Conservatives & Morrissey Fans

[stalktimusPrime]

Whew - for some reason I read through this thread as if it were a novel. I started reading because I never have understood how conservatives can reconcile their views which are the very antithesis to not only the words but of the entire SPIRIT of Morrissey's music (not to mention the man himself).

Instead, what I got was a long running debate about humanity vs economics. One character is fond of pulling out all kinds of charts and graphs to show you why it is a good thing to go and kill Iraqis.

He says "It's better to Invade Iraq, lose a few thousand volunteer troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians than have the US take a hit in its' economy". Saying this without realizing that there might be an economist somewhere in a future nuclear armed country who decides that an invasion of the US might 'jump start' their economy.

How somebody can say that and not see the bankruptcy of their rotten heart is beyond comprehension.

Further, He and others who have supported his positions are CLEARLY coming from a predetermined point of view - that is, the sacredness of the dollar, and constructing all of the evidence and arguments to make that point of view look appealing. Not so much as a thought is given to any human element (except to incorporate humans into the equation as so much livestock). My favorite being that certain poor nations desperately need to be 'depopulated' (i.e. let them die - i.e. social darwinism)

Precisely the type of person who would be whipping slaves in the cotton fields because you felt it was good for the overall economy, and that they're better off here than in the harsh African tundra right?

Much like hardcore Christians will take a position that evolution isn't real and begin seeking out information that seems to support their 'facts' - They are doing it at the expense of any true critical thinking or introspection.

Defending and even championing the things you have with the fact that, in the end the balance sheet looks better, is the ultimate example of 'the ends justify the means' and has certainly earned you a place in hell.

Although, as low as he goes...

 

[gertrude]

Whew - for some reason I read through this thread as if it were a novel. I started reading because I never have understood how conservatives can reconcile their views which are the very antithesis to not only the words but of the entire SPIRIT of Morrissey's music (not to mention the man himself).

Instead, what I got was a long running debate about humanity vs economics. One character is fond of pulling out all kinds of charts and graphs to show you why it is a good thing to go and kill Iraqis.

He says "It's better to Invade Iraq, lose a few thousand volunteer troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians than have the US take a hit in its' economy". Saying this without realizing that there might be an economist somewhere in a future nuclear armed country who decides that an invasion of the US might 'jump start' their economy.

How somebody can say that and not see the bankruptcy of their rotten heart is beyond comprehension.

Further, He and others who have supported his positions are CLEARLY coming from a predetermined point of view - that is, the sacredness of the dollar, and constructing all of the evidence and arguments to make that point of view look appealing. Not so much as a thought is given to any human element (except to incorporate humans into the equation as so much livestock). My favorite being that certain poor nations desperately need to be 'depopulated' (i.e. let them die - i.e. social darwinism)

Precisely the type of person who would be whipping slaves in the cotton fields because you felt it was good for the overall economy, and that they're better off here than in the harsh African tundra right?

Much like hardcore Christians will take a position that evolution isn't real and begin seeking out information that seems to support their 'facts' - They are doing it at the expense of any true critical thinking or introspection.

Defending and even championing the things you have with the fact that, in the end the balance sheet looks better, is the ultimate example of 'the ends justify the means' and has certainly earned you a place in hell.

Although, as low as he goes...

A wonderful contribution, so it's bound to be attacked.

 

[Kumo]

Yet again another beautiful example of the strawman fallacy, take something I didn't say, distort my words, and attack it as if it was something I said.
Why not try to debate my real feelings and views.

Whew - for some reason I read through this thread as if it were a novel. I started reading because I never have understood how conservatives can reconcile their views which are the very antithesis to not only the words but of the entire SPIRIT of Morrissey's music (not to mention the man himself).

This was covered, I was a Smiths fan ever since I met 3 of them in 1985 (Moz, Mike and Johnny) I liked the music before hand but never became a real fan until then. I was in my teens and was very far from completing my education my poltical views had yet to mature, so it was very easy to be a fan. The politics he expressed through his music at that time I still agree with. Anti-royalism, anti-ruffian, anti-meat. I have also said the majority of his music is about the human condition (the human heart) his observations are completely valid and keeps me interested in his music to this day.

