WorknMan's 7 Laws of Politics

[WorknMan]

After seeing the recent thread about Democrats losing control of the House, I got to thinking maybe I should share this. I must admit that I don't know too much about the ins and outs of politics, but I have read through enough political debates to come up with what I consider to be some universal truths, which I call 'WorknMan's 7 Laws of Politics'. So, have a read through these and the next time you're involved with/reading through a thread about politics, I think you will find that I am right on the money


1. If a guy running for office is not the one you support, then he is
the anti-Christ (comparisons to Hitler and the Borg are also inevitable)
and has some sort of hidden agenda that, if elected, will surely send
America down a path of destruction.

2. In addition to the above, not only is the opposing candidate the
anti-Christ with a hidden agenda, but there is also a conspiracy in the
media to help him carry out his agenda. No matter which candidate you
support, you can rest assured that the media is out to do everything it
can to destroy their character. And if the news media doesn't report on
something that you personally consider important, it is because the
media is controlled by the opposition and is purposely trying to cover
it up.

3. If two sides of the political isle can't come to an agreement on an
issue, it is because the side you oppose is either lying or purposely
distorting the facts.

4. When the other side attacks your candidate, they are engaging in a
smear campaign and hate-mongering. When your side does the same thing to
the opposing candidate, you're just 'getting the truth out'.

5. Whatever the state that the nation is in depends on who's elected. If
the guy who holds office is someone you voted for, then everything's
great (or at least getting better). If not, then it's terrible. If your
guy is elected and you must concede that things have gone down the
shitter, then you simply blame it on the last guy that was elected
before yours. (That is, assuming the last guy who was elected was
somebody you didn't vote for. If that isn't the case, then you must do
everything you can to place the blame on somebody else.)

6. If a candidate/elected official/political party screws up and/or does
something really stupid, instead of conceding the point, their
supporters will try to point out something the opposition did that was
even worse. And if all else fails, there's always name calling and
personal attacks.

7. No matter who is voted into office on any particular election, you're
going to see bumper stickers during the next election that inform us
that we need to 'take back America', and each candidate who is running
will promise 'real change' in Washington. However, if nobody has been
able to pull off 'real change' yet to the degree that everyone is
satisfied with the results, there is little reason to believe that itwill ever happen in our lifetime.

[rCoder]

You are way too much of an optimist!

[FWR]

no matter what the issue, you will be told it is being done "for the childern"

[theaustinescorts]

The reason why there's so much antipathy in politics isn't because of misperception, misunderstanding or exaggeration.

It's because each side has a sinister side to them which they deny among themselves, but which is obvious to their rivals.

Each side focuses on the sinister side of the other, and this becomes the basis of each sides' passionate condemnations.

This is a normal phenomena, and can be seen in tribalism, sectarianism, etc. all over the world.

The way history is commonly taught, the side which wins is usually the side which "should have" won because the side that lost was sinister. To me this is laughable. When I survey the wars of history I seldom see one side which is noble and the other sinister. Usually what I see are two sides with deep sinister elements in both. This is what I see in the Arab-Israeli conflict for example. This is one reason why I constantly declare that morality is a misleading guide in international conflict. War has no moral acts in it. If you're going to try to convince yourself that what you're doing in war is moral then you'd better be prepared for a lot of analysis, rationalization, and theorizing. The ambiguities of it all will overwhelm you if you are honest with yourself....but most people are more interested in defending a position they've taken then in examining themselves.

To me the important thing is that the sinister side of each is real. To me there really are very sinister forces at work in the world. When it come to humans I am not as optimistic as I wish I could be...sorry.

It does however make for an interesting world, and that's very important.

[F-Sharp]

Those sinister liberals, with their belief in personal liberty and equal rights. Advocating progression in hopes of keeping up with the rest of the world. How dare they expect their government to secure their civil liberties. How dare they insist to live in a world free from bigotry and intolerance. What evil transpires from those who insist on government protection from those who seek to do them economic harm. Sinister, indeed.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The reason why there's so much antipathy in politics isn't because of misperception, misunderstanding or exaggeration.

