I’ve seen the pattern. I guess all I’m saying is that there are a decent number of posters on this board that are willing to have good faith debates, so if the goal is a good faith debate, stick to those posters.
OK, now it’s just getting ugly.
Regards,
Shodan
I reside in the Cincinnati area, yes. And yes, there’s a high proportion of righties in this mostly conservative backwater river town. I blame Proctor and Gamble, GE, Kroger, Fifth Third Bank and lots of other big corporations having their headquarters here for the huge influx of pro-business types. And yes, I am a (proud) Bengals fan. At least we didn’t lose our playoff game to Tim Tebow.
You know, I go back and forth on that. I lived in Texas for a few years in the mid 1980’s and experienced some chili competitions that my Dad was a judge at in Sulphur Springs and the chili there was fantastic. The “chili” in Cincinnati tastes good…but the consistency is watery, and they do put what sounds like on paper some odd ingredients in it, but it actually tastes really good. I never get it over spaghetti, though. The best usage I have found is Skyline cheese coneys with chili, habanero cheese, mustard and onions on it. Now* those *fucking things are awesome.
Since things are really getting nasty now, I thought I’d drop back in between flights and state, categorically and for the record that if it doesn’t have meat (preferably cubed beef or chicken…or both. My preference is not for ground meat mush if it can be humanly avoided, but meat is meat and it MUST have meat. Sorry you veggie types out there, but THIS…IS…CHILI!!) beans, a tomato base and red (or green if you must) chili in it then it’s NOT CHILI! :mad: It might (or might not) be tasty, but it’s something in the realm of ‘not chili’. To be chili it has to have those 4 basic ingredients in it (it can, of course, have more…say cheese or onions, or myriad other ingredients).
The only exception to the above is if you are slathering it over hotdogs (though even there I prefer the standard 4 ingredients listed)…then it’s ok to CALL it chili, even if it really isn’t. As long as you use plenty of grated cheddar and onion with a bit of relish and hot mustard…
Anyway, this was vitally important to the discussion so thought I better weigh in. 
-XT
I’ve gotten into hostile confrontations with Hentor and Elvis. Hentor isn’t a troll in the same way Shodan is. Elvis can be, and I’m not a fan of his.
I’ve only created two pit threads, and both of which involved the guys going after me specifically. If any of the liberals went after me in the aggressively stupid, dishonest way Shodan did, I’d be happy to pit them.
That’s a tricky question. I’ve never considered myself a conservative. I think conservatism - as defined by essentially a bias towards the status quo - is inherently a restrictive position. All ideas should be considered on their merits, not just accepted because that’s the way they’ve always been.
But I’ve held various positions that have lined up more closely with what the republicans, in theory, claim they stand for. I’ve also changed my views on many issues over the last decade. And the republican party and the mainstream conservative movement has changed over that time. And with more life experience, I’ve come to realize that a lot of the things they say they stand for are just lip service, they don’t actually act on them.
In the past I’d have considered myself a utilitarian libertarian. Which seems to make me an odd duck. I want a society that provides the most happiness to the most people, but I realize that when people try to design a society to be a utopia through force of government, they’ve committed some of the greatest evils mankind has ever seen. So my views revolved around a free and fair society providing the best overall solution, with government’s role being reserved only to the things it clearly does best, and to the protection of the rights of everyone.
But I’ve come to learn that I seem to be fairly unique among libertarians in that regard. It disturbs me how many libertarians seem just fine with the idea of the people who are already powerful to use that power to rig the system to increase and maintain that power, and to shut others out. It seems many even seem to have a hardon for that and consider it a good thing - and actually enjoy watching the powerful crush the weak. I’ve also come to learn that many have taken libertarian ideology as a cover for just pushing their dickish non-libertarian agenda - basically the entire tea party movement.
So then if I don’t even have ideological allies amongst libertarians, who could I possibly ally with in the political realm? If the tea party represents the closest the US can get to libertarian movements, I want no part in that.
Republicans have gone bat shit crazy. Essentially, since a lot of the views I hold are anti-liberal, I want the republican party to be a bunch of sane people who I can manage to agree with, as that is often my natural inclination. At least on those issues. The fact that instead they’ve decided to go full retard and evil is revolting to me.
So I don’t attack the right from a position of being a liberal. I attack the right from someone who is generally inclined to agree with them on some fundamental issues and yet is completely offput by what they’ve become.
