Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: senna on July 31, 2002, 07:20:31 PM
-
Or are there actually Conservative comedians out there?
-
There are plenty of conservative comedians. Most of them are in the U.S. Senate/Congress ;)
-
Plenty come to mind.... Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Anne Coulter... :D
-
There is nothing funny about being a conservative. :)
-
I'm not sure if you mean stand up comedy, or something more general.
Read PJ O'Rourke if you are looking for conservative humor (although be warned, he has some fairly liberal social ideas).
-Sikboy
-
whelp, senna; i guess yer right.
Can't think of one conservative comedian.. alive; anyway.
I hear tell that Mark Twain was a conservative. By todays standards, anyway. ;)
-
It’s kind of a partnership. The comedians are more liberal, while the conservatives provide them with material.
-
I believe Drew Carey (sp?) is a conservative. Only one I can think of off hand.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Plenty come to mind.... Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Anne Coulter... :D
Good One !
But you forgot Rush!
-
It's grim work defending America and the Constitution from socialists... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
It's grim work defending America and the Constitution from socialists... ;)
No kidding. It's not nearly as lighthearted as defending against fascists. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No kidding. It's not nearly as lighthearted as defending against fascists. ;)
Let's see... facist Italy, Germany, and Japan held the state's power above individual freedom of their citizens. Yup, I guess conservatives defend against them too...
-
The American Government textbook that I use to teach my 9th grade students gives the following definition for fascism:
(A) political philosophy based on nationalism and an all-powerful state.
It also states that fascists are a right-wing political movement.
SAY WHAAATT?
There is a political movement that wants a drastic expansion of the power of the national government, but isn't right-wing. At least not in the U.S.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Mort Sahl
-
I always considered Mort to be a bipartisan comedian. He hit everyone.
IIRC, he was even hired to write jokes for JFK's speeches.
-
Ah, but the other side has the unintentionally funny Geraldo Rivera and Charles Grodin... and I have to admit, Joe Lieberman does a drop-dead perfect impersonation of Henry Gibson...
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The American Government textbook that I use to teach my 9th grade students gives the following definition for fascism:
(A) political philosophy based on nationalism and an all-powerful state.
It also states that fascists are a right-wing political movement.
SAY WHAAATT?
There is a political movement that wants a drastic expansion of the power of the national government, but isn't right-wing. At least not in the U.S.
Regards, Shuckins
(http://www.lahapkido.com/spec.gif)
-
You missed my point Sandman.
Liberal Democrats want an expansion of the power of the national government. They are considered to be left-wing.
Conservative Republicans do not want an expansion of the power of the national government.
Yet our modern government textbooks describe fascists as being right-wing.
I always thought fascists were something of a mixture of the two sides of the political spectrum; wanting a national government with great power to control business and society with restrictions on individual rights, as well as being fiercely patriotic, nationalistic, and imperialistic.
Why, therefore, are they routinely described in texts, as well as in the media, as being right-wing?
I have read quite a few liberal diatribes against Republicans over the years referring to them as fascists. I really don't think the label fits them very well.
Would it be fairer to call fascists as being centrists? They have some of the characteristics of both the left and the right?
Regards, Shuckins
-
>I'm not sure if you mean stand up comedy, or something more
>general.
>
>Read PJ O'Rourke if you are looking for conservative humor
>(although be warned, he has some fairly liberal social ideas).
Actually I meant standup so many of the people mentioned above easily could qualify. Dam Rush loss alot of weight huh, now thats FUNNY! :D Now that you mention it, I'm thinking of some untastefull conservative anti liberal jokes at this moment.
Chuckles to himself... :D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You missed my point Sandman.
Liberal Democrats want an expansion of the power of the national government. They are considered to be left-wing.
Conservative Republicans do not want an expansion of the power of the national government.
Yet our modern government textbooks describe fascists as being right-wing.
I always thought fascists were something of a mixture of the two sides of the political spectrum; wanting a national government with great power to control business and society with restrictions on individual rights, as well as being fiercely patriotic, nationalistic, and imperialistic.
Why, therefore, are they routinely described in texts, as well as in the media, as being right-wing?
I have read quite a few liberal diatribes against Republicans over the years referring to them as fascists. I really don't think the label fits them very well.
Would it be fairer to call fascists as being centrists? They have some of the characteristics of both the left and the right?
