourselves in its proper shape and dimensions; or that we can ever make any comparison between our own interests and those of other people.If that isn't convoluted (at nearly 100 words) I don't know what is.

I'm not that familiar with the details, but there are a lot of rules that put small parties at a disadvantage when it comes to securing funding, places on ballot papers and so on. They'd need to be fixed first.

Secondly, there'd have to be a break in people's minds from the two party system. Realistically, it would take many, many years before any alternative party could get beyond the "upstart third party" image, so maybe the best option would be to somehow break up the Democrats and Republicans into their individual factions and let them all run against each other. You might end up with a system like the one common in Europe where you get large centre-right and centre-left parties but a lot of relatively large and powerful specialised alternatives, like Greens and Liberal parties.


There would need to be a final condition: a move towards some form of proportional representation (and there are many) as opposed to a 'first past the post' system. By their nature the electoral college systems do tend to favour two-party systems over multiple party systems, even if the parties involved may change (as happened in the Uk at the beginning of the 20th Century when Labour rose to prominence and the Liberal party faded from view).

I
Modern libertarianism either comes in the form of Friedman or the CSE,

Friedman was in my opinion the greatest economic theorist since Smith himself. In my opinion, Keynesian theories are not as original as monetarism, since they take socialism and capitalism.

[WWII] can only be considered seperate [from Keynesian practices] because economic considerations weren't the reason for the big spending. The massive economic growth was an unintended consequence of wanting to bomb the shit out of various people abroad. But the principle is the same: expansion of government spending (either directly or in the form of tax cuts to those who will spend the money) to boost aggregate demand.

In WWII, the government functioned as a growth industry, whose prosperity spread to other related industries (classic agg. demand shift) similar to how the steel industry of the Gilded Age fueled the railway system, which fueled the need for oil, which fueled the need for even more capital to find deposits. After these deposits were found, they needed a means of extraction and exportation from the site to the rail roads that needed the oil, thus more railways were built, using more capital investment and thus hurtling America to its place atop the industrial pyramid (that is until the Marshall Plan, which come to think of it, was the greatest example of Keynesian success out there, I concede this point).

The possibility that this will actually work is not lessened by what happened in the 70s. Keynesianism had one big flaw, and that was the failure to expand the model to allow for expectations and many sorts of intertemporal decision making, which led to a misrepresentation of monetary policy. And secondly, Keynesian empirical studies relied heavily on the relationships between variables without going into enough theoretical details into explaining just how they are related. That was how the Phillips Curve was created.


Well, to be fair to Keynes, he did say that endless job creation and deficit spending for the economy would lead to some phenomenon like stagflation, the only problem is that the American Presidents did not listen, to be fair to them though, I doubt I would have either, if you create jobs, people will like you, regardless of how it affects their kids.

I think Adam Smith would be quite appalled at some streams of libertarian thought. He was a moral philosopher, involved in the study of obligations we have for others and particularly concerned with issues of our interaction with society as a mirror of ourselves.

That's quite different from a strict libertarian idea, which would be the denial of the existence of many obligations and limiting talk of society and collectives as much as possible (at least when represented by the state and lawmakers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments


Yeah, but libertarianism is a very, very distant cousin. Classic liberalism was very concerned with morality, with proper rules of behaviour when confronted with an evil or someone in need. J.S. Mill didn't make the strict distinction between an obligation not to hurt and an obligation to help. I mentioned Adam Smith above. Thomas Paine endorsed guaranteed minimum incomes, a right to free education, state pensions for everyone and so on. And Rosseau hasn't exactly been a champion of the Libertarian Party.

Modern libertarianism either comes in the form of Friedman or the CSE, which is essentially a utilitarian proposition of sorts but doesn't make any philosophical claims beyond those implied by its most basic foundations and assumptions regarding human behaviour. Or it comes in the form of the denial of moral obligations, such as the one proposed by Ayn Rand, as being contrary to what being a human being is all about.

You could argue that a few of the old-school classic liberals would be happy with the CSE-sort of view (though presumably they'd still be appalled by some of the further implications...Gary Becker's work comes to mind). But I don't think there would be any of them who would be able to agree with Ayn Rand on the marginal issues.

Oh my word he would, but the fact remains he was a libertarian and not a conservative. I see you mentioned Friedman as a part of modern libertarianism, while I may agree with you from an economic viewpoint I fail to see how he is involved in some of the more basic view points of liberalism. It has changed a lot since Smith, Paine and Locke first came into it, indeed the definition of liberalism in the US is vastly different to liberalism in Australia. However that was because of a different style of economic thought which developed in during the great depression. We have seen many people call themselves Liberal yet they have brought in other ideologies into it such as socialism and conservative views.

It would however be interesting to hear your views on liberal Economics.

But that doesn't mean that Keynesianism isn't good for anything other than stagflation. Neo-Keynesianism (ie Keynesianism modified to account for rational expectations and other microeconomic theories) can explain stagflation quite comfortably, and is, in the short run at least, probably a better guide for economic management than neo-classical supply side economics.

From this can I assume that you subscribe to the Neo Keynesim school of thought?

But you mistake this show for news. The point is entertainment. If the answers aren't short and snappy, viewers lose interest.
And that's partly why George F. Will came off so well; he had short answers, or no answer at all instead a steely gaze.

