Posted by David Carroll
Socialism: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with some milk.
Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and sells you the milk.
Anarchism: You have two cows. You keep both of the cows, shoot the government agent and steal another cow.
Nazism: You have two cows. The government shoots you and takes both cows.
Bureaucracy: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a Bull.
Corporate: You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised when it drops dead.
Democracy: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must first milk the cows, convert the milk to cheese, then sell all the cheese to pay taxes, then sell them both in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.
via: http://www.upliftingjokesandstuff.com/definitions3.htm
Posted by David Carroll
Interesting article via The Ole Miss Conservative about the differences between the way conservatives and liberals think. A few excerpts:
My sense, from years of careful observation both as an engaged citizen and as a detached philosopher, is that liberals are far quicker to ascribe low intelligence to conservatives than conservatives are to ascribe low intelligence to liberals.
Here's what has always puzzled me. It seems clear that intelligence is unrelated to (i.e., uncorrelated with) political ideology. For every brilliant liberal mind, there is a brilliant conservative mind. For every liberal dunce, there is a conservative dunce.
Let us explore this liberal logic. If (1) moral progress is linked to reason and (2) someone either denies that a particular liberal policy (such as state-sanctioned adoption of children by homosexuals) constitutes progress or believes that it constitutes regress (change for the worse), then (3) he or she must not be reasoning properly or must be reasoning from false premises. Who could oppose moral progress? Only an ignorant or stupid person! Only someone who is either factually mistaken or incapable of reasoning correctly. Only, in short, a dolt. Opposition to liberal causes is viewed by liberals as opposition to reason itself. Conservatives, who oppose many liberal causes, are benighted, whereas liberals are enlightened.