Regards, Shuckins
I didn't miss your point. It's often stated that Liberal Democrats want expansion of power of the National Government. Maybe that's the Dem agenda, but I don't agree that it's a liberal one.
My real point was that labeling a liberal as a socialist is no more accurate than labeling a conservative as a fascist.
-
Originally posted by senna
[
Actually I meant standup
In that case, Bill Cosby.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
In that case, Bill Cosby.
-Sikboy
Bill is very involved (quietly, but involved) in many "liberal" causes. He appeals to conservatives, but he certainly isn't one.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bill is very involved (quietly, but involved) in many "liberal" causes. He appeals to conservatives, but he certainly isn't one.
Hmmm, I certainly hope you are referring to something other than involvement in the African American Community.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hmmm, I certainly hope you are referring to something other than involvement in the African American Community.
-Sikboy
Well, I did put "liberal" in quotes. :p
Most of those causes involving racial pride, support for Black arts etc. seem to be more on the liberal side. I would agree that they are not very political though.
-
Sandman/Shuckins - your little 'debate' is quite pointless.
You are both decadent capitalist pig-dogs in my eyes.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Sandman/Shuckins - your little 'debate' is quite pointless.
You are both decadent capitalist pig-dogs in my eyes.
I should be so lucky. :)
-
sandman... your graph is wrong. It should be circular with the ends touching.
both extremes want more power over each and every one of us. These days tho.... the further you go toward liberal the more freedoms you give up (comparitively). You need to go much further toward conservative in order to lose out as badly (and yes... I realize they won't let you smoke pot in your car). Fools and mammas boys (did i forget women?)vote democrat nowdays. Libertarian could be a salvation but I think we are too far gone... well.. maybe it's just that the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction..
heck... stick around long enough and the democrats will be the defenders of personal freedoms and the republicans the power grabbers.. trick is... knowing when to switch.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I always considered Mort to be a bipartisan comedian. He hit everyone.
IIRC, he was even hired to write jokes for JFK's speeches.
Aye, Mort had no sacred cows and would slash and burn at will. He was a republican, however, and was nearly destroyed by the hollywood left for his brutal attacks on the Kennedy administration.
But no matter what ones bias on his politics, the man was funny, and did not need profanity to "embarrass" the audience into laughing.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's often stated that Liberal Democrats want expansion of power of the National Government. Maybe that's the Dem agenda, but I don't agree that it's a liberal one.
What is the liberal agenda then?
How can you enforce it on the rest of us without the omnipotent government?
Personally, I want the government to be as small as possible. I have my set of views, but I'm not interested in forcing them on others.
I want to control my life, and have no problem with you controling yours. This includes accumulating and disposing of my property.
Obviously this is not a case with you, liberals. In order for you to be happy, you have to force me into accepting your views and participating in "your" system (at least financially).
And that's why I resent it.
-
Originally posted by mietla
What is the liberal agenda then?
How can you enforce it on the rest of us without the omnipotent government?
Personally, I want the government to be as small as possible. I have my set of views, but I'm not interested in forcing them on others.
I want to control my life, and have no problem with you controling yours. This includes accumulating and disposing of my property.
Obviously this is not a case with you, liberals. In order for you to be happy, you have to force me into accepting your views and participating in "your" system (at least financially).
And that's why I resent it.
This argument holds on both ends. To the left... communism and a more powerful governmetn. To the right... fascism and a more powerful government. In this regard, Lazs2 is correct I think.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This argument holds on both ends. To the left... communism and a more powerful governmetn. To the right... fascism and a more powerful government. In this regard, Lazs2 is correct I think.
yes, and that's why I'm not crazy about the fascism either.
You did not answer the question
What is a liberal agende and how would you implement/enforce it?
-
Originally posted by mietla
yes, and that's why I'm not crazy about the fascism either.
You did not answer the question
What is a liberal agende and how would you implement/enforce it?
Better government. How to implement and enforce? Hell, if I knew I'd run for president. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Better government. How to implement and enforce? Hell, if I knew I'd run for president. :)
You did not say anything.
-
mieleta,
There is nothing to impliment or enforce in regards to people.
The liberal agenda is, more or less, live and let live.
In regards to businesses the liberal agneda is concerned with businesses trampling on employees and the environment.
From my perspective it is the conservatives that are trying to write laws and police powers that control how I live my life and how I raise my (future) children.