Instead, what I got was a long running debate about humanity vs economics. One character is fond of pulling out all kinds of charts and graphs to show you why it is a good thing to go and kill Iraqis.

The debate was over many things, but on Iraq and Afghanistan the debate was over which course of action would lead to saving the most lives. Through quantitative and qualitative efforts on my part I proposed that millions of lives may have been spared. However I did not see any charts and graphs, would you care to share them with us?

Saying this without realizing that there might be an economist somewhere in a future nuclear armed country who decides that an invasion of the US might 'jump start' their economy.

You think the US doesn't know this? This is why national defense is an important priority in light of nations like N. Korea, Iran and others.

My favorite being that certain poor nations desperately need to be 'depopulated' (i.e. let them die - i.e. social darwinism)

Over population is the largest contributing factor to the poverty trap. Again you have decided to use the straw man fallacy instead of properly presenting my views as posted. I never once said "let them die" I did however chastise the previous pope for his efforts aganist birth control. I also promoted literacy and education to help combat the problem.

Much like hardcore Christians will take a position that evolution isn't real and begin seeking out information that seems to support their 'facts' - They are doing it at the expense of any true critical thinking or introspection.

That's how I feel about the far left who refuse to look at the empirical facts and instead follow a blind faith that is counter productive and self defeating.

and has certainly earned you a place in hell.

Yawn, absolutely no skill in your debat. What's next? Will you stick your thumbs in your ears and show me your tongue?

Kumo

 

[stalktimusPrime]

Yet again another beautiful example of the strawman fallacy, take something I didn't say, distort my words, and attack it as if it was something I said.
Why not try to debate my real feelings and views.

Your 'feelings' and views have been expressed very clearly, and it seems that everybody on this thread can understand and acknowledge them but you. You have stated over and over that your 'morality' will be guided by economic 'laws' and statistics that are favorable to the US economy. Never once have you expressed any assessment of the morality of pursuing these laws. You've proclaimed that these laws are for the greater good - but have shrugged off the killing of innocent civilians in pursuit of economic benefit as 'side effects' of globalization. How else can you interpret that?

This was covered, I was a Smiths fan ever since I met 3 of them in 1985 (Moz, Mike and Johnny) I liked the music before hand but never became a real fan until then. I was in my teens and was very far from completing my education my poltical views had yet to mature, so it was very easy to be a fan. The politics he expressed through his music at that time I still agree with. Anti-royalism, anti-ruffian, anti-meat. I have also said the majority of his music is about the human condition (the human heart) his observations are completely valid and keeps me interested in his music to this day.

LOL - Keep telling yourself that. Who do you think he's talking about when he says "People like you make me feel so tired". YOU. When he says "They're saving their own skins by "ruining people's lives": YOU. You are his quintessential "Evil Legal Eagle" . Everything you are a proponent of is compassionless and statistics driven. That doesn't square with a single sentence Morrissey has written.

Not to mention, you have essentially implied you learned to like Morrissey when you were 'young and dumb'. So, I guess you just like to hum along to the melodies now - try to tune out the overall message of his words and convince yourself that he wouldn't hate your world view with a passion.

The debate was over many things, but on Iraq and Afghanistan the debate was over which course of action would lead to saving the most lives. Through quantitative and qualitative efforts on my part I proposed that millions of lives may have been spared. However I did not see any charts and graphs, would you care to share them with us?

The fact that you won't back down from this line of argument is f***ing amazing. It's as if you refuse to see the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

You are saying that, because invading Iraq (totally different from Afghanistan) may have saved 'millions of lives' (where the hell do you get that figure?) - it is a just thing to do. Or worse yet, you don't even make an assessment of it's rightness, you simply say the law of economics demands that we kill Iraqis so that Americans might not die. Even though, those Iraqis did nothing to warrant it - tough luck - the US needs money, so we need a war and your country is going to be our host. Nice!

