Another one joins the good-guys...

i would just like to note that he calls the idea of a 'liberal economy' (whatever that means) unrealistic.

then he says that he believes in a free market economy. *rimshot*

first ben stein, and now mamet.

David Mamet: Brilliant, award-winning author, essayist, playwright, screenwriter, and film director.

nocal: some dude on the interweb.

fuuuuuck an iron-clad argument

i hope you believe in creationism, because ben stein is a presidential speechwriter and quite brilliant himself.

It baffles me that people still believe there is a shread of intellectualism coming out of 'conservative' 'thought'.

nocal: some dude on the interweb with 6.25 times hankrearden's rad factor.

Amazing the revelations one has when they use rational thought and aren't concerned about controlling other's lives.

Amazing the revelations one has when they use rational thought and aren't concerned about controlling other's lives.

yeah, conservatives and liberals should try your method

It is interesting to observe the different contexts within which people define the 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

I prefer to be pigeon-holed as a 'conserberal libvative' so this dudes line of thought does not apply to me.

On the other hand, a leftist brain dead idiot is still brain dead idiot as a rightist. His mantra hasn't changed. He's just humming it with a new group of idiot friends. Fuck him with an iron hook in the face.

All this somewhat rational talk and Ron Paul is still unelectable.

I've skimmed this twice now and still don't see him provide any real relevance between the thoughts he shares about life and his switch from one ideology to another. Can anyone point it out for me? I keep going to read this again and keep getting interrupted.

Incidentally, I'd like to know how many of the WalMartcons currently lavishing him with praise were doing so on Monday, before he announced he was swapping nametags.

^ answer: zero. You have to join their team to be praised.

i honestly wasn't trying to make this a debate over the merits of liberalism and conservativism. because despite the socialist/communist/whateverist labels that people keep sticking on me, i am not.

I've skimmed this twice now and still don't see him provide any real relevance between the thoughts he shares about life and his switch from one ideology to another.

this was pretty much what i was thinking

instead, the reaction is akin to what i can remember as perhaps the time when i truly realized that politics was total bullshit: listening to some talking head say, 'i don't care if my guy is wrong or the worse candidate; i just want my team to win'

instead, the reaction is akin to what i can remember as perhaps the time when i truly realized that politics was total bullshit: listening to some talking head say, 'i don't care if my guy is wrong or the worse candidate; i just want my team to win'

How do we fix this and create a government that actually works?

I've long held that we ought to abolish representative government altogether and hold referendums on every issue that an elected or appointed official would have had to consider. We have the technology to tally public opinion quickly enough. Anyone who cared one way or the other on an issue could weigh in and a decision could be reached without having to pay ridicuous salaries to some some shmuck who said during his campaign that he'd vote the way you would. Representative democracy is obsolete. We don't need poxy voters when we have the means to measure public decision-making directly.

would we really want majority rule on every issue?

Better than a minority one.

not always. think about how the majority of americans might like to curtail free speech, for instance

I don't think the majority would like to curtail free speech, except in cases where there is specific, useful reasoning behind that loss of freedom; yelling 'Fire' in a crowded movie-house and all that. Perhaps rights would be infringed upon in times of national upheaval, as far the majority of the populace feels necessary, but there would still be, as now, a means to reverse any rash decision. Bad laws could still be repealed by a later, more informed majority. There would be emotional reactions to world events, acts of war and so forth, but I'd trust the majority's collective conscience before I'd trust that of a career polititian.

honestly, i hate career politicians and i think they're the biggest problem in america.

but you're really, really overestimating people.

a majority of people believe that iraq had a connection to 9/11. a majority of people would -- i think, although i don't have data -- support a law against burning the flag. a majority of people in many states don't think it's ok for two gay men to buttfuck in their own bedroom.

shit, a majority of people are going to be morbidly obese pretty soon.

But we're already fighting against the highly paid elected officials who are doing those things in the name of their constituants, and I doubt that a majority of americans would have been so convinced of an Iraq-Al Queda link if there weren't so many elected and appointed officials hammering that alleged connection into their skulls at every opportunity. They would also be better informed by a news media who needn't worry about losing access to the whitehouse press-pool, for instance.

you're also expecting a majority of americans to seek facts on their own, and vote accordingly.

son, you ain't from round these here parts, is you

Okay, maybe you're right. Maybe I should narrow my hopes down to just the west coast.

I sometimes wonder why by virtue of living near me, that person is more likely to represent my interests than say, someone who lives somewhere else.

I'd rather pick 3 special interest groups, and then elect representatives from them, than pick some dude down the street because his zip code is similar to mine.

Unless of course I decided that 'my local region' was the special interest group I wanted to choose from.

I'm not sure exactly how all this would work, but I think I'd be more likely to have representatives that actually represent me, than the guys I currently have to vote for.

you're also expecting a majority of americans to seek facts on their own, and vote accordingly.

...as opposed to senators, congressmen, justices, and presidents who all thoroughly research every issue before they make a binding decision.

I'd be happy if they at least took the time to read the legislation they sign.

Nothing says 'I'm right' quite like associating oneself with ideological stereotypes.
It's like sports.
To me it sounds like this guy turned to a Packers fan after years of being a Vikings fan. Why? Cause he KNOWS THE TRUTH now.

How do we fix this and create a government that actually works?

Simple: Create a government that doesn't do a lot. The less the government is able to 'govern,' the less shit they have to screw up.

Also, Mamet isn't declaring himself a conservative so much as he's eating the magic-brownie of libertarianism.