As a Liberal Libertarian I want these things:
[list=1]- For the Government to butt out of the "morality business".
- For a country in which people and families have value, not just business.
- For the environment to be protected from the excesses of big business.
- For as level a starting playing field as possible. Where you go with it is based on your abilities and drive.
- For the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bear Arms and Protections from Unreasonable Search and Seizure to be left alone by the Government.[/list=1]
Of all these things the only one that the conservatives are better at is defending the right to bear arms. All other points of freedom go to the liberals.
-
The way I see it in general:
Liberals want more assistance and less intrusion from Govt.
Conservatives want more intrusion and less assistance from Govt.
-
Oversimplifictation.
Conservatives want less government intrusion, BUT they are also for a strong military- though this usually in an isolationist mindset. If conservatives are convinced there is a threat to national security in the long haul, they are far more likely to go ahead and get on with the fighting. As far as security is concerned, conservatives will allow more in the way of search and seizures.
Liberals want redistribution of wealth, peace at any cost, and the strictest adherance to personal liberties, even at the cost of common sense (airport security- how could anyone complain about it?). Ironically, they have no difficulty legislating away personal liberties of others they find offensive, despite crying "live and let live" all the while. Liberals think everything needs a government program, and these programs should be funded on the backs of hardworking citizens who have never asked for anything from anyone. Liberals told us it was a good idea to pass out condoms in our schools, that it was wrong to spank our children (and have made it perilous to do so, for fear of having the state come take your children away).
So... Conservatives want the government involved in matters of security, and Liberals want the government involved in the establishment of a welfare state.
Big business? Pfft... it is not party specific. Both sides have campaigns funded by powerful corporate lobbies.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The way I see it in general:
Liberals want more assistance and less intrusion from Govt.
Conservatives want more intrusion and less assistance from Govt.
nonsense.
Assistance to you (a handout), IS an intrusion to me (taxes/regulations).
Libertarians want less intrusion and therefore less assistance.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As a Liberal Libertarian I want these things:
[list=1]- For the Government to butt out of the "morality business".
- For a country in which people and families have value, not just business.
- For the environment to be protected from the excesses of big business.
- For as level a starting playing field as possible. Where you go with it is based on your abilities and drive.
- For the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Bear Arms and Protections from Unreasonable Search and Seizure to be left alone by the Government.[/list=1]
[/B]
How can you accomplish #2, #3 and #4 without an oppresive government. You can't!
Besides, what is the "level field"? It's just an open ended excuse for transfering the wealth from the achievers to those who not produce.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You did not say anything.
Ran out of time... :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandman... your graph is wrong. It should be circular with the ends touching.
Actually the ends of the political spectrum should touch, but there should be a half twist into a mobius strip... Don't know if it is politically significant or not, but it would look better.:)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Oversimplifictation.
Conservatives want less government intrusion, BUT they are also for a strong military- though this usually in an isolationist mindset. If conservatives are convinced there is a threat to national security in the long haul, they are far more likely to go ahead and get on with the fighting. As far as security is concerned, conservatives will allow more in the way of search and seizures.
Liberals want redistribution of wealth, peace at any cost, and the strictest adherance to personal liberties, even at the cost of common sense (airport security- how could anyone complain about it?). Ironically, they have no difficulty legislating away personal liberties of others they find offensive, despite crying "live and let live" all the while. Liberals think everything needs a government program, and these programs should be funded on the backs of hardworking citizens who have never asked for anything from anyone. Liberals told us it was a good idea to pass out condoms in our schools, that it was wrong to spank our children (and have made it perilous to do so, for fear of having the state come take your children away).
So... Conservatives want the government involved in matters of security, and Liberals want the government involved in the establishment of a welfare state.
Big business? Pfft... it is not party specific. Both sides have campaigns funded by powerful corporate lobbies.
Of course I oversimplified. Work and all.....
First, I disagree regarding the national defense. I really don't think there is any distinction on this issue. Where cons and libs might digress is in the definition of a threat. But if the threat is considered real, like our current one, we can be just as hawkish as any conservative. The idea that liberals are doves comes from the Viet Nam era. That was a devisive time, but hardly a measure of the two sides support of national security.
I agree we want strict adherence to personal liberties. I don't understand why everyone wouldn't. What may be common sense to you may not be to someone else. Why should we pick and choose who's liberties we protect?