And because I feel that it’s the stupid tribal nature of politics, the “my party right or wrong” attitude, that allows them to do this - that the republicans can do evil and stupid things, and yet get complete support from their base - that really gives them the power to do damage. And that’s why I go so hard after republican partisans. I used to vote republican, and want the republicans to be sane, but they’ve proven they are not - so I did what anyone with integrity should do - I abandoned them until such time, if ever, they return to sanity. The fact that many have decided instead to dig in and support them no matter what is utterly disgusting. They lack integrity. And, generally, because those people don’t have anything positive to focus their energies on - they can’t try to convince us how the current direction of the republican party has merit, and will do good things - they instead focus on the other end of it - try to stir up so much hate for liberals that they don’t question the evil they’re supporting because they’ve convinced themselves the other side is worse.
So it kind of amuses me that all of the people I go after just assume “oh yeah that liberal obviously hates me because he’s liberal” when it’s quite the opposite.
Well that’s exactly it. We’re hostile to people with bullshit ideas. We attack the religious, woo, conspiracy theories, all that. Now I know that there’s a bias in most people that constantly thinks of the world in terms of a false balance, at least when it comes to politics. All sides have equal merit, all sides are equally guilty to the others, etc. It’s just a bullshit way for you to justify blind allegiance to your side when they’re doing something wrong.
If they’ve decided that they are completely committed to their tribe, and want to justify everything they do, then they make shitty arguments, because they’re defending shitty ideas. To argue in favor of the preposterous “debt ceiling crisis”, or to be a cheerleader for Iraq, or to argue that our current deficit is killing us and risking our country and fucking our grandchildren but then being completely unwilling to even consider easing up on historically low tax rates are all fucking bad ideas.
Conservatives seem to feel that when the bad ideas they’re being apologists for are torn apart, they’ll make up some bullshit excuse to justify it like “oh you liberals can’t be reasoned with” or other such copout answers. And they’ll wrap it up in a bullshit persecution complex. After all - if all sides have equal merit, but the liberal ideas generally tend to win out in these debates, obviously that’s just a result of this board’s bias and persecution of conservatives, right?
They never consider that their ideas might not be winning out because they’re shitty, just like atheistic arguments win out over religious ones, skepticism beats woo and conspiracy theories, enlightened social ideas trump racism, etc.
Don’t get me wrong - there are issues on which reasonable people disagree, where the truth isn’t clear, or where reasonable people can have different value judgements. But the republican party has become so fucking nuts that there are fewer and fewer of them.
If you have a great mass of people telling you, in detail, how you’re wrong about something, there is a possible explanation other than that they just hate conservatives, ya know? If you have a problem with just about everyone else, maybe the problem isn’t with just about everyone else.
The people who get jumped on here are people who refuse to accept that there might be something they can learn from others, even when it’s being shown to them in great factual detail. That’s not an issue with views of the proper role of government in society or whatever, it’s an issue with basic honesty. And that *should *get you dumped on, every time.
I’m a lot like you in your views, Beef. I can’t presume to speak for you, but I too, hold conservative ideals that the current manifestation of the Republican Party only gives lip service to during election cycles but no longer politically endorses when it comes to their actual actions while in office.
For instance, I:
Endorse a STRONG military
Am pro-gun ownership
Am in favor of limited entitlement programs
Want government spending to be constantly watched and cut whenever necessary
I am pro-death penalty (or just pro death in general…there are worse things than dying…like dishonor, lying for a living, etc)
Want strong regulation of corporations that can prey upon people (which in my view was a traditionally held Republican belief, but no more)
Am pro-stimulation of business
Proactive foreign policy (Nixon’s biggest strength and the best of his legacy, IMO)
Protection of American interests, within reason.
Pro nuclear power exploitation
On the liberal side, I am:
Pro-abortion
anti-religious exceptionalism (taxes)
Pro-marijuana legalization
Pro-universal healthcare, although we’ll never see it done properly in this country in our lifetime.
Pro-diplomacy ahead of arbitrary war
Anti-protectionism/monopolism
Pro-gay marriage
Pro tolerance
I am sure there are other things I am not thinking of now. In the immortal words of Bill Maher, when I (used to) vote for a Republican, I want “A prick and a square…a father figure if you will…to keep Mommy the Democrat from spending all the money!”
Which of course is no longer true. Unsustainable wars and debt are the demense of BOTH parties now, and it has to stop somewhere, but the configuration of the Republican Party as it is right now won’t put an end to this shit, it will only increase it. I don’t think the Dems will put the brakes on government spending either, as they seem to believe that spending more will somehow right the ship.
I think we are at a tipping point in many ways, and the outlook isn’t good. Partisan politics are ruining this country and its treasury. It fucking sucks.