It's because each side has a sinister side to them which they deny among themselves, but which is obvious to their rivals.

Each side focuses on the sinister side of the other, and this becomes the basis of each sides' passionate condemnations.

This is a normal phenomena, and can be seen in tribalism, sectarianism, etc. all over the world.

The way history is commonly taught, the side which wins is usually the side which "should have" won because the side that lost was sinister. To me this is laughable. When I survey the wars of history I seldom see one side which is noble and the other sinister. Usually what I see are two sides with deep sinister elements in both. This is what I see in the Arab-Israeli conflict for example. This is one reason why I constantly declare that morality is a misleading guide in international conflict. War has no moral acts in it. If you're going to try to convince yourself that what you're doing in war is moral then you'd better be prepared for a lot of analysis, rationalization, and theorizing. The ambiguities of it all will overwhelm you if you are honest with yourself....but most people are more interested in defending a position they've taken then in examining themselves.

To me the important thing is that the sinister side of each is real. To me there really are very sinister forces at work in the world. When it come to humans I am not as optimistic as I wish I could be...sorry.

It does however make for an interesting world, and that's very important.

[WorknMan]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

How dare they expect their government to secure their civil liberties. How dare they insist to live in a world free from bigotry and intolerance.

Ha, yeah... liberals are tolerant alright. In fact, we can't hardly have prayers anymore before school sporting events or the mention of 'god' in our pledge of allegiance because liberals are so tolerant.

[nuglet]

it's not about liberals or conservatives for everyone. maybe it's just about truth. Being a Druid, it's funny to see how dependent some folks are on having someone/myth, to blame for their own weaknesses. Yeah, let's change this to a religion discussion. I'm in favor of removing the financial and legal protections for all of them.

[F-Sharp]

Spoken like a true Christian, never once considering who those prayers might be offensive to. Here's an idea, why don't you practice your superstitions in the privacy of your own home? Here's an even better idea, how about I come to your sporting events, draw a giant pentagram on the ground and sacrifice a chicken for good luck? Better yet, how about I show up wrapped in a Burka, lay down on a mat facing east and speak gibberish for about 30 minutes while your team stretches out for the big game?

You tell me where your next big sporting event is and we'll just see who's more tolerant of whom. I might even bring some openly gay male cheerleaders dressed in drag along for good measure. What do you say Pal?

Originally Posted by WorknMan

Ha, yeah... liberals are tolerant alright. In fact, we can't hardly have prayers anymore before school sporting events or the mention of 'god' in our pledge of allegiance because liberals are so tolerant.

[WorknMan]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Spoken like a true Christian, never once considering who those prayers might be offensive to.

Wow, you're quick to label, aren't you? Just because I called you out on your own hypocrisy, you automatically assume I'm a Christian? To be honest, I don't care in the least about school prayer or god in the pledge. I just find it quite amusing when liberals try and play the tolerance card.

When it comes to tolerance, it's not a one way/all or nothing kind of thing; you have to give a little to get a little, which is unfortunately something conservatives don't seem to understand either.

[F-Sharp]

Yes I am, and incidentally that was exactly my point wasn't it? On the flipside, I am a firm believer in being intolerant of intolerance.

Originally Posted by WorknMan

When it comes to tolerance, it's not a one way/all or nothing kind of thing; you have to give a little to get a little, which is unfortunately something conservatives don't seem to understand either.

[austin_voy]

Originally Posted by FWR

no matter what the issue, you will be told it is being done "for the childern"

When, in fact, it's being "done to the children"

[austin_voy]

You know, what really pisses me off is that both sides are so far off the edge that I would have to hold my nose AND have a barf bag ready to vote for either side. So, do I vote for the guy who's pro-gun or the one who's pro-choice? Everybody believes that they know what's right for us.

Without naming books or actually advocating it (I once took an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "protect the lawful government of the United States"), Clancy might have had a good idea.