Most folk on Colbert Report come on to try and shove as much political opinion as they can down Colbert's throat, and end off sounding weak becasue they can't get their point across.

I was using it as an interjection, buddy, I just used another one to show my annoyance with you.

If you want to troll, go to a Harry Potter convention, sheesh. (That was another interjection, FYI).

in what way was this whole thread not a troll? i've never seen, and only seldom heard of this steven colbert, but if he's doing what the op claims, then HE'S only turning the tables on what carl rove and others (begining with rash limbo) did that have completely made this world a more brutal and dangerous place and screwed us all by doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

Allow me to explain.

The key tenant of liberalism is the concept of equality,What, because George Will says so???

The central value of American liberalism is liberty. The central value of American conservatism is also liberty. This is because American "liberals" and "conservatives" are really both different strains of Liberal. (We're not exactly known for ideological diversity.)

Anyway, the point is that American liberalism and conservatism put different interpretations on what it means to be "free," and they also come to divergent conclusions about what it takes to establish and maintain freedom.

Americans maintained a fairly strong consensus until about the turn of the twentieth century that "liberty" is essentially founded on a free market: the liberty to make contracts as one pleases without government interference. Conservatives have stuck to this basic tenet (not "tenant," btw).

At about this time, however, American "liberals" start to notice that there's something oddly perverse about how these "liberty" arguments get tossed around. Judges were overturning maximum-hours and minimum-wage legislation, not to mention occupational safety laws, on the grounds that these infringe on "liberty"--namely, the "liberty" of workers to "choose" to work under appalling conditions. As it became increasingly clear that large numbers of people were working under brutal, even slave-like conditions, liberals came to the conclusion that there is a difference between abstract "market" liberty and actual human freedom. People do not choose to live this way. And, if that's true, we live in a society in which some people are more free than others.

Conservatives live under the delusion that if the government keeps its hands out of contractual affairs, everyone is automatically just as free as everyone else.

Liberals believe that freedom actually means something.

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

Jesus did exist, most historians agree on that.

The debate is not over his existance as a human, but whether or not he is the Son of God.

Jesus did exist, most historians agree on that.

The debate is not over his existance as a human, but whether or not he is the Son of God.

we are all "sons of god" (even little furry creatures with big sharp teeth that live on planets we've never heard of). the debate is over whether his psychofans can walk on water, which i sorta kinda doubt.

=^^=
.../\...

The debate is not over his existance as a human, but whether or not he is the Son of God.
I am not wanting to get into an argument about this, there's too many threads on this subject already, but there most certainly is a debate on the existence of a single human being called Jesus. Some say that he's a fabrication, some say he was as real as you and me. Some say, and I'm inclined to agree, that he is based on a number of historical personages, mixed in with some myth.

Whatever position you take, however, it is simply not true to say that there is no debate.

in what way was this whole thread not a troll? i've never seen, and only seldom heard of this steven colbert, but if he's doing what the op claims, then HE'S only turning the tables on what carl rove and others (begining with rash limbo) did that have completely made this world a more brutal and dangerous place and screwed us all by doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

It's been interesting how people have interpreted the clip differently, as a neutral I saw it neutrally, those on either side of the coin saw their heads or tails.

*snip*

A welcome return

Jesus did exist, most historians agree on that.

The debate is not over his existance as a human, but whether or not he is the Son of God.

Let's not do this shall we, it's not a bad thread so far.

A welcome return.Thanks. :) I miss NS, but lately I've had so much work to do. Wanted to get in a few posts, though, before I leave for Mexico in a few weeks.

While I'm at it, I should add to my previous commentary that the connection between freedom and equality was not a new idea at the turn of the twentieth century: it had just become, at that point, too obvious to ignore. (Well, except for conservatives, who seem capable of ignoring anything if they put their minds to it.)

Rousseau and Jefferson had both commented in the previous century that excesses of inequality make genuine freedom impossible. The laws serve the haves and abuse the have-nots: to paraphrase Rousseau, the best government ensures that everyone has something, and none too much.

The point is that this view does not, nor did it ever, represent some inherent lust for equality, as if being equal is an end-in-itself. Rather some form of (limited, relative) equality is necessary to maintain freedom, which is itself the basic value.

The point is that this view does not, nor did it ever, represent some inherent lust for equality, as if being equal is an end-in-itself. Rather some form of (limited, relative) equality is necessary to maintain freedom, which is itself the basic value.
Ahhh, but where's the fun in using terms properly, and not reverting to weasel words?

So, for those keeping track at home, the score is now Stephen Colbert 227, Conservatives 1.

So, for those keeping track at home, the score is now Stephen Colbert 227, Conservatives 1.

And that 1 is highly debatable.

So, for those keeping track at home, the score is now Stephen Colbert 227, Conservatives 1.

Huh? Did you even watch the video? Stephen Colbert didn't even make a single argument, he just poorly parodied his opponents side with overly simplistic analogies, regardless of whether his general point of view is right or not, he certainly does not deserve the '227' himself.

It's been interesting how people have interpreted the clip differently, as a neutral I saw it neutrally, those on either side of the coin saw their heads or tails.

