5 ms·

Keep your generalizations to yourself. There is a wide array of Republicans who believe in limited government not cracking private security because it doesn't

by mucker 11y ago

Keep your generalizations to yourself. There is a wide array of Republicans who believe in limited government not cracking private security because it doesn't belong there. McCain is a nice guy but is an extreme hawk.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
It's a political party. The whole point of one is to get people behind a general platform. Even keeping in mind that two-party systems tend to be extremely factional by practical necessity, the view that the GOP is the "party of limited government" is nothing but propaganda.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Somebody please explain to me how political parties aren't the dumbest idea ever, because I'm having trouble seeing it. I find the concept of buying into political beliefs wholesale - instead of considering them on a case-by-case basis - to be plain insanity.
  - zurn 11y ago
    Some pretty big advantages: They are voting blocs that are long lived enough for reputation to work. It makes representatives much easier to follow and predict (for media and citizens). They become much more efficient in wielding power and less vulnerable to divide-and-conquer adversaries. Relatively few people can keep track of what a handful of parties did in the last couple of years, imagine how short the public memory would be if it was single representatives. <cue comments suggesting technological solutions> Also, ideas in politics are interrelated. A big core value or strategic objective will pretty naturally lead to a bunch of other related ideas. You can view this as "buying into political beliefs wholesale" but it's a pretty natural thing to happen.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Thanks for the explanations. I don't buy them entirely, but I need to think about it more. > Also, ideas in politics are interrelated. A big core value or strategic objective will pretty naturally lead to a bunch of other related ideas. You can view this as "buying into political beliefs wholesale" but it's a pretty natural thing to happen. Ideas may be interrelated but it doesn't say anything about their validity. Whether it's natural or not, I still find it incredibly stupid. The focus on ideas seems wrong in itself. The usual discussions like whether Free Market or Government-Regulated Market are Better™ are pointless; we should be talking about whether a free-market solution or a top-down solution is better for a particular problem, like determining wages or building a power plant. I mean, the level of absurdity of buying ideas wholesale is obvious to everyone in almost every single discipline besides politics. Static vs. dynamic typing, or Lisp vs. rest of the world, or why PHP sucks are fun topics to discuss, but when push comes to shove, everyone knows that they should use the best tool for the job and get the job done. Imagine for a moment that we're tasked with writing a grep-like utility. If we were to run this project the way we run our countries, we'd have several opposing groups: - C supporters arguing for C, because everything fast and big is written in C! - Their little more progressive branch arguing for C++. - Perl supporters, saying that C is wrong because it was used by the Sov^H^H^HMicrosoft to write Windows, therefore it is evil. - Lisp supporters, saying that other languages are infringing on programmers' freedoms, and that the only rule should be the one of non-aggressive macro writing. - Fortranaries arguing we should write in Fortran because in Good Old Days everything was great and was written in Fortran. etc. Ultimately, running a country is about solving problems - some of the most important problems we ever face. Why do we accept this insanity where it matters the most?
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    Check out how many people[0] get elected to the Congress without one and you'll see that their organizational advantages outweigh their irrational issue agglomeration. [0] 2/100 senators, 0/434 congressmen
WildUtah 11y ago
McCain isn't a nice guy. He's always been opposed to every kind of civil rights and in favor of total central government power and total war. He introduced the campaign finance bill that forced the government to argue before the Supreme Court that it had the power to ban books with political opinions it didn't agree with, the same argument that led to the Citizens United decision. He made up a song about bombing Iran and sang it at campaign stops. (Tune of Beach Boys' Barbara Ann) That's just the start. This encryption but is of a piece with his whole career. McCain is as bad as they come.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Not being from the US, I probably don't know as much about McCain as many of you, but I do recall him making the news for suggesting a murder suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant, which in turn seemed to mean essentially that they were no longer entitled to things like due process. I remember feeling very cold when I read that.
- mikestew 11y ago
  To be pedantic, that Beach Boys parody dates back to the late 70s during the hostage taking of the U. S. Embassy. (Which causes me to wonder: did his campaign properly secure the rights from the song writer, or did they do like other candidates and "steal" it?)
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    There were quite a few different parodies of that song with the "Bomb Iran" theme from different groups, and all McCain did was the "Bomb, bomb, bomb" part, which made the message clear, but didn't really specifically invoke any of the particular parodies.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  He introduced the campaign finance bill that forced the government to argue before the Supreme Court that it had the power to ban books with political opinions it didn't agree with, the same argument that led to the Citizens United decision. Did you oppose that bill at the time, on the grounds that it would lead to such ridiculous arguments? If you had, you would have been the only one. Most First-Amendment nose-thumbers loved that bill. I suspect their hearts were in the right place, just as I suspect McCain's was (then, on that topic; various statements made since have been disconcerting). It would be nice if the rich bastards didn't play the body politic like a marionette, but this isn't the way to change that. The fact that you didn't lead off with a reference to the Keating Five indicates to me that you don't actually know much about McCain or his career.