Senorbeef, I’m in agreement with 80% of what you say, but this is the kind of rhetoric that makes me dubious:
Who are these people who actively enjoy crushing the weak? Name them. If not on the SDMB, then just in society at large, where do you see this?
**Rand Rover **is one I can think of, but he’s a troll. What makes you think this is a remotely fair depiction of “many libertarians?” Something on Reason or Cato or from Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party? Something Sam Stone or emacknight or I said? Cites, please.
Frankly, if Republicans, conservatives, and now libertarians are as horrible as you describe them (“cartoonishly evil,” wrecking the world, pleasure in crushing the weak), you should be a devout partisan, if only because the all of the alternatives are so terrible.
The problem I have with this is that if you substitute “modern American politican” for “many libertarians” then you would have truth, and being a partisan of ANY party isn’t going to matter as we become more and more homogenized in political ACTION once our officials are elected, no matter their claimed affiliation. Its all become a power grabbing self-enrichment program for the elected official and his/her cronies to me.
Sigh.
What makes *you *think there *are *“many libertarians”, out away from the Internet, that is? There are always some who will vote for whoever promises them the lowest taxes, and others who will vote “None of the above”, and together they constitute maybe 1% of the L vote in a good year. The genuine, committed ideologues who are convinced their views are actually related to reality and actually constitute a coherent method of social governance that is actually superior to what we’ve got? The ones right here on this board have to be a large percentage of the world’s supply. The rest of us are entirely within our rights to deride them for their fantasies.
This. A thousand times this. NEITHER party cares about the electorate past getting the vote to set them up. I don’t care how many times on this board that someone tries to say otherwise, I have seen no evidence to the contrary.. from either party or ideology.
..and for the sake of disclosure
Endorse a STRONG military
Am pro-gun ownership
Am in favor of VERY VERY limited entitlement programs
Want government spending to be constantly watched and cut whenever necessary
I am pro-death penalty
Am pro-stimulation of business
Proactive foreign policy
Protection of American interests, within reason.
Pro nuclear power exploitation
Against Universal Health Care
On the liberal side, I am:
Pro-abortion
Pro-marijuana legalization (or drugs of any kind)
Pro-diplomacy ahead of arbitrary war
Anti-monopolism militarily
Pro-gay marriage
Pro tolerance (I’m not sure what this means, but I can’t imagine the opposite being a good thing)
A goodly chunk of “libertarians” are not philosophers but Occam’s-Razorites reasoning that they have no clue what’s good or bad or socially desirable or dangerous but the only thing they know for sure is that they have more money the less the government takes from them, so fuck everything else. All the so-called philosophy radiates outward from that, and they’re clinging to it no matter what you tell them or ask them. Not much point to taking such people seriously. They’re just a cost to structuring any sound government: haters.
And here I thought you were smart, XT. God damnit, chili is meat and chili. What you’re describing is a fine bean stew, I’m sure.
Chili has no tomatoes either.
My, my. Who would have thought that what might normally turn into yet another round of pure, pointless partisan dick-waving would become one of the more thoughtful and interesting exchanges I’ve read on this board. Knocked down with a feather, is I.
Meanwhile, regarding the side discussion, my mother made it, it had beans in it, and she called it chili. So it was chili.
Any of you assholes want to call my poor dead mother a liar?
Do you want a banana that you can throw into a quarry?*
*Shitless banana guaranteed!
I think that many people that self-identify with libertarianism do so to separate themselves from other political parties, particularly Republicans. I do not think that most “internet libertarians” really embrace the core tenets of Randism outside of “the best government is a small government”…which is of course a Republican ideal that’s been lost in the noise…
I want less government, not more…and neither the Repubs NOR the Dems can promise me that. We are certainly progressing towards an information controlled society.
Anyway…I’ve lost my train of thought due to urination and alcohol and now must engage in chess with my oldest (10) son. Life is okay…for now.
Me big conservative, explain plenty why think the way we do, very complicated, uh, gotta pee. And drink beer. Then pee some more…
I’m willing to stipulate she’s misled–but in a fact-based reality, chili doesn’t have beans.
originally posted by Zeriel
originally posted by Fear Itself
originally posted by El Kabong
originally posted by Zeriel
Spoken like a dyed-in-the-wool Texan. I, however am of the California school of chili ethics®* which has determined unequivocally that real chili contains both beans and tomatos
SS
*since Oregon doesn’t have a native chili style, unless you count salmon chili (I don’t)
Me honest…share honest views and caught in honest situation. You jerk. Me club you over head. Me should have stayed in bed where I belong, dreaming of me being my own god.