We do want additional assistance for those who are in need. Not a blank check, just a compassionate hand up when needed. We don't want the wealth redistributed, but we do want an equal opportunity to gain it.
Liberals want govt. out of their personal life. We feel too much time and money is spent trying to legislate a conservative morality. We feel people are intrinsically good and do not need big brother watching them inside their homes and bedrooms.
I think that if you were to look it up, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans (at least the last time I checked). So most of those "hard working folks" you mention probably agree that providing some assistance to the less fortunate in our society is necessary. The 'less fortunate' may be you some day.
I'm sure there is much more....
-
mieleta,
An even starting field means that you aren't at a disadvantage because of your race, gender, orientation or lack of wealthy parents.
It has nothing to do with handing money out or keeping everybody on a level playing field (well, a bit of money in helping people with poor parents go to school). Where they go from there is up to them, but the starting line should be as even as we can make it. After all, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
Just because you are from a poor mining family shouldn't deny you a reasonable chance at higher education.
As to #2, well, you can have a Government that doesn't bend over backwards to favor Big Business. Right now ours does. A government that doesn't write laws tailored for business consortiums to bludgeon the people with. The Founding Fathers did not intend this country to be run for and by corporations. Thomas Jefferson expressed concern that there might not be enough limits on corporate power in the Constitution. He decide that could be added latter, and I think it is time to add it.
#3 is just common sense. We don't want to be so vigilant against an oppressive Government only to wake up one day and realize that the Corporations have taken the place of the oppessor. We need to be vigilant against both. The club we must wield against businesses to protect the environment in which we live is the government. Either that or adapt to breathing, drinking and eating poisons. Some level of government interference is required, there is no denying that, but the rights of tychoon Bob Doe are not unfairly infringed upon by a governemnt that is stopping him from dumping massive ammounts of polution into the biosphere.
-
Kieren,
The parties have very little to do with Liberal/Conservative ideals.
The parties are a separate argument.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We do want additional assistance for those who are in need. Not a blank check, just a compassionate hand up when needed.
Not true. If this was what you want, you would advocate charities which give assistance but attach strings to it.
What you guys strive for is exactly a blank check. An unconditional assistance just for the asking with no strings an no limits attached.
As a result you validate and support socially negative behavior (illegitimacy, unwillingness to work, or just plain laziness), and to accomplish that you punish a socially positive behavior (hard eork and achievement).
We don't want the wealth redistributed, but we do want an equal opportunity to gain it.
Not true again. We all have the same rights and the same access to all public institutions, therefore the same opportunity to succeed already.
What you want is much more. You want the same circumstances. Since you assume that a poor guy has a lesser chance to succeed, you want to transfer the wealth from a richer one until they both have the same. Marxism, plain ans simple.
On top of it (what drives me up the wall), you were succesful in twisting terms around. You call a recipient of the loot virtuous, and the victim of theft selfish.
-
Well... hell... if you already knew what the liberal agenda was, why did you ask?
-
Karnak-
I never mentioned parties, only ideologies.
You're only mentioning half of the equation with regard to the founding fathers and the original administration. Alexander Hamilton favored industrialization, and favored legislation that helped big business. To suggest all the early American leaders were against big business is not accurate.
The conservative viewpoint is that if business does well, then there will be jobs. A different means to the same end, and it requires the recipient to do something for his or her reward. When big business does well, everyone does well- or did you miss the '90's? ;)
Target-
Someday that may be me? Hehe, if only you knew... Grandpa died when my mother was 11, and Grandma contracted terminal breast cancer, and was bedridden. Mom stayed in school until she was 15, but by then the stress of taking care of her dying mother and raising 2 brothers and 2 sisters was too much, and the family needed money. Mom screwed up (like most 16-year-olds might) and became pregnant. Four years and 4 kids later Dad takes off, never to be seen again. Now mom has 8 kids to take care of.
About this time Grandma died. There very often wasn't much food around, and things were always crowded. Before too long my step-father came into the picture. He provided stability and food on the table, but he drank heavily and was physically and mentally abusive. We were still Appalachia poor.
I dreamt of getting out, of going to the army, anything to get away. Then I decided to give college a try. I had been working since I was 14, so I figured the worst that could happen (if I couldn't find work) was that I would quit school and go to the army later. Besides, 14 years of tyrannical abuse didn't engender me to sign up for four more years.
