the popular loser

I'd like to meet:

WAIT the hilarity ok everybody has those like quote dealies in their profile and like "Oh man that was soo good I'ma put it in my profile" and I'm not really one for AIM so uh....:

"omg dude u wont believe wat happened well i went to the cort today for my tickets right nd they both got dismissed but that dosnt matter u no wat my "fine" was?!?!?!?!?!!? i had to hum my tattoo infront of like all the ppl there it was so ggggaaaaayyyyyyy kkkkk cccc uuuuu iiinnnn llliiikkkeee tttthhhheeee 1111199999tttthhhhh aaaaaassssss!!!!!!!! --eric Jul 27, 2006 4:37 PM" yep... that'd be eric bugielski and his tattoo of "The Outsider" by APC

"i was like "who the fuck is this ghetto girl commenting me" and i look on yr page and im like oh its just brenden. -- STAZI KAMIKAZE July 26, 2006 3:14 PM" haha yeah that week turned month when I stole Martha's profile. pretty awesome.

and possibly my favorite cuz of its content but it can't be because it was made by some dude in some political forum nonsense:

"Guys,

Don't you know who this "popular loser" is?

It's Stephen Colbert. He's poking us for new material.

BTW, Stephen, I loved your commentary that the surge should be 300 million troops! That is absolutely brilliant! :D

MTL Posted by: MikeTheLiberal on Sat 1.13 12:08am"

Now back to my profile's previously featured content: umm so yeah random political musings (whaa??) umm i dont even remember what i may or may not have writte ehh id probably recommend not wasting your time reading this it doesnt make sense i dont even know i dont even know i dont even know....

why i'm not a populist:
(the republican debate in SC, as described by the nyt:)
"During a May debate in South Carolina, [Ron Paul] suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?" he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. "They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Rudolph Giuliani reacted by demanding a retraction, drawing gales of applause from the audience."

goddamn fools.

(the rest of this is totally old and i might not agree with it any more...) but yeah like umm that thing where like conservatives want economic freedom but social control? yeeeaaah total contradiction but uh so yea its based on the idea of conservative skepticism which says that some people are naturally good and others naturally evil (so the thief isn't a thief because he's poor... but because he's evil... interesting) but yeah and that no matter what we do these 'evil' people will never become 'good'... the religious overtones are incredible but anyway so conservatism then calls for paternalism because if youre evil and you don't know it, then what's stopping you from committing evil actions? so yea there has to be a paternal government, kinda like the enlightened despots of yea the middle ages and whatnot... like sure they control you and everything, but thats only because you don't know what's best for you, everyone else does. good idea? whatever, its totally un-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualist. okok but i was really lame and researched this junk this summer so umm insert quotes here: "conservatives will be in favor of resolving [the conflict between autonomy and external moral authority] in favor of moral authority" against the western tradition that freedom is only supposed to be impeded if harm is caused, this argues that freedom should be limited if actions are 'immoral' or not harmful but still 'evil'... even though the only institutions capable of defining what is moral and immoral is religion. so yeah, american conservatives may say that they believe in freedom and whatnot, but when it comes down to it theyre in the same wing as islamic extremists except they have a different definition of who is 'good' and who is 'evil' but they both believe in intervening to limit the freedom of those they think are evil. so yeah. more to that point but im on a roll.

okok liberals believe that people are naturally good, while conservatives believe people are naturally good or evil... but where is there room for human nature separate from religious definitions? i think there is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil', but that people (of varying degrees of intelligence and biological disposition) just act to fulfill their interets. so instead of a serial killer being a murderer because society suppressed him (lib view) or because he worships the devil or something (con view), its because he derives pleasure from killing others and, in con terminology, it defines his "notion of the good life."

my favorite, though, is how some credited with founding conservatism (most notably frederich hayek, whose book margaret thatcher famously slammed on her desk when she announced 'this is what i believe!' oh shit i'm lame) but yea hayek obviously didnt believe the same stuff as her as he wrote "why i'm not a conservative," yea a great book actually. he says he's not a con because while cons help by slowing 'bad' development (porn, murder, etc.) they don't offer an alternative direction (tho neocons do... w/e that was after his time). as he sees it, cons are just the "brake on the vehicle of progress" while libs direct the vehicle. "There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change [...] one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead." "In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example [...] but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people." ooohh shiittt!!!! and you know its true. he goes on "When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike" "To live and work successfully with others requires [...] an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends." "the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal." oooh shiiitttt!!! no he didnt!!!! so freakin true. though conservatives originally focused on limiting government, "it was only when power came into the hands of the majority [conservatives] that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary." "But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality." so yea basically hayek says theres a triangle dealie of political parties with conservatives, liberals, and socialists on each side. i dunno if im a liberal in the regular sense, but here oh yea i totally am.

another problem with conservatism- it basically promotes intollerance (which is probably why so many, dare i say, 'rednecks' are conservatives). am i just making this up? chaa no "though [giving equal time in religous education lessons to informing children of the virtues and teachings of each of the major faiths] does no discernable good, it does do a definite amount of harm to the intellectual and spiritual welfare of children [...] for we ask them to recognize the validities of all faiths [...] leading them to believe the 'gospel of relativism'." okok so much wrong with this... does anyone actually believe that teaching about the major religions doesnt do any good? then how are we supposed to learn about other religions? even the government realized that students needed to learn about religions especially after 9/11 when they were like 'shit everyones gonna hate us if ignorant americans start attacking muslims.... weve gotta teach people that islam is a religion of peace' and stuff... like wtf no merit to the conservative argument... then that it does harm like ooh right ok im now corrupted because i know there are more religions in the world than the local christian church right? ok this makes sense... but only if you believe that christianity is the only real religion. wooow thats intolerance or something. oh yeah and whats wrong with a 'gospel of relativism'? we live in a diverse world, we can't pretend like theres only black and white, you're with us or against us, we know whats best for you, etc. bs.

okok more- "When it comes to tracing the source of human troubles and misery, liberals are linclined to blame external causes - for example, poverty, social prejudice, misfortunes in upbringing, and so on - while conservatives are inclined to blame 'causes lurking naturally within the souls of men,' such as greed, pride, vanity, and so forth." forget about 'souls' that only have a place in religion; psychologically, conservatives buy into the human nature being attributable to one's 'nature' as if their 'nurture' has no effect. thus, liberals are closer in their definition of the origin of 'evil,' if such a thing exists. conservatives believe "compassion [welfarism] organized into a political movement is a very dangerous thing," like the institution of welfare. but if conservatives' main belief is correct, that some are naturally good and others evil, then won't voluntary 'compassion' allow evil people to get off scot free when only good people donate to charity? related to this, why should everyone be given gun rights (a strong foundation of conservative support) if some are naturally evil and are more inclined to use weapons against society? shouldn't conservatives favor gun control then? of course it doesn't make any sense in the clash between partisanism and ideologies; there are contradictions galore.

so basically what i'm saying is that i need a life