Yea, I've been struck by that, too. I've watched the clip multiple times and I really don't see anyone "winning" that "debate." Colbert, even through his caricature television pundit personality, made a valid point or two; Will brought up some valid considerations. Neither "owned" the other, by any objective stretch of the imagination (which I guess would make it no longer objective, then).

And, regardless, when it comes down to it, Colbert isn't representing any political stance or ideology. Like Stewart, he is an entertainer. Granted, both personalities have left-leaning ideologies that are more than apparent, any victory that can be claimed over them is a very hollow victory, at best. I've never understood why, even though both Colbert and Stewart have stated time and time again that their primary responsibility and intent is to entertain, people approach them as actual political pundits.

what I found amusing was Colbert was forced out of his satire of conservatives by George Will.

This is the guy who should be president.

And that's partly why George F. Will came off so well; he had short answers, or no answer at all instead a steely gaze.

Most folk on Colbert Report come on to try and shove as much political opinion as they can down Colbert's throat, and end off sounding weak becasue they can't get their point across.
George Will is fairly quick-witted, and has a long temper. Those two qualities help immeasurably in dealing with provocateurs of all varieties.

Huh? Did you even watch the video? Stephen Colbert didn't even make a single argument, he just poorly parodied his opponents side with overly simplistic analogies, regardless of whether his general point of view is right or not, he certainly does not deserve the '227' himself.

Why in the world would you ever expect him to make an argument? He's not a debator, he's not a newscaster, he's not a politician, he's not a pundit, he's not an opinion writer.

he's a comedian. He does comedy. I find it amusing to bring this whole "he got PWNED!" argument, and I'll bring up some words from a Colbert contemporary on the matter:

In a televised exchange with former CNN personality Tucker Carlson on Crossfire on October 15, 2004. Stewart criticized the state of television journalism and pleaded with the show’s hosts to "stop hurting America", and referred to both Carlson and co-host Paul Begala as "partisan hacks". This exchange became one of the most widely viewed Internet videos to date and a topic of much media discussion.

Despite being on the program to comment on current events, Stewart immediately shifted the discussion toward the show itself, asserting that Crossfire had failed in its responsibility to inform and educate viewers about politics as a serious topic. Stewart complained that the show engaged in partisan hackery instead of honest debate, and said that the hosts’ assertion that Crossfire is a debate show is like "saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition". Carlson responded by saying that Stewart criticizes news organizations for not holding public officials accountable, but when he interviewed John Kerry, Stewart asked a series of softball questions. Stewart responded that the media is in dismal shape if "[it is looking] to Comedy Central for [its] cues on integrity". When Carlson continued to press Stewart on the Kerry issue, Stewart said, "You’re on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls! What is wrong with you?"

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

There's nothing oxymoronic about either "real" or "Jesus".
Real is an adjective, Jesus is a name.

There's nothing oxymoronic about either "real" or "Jesus".
Real is an adjective, Jesus is a name.

hrm...

The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination. For example, the following line from Tennyson's Idylls of the King contains two oxymorons:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true"

D'oh

What, because George Will says so???

The central value of American liberalism is liberty. The central value of American conservatism is also liberty. This is because American "liberals" and "conservatives" are really both different strains of Liberal. (We're not exactly known for ideological diversity.)

Anyway, the point is that American liberalism and conservatism put different interpretations on what it means to be "free," and they also come to divergent conclusions about what it takes to establish and maintain freedom.

Americans maintained a fairly strong consensus until about the turn of the twentieth century that "liberty" is essentially founded on a free market: the liberty to make contracts as one pleases without government interference. Conservatives have stuck to this basic tenet (not "tenant," btw).

At about this time, however, American "liberals" start to notice that there's something oddly perverse about how these "liberty" arguments get tossed around. Judges were overturning maximum-hours and minimum-wage legislation, not to mention occupational safety laws, on the grounds that these infringe on "liberty"--namely, the "liberty" of workers to "choose" to work under appalling conditions. As it became increasingly clear that large numbers of people were working under brutal, even slave-like conditions, liberals came to the conclusion that there is a difference between abstract "market" liberty and actual human freedom. People do not choose to live this way. And, if that's true, we live in a society in which some people are more free than others.

Conservatives live under the delusion that if the government keeps its hands out of contractual affairs, everyone is automatically just as free as everyone else.

Liberals believe that freedom actually means something.

Hey, you're alive. WB.

Why in the world would you ever expect him to make an argument? He's not a debator, he's not a newscaster, he's not a politician, he's not a pundit, he's not an opinion writer.


Likewise, why in the world is anyone praising him and giving him a score of 227?

hrm...
D'oh

Are you saying that this man is not real?
Manuel Jesus (http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=82687&rendTypeId=4)

That sucks! Colbert is the man! Way to go colbert for making Conservatives look bad!

Huh? Did you even watch the video? Stephen Colbert didn't even make a single argument, he just poorly parodied his opponents side with overly simplistic analogies, regardless of whether his general point of view is right or not, he certainly does not deserve the '227' himself.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

George Will, the author of One Man's America
George Will is Jesus?
The obvious quip is to leave out the 'oxy'.

So I won't go there...
"Real" is moronic? I am confused. Maybe George Will/Jesus could explain it to me.