What is strange, is that when it comes to millions dying in the 3rd world countries - suddenly you blame them for 'overpopulation' and not having proper land owning laws! Just amazing. Again, social darwinism at its finest. Might makes right.

You think the US doesn't know this? This is why national defense is an important priority in light of nations like N. Korea, Iran and others.

Again, you totally miss the point. You can't bring your head out of your numbers for one moment to understand that pursuing a policy of invading whatever country is convenient to jump start your economy is immoral at its core. My solution - Find ways to fix your economy without needing a war. Your solution, buy more guns so you can keep making war profits since it has the best 'return on the dollar'.

Over population is the largest contributing factor to the poverty trap. Again you have decided to use the straw man fallacy instead of properly presenting my views as posted. I never once said "let them die" I did however chastise the previous pope for his efforts aganist birth control. I also promoted literacy and education to help combat the problem.

Ok, please tell me then. What do you propose we do to stop the starvation and poverty around the world? I'm talking about the people we have NOW. Of course, economic development will help down the line, but what do you propose we do now? You have already denounced any aid programs as being futile, so what do you propose other than to let them die?

That's how I feel about the far left who refuse to look at the empirical facts and instead follow a blind faith that is counter productive and self defeating.

I would argue that you are the blind one. Blind to the people who suffer as a result of many of the things you are proposing. Blind to the questions of morality to the things you are proposing. You talk as if every action you take in life appears on a ledger.

Kumo: "Sorry Mom, I know you need money for your liver transplant, but i've done the numbers and, well, there's just no return on the money for me - so good luck to ya."

Yes, I know I am putting words in your mouth, but i'm trying to hold up a mirror to your words and let you see how you look to other people since you seem incapable of doing it/

Yawn, absolutely no skill in your debat. What's next? Will you stick your thumbs in your ears and show me your tongue?
Kumo

I'm not writing to awe you with debating skills. I am writing to express my opinion that profits and justice do not always mix. I am writing to do my best to promote a humane society that doesn't operate free of conscience.

 

[Kumo]

but have shrugged off the killing of innocent civilians in pursuit of economic benefit as 'side effects' of globalization. How else can you interpret that?

Yet again, not what I said at all. Less innocent civilians died in the pursuit of economic health.

The fact that you won't back down from this line of argument is f***ing amazing. It's as if you refuse to see the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

Oh I see it quite clearly, a net gain for humanity.

Again, you totally miss the point. You can't bring your head out of your numbers for one moment to understand that pursuing a policy of invading whatever country is convenient to jump start your economy is immoral at its core.

No more immoral than doing nothing and letting millions die at home...

I am writing to do my best to promote a humane society that doesn't operate free of conscience.

As am I...

Kumo

 

[Bluebirds]

Less innocent civilians died in the pursuit of economic health.

Oh I see it quite clearly, a net gain for humanity.

No more immoral than doing nothing and letting millions die at home...

Oh dear........

 

[MickCable]

Oh dear........

I think Morrissey would really like Kumo, for being outspoken and independent thinker, and going aganist what seems to be an unstoppable tied.

They might not agree on some issues, and I also think Morrissey would not even care about many of them. He has often said that is not very political at all.

I think Morrissey would prefer a conversation with Kumo, instead of a sycophantic fan that doesn't have a lot to offer in the way of intelectual challenge.

I think it's sad that the attacks on Kumo are mostly pesonal in nature.
If this world is going to move forward we need to make greater efforts to understand each other.



Mick Cable

 

[Bluebirds]

I think Morrissey would really like Kumo, for being outspoken and independent thinker, and going aganist what seems to be an unstoppable tied.

They might not agree on some issues, and I also think Morrissey would not even care about many of them. He has often said that is not very political at all.

I think Morrissey would prefer a conversation with Kumo, instead of a sycophantic fan that doesn't have a lot to offer in the way of intelectual challenge.

I think it's sad that the attacks on Kumo are mostly pesonal in nature.
If this world is going to move forward we need to make greater efforts to understand each other.



