Skip to main content

George Will may have officially lost it. Whether or not he ever had "it" is quite debatable...

On Comedy Central's The Colbert Report last night, Stephen Colbert interviewed conservative commentator and regular centerfold for Bow Tie magazine - George Will. During this discussion, the two engaged in the following back-and-forth:

Colbert: "I'm a conservative, you're a conservative - I don't think anything should ever change."

Will: "That makes you a liberal."

Colbert: "That nothing should ever change? I didn't realize that. ... So why do liberals want things to stay the same?"

Will: "Because whatever exists should continue. In 1935, Social Security - do you drive a 1935 car? ... Do you watch a 1935 television set? But Social Security, liberals believe should go on just as it always has."

That's right, ladies and gentlemen - George Will contends that while conservatives want change, liberals want things to stay the same. No, I don't believe yesterday was opposite day.

First off, I'd like to define the terms "conservative" and "liberal" for Mr. Will.

::clears throat::

Conservative - "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

Liberal - "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

So, allow me to go through this again...

George Will's definition of "conservative": "Someone favoring change."

The actual definition of "conservative": "disposed to preserve the existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."


George Will's definition of "liberal": "Someone who wants things to stay the same."

The actual definition of "liberal": "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."


Moving beyond the technical definitions of the words, how about if we pertain George Will's theory to contemporary issues and see how that pans out, shall we?

Issue: Equal pay for women

Liberals: "We want to close the gender pay gap, so women get paid equally as men for the same job."

Conservatives: "Let's keep things as they are."

George Will: "You're a liberal if you don't think anything should ever change."


Issue: Equal marriage rights for homosexuals

Liberals: "We support gays and lesbians attaining equal marriage rights under the law."

Conservatives: "Let's keep things as they are."

George Will: "You're a liberal if you don't think anything should ever change."


Issue: Marijuana legalization

Liberals: "We support legalizing marijuana, at least for medical purposes, but also for recreational purposes as well."

Conservatives: "Let's keep things as they are."

George Will: "You're a liberal if you don't think anything should ever change."


Issue: Gun control

Liberals: "We support expanding background checks and further regulation to decrease gun violence."

Conservatives: "Let's keep things as they are."

George Will: "You're a liberal if you don't think anything should ever change."


Issues: Taxes

Liberals: "We should close the tax loopholes, so corporations can't get away with avoiding their taxes."

Conservatives: "Let's keep things as they are."

George Will: "You're a liberal if you don't think anything should ever change."


So, according to George Will, conservatives supported the passing of a healthcare reform bill known as Obamacare, even though they didn't. When President Obama yelled out, "Change you can believe in," what he was really saying was, "Let's keep things the way they always have been!" ...and lastly, being a Chicago Cubs die-hard as Mr. Will is, it would be "liberal" for the Chicago Cubs to continue their streak of not winning a World Series title since 1908. George Will's theory is accurate in one instance, though. While liberals want to conserve the environment, conservatives want to destroy it - just like George Will wants to destroy the actual definitions of the terms "conservative" and "liberal."

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/04/23/george-will-stephen-colbert-liberals-ones-dont-want-change/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"