A lot of you are taking the Colbert Report a bit too seriously. All he's trying to do is get laughs, that's why he jumps around subjects. Once he sees that a subject isn't going to be interesting anymore he switches. He's not trying to have an elaborate discussion on the economy and politics.

I will admit that Will did a good job of not looking like a fool, unlike most of the other guests. He wouldn't have faired as well with Stewart though.

Liberty, the primary tenant of true conservatism,

I see little reason to believe that the primary tenet of the self-styled conservative movement in this country is "liberty" at all, and your use of "true" suggests that you might agree.

So on what basis do you distinguish what is and is not "true conservatism"?

on the other hand is a natural phenomenon.

No, there's nothing "natural" about liberty--not in the sense of "natural" you seem to be using, anyway. The individual in society, especially a society as interdependent as ours, has her liberty continually under threat from the actions of others, over which, as an individual, she has no control, but which, nevertheless, continually and significantly affect her and the choices available to her.

Individual freedom in society is something we have to establish, to bring about, to protect against the myriad threats to it.

If you are free, you stand on your own two feet, without any hinderance, you can rise to the top by your own actions, or fall to the bottom by your own actions.

Where is this "freedom"? Certainly it doesn't exist in the capitalist market, where economic outcomes are determined not by the individual, but by the buying and selling decisions (actions) of millions of others.

From this can I assume that you subscribe to the Neo Keynesim school of thought?
Not strictly. I don't really follow any particular kind of economic ideology when it comes to practical matters. I'm really quite orthodox, modern neo-classical, meaning a combination of all the various directions into an ever-evolving whole. I'm very technically-minded about the economy, so I'm more Friedman and Keynes than perhaps Hayek or Sen, but I certainly still appreciate what those two figured out. Maybe the only well-known economist I disagree with strongly on pretty much all issues is Galbraith.

Surprisingly enough, I don't find that this is at odds with my relatively extreme libertarian views on almost all other issues.

Click Stand;13745785']
I will admit that Will did a good job of not looking like a fool, unlike most of the other guests. He wouldn't have faired as well with Stewart though.
You're wrong. He would have been great on the Stewart show. Bob Dole has been one of the best guests and I can't imagine Will would have provided any less comedy.

You're wrong. He would have been great on the Stewart show. Bob Dole has been one of the best guests and I can't imagine Will would have provided any less comedy.

But look at what he did with McCain's last visit on the show. Since he has the crowd behind him, he can pretty much cut through people he strongly disagrees with. There would have been comedy regardless, but Will wouldn't have had the easier time he did with Colbert, why just goes for straight laughs instead of any real discussion.

What, because George Will says so???

The central value of American liberalism is liberty. The central value of American conservatism is also liberty. This is because American "liberals" and "conservatives" are really both different strains of Liberal. (We're not exactly known for ideological diversity.)

Anyway, the point is that American liberalism and conservatism put different interpretations on what it means to be "free," and they also come to divergent conclusions about what it takes to establish and maintain freedom.

Americans maintained a fairly strong consensus until about the turn of the twentieth century that "liberty" is essentially founded on a free market: the liberty to make contracts as one pleases without government interference. Conservatives have stuck to this basic tenet (not "tenant," btw).

At about this time, however, American "liberals" start to notice that there's something oddly perverse about how these "liberty" arguments get tossed around. Judges were overturning maximum-hours and minimum-wage legislation, not to mention occupational safety laws, on the grounds that these infringe on "liberty"--namely, the "liberty" of workers to "choose" to work under appalling conditions. As it became increasingly clear that large numbers of people were working under brutal, even slave-like conditions, liberals came to the conclusion that there is a difference between abstract "market" liberty and actual human freedom. People do not choose to live this way. And, if that's true, we live in a society in which some people are more free than others.

Conservatives live under the delusion that if the government keeps its hands out of contractual affairs, everyone is automatically just as free as everyone else.

Liberals believe that freedom actually means something.

Beat me to it.

I would only add that, on a more theoretical note, conservatives, Will especially, seem to take as given that freedom is defined by the lack of ability for the government to intervene. This goes back to a statement by John Stuart Mill early on in On Liberty. The problem, however, is that if you read On Liberty, you'll note that this definition is asserted, not demonstrated by an argument, and once you note that, you'll start to note that many instances of "freedom" as described under this definition aren't really free at all: if one person enslaves another under the aegis of a government whose laws are silent on slavery, are both men still free even though one is a de facto slave? By strict application of Mill's definition, they are; reason, however, dictates otherwise. Which is a big part of the reason why liberalism traces its notion of freedom back to older accounts such as that of Kant: freedom is the ability to choose rationally between sets of competing options, and the onus is not so much on preventing government interaction so much as preventing that which inhibits rational thinking, which does not necessarily limit government action.

The real question then, if we are in fact not talking about freedom vs. equality but rather Kantian vs. Mill's freedom, is not whether or not we should have equality or liberty, but whether or not the possession of one depends on the attainment of the other (although of course, I concede that this depends on an understanding of Kant to see why equality matters to him).

