Poll
Question:
Do you like politics? (read the fucking post first)
Option 1: Duh. Of course.
votes: 6
Option 2: A little
votes: 8
Option 3: Meh
votes: 4
Option 4: It is pretty bad
votes: 4
Option 5: Nope.
votes: 6
Option 6: Eh?
votes: 2
By politics here I mean the true politics part of politics.
Not the governing of the country stuff which most people find interesting, definitely not international relations (not its public side anyway), not quite even elections.
What I mean is all the bickering and manoeuvring and lying and all that sort of thing which generally goes on behind closed doors.
I've always been interested in politics in general but I'm coming to realise more and more that it is all about the office politics. To be a great politician isn't a good thing, it doesn't mean the person is smart and has good policies, it means they're merely good at conning people/convincing people to compromise/other less celebrated features of great politicians.
Considering so many people hate offiice politics so much it seems somewhat strange then that so many profess an interest in national politics.
Yep, since 1980.
I find the art and science of spin slightly interesting.
I'm bored of it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2013, 07:07:48 PM
I find the art and science of spin slightly interesting.
This here
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2013, 07:07:48 PM
I find the art and science of spin slightly interesting.
I find it by turns fascinating and maddening.
I am not sure if that's "meh" or "eh?" I think I'll go with "eh?" for the hell of it.
Grown to dislike it. Enough to turn down chances to run for county offices.
I'm not sure you can like or dislike it, as it's what the majority of politicans do, that is play politics.
I don't understand people who say "I hate politicians/they're all corrupt/as bad as each other/I don't want anything to do with them" as this seems to in effect give the battlefield over to the politicians without a fight.
Many of them are more than happy for the majority of people to do that, as they can concentrate their efforts on an ever small number of party activists and crucial sections of the populous, in order to win office and power.
My own view is, if you don't like politicians and politics, then you have to do something about it.
It's something to fight over. I take pleasure in the fight more then anything else. I will, and have on this board, adopt positions I don't believe in just for fun.
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 07:15:16 PM
My own view is, if you don't like politicians and politics, then you have to do something about it.
Violent revolution? :w00t: :frog:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2013, 07:19:14 PM
It's something to fight over. I take pleasure in the fight more then anything else. I will, and have on this board, adopt positions I don't believe in just for fun.
We could have never guessed that.
Out come the broom sticks.
I'm interested in the art of getting shit done. I'm also interested in the process of figuring out the best course of action, including determining realistic goals.
I'm less interested in factional and tribal competitions and the art of spin.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2013, 07:54:04 PM
I'm interested in the art of getting shit done. I'm also interested in the process of figuring out the best course of action, including determining realistic goals.
I'm less interested in factional and tribal competitions and the art of spin.
Well put. :)
I find much of (domestic) politics too ephemeral to take much of an interest in. I also don't care for the tedious factionalism it engenders.
To a certain extent, I find the "horse race" aspect of politics interesting. I do think that too much attention is devoted to that aspect of it by the press, though.
I'll let Mr Fry sum up my opinion.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr01%2F2013%2F4%2F18%2F6%2Fenhanced-buzz-5868-1366281347-0.jpg&hash=d57c3d8f6ba02e400d666c494847468204c16d28)
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2013, 07:01:41 PM
By politics here I mean the true politics part of politics.
Not the governing of the country stuff which most people find interesting, definitely not international relations (not its public side anyway), not quite even elections.
What I mean is all the bickering and manoeuvring and lying and all that sort of thing which generally goes on behind closed doors.
I don't care enough about that stuff to have an opinion.
It's a love and hate thing. Too much and it becomes nauseating.
I hate politics but it is a necessary evil. Even if all I do is vote and babble on the internet I have an obligation to participate.
I love politics. My politics.
I used to enjoy it alot, but over the years, that feeling has lessened as I've grown jaded.
So, I voted a little.
Not interested in the part you described. Very interested in the policy wonk side of things.
I used to enjoy it alot, but over the years, that feeling has increased as I've grown loving.
So, I vote all the time.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 24, 2013, 12:04:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2013, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 24, 2013, 10:59:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 06:32:53 AM
as I've grown jaded.
LOL
:unsure:
"Tim" and "jaded" are not two things I'd normally put together.
Sorry even when I posted that I should have said that it was at Tim - because yeah I'm not seeing it either. :hug:
Yes and no. I find the method quite interesting - Alastair Campbell's and Damian McBride's blogs, or Mandy's autobiography for example.
A lot of the rest I just find boring. I could never find the energy to care about the Blair-Brown arguments, or any of the fall-out. I don't get the articles that basically seem to assume everyone follows Westminster as obsessively as the journos.
I don't have the sort of relish for a lot of that though.
"All see, and most admire, the glare which hovers round the external trappings of elevated office. To me there is nothing in it, beyond the lustre which may be reflected from its connection with a power of promoting human felicity."
– George Washington, letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, New York, January 9, 1790
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551337_435918359835003_1683845238_n.jpg)
"PS I picked up some fine strong Negroes at the market today. Working them to death will surely land me a couple of bucks."
