The discussion of politics belongs in the bar

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I believe that the only think that should be discussed in a bar setting is politics, which is not the case. My premise is that politics and religion should be subjects that are discussed and welcome in common settings, even among strangers. We have these maxims in order that we might not risk offending another individual, yet if a person is offended by your politics or your religious views, I'm not certain how their ignorance of them ultimately is any different. Yes, of course, there are times when the first two sentences out of your mouth shouldn't be your political and religious views, but if you make your opinions and beliefs well known, that is laundry that is immediately aired. Especially when meeting with parents of a potential spouse. Its better that they know that they're going to hate you for your political views than to find out later that they now have to hate you because of your political views, even though they like your personality. Bars are a common place of recreation, and a great number of subjects are discussed at a bar. I find it obnoxious that it's appropriate for me to discuss the virtues of a woman's figure, yet if I try to bring the conversation to the virtues or problems with one policy or another, suddenly it's a faux pas. I'll admit that we've reduced our political dialog to being just about candidates or congressmen, but if it were more frequently discussed, we might actually see people caring more about policy over partisan hackery. I think a lot can be said about a person by their political and religious beliefs. In history, we have passed judgment on many people for their political beliefs, whether they be Benedict Arnold, Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, St. Paul, et cetera. (I'm focusing on people that there might be common opinions of) To be honest, finding out the political beliefs that a person can ascribe themselves to is like an insight into their personality. These maxims are meant to protect. I'll grant you that much, but who are they protecting? While sometimes it is wise not to speak one's mind, there are times when it should happen and it shouldn't be discouraged because of someone's idea that politics is impolite discussion. Fears also are meant to protect, but not all fears are good things. These maxims, meant to protect are not good things. From time to time, a fear of heights might prevent you from being in a situation where you could fall to your death, but it can also stop you from being able to function normally. Alcohol in of itself is a depressant. While there are individuals who get angry when they're drunk, its usually because they're angry when they're sober. They just might not be expressing it. A person who is inebriated might not make the best decisions, but you typically get an honest reaction from them and there is often less shame in their honesty. There are those who have taken to mimicking the voices of punditry, we see them on this website. Without a common discussion of political discourse, faulty ideas are allowed to be retained more easily. Trying to defend a position that is not defendable or trying to make an argument that is poorly supported in person is often embarrassing enough that a person will change their mind. Absent of discussion, a person may never have to reflect on their political views, and without that reflection they may spend their entire adult life in err because of ideology over truth. I think the notion that we're doing well is pretty subjective. The famous words come to mind, "It will be a Republic, if you can keep it." We've not been doing very much to keep it, and the absence of political discourse in our nation has allowed those with more things in common than not to be split in twain over trivial issues. Because we do not more freely talk to our neighbors, associates, and colleagues we have lost much of this Republic's potential, and brought about the political situations that many of our forefathers warned against. Our forefather discussed Locke in the bar, we should too. It might actually require us learning a thing or two about the philosophy behind the reason why we have a Republic to begin with. With the Greeks two selves, I wasn't meaning every decision in life. Only the major ones, you don't need to get drunk before you can actually decide whether or not you want Captain Crunch for breakfast, although it might help. You're also likely considering a "bad decision" you've made that you would not have made sober. Many men feel this way, and it usually has to do with women. I typically maintain that people impaired with Alcohol may make mistakes, but they're often actions that they would still do when sober, even if they can think of a good reason not to. But, not all of us are as good at recognizing our demons so we might not realize that the alcohol just allowed our demons to have a little more fun than we'd let them usually. It's still us, sometimes it's just hard to cope with so we blame the alcohol instead of ourselves. If people started introducing themselves as liberal democrats, maybe the phrase liberal democrat would start to mean something. Instead it's just kind of thrown around, like the world neoconservative. Probably one of the most over used, and little understood political definitions that has ever existed. I'd probably have no idea what it meant, if Francis Fukuyama didn't spend fifteen minutes at dinner trying to explain why he wasn't a terrible human being. Samuel Adams died in the 1790s. He didn't have too much free time after those revolutionary days. In fact, the revolution actually reduced his bar time. Can't drink as much when you're a governor. The days leading up to the revolution, he was in the bar a lot. Like, every day. Functional Alcoholics are the center of a lot of great things. In fact, happy people seldom change the world.