Mick Cable

Heres an "intellectual" argument for you. From a Republican no less.... although I thinl you should qualify the use of intellectual. Because one isn't an intellectual or pretends to be an intellectual that means there opinion means less does it? Or is that mere pretentiousness?
Someone should have told George Bush then.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Sycophantic??? ha ha you can't get much more sycophantic than hanging round outside Morrisseys house talking to the gardener about Morrissey's trash cans.

I agree with your last sentiment... but then I haven't made comments about less innocent civilians, compared opinions to HIV victims and demonstrated a Phd in the worst excesses of American insularity.

 

[gertrude]

I think Morrissey would really like Kumo, for being outspoken and independent thinker, and going aganist what seems to be an unstoppable tied.

They might not agree on some issues, and I also think Morrissey would not even care about many of them. He has often said that is not very political at all.

I think Morrissey would prefer a conversation with Kumo, instead of a sycophantic fan that doesn't have a lot to offer in the way of intelectual challenge.

I think it's sad that the attacks on Kumo are mostly pesonal in nature.
If this world is going to move forward we need to make greater efforts to understand each other.



Mick Cable

By your standards we should all support Hitler for being outspoken.

Morrissey would, I'm sure, have no time for either the sycophantic fan or the young right-wing economics graduate with no obvious common sense but displaying an arrogant confidence that is never found in the worldly wise.

Morrissey avoids such boring people like the plague. Can you blame him?

 

[Kumo]

Great news for the people of Tokyo.
Shintaro Ishihara, governor of Tokyo, won his bid for reelection.
I pray his next step is to become the PM of Japan!!!

Today is the best possible Easter!

Congradulations Citizens of Tokyo, we are proud of you!

Kumo

 

[Jimmybob12]

"we won't vote conservative because we never have, everyone lies"

I'm a Labour party member so I wouldn't know. I love the anti-conservatism in his music it's brilliant, the anti-blair stuff im not too sure about - but I think I'll let him off.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

There are conservative Morrissey fans???!!!
Just kidding.I'm not that surprised, hell, some gay people even voted for bush, how that thought process works out i'll never understand.

 

[Kumo]

There are conservative Morrissey fans???!!!
Just kidding.I'm not that surprised, hell, some gay people even voted for bush, how that thought process works out i'll never understand.

Maybe they liked the idea of a constitutional amendment that would give them the same rights as married people and wanted less of a tax burden and to be able to work in a growing economy...

Kumo

 

[Sir Alec]

Maybe they liked the idea of a constitutional amendment that would give them the same rights as married people and wanted less of a tax burden and to be able to work in a growing economy...

Kumo

Yeah, because Bush accomplished all those things, right?

Say, what is our current dept again?

EDIT: Oh yeah, just under 9 trillion US dollars.

 

[Zenith Nadir]

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Wow, that is a fascinating article. Thanks Bluebirds.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

"Maybe they liked the idea of a constitutional amendment that would give them the same rights as married people and wanted less of a tax burden and to be able to work in a growing economy..."

Where do I begin??? First, Bush has been a staunch opponent to gay marriage, believing it to be a "threat to marriage as an institution", which is total BS, and has promoted amending the constitution so that gays can NEVER be married. As for "civil unions" or any of that crap, it's still discriminatory, because these couples are denied the right to hold the title even if they are Husband & Husband or Wife & Wife emotionally, financially, and in every other sense of the word. As for bush and the economy, I second the previous gentleman's comment about the national debt (Clinton left us with surplus.) and add that privatization has led to higher costs especially with the privatization of military jobs which are costing twice what it would have cost before, bush's tax cuts plainly benefit the super-rich and he is continuing Reagan's legacy of exterminating the middle class while rewarding with earmarks, ever-higher tax cuts, and federal subsidies corporations that are taking away American jobs by the thousands by outsourcing.

 

[goinghome]

Wow, that is a fascinating article. Thanks Bluebirds.

The article about the dollar suggests that we’re all labouring under a confidence trick. “Educated criminals work within the law”.

Morrissey mustn’t have been keen on Margaret Thatcher, wishing her on the guillotine. She proclaimed that there is no such thing as society but individuals, to back her push of self-interested capitalism. However the value of cooperation as opposed to competition has attracted much interest and support again recently.