The real question then, if we are in fact not talking about freedom vs. equality but rather Kantian vs. Mill's freedom, is not whether or not we should have equality or liberty, but whether or not the possession of one depends on the attainment of the other (although of course, I concede that this depends on an understanding of Kant to see why equality matters to him).Or, if one wants to avoid the relative difficulties of reading Kant (though WELL worth the effort, I might add, for those with time and interest) harken back to Rousseau... which is where Kant picked up his notion of freedom in the first place. (Famously, Kant's voracious single-sitting read of Emile was the only event to break his clockwork daily routine for decades at a stretch.)

Uh... and... so what? I, mean, what did you want us to comment on given that we don't know who the guest was or why you think he did what you said he did.

Just like the most vile, scornful, and insulting thing you can say to a conservative is to quote him directly, the best praise you can give him is to leave his name unmentioned and not discuss his beliefs.

Or, if one wants to avoid the relative difficulties of reading Kant (though WELL worth the effort, I might add, for those with time and interest) harken back to Rousseau... which is where Kant picked up his notion of freedom in the first place. (Famously, Kant's voracious single-sitting read of Emile was the only event to break his clockwork daily routine for decades at a stretch.)

As a contrast, Pericles' Athens held freedom as a status not a right, it was understood that freedom was, in some ways, inextricably linked with the concept of equality.

When people cry 'freedom', the are not asking to do as they please so much as doing free of subjugators, those they are currently not equal to.

To be free is to be equal and not all people are born free, we are constrained by economic status, social status, racial status and a totally free market only serves to exaggerate that status. I can't remember the experiment, and I'm not sure I'll hunt for it, but even a small advantage in any system, where no outside force intervenes, means the gap can only increase, not level.

So, for those keeping track at home, the score is now Stephen Colbert 227, Conservatives 1.

227? Where are you pulling this number from? The amount of times he hasn't been funny in the past week?

The fact that Christianity has even been mentioned on this thread shows why the US political arena is fucked.
*arches a brow*
You don't say?

Nope, no irony here. None at all . . .Someday, someday ... there'll be a repeal of the 8-line sigrule. Someday.

So basically you're butthurt? It's not our fault that conservative values, when you boil them down to their basic components, are ludicrous.

Call the waaaambulance if you must BAWWWW.:fluffle:

he had short answers, or no answer at all instead a steely gaze.....though few of those terse statements were accurate.

Most folk on Colbert Report come on to try and shove as much political opinion as they can down Colbert's throat, and end off sounding weak becasue they can't get their point across.Or, because they make a verbal likeness of Cruise bouncing on the couch for Oprah.

But you mistake this show for news. The point is entertainment.FTW. *bows*
And boy howdy is that show entertaining.

Great segment... Will absolutely stopped him dead a couple timesMaybe not so much dead as the realization that the guy was mostly unfunny.
telling Colbert that he was "...not decisive enough to be an atheist" was the best.That was actually funny, yes.

Wait, are you about to make an argument here?

Why repeat myself? Flick back a few pages if that's what you want. :)
Besides, my point stands so much, it actually precedes your point TWICE.

....though few of those terse statements were accurate.
Wait, are you about to make an argument here?

"Real" and "Jesus" are oxymoronic.

Wow, I read that 11 pages back and I just got the joke.

George Will, the author of One Man's America

I've always said that George Will is the one person conservatives should listen to more, but they usually don't. I didn't watch the show, but I'm sure it was interesting. Will is more of a thinking man's conservative. He is more pragmatic in his thinking, rather than emotional the way most on the right are. I will confirm his is not the real Jesus, nor any other form.

Jesus was on Colbert?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Colbert isn't funny. It is why I stopped watching the Daily Show, he brought it down a lot.

wow... colbert and carell were the reason I watched that show. I don't anymore, the supporting cast isn't good enough to make up for stewart. Except for when hodgeman is on.

He presented conservative views in a less blatently selfish and offensive manner than most. But the idea that the government should stand aside while a wealthy few maintain there advantage over the suffering masses, and that this some how constitutes freedom, is so fundimentally repulsive that no one can truly make it palatable. I can see how the idea of free enterprise and rising soley on merit is seductive, but at some point, unrestrained free enterprise creates an environment which is unfriendly to other rights and freedoms, as those with wealth and power actively use it to exploit others and hold them permanently down, regardless of merit.
*snip*

I think you're confusing "freedom" with "fairness". Certainly an economy without government controls wouldn't be fair in the least to the poor, but it would be full of freedoms not present today. You may not like what those are, but that doesn't mean they aren't freedoms.

227? Where are you pulling this number from? The amount of times he hasn't been funny in the past week?

oh, get over it. The point (which you got) is that the conservatives made a good point (apparently, I haven't seen the tape) on his show, while he's been making good points about them and the rest of the political system since his show started. And the actual number is closer to 356 (for the week).

oh, get over it. The point (which you got) is that the conservatives made a good point (apparently, I haven't seen the tape) on his show, while he's been making good points about them and the rest of the political system since his show started. And the actual number is closer to 356 (for the week).

Get over what that he isn't funny? And yes you are probably right the actual number of the amount of times he hasn't been funny for the week is 365. I am merely saying that I fail to see why people find this guy amusing, like Conan O'Brian maybe its a New York thing....

wow... colbert and carell were the reason I watched that show. I don't anymore, the supporting cast isn't good enough to make up for stewart. Except for when hodgeman is on.

Well I haven't actually watched the show since he left, all I know is that I couldn't watch it with Colbert on because he made the show less funny.