So, I worked two and three jobs at a time, took a little longer to get out, but eventually graduated. God blessed me by giving me a job immediately, and only then did I become middle class. I was 24 years old and, to that point in time, had known nothing but poverty.
Believe me, I've been there. And we never, EVER took a penny from the government. I am not unsympathetic, I simply have a different perspective.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... hell... if you already knew what the liberal agenda was, why did you ask?
You got trolled in your own troll? ouch
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
You got trolled in your own troll? ouch
-Sikboy
I didn't take the bait. :D
-
Been gone all day so I'm getting back into this debate a little late.
Just some random observations:
Dowding (Work) : I haven't got enough money to be a decadent capitalist pig-dog. Now if the government were to let me keep ;more of my money...:)
Mietla: It is impossible for the government to get out of the morality business because all laws are moral laws. That is, laws legislate morality, defining what is right and wrong.
My gross pay is $35,000 a year after 25 years of experience and taking into account the degrees I hold. Between the state and federal government almost $8,000 is held out of my paycheck. If I could take the part of that amount that goes to Social Security my retirement system would be able to pay me almost triple what the Social Security system would...and I could draw it about 15 years sooner. I could afford a decent medical insurance policy, buy a decent retirement home, maybe do a little traveling. Instead, I'll retire to a double-wide modular home, purchase high-mileage used vehicles, sit at home instead of travelling, and pay out about $600 a month of my limited income for medical insurance. In essence, the government has hurt me financially more than it has helped me.
Regards, Shuckins
-
What a hijack. This is suppose to be about comedians.
-
:D
Regards, Shuckins
-
I thought this thread was about why there weren't very many conservative comedians, not about what the liberal agenda is, although I felt Meilta had a great rebuttal post on the subject.
I can go either way here- if liberals wish to claim a monopoly on humor then it's only fair that conservatives lay claim to a monopoly on common sense. In that spirit I give you the following choices:
Who would you rather have as your airline pilot- Toad, a conservative who we all know is by the book and meticilous in his flight preperation, or Robin Williams, a leftist comedian?
Who would you rather have patroling your neighborhood at night- Maverick, a conservative cop we all know doesn't suffer fools gladly and is a by-the-book guy, or Emu Phillips, a leftist comedian?
Who would you rather have teaching your 9th grader- Shuckins, a conservative who listens to a liberal arguement and offers well articulated thought provoking rebuttals, or Chris Rock, a leftist comedian?
Who would you rather have judge you at a trial? Hortlund, a no-nonsense, by-the-book Damn You To Hell conservative, or Rosie O'Donnell, a leftist comedian?
Obviously you would prefer Toad as your pilot. Robin Williams is a recovering cocaine addict who has attention-deficate disorder. I'd feel safer knowing Toad were the pilot of my commercal flight.
Obviously you would prefer Maverick as your beat cop. Emu Phillips is more likely to stand in line with the peeping Toms as they gaze in your window. I'd feel safer if Maverick were patrolling my neighborhood.
Obviously you would prefer Shuckins as your child's teacher. Sorry, but people who listen and respond rationally on a bbs make better teachers than parrots who squack out the old "four legs good two legs bad" nonsense. As a parent he's the kind of teacher I want my child to have.
Obviously you would prefer Rosie O'Donnell sitting in judgement over you. She's compassionate and easily fooled, while Hortlund is cynical and ill tempered and inclined to give everybody the maximum sentance unless, of course, you have blonde hair and blue eyes and look like you're from fine Ayrian stock.
So what have we learned? In the jobs that really count- transportation, law enforcement, education, judicial- in three out of four professions conservatives are better suited. Sorry, Steve, but my eyes are brown so I know I'd have no chance in your courtroom. (Jest kidding):)
:D
-
Absolutely priceless. :D
-
Wiping coffee off my monitor.... ROFL
-
Shuckins
I couldn't agree more.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... hell... if you already knew what the liberal agenda was, why did you ask?
To expose you :)
-
OK Meitla,
Now tell me your agenda, so I can tell you you don't know your agenda. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Meitla,
Now tell me your agenda, so I can tell you you don't know your agenda. :rolleyes:
Not hungry
(http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Troller.jpg)
But seriously, read my previous posts. I've already stated it.
-
Originally posted by senna
Are all comedians essentially Libreals
No, but almost all Liberals are clowns. :D
-
Hey Funk, so you've made it after all :)