If your favourite politician took steroids

[PrinceMyshkin]

would he or she be able
to leap over tall buildings?

Reduce the deficit?

End the wars in X, Y & Z, or




Tell the truth?

[blp]

Wouldn't he just look like Arnie?

[AuntShecky]

um, this was a witty piece, and a nice juxtaposition of two
screaming headlines in the news today. But 2 comments, if I may:
"Favorite politician" is an oxymoron (and some of them indeed are morons)
and secondly, they really don't need to take steroids.
Their heads are already too big and their um, you-know-whats have already been shrunken down to almost nothing.

Note to ADMINISTRATOR: This is a universal comment, not a comment on "current" politicians alone!

[Virgil]

Hmm, I thought the title was much more promising than the actual poem. Perhaps you could expand on it.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Hmm, I thought the title was much more promising than the actual poem. Perhaps you could expand on it.

Could hardly agree more. Fell in love with the thought expressed in the title, but sought to capitalize on the Mitchell report by rushing this to completion. 'Sides which, one does get tired of shooting fish in a barrel.

[Etienne]

Bah it's a sweet little one. I mean it's not the kind of poem that will run in my mind for years and years, but an enjoyable set of light little lines. Kind of a "Why not?"

[TheFifthElement]

I sense a theme developing here Jerry. Of course, when it comes down to it we need our politicians to lie, and that is why we elect the one's who are best at it....

(runs away before this turns into a political debate)

[PrinceMyshkin]

I sense a theme developing here Jerry. Of course, when it comes down to it we need our politicians to lie, and that is why we elect the one's who are best at it....

(runs away before this turns into a political debate)

The possible truth of what you say has got me almost intolerably spooked! We NEED them to lie!!!!? Without I hope being condescending, it may be the case that a great number of people (the majority?) would find the truth unbearable, but the implication is that even you and I - even the atypically well-edcated and I assume more intelligent than average participant on this site - NEED them to lie....

Do you?

(By the way, and I hope a moderator willl respond if I'm wrong, I assume that the proscription against politics applies to endorsing this politician, policy or party or that, but not to general philosophical statements about the practice of politics in general?)

[TheFifthElement]

The possible truth of what you say has got me almost intolerably spooked! We NEED them to lie!!!!? Without I hope being condescending, it may be the case that a great number of people (the majority?) would find the truth unbearable, but the implication is that even you and I - even the atypically well-edcated and I assume more intelligent than average participant on this site - NEED them to lie....

Do you?

Oh yes, I believe this is very much the case, and a necessary but unhappy side effect of any kind of leadership. Decisions must be made, decisions which cannot be put to popular vote because sometimes the moral decision is not the right decision, and sometimes the decisions are so involved and complex and tainted by prior decisions that it simply has to be made, there is no time for debate, and the person concerned must simply accept the consequences. Our leaders are tainted with that so we don't have to be, and it is easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at those who have to make tough choices, to which there is no simple right answer, especially when we expect those to be completely unimpeachable (and lets face it, who is?), just like we expect doctors to be infallible and never make mistakes, and just like someones got to collect the trash, someone has to dispose of the dead, and someone has to collect taxes. Sad but true?

I'm not a politician, by the way, but I do have to lead people and in this I have learned three things :

1) you can't please everyone, and
2) there are no easy decisions, and
3) very difficult decisions can't be made by committee.

well, there's more than that actually but those are the bigees!

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh yes, I believe this is very much the case, and a necessary but unhappy side effect of any kind of leadership. Decisions must be made, decisions which cannot be put to popular vote because sometimes the moral decision is not the right decision, and sometimes the decisions are so involved and complex and tainted by prior decisions that it simply has to be made, there is no time for debate, and the person concerned must simply accept the consequences. Our leaders are tainted with that so we don't have to be, and it is easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at those who have to make tough choices, to which there is no simple right answer, especially when we expect those to be completely unimpeachable (and lets face it, who is?), just like we expect doctors to be infallible and never make mistakes, and just like someones got to collect the trash, someone has to dispose of the dead, and someone has to collect taxes. Sad but true?

I'm not a politician, by the way, but I do have to lead people and in this I have learned three things :

1) you can't please everyone, and
2) there are no easy decisions, and
3) very difficult decisions can't be made by committee.

well, there's more than that actually but those are the bigees!

There is lots that the naive(r) side of me would like to respond to your pragmatic arguments in favour of the necessity of lying, but I was thinking, rather, of the lies they tell to ingratiate themselves or to defend a policy that is more or less plainly indefensible, the lies in effect that shade over from the necessity - as you see it - of protecting us, from the benignly condescending, to the contemptuous.

[TheFifthElement]

There is lots that the naive(r) side of me would like to respond to your pragmatic arguments in favour of the necessity of lying, but I was thinking, rather, of the lies they tell to ingratiate themselves or to defend a policy that is more or less plainly indefensible, the lies in effect that shade over from the necessity - as you see it - of protecting us, from the benignly condescending, to the contemptuous.

Oh I agree, but to avoid this relies on the voting public making an appropriate choice of leader in the first place, yet what you see in practice is people voting for the 'charming' politician, who by definition is well versed in lying. If we were more discerning in our choices (and by we I mean the voting public) then those who choose to misuse their power would not gain it in the first place, but instead we vote for the winning smile, the one who makes the right noises, that is pleasing on the eye and easy with their words. We reap what we sow, in that respect. I could give some great examples, but that would definitely be straying into current politics!

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh I agree, but to avoid this relies on the voting public making an appropriate choice of leader in the first place, yet what you see in practice is people voting for the 'charming' politician...

Speaking of which, elections - especially US ones - have usually absorbed me as tightly as some really good serial on tv, but preferably when then there are candidtates for me to cheer for and against, as there are in abundance this year.

Oh I wish - PLEASE, mommy - that we'd be allowed to indulge here in our predictions as to who's going to win the nomination in either party and, pairing various prospects against each other, the election itself.

I'd promise on my part NO STUMPING for X or railing against Y, just an honest no-money-wagered competition. Please? Oh, Please!

[Logos]

oh gawds :lol:

...

basically...

and this is up to the mods' discretion on a case-by-case basis !!!

you can mention 'general non-current political stuff' in regards to the thread at hand but, posts or threads devoted entirely to, and or containing CURRENT 'political stuff' like, erm, 'George Bush', 'Stephen Harper', 'US foreign policy', 'Al Qaeda', 'Bin Laden', '9/11/2001', etc. etc. etc. won't be tolerated :)

You can take it to private message, or,

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=275590&postcount=8

as defined in Admin's post above, write about it in your blog ... :)

--

[PrinceMyshkin]

oh gawds :lol:

...

basically...

and this is up to the mods' discretion on a case-by-case basis !!!

you can mention 'general non-current political stuff' in regards to the thread at hand but, posts or threads devoted entirely to, and or containing CURRENT 'political stuff' like, erm, 'George Bush', 'Stephen Harper', 'US foreign policy', 'Al Qaeda', 'Bin Laden', '9/11/2001', etc. etc. etc. won't be tolerated :)

You can take it to private message, or,

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=275590&postcount=8

as defined in Admin's post above, write about it in your blog ... :)

--

took your advice, started a blog. My virgin blog...