Get over what that he isn't funny? You know of course, that's pretty subjective.
I was thinking last night, after that episode, that he'd be a harder guy to have a decent conversation with than Jon, though.

....though few of those terse statements were accurate.
True, but they fucked with Colbert's act.

Impressive bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless.

227? Where are you pulling this number from? The amount of times he hasn't been funny in the past week?

Why are people so obtuse? What I am saying is that, if this counts as a conservative "cutting down" Colbert, and some sort of victory for conservatives over Colbert, then he's leading the all time competition by a ridiculous margin. This is the only example I've ever been shown where the guest has "held his own" against Colbert's rampant sarcastic satire. The number of times I've seen the guest look like a total buffoon in the face of Colbert's act is in the hundreds. Hence the 227-1 score.

But, by all means, be an elitist jackass about how you unfunny you find Colbert. There's nothing people like more than someone who rags on popular culture based solely on its popularity. Perhaps you'd like to rant about some bands that used to be awesome before they "sold out" and went "mainstream"? Or are you just bitter because Colbert makes fun of your personal political affiliation?

Why are people so obtuse? What I am saying is that, if this counts as a conservative "cutting down" Colbert, and some sort of victory for conservatives over Colbert, then he's leading the all time competition by a ridiculous margin. This is the only example I've ever been shown where the guest has "held his own" against Colbert's rampant sarcastic satire. The number of times I've seen the guest look like a total buffoon in the face of Colbert's act is in the hundreds. Hence the 227-1 score.

First of all let me stop you there and say you are wrong, after watching the clip I didn't see it as a victory for conservatives or as a Colbert being "cut down"

But, by all means, be an elitist jackass about how you unfunny you find Colbert. There's nothing people like more than someone who rags on popular culture based solely on its popularity. Perhaps you'd like to rant about some bands that used to be awesome before they "sold out" and went "mainstream"? Or are you just bitter because Colbert makes fun of your personal political affiliation?

How is not finding something not funny being elitist? Is it because you like to see yourself as a part of the mainstream and not an elitist but in reality talk and act like you are better than everyone like most liberal nutcases? And the fact that I do not find Colbert funny is not because he is popular, if that were true then there would be a lot of stuff I do not like but do like. Nor am I bitter because Colbert makes fun of my personal political affiliation because he doesn't, however, their is one comedic group which I like that does pay out my political beliefs and while I laugh at that there are other stunts that they pull, which i don't like because it is either not funny at all or was a stupid thing to do. I find it funny how a lot of people such as yourself like to laugh at other people but when they are being made fun of they have a cry and complain how it isn't right hence the Colbet 227, conservatives 1, a bit like "Yeah well we got you plenty of times so there waah". Next time Sdaeriji you wish to same something about me I suggest you get your facts straight.

Or are you just bitter because Colbert makes fun of your personal political affiliation?
Maybe I'm picking something up that isn't there, but I feel Colbert gets quite a few sly jibes about 'liberals' into the show; lampooning the hollowness and self-importance that you sometimes find in the more libertarian wings of mainstream US politics.

First of all let me stop you there and say you are wrong, after watching the clip I didn't see it as a victory for conservatives or as a Colbert being "cut down"

Then what, precisely, is your concern with my post?

How is not finding something not funny being elitist?

I am merely saying that I fail to see why people find this guy amusing, like Conan O'Brian maybe its a New York thing....

This right here. Your implied smugness, looking down on people who do find Colbert (and, apparently, Conan O'Brien) funny, suggesting that it must be a shared trait of a group that you proudly identify yourself as not part of.

Is it because you like to see yourself as a part of the mainstream and not an elitist but in reality talk and act like you are better than everyone like most liberal nutcases?

No, I am proudly elitist. I find nothing wrong with believing what I enjoy/believe being better than any alternatives. What I find offense is people like you who rail against pop culture and the mainstream and offer no rationale other than the fact that they are popular.

And the fact that I do not find Colbert funny is not because he is popular, if that were true then there would be a lot of stuff I do not like but do like. Nor am I bitter because Colbert makes fun of my personal political affiliation because he doesn't, however, their is one comedic group which I like that does pay out my political beliefs and while I laugh at that there are other stunts that they pull, which i don't like because it is either not funny at all or was a stupid thing to do.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.


I find it funny how a lot of people such as yourself like to laugh at other people but when they are being made fun of they have a cry and complain how it isn't right hence the Colbet 227, conservatives 1, a bit like "Yeah well we got you plenty of times so there waah".

I did nothing of the sort, and your gross misinterpretation of my meaning leads me to believe that you still do not understand why I made my original post, even after having explained it. I was mocking the original poster holding this interview up as some glorious victory for conservatives over the evil liberal Stephen Colbert. He treats this interview as something other than the scripted nonsense it is and parades it around proudly as some sort of moral victory for his side. I merely pointed out that, if he is going to hold this one solitary example up as something to hold in front of liberals, he should acknowledge the vast, numerous examples of Colbert making his conservative guest look foolish with his act.

Next time Sdaeriji you wish to same something about me I suggest you get your facts straight.