In December of 2008, a far left liberal told me that Bush wouldn't "give up" the Presidency. I told him that in that case he better have a gun, too, because there would be a civil war and I would be on the side of the Constitution, along with him and Obama. Some people are just too weird and wrapped up in their own world of extremist politics.

[theaustinescorts]

F-Sharp:

I'm sure we would agree on the sinister side of the right. But if you're suggesting that the left lacks sinister motives as well then I must beg to differ.

The utopian list of noble goods you list sounds swell, but in practice the only MEANS of achieving them involves assuring compliance to law through nothing less than a police state. Where do our protections of civil liberties fit into that?

It's one thing to proclaim that the world would be better if humans were free of bigotry, but prejudice is a normal state of the human condition and the MEANS government may use to suppress it takes us into criminalization of our very thoughts.

What's insidious and pernicous about the left is that their "remedies" are directed against clear social evils. That means that virtually any kind of tyranny can be justified thereby. Whatever the solution is it will be framed as less of a problem than that which it's intended to remedy....but it's not. In fact the remedy is worse to the human condition than the ill itself.

I don't agree with too much of von Hayek, but he's dead-on in that the road to surfdom is paved with noble goals. The problem is that much of these social ills arise from basic human nature itself, and the only MEANS to combat it relies on condemning and controlling the human mind.

It's the left and not the right which seeks to impose the ultimate kind of tyranny - that which controls what people are allowed to think.

Upon the alter of nature's God I declare eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny upon THE MINDS of men.

- Jefferson

[F-Sharp]

I disagree with the very base of this argument, but I have to consider my own "human nature" may be very different than the human nature of those around me. If I understand you correctly, you assert that prejudice is a normal condition. I would have to argue that prejudice and bigotry are not normal at all. People are clearly conditioned to be prejudice, either through events in their life that created the prejudice, or influence of those that they admire and learn from.

Do you somehow consider government intervention as to a woman's right to vote criminal? How do you feel about segregation? For that matter, how do you find it an act of criminalization on behalf of the government for passing legislation preventing discrimination in any form?

No one's talking about controlling human minds here, only their actions. Let's not get all 1984 here.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

F-Sharp:

I'm sure we would agree on the sinister side of the right. But if you're suggesting that the left lacks sinister motives as well then I must beg to differ.

The utopian list of noble goods you list sounds swell, but in practice the only MEANS of achieving them involves assuring compliance to law through nothing less than a police state. Where do our protections of civil liberties fit into that?

It's one thing to proclaim that the world would be better if humans were free of bigotry, but prejudice is a normal state of the human condition and the MEANS government may use to suppress it takes us into criminalization of our very thoughts.

What's insidious and pernicous about the left is that their "remedies" are directed against clear social evils. That means that virtually any kind of tyranny can be justified thereby. Whatever the solution is it will be framed as less of a problem than that which it's intended to remedy....but it's not. In fact the remedy is worse to the human condition than the ill itself.

I don't agree with too much of von Hayek, but he's dead-on in that the road to surfdom is paved with noble goals. The problem is that much of these social ills arise from basic human nature itself, and the only MEANS to combat it relies on condemning and controlling the human mind.

It's the left and not the right which seeks to impose the ultimate kind of tyranny - that which controls what people are allowed to think.

Upon the alter of nature's God I declare eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny upon THE MINDS of men.

- Jefferson

[F-Sharp]

This person was not a far left anything. The person you speak of was just an idiot. I hope you punched him square in the forehead and told him as much. If you happen to run in to this person, be sure to tell him he's been disavowed from any association with "the left". You might also suggest a future for him as a full-fledged member of the Tea Party. They have all kinds of bat-shit looney conspiracy theories that may be more to his liking.

Originally Posted by austin_voy

In December of 2008, a far left liberal told me that Bush wouldn't "give up" the Presidency. I told him that in that case he better have a gun, too, because there would be a civil war and I would be on the side of the Constitution, along with him and Obama. Some people are just too weird and wrapped up in their own world of extremist politics.