John F. Nash, he of the film “A Beautiful Mind” jointly won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2004:

“In his dissertation, Nash introduced the distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games. His most important contribution to the theory of non-cooperative games was to formulate a universal solution concept with an arbitrary number of players and arbitrary preferences, i.e., not solely for two-person zero-sum games. This solution concept later came to be called Nash equilibrium. …

Many interesting economic issues, such as the analysis of oligopoly [que!], originate in non-cooperative games. In general, firms cannot enter into binding contracts regarding restrictive trade practices because such agreements are contrary to trade legislation. Correspondingly, the interaction among a government, special interest groups and the general public concerning, for instance, the design of tax policy is regarded as a non-cooperative game. Nash equilibrium has become a standard tool in almost all areas of economic theory. The most obvious is perhaps the study of competition between firms in the theory of industrial organization. But the concept has also been used in macroeconomic theory for economic policy, environmental and resource economics, foreign trade theory, the economics of information, etc. in order to improve our understanding of complex strategic interactions…. to explain the development of institutions and social norms.
From: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1994/press.html

This has resulted in growing numbers of business parties moving away from a greed and ownership drive towards an approach that views social responsibility and stewardship as important intangible assets. This economic model would be different to its predecessors – monarchism, feudalism, communism, capitalism.

“Competition brings out the best in products and the worst in people” – David Sarnoff

“Sharing is having more” – Dr Buckminster Fuller

And since Morrrissey’s liberal views on gender also pepper his songs and interviews, I’ll throw this out, from de Zengotita’s book I mentioned earlier:

“Women entered the workplace under the banner of progress, for the sake of independence, equity and fulfillment, and now the unwritten understanding is: one family, two [where previously it was one] breadwinners – or if it’s jobs rather than careers at issue, sometimes several jobs amongst the breadwinners, just to stay afloat.

You don’t have to be a Keynes to figure that out. X number of citizens for the system to support, and twice as many of them working for the same standard of living (lower recently, but whatever) So where does all that extra productivity go? You don’t have to be a Marx to figure this one out. Profits.”

He goes on to intuit that the genius stroke was convincing people they actually approve of, and like this arrangement. I don’t think I’ve come across such an analysis before: I found it interesting, though am not wholly won over. It’s as though females mightn’t have perused the terms and conditions fully before signing up, but choice would have been unlikely. Just when they thought they’d booted the grime of the world in the crotch, up it rears to level them like a ton of bricks!

A lot of people are getting fed up though, almost envying the ‘teenage dad on his estate’, and seeking flexibility, new rules. All Morrissey is doing is reflecting how political socio-economic realities impact on people’s lives. It is in this spirit, as stalktimusPrime and others say, that we might feel how there are alternatives.

Politicians are like nappies. They should be changed regularly and for the same reasons. : )

 

[Kumo]

Yeah, because Bush accomplished all those things, right?

Say, what is our current dept again?

EDIT: Oh yeah, just under 9 trillion US dollars.

Obviously you no nothing of the functions of the public debt.
at 60% of GDP, it's in a very healthy range.

Kumo

 

[Kumo]

(Clinton left us with surplus.)

hAHAHAHA ha
How f***ing stupid can you be, you cannot honestly have confused a 1 time budgetary surpuls with the national debt? Are there really people that f***ing stupid. Please review your 3rd macro book before posting.

Kumo

 

[DAnn Coulter]

There are conservative Morrissey fans???!!!
Just kidding.I'm not that surprised, hell, some gay people even voted for bush, how that thought process works out i'll never understand.

If I recall correctly, I think it was 20-25% of homosexuals that voted for Bushie to get re-elected in 2004. The LogCabin Republicans is one of the fastest growing political groups in the country, I'm not an officail member but I have attended some meetings and I actually found them to be quite interesting......these people are more conservative liberterians then republicans. I'm a left-wing independent with social conservative views on some issues, NOT A REPUBLICAN. I just went there because I was invited and I wanted to mingle with hot gay guys in suits....yum!