Your suggestion is noted. However, I will continue to make assumptions and insinuations about you based on your posts, as I do not have the time nor desire to get to know you personally. If you feel I mischaracterized you, then you have no one to blame but yourself, as I only characterized you how you represented yourself. Perhaps I could suggest that, if I so grossly misinterpreted you, you should strive to do a better job presenting yourself.

Maybe I'm picking something up that isn't there, but I feel Colbert gets quite a few sly jibes about 'liberals' into the show; lampooning the hollowness and self-importance that you sometimes find in the more libertarian wings of mainstream US politics.

He definitely does. Occasionally he will mock the political process as a greater concept, and will include liberals in his mockery. But he has a strong preference for lampooning conservativism. To be frank, his act was amusing and entertaining at first, but now it's tiresome. I don't find it as funny anymore. It's mostly the same jokes over and over at this point. I guess that's the struggle of trying to write new material for a daily show.

He definitely does. Occasionally he will mock the political process as a greater concept, and will include liberals in his mockery. But he has a strong preference for lampooning conservativism. To be frank, his act was amusing and entertaining at first, but now it's tiresome. I don't find it as funny anymore. It's mostly the same jokes over and over at this point. I guess that's the struggle of trying to write new material for a daily show.

I'm in agreement. I became tired of it after the second week, to be honest.

Meh.

The thread had degenerated, but was saved and returned from the ideological hijack.

Until people realize that we all have more in common than we do in difference, the pointless argument about Right and Left will continue to distract people from reality as the truth becomes commodified and branded.

Then what, precisely, is your concern with my post?.

The same way that you made a false conclusion on my character and beliefs basing it on my posts I did to you unintentionally.


This right here. Your implied smugness, looking down on people who do find Colbert (and, apparently, Conan O'Brien) funny, suggesting that it must be a shared trait of a group that you proudly identify yourself as not part of.

Did I say I looked down on them? All I said is I fail to see why some people find him funny. Once again you have made a false statement about me regardless of the my previous post, which you claim to draw your conclusions from.

No, I am proudly elitist. I find nothing wrong with believing what I enjoy/believe being better than any alternatives. What I find offense is people like you who rail against pop culture and the mainstream and offer no rationale other than the fact that they are popular.

Here we go again wrong again my friend as I said I do not dislike things simply because they are popular. You say you find nothing wrong with believing that you find nothing wrong with what you enjoy believing being better than the other alternatives, yet when I do it you berate me for it. Why?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Reread it take out the crap about the other satirical group, but it is an example of how wrong you are (again). And then you will understand.

I did nothing of the sort, and your gross misinterpretation of my meaning leads me to believe that you still do not understand why I made my original post, even after having explained it. I was mocking the original poster holding this interview up as some glorious victory for conservatives over the evil liberal Stephen Colbert. He treats this interview as something other than the scripted nonsense it is and parades it around proudly as some sort of moral victory for his side. I merely pointed out that, if he is going to hold this one solitary example up as something to hold in front of liberals, he should acknowledge the vast, numerous examples of Colbert making his conservative guest look foolish with his act.

Isn't that what I said?

Your suggestion is noted. However, I will continue to make assumptions and insinuations about you based on your posts, as I do not have the time nor desire to get to know you personally. If you feel I mischaracterized you, then you have no one to blame but yourself, as I only characterized you how you represented yourself. Perhaps I could suggest that, if I so grossly misinterpreted you, you should strive to do a better job presenting yourself.

Well if you want to do a proper job perhaps you should develop better comprehension skills in order to understand what I am saying instead of posting the same crap, after I corrected you.

Meh.

The thread had degenerated, but was saved and returned from the ideological hijack.

...yet heading inexorably back to bickering

Until people realize that we all have more in common than we do in difference, the pointless argument about Right and Left will continue to distract people from reality as the truth becomes commodified and branded.

People invest so much in defining themselves, I can't imagine standing up to say I'm either liberal or conservative with any pride whatsoever - I have views, many are even contradictory, the difference between social, economic and political views differs from person to person.

People invest so much in defining themselves, I can't imagine standing up to say I'm either liberal or conservative with any pride whatsoever - I have views, many are even contradictory, the difference between social, economic and political views differs from person to person.

Agreed.

Also, I'd be severely disappointed in George Will if he couldn't stand up to Colbert. He's an arch-Conservative and a legendary columnist, why on Earth would he be intimidated by a comedian?

Click Stand;13746173']But look at what he did with McCain's last visit on the show. Since he has the crowd behind him, he can pretty much cut through people he strongly disagrees with. There would have been comedy regardless, but Will wouldn't have had the easier time he did with Colbert, why just goes for straight laughs instead of any real discussion.
First, Will understands that these shows are entertainment. Next, I'm sure he would fare better than McCain because he's not campaigning for anything. Besides, he has to hold his own against Sam Donaldson every week. McCain just gives speeches and answers pat questions.

Maybe not so much dead as the realization that the guy was mostly unfunny.
That was actually funny, yes.
There were other instances where Colbert was about ready to break up and had to just hold it. I don't recall which, but whatever it was Will said just stopped Colbert because he would have laughed hard, had he opened his mouth.

How is not finding something not funny being elitist? Is it because you like to see yourself as a part of the mainstream and not an elitist but in reality talk and act like you are better than everyone like most liberal nutcases?
Sounds like you finding it not funny is based on you being an elitist to me.