by mucker 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

It's a political party. The whole point of one is to get people behind a general platform. Even keeping in mind that two-party systems tend to be extremely factional by practical necessity, the view that the GOP is the "party of limited government" is nothing but propaganda.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Somebody please explain to me how political parties aren't the dumbest idea ever, because I'm having trouble seeing it. I find the concept of buying into political beliefs wholesale - instead of considering them on a case-by-case basis - to be plain insanity.
- zurn 11y ago
  Some pretty big advantages: They are voting blocs that are long lived enough for reputation to work. It makes representatives much easier to follow and predict (for media and citizens). They become much more efficient in wielding power and less vulnerable to divide-and-conquer adversaries. Relatively few people can keep track of what a handful of parties did in the last couple of years, imagine how short the public memory would be if it was single representatives. <cue comments suggesting technological solutions> Also, ideas in politics are interrelated. A big core value or strategic objective will pretty naturally lead to a bunch of other related ideas. You can view this as "buying into political beliefs wholesale" but it's a pretty natural thing to happen.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Thanks for the explanations. I don't buy them entirely, but I need to think about it more. > Also, ideas in politics are interrelated. A big core value or strategic objective will pretty naturally lead to a bunch of other related ideas. You can view this as "buying into political beliefs wholesale" but it's a pretty natural thing to happen. Ideas may be interrelated but it doesn't say anything about their validity. Whether it's natural or not, I still find it incredibly stupid. The focus on ideas seems wrong in itself. The usual discussions like whether Free Market or Government-Regulated Market are Better™ are pointless; we should be talking about whether a free-market solution or a top-down solution is better for a particular problem, like determining wages or building a power plant. I mean, the level of absurdity of buying ideas wholesale is obvious to everyone in almost every single discipline besides politics. Static vs. dynamic typing, or Lisp vs. rest of the world, or why PHP sucks are fun topics to discuss, but when push comes to shove, everyone knows that they should use the best tool for the job and get the job done. Imagine for a moment that we're tasked with writing a grep-like utility. If we were to run this project the way we run our countries, we'd have several opposing groups: - C supporters arguing for C, because everything fast and big is written in C! - Their little more progressive branch arguing for C++. - Perl supporters, saying that C is wrong because it was used by the Sov^H^H^HMicrosoft to write Windows, therefore it is evil. - Lisp supporters, saying that other languages are infringing on programmers' freedoms, and that the only rule should be the one of non-aggressive macro writing. - Fortranaries arguing we should write in Fortran because in Good Old Days everything was great and was written in Fortran. etc. Ultimately, running a country is about solving problems - some of the most important problems we ever face. Why do we accept this insanity where it matters the most?
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Check out how many people[0] get elected to the Congress without one and you'll see that their organizational advantages outweigh their irrational issue agglomeration. [0] 2/100 senators, 0/434 congressmen

WildUtah 11y ago

McCain isn't a nice guy. He's always been opposed to every kind of civil rights and in favor of total central government power and total war. He introduced the campaign finance bill that forced the government to argue before the Supreme Court that it had the power to ban books with political opinions it didn't agree with, the same argument that led to the Citizens United decision. He made up a song about bombing Iran and sang it at campaign stops. (Tune of Beach Boys' Barbara Ann) That's just the start. This encryption but is of a piece with his whole career. McCain is as bad as they come.

Silhouette 11y ago
Not being from the US, I probably don't know as much about McCain as many of you, but I do recall him making the news for suggesting a murder suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant, which in turn seemed to mean essentially that they were no longer entitled to things like due process. I remember feeling very cold when I read that.
mikestew 11y ago
To be pedantic, that Beach Boys parody dates back to the late 70s during the hostage taking of the U. S. Embassy. (Which causes me to wonder: did his campaign properly secure the rights from the song writer, or did they do like other candidates and "steal" it?)
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  There were quite a few different parodies of that song with the "Bomb Iran" theme from different groups, and all McCain did was the "Bomb, bomb, bomb" part, which made the message clear, but didn't really specifically invoke any of the particular parodies.
jessaustin 11y ago
He introduced the campaign finance bill that forced the government to argue before the Supreme Court that it had the power to ban books with political opinions it didn't agree with, the same argument that led to the Citizens United decision. Did you oppose that bill at the time, on the grounds that it would lead to such ridiculous arguments? If you had, you would have been the only one. Most First-Amendment nose-thumbers loved that bill. I suspect their hearts were in the right place, just as I suspect McCain's was (then, on that topic; various statements made since have been disconcerting). It would be nice if the rich bastards didn't play the body politic like a marionette, but this isn't the way to change that. The fact that you didn't lead off with a reference to the Keating Five indicates to me that you don't actually know much about McCain or his career.