Keeping them alive was much more profitable. Washington grew them and kept the families intact, even keeping the elderly and infirm. He freed them in his will (as well provisioning education and pensions), an act few others followed.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2013, 04:30:11 PM
Keeping them alive was much more profitable. Washington grew them and kept the families intact, even keeping the elderly and infirm. He freed them in his will (as well provisioning education and pensions), an act few others followed.
Some of his slaves were his wife's property though and they went back to her family when he died. But still I thought it was better than nothing of him to free them when he died...granted a factor in that was that he had no heirs.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2013, 04:30:11 PM
Keeping them alive was much more profitable. Washington grew them and kept the families intact, even keeping the elderly and infirm. He freed them in his will (as well provisioning education and pensions), an act few others followed.
Freeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2013, 04:30:11 PM
Keeping them alive was much more profitable. Washington grew them and kept the families intact, even keeping the elderly and infirm. He freed them in his will (as well provisioning education and pensions), an act few others followed.
Freeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
Washington was no ideologue. He was pragmatic, and part of that pragmatism was economically accepting slavery as necessary to his life and station while morally and intellectually detesting the practice. He "hoped" that slavery would become obsolete in the "near future."
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PMFreeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
"It's wrong, but my way of life depends on the wrong being perpetuated. I'll do the right thing once it won't impact my way of life appreciably."
... doesn't seem that uncommon an approach.
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2013, 04:59:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PMFreeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
"It's wrong, but my way of life depends on the wrong being perpetuated. I'll do the right thing once it won't impact my way of life appreciably."
... doesn't seem that uncommon an approach.
Damning with faint praise ? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
Freeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
It's defensible if you start from the assumption that slavery in and of itself is not evil, but rather contains the potential for great evil. Therefore I, knowing I am a benevolent slave owner, will know my slaves are well looked after in my life time, but can't be sure after I'm dead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
Freeing slaves in your will is a quite curious act. It seems to show that you knew owning slaves was wrong. Which of course begged the question of - why didn't you free them sooner?
It's defensible if you start from the assumption that slavery in and of itself is not evil, but rather contains the potential for great evil. Therefore I, knowing I am a benevolent slave owner, will know my slaves are well looked after in my life time, but can't be sure after I'm dead.
So contrary to much of what you've said here, you're in fact in favour of the 'Nanny State'.
Quote from: mongers on April 29, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
So contrary to much of what you've said here, you're in fact in favour of the 'Nanny State'.
In this scenario, the Admiral is not a public entity, i.e. a "state", so, no.
Quote from: mongers on April 29, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
So contrary to much of what you've said here, you're in fact in favour of the 'Nanny State'.
Did any of your teachers go over the concept of "if" with you? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 06:53:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 29, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
So contrary to much of what you've said here, you're in fact in favour of the 'Nanny State'.
Did any of your teachers go over the concept of "if" with you? :huh:
Yes, and I don't believe your assumption would have been valid even at the time, Washington and his fellow slave owners might have regarded them as inferior men not worthy of the 'rights of men' or knew they themselves were being hypocritical and so engaged in a great evil. That's how I'd like to re-frame the question.
But looking at the institution of slavery, I cannot see how a great champion for democracy and liberty, would not know it was an evil thing; he and his fellow revolutionaries were in part attempting to overthrow a slave-owner, a King with subjects, not citizens, who they said denied them their inherent rights.
Yi, leaving aside, the hypotheticals I assume you regard slavery as a great evil, in all of it's real manifestations ?
If you understand the usage of "if," how did you infer from my post that I'm in favor of a nanny state?
Slavery is a great evil. Coercion of any kind is an evil. One of the main reasons I'm a supporter of the market.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 07:17:31 PM
If you understand the usage of "if," how did you infer from my post that I'm in favor of a nanny state?
Slavery is a great evil. Coercion of any kind is an evil. One of the main reasons I'm a supporter of the market.
It was a joke set against your preference for the markets, which as you've indicated again in you reply you favour.
Ah.
Did none of your teachers or friends ever instruct you in how to tell a joke? :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 07:27:56 PM
Ah.
Did none of your teachers or friends ever instruct you in how to tell a joke? :(
I actually nearly posted a smilie first time around, but thought you'd be wise enough to get it. :(
edit:And getting back on topic, what do you think was Washington's and his fellow slave owning revolutionaries outlook on slavery, perhaps somewhat like Jacob described, maybe rather paternalistic/'nanny state' or something else ?
I'm more than wise enough to get it. The problem is it doesn't work as a joke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 07:34:38 PM
I'm more than wise enough to get it. The problem is it doesn't work as a joke.
Well go on then, tell us a joke and show how it should be done.
Quote from: mongers on April 29, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
Well go on then, tell us a joke and show how it should be done.
The first lesson is to recognize when a post does not lend itself to use as a straight line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 29, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
Well go on then, tell us a joke and show how it should be done.
The first lesson is to recognize when a post does not lend itself to use as a straight line.
Then we'll have to agree to differ, I thought you're enthusiasm for the markets will dictate, made a comment about supporting the nanny state, a good foundation. :)
Once you learn how to use "if" you won't feel the same way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Once you learn how to use "if" you won't feel the same way.
See, that's not working as a joke either.
I have to agree it wasn't really funny so probably a 'joke' to be avoided. Seemed a bit more like Raz-like needling.