Buddy, I will tell you one more time before I launch an ignore cannon attack on you. We are discussing libertarian conservatism as shown by Will on Colbert, and we are not discussing the neoconservatives who have taken over my party. And by the way, please do not try digress this into random name calling, thanks.

I saw no names being called, but hey.

Oh, and last but not least, when someone asks you to respect their beliefs, respect their beliefs. If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face, so knock it off.

Ah yes, 'cause THAT's what Jesus would do. :rolleyes:

By the way, a threat of physical violence online? Beyond lame. He's done nothing that needs knocking off -- disagreeing with you is not something you get to control.

Has anyone ever noticed how people love being dickheads on forums because they don't have to face the consequences

Pot, meet kettle. Black much?

Ah yes, 'cause THAT's what Jesus would do. :rolleyes:


I believe it is Luke 14:34-37, where Jesus says, "Whomever does the least to my brother does to me, and so if you tick off the least of my brothers, I will make sure he someone kicks your sorry behind back to the Garden of Eden."

I think you're confusing "freedom" with "fairness". Certainly an economy without government controls wouldn't be fair in the least to the poor, but it would be full of freedoms not present today. You may not like what those are, but that doesn't mean they aren't freedoms.

A Hobson's Choice is not an actual choice.

I liked Buddy Guy when he was with Band of Gypsies.

You're thinking of Buddy Miles. Buddy Guy certainly influenced Hendrix et al., though.

A Hobson's Choice is not an actual choice.

You may not like the other option, that doesn't mean it isn't a viable alternative. I don't think it'll be taken, but that doesn't mean anything.

I don't see why everyone's acting like Colbert is even opposed to the guy. Colbert is actually conservative in real life, even if his show parodies the religious extremists.

(And why do about half of people think he's completely unfunny, and half of people think he's awesome? I've never seen anyone b/w those two.)

Oh, and last but not least, when someone asks you to respect their beliefs, respect their beliefs.

No, your beliefs are silly and not worthy of my respect.

Has anyone ever noticed how people love being dickheads on forums because they don't have to face the consequences

If you saw me in public and said what you have said about Christianity on here, I would sock you in the face, so knock it off.

Heh, irooooony

You may not like the other option, that doesn't mean it isn't a viable alternative. I don't think it'll be taken, but that doesn't mean anything.

No, the alternative is not a viable alternative. That's the entire fucking point of a Hobson's Choice.

I don't see why everyone's acting like Colbert is even opposed to the guy. Colbert is actually conservative in real life, even if his show parodies the religious extremists.

um...no, no he's not.

Question:Are you a Democrat?
Answer: . . . . Yeah, I'm a Democrat.

Source (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,677356,00.html)

Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat.


From Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901551_2.html)

The CHARACTER of Stephen Colbert is a bombastic neo conservative, but the PERSON of Stephen Colbert is an admitted liberal.

um...no, no he's not.



Source (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,677356,00.html)




From Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901551_2.html)

To be fair, the Democrats are pretty damn conservative.

I don't see why everyone's acting like Colbert is even opposed to the guy. Colbert is actually conservative in real life, even if his show parodies the religious extremists.

(And why do about half of people think he's completely unfunny, and half of people think he's awesome? I've never seen anyone b/w those two.)

Colbert is not as liberal as Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, but he's still on the left end of the spectrum. He's certainly more liberal than George Will or Bill O'Reily, whom he is a parody of.

Agreed.

Also, I'd be severely disappointed in George Will if he couldn't stand up to Colbert. He's an arch-Conservative and a legendary columnist, why on Earth would he be intimidated by a comedian?

To be fair, one of the more accurate points of Shakespeare was that the court clown was usually the smartest guy in the room; he had to be in order to sufficiently make his point and mask the laceration he was inflicting on the thinking going on. Same principle here: it's usually pretty damn difficult to outwit a satirist who knows what he's doing, because he's almost always smarter than you.

Just so you know, Colbert is watching. :D

No, your beliefs are silly and not worthy of my respect.

point-match-game

disagreeing with you is not something you get to control.
Boy howdy.

No, the alternative is not a viable alternative. That's the entire fucking point of a Hobson's Choice.

Well, the alternative was in place for the majority of capitalism's lifetime. What do you think monopolies, colonization, mercantilism, and the industrial revolution centered around? People using whatever means they could to get ahead in life, with the government basically doing nothing to stop them (mostly because they took time to control the government, but the effect was the same). I agree that it led to lots of shitty situations, but that'll happen unless you devise a perfect economic system and enforce it. No one has done that yet, and it's unlikely that they ever will. However, just because there hasn't been that kind of a system allowed for the past hundred plus years doesn't mean that it didn't work at one time.

To be fair, one of the more accurate points of Shakespeare was that the court clown was usually the smartest guy in the room; he had to be in order to sufficiently make his point and mask the laceration he was inflicting on the thinking going on. Same principle here: it's usually pretty damn difficult to outwit a satirist who knows what he's doing, because he's almost always smarter than you.

Excellent point.

Boy howdy.

AND girl howdy, too. All the howdys.

When it comes to wit, Republicans rarely get the edge over Democrats. But it does happen from time to time:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/getfuzzydemocrat.jpg

:D