Bold Confessions of a Nerd-Party Candidate

[APewty]

Here is another bit you can check: "...during the early nineteen-eighties John McCain sat on the advisory board of General John Singlaub’s U.S. Council for World Freedom—the American outpost of the World Anti-Communist League, a sort of clearing house for former Nazi collaborators, Central American death-squad leaders, and assorted international thugs." (from New Yorker: Beyond the Palin - The New Yorker - MSNBC.com)

Again, though, I say these associations are valueless.

For the record, I again state that I don't trust any politicians. I am sympathetic with the idea of being anti-government because you can't seem to trust anyone in the government. Indeed, anyone in a position of power is suspect, or so it would seem. Based on ideology alone do I feel the best though slim chance of government according to my wishes and therefore is McCain still the best candidate of the two.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

You say beliefs are made to be ignored or laid aside yet you firmly, wholeheartedly, unequivocally believe in satire?

No. I firmly enjoy good satire. I believe it can be effective at communicating a point. Is it always the best way to communicate a point? No. Can it be effective? Yes.

I have no time not gumption to do so, but I daresay that if I flooded this site with anti-liberal, anti-intellectual or anti-anything-you-believe-in satires, both Grim and Inzeladun would be quickly upset. Do you deny this?

Yes, I deny this. I enjoy anti-liberal satire as well. There is much satire-worthy material available on both sides. Maybe because I grew up reading MAD Magazine (they satirize everything), or maybe I just enjoy cleverness... I don't know, but liberal satire also amuses me. Even academia has its moments of folly.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Based on ideology alone do I feel the best though slim chance of government according to my wishes and therefore is McCain still the best candidate of the two.

Even though Republicans are most likely to legislate their beliefs (i.e. they favor making things they disagree with illegal), and Democrats are the most likely to let people do as they will (i.e. they favor choice, even if they disagree with the choice made)?

If you distrust those in power, why would you want to elect the one most likely to use it to further his own ends and make his beliefs law?

I, for example, am pretty much anti-abortion, but I would not dream of making abortion illegal. Just because I have a problem with it doesn't mean I have a right to force my belief on someone else.

Especially considering my own changing beliefs over time, I would hate to have to live under a law based on old beliefs. My beliefs could be wrong, or horribly one-sided, so to push legislation favoring my beliefs would be nonsensical. Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves and make the choice for themselves.

For someone who dislikes government, I am not sure why you support the party most likely to abuse their power and force their beliefs on us. While Republicans talk about smaller government, in the end, they tend to favor stronger government. (Outside of business regulation, of course, where the situation is reversed, as the Democrats favor oversight).

In the end, I cannot be a Republican because I can't handle the idea of making more and more things illegal. Don't take choices away from people. Make them accountable for their choices, sure, but don't take away choice.

 

[Grimhelm]

APewty, you are making a very large blunder in your assessment of satire. Satire does not aim at individual people very often. Satire aims at humanity and our collective tendency to be foolish. Whereas a joke like "His family must like vegetables" regarding a dying man is both tasteless and insulting. Beliefs are not insulted, people are. Good satire does not usually aim at one particular person. Good satire aims at human inanities.

It is clear to me, however, that you equate beliefs with real things, and this is perhaps the most ripe ground for satire.