Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 01:32:08 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Forum Community
| |-+  Forum Community (Moderators: afleitch, Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC, Badger)
| | |-+  The Good Post Gallery
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 46 Print
Author Topic: The Good Post Gallery  (Read 68769 times)
Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30921
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2012, 06:04:38 pm »
Ignore

When he's not being purely condescending and intentionally opaque, Al makes great posts like the following:

Because that pretty little chart that has become so absolutely and utterly ubiquitous on the internet does not actually represent any kind of reality. Political parties represent interests, in one way or another, and that's how they win votes (or don't).
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14719


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2012, 03:13:35 am »
Ignore

Why people like Antonio, or Belgiansocialist are so much in love with the EU when the union has done more than any other single institution or organisation to prevent and roll back Socialist policies in Europe.

I'm not some kind of utopist living in dreamland, SC. I'm well aware on EU's flaws, which are enormous and disgusting. I hate the way the Commission works without any actual mandate from the European People, I hate the fact they enact failed neoliberal policies, the fact selfish countries always refuse any progress in common solidarity, the fact Germans have imposed their retarded austerity dogma and are ready to ruin every country to maintain it. However, I also realize that without the EU, European countries are even more screwed. As weak as European integration is, the little bit we have is still indispensable and we'll need more in the following years. In the word's globalized economy, countries which represent 1% of the world population and face a massive demographic ageing won't be remain competitive for long, and especially won't be able to sustain comprehensive welfare states as multinational corporations grow stronger. European federalism is the only way for Europe to survive as one of the world's power, to escape the natural decline we are starting to experience. Not the European Federalism as we know it, but real European federalism : with a democratic federal government, elected by the European people and which has an effective power over national government. Why is it so hard to understand ? Why do you Euroskeptics systematically take commitment to the europeist ideal as a support to EU as it currently exists ? Why the possibility to reform EU and correct its flaws rather than outright disbanding it is always discarded ? This is what I don't understand.
Logged

Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14719


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2012, 03:28:15 am »
Ignore

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%
 
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 4, 2012

The April jobs report showed employers added fewer workers than expected with nonfarm payrolls rising by only 115,000.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/unemployment-rate-dips-01-workforce-participation-rate-falls-02

-----

All the need to do is keep reducing the alleged labor force!

To simplify this for Obama supporters:

I agree that the pace of growth could be greatly improved, but your analysis here doesn't really tell the whole picture and makes things appear unnecessarily negative by excluding some key details.


Quote
1.)   The unadjusted population 16 and over in April of 2012 was approximately 242,784,000 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) whereas that population was approximately 242,604,000 in March, an increase of approximately 180,000.

180,000 new people 16 and over in the United States. Presumably, 180k = (# of people turning 16 - # of adult deaths) + net migration.

Using the estimated CIA World Factbook net nigration rate and population for the US in 2012 to figure out expected migration for the year, and dividing it by 12, that give us an estimated net migration of roughly 95k for the month. Using these CDC statistical tables for death by age group, I estimate that 195k deaths 16+ occurred in April. So, with the 180k increase, that means 280k kids reached age 16 last month. (As an aside, I did estimate a 325k total for this number using census records for 1996 births and the infant/juvenile death rate, but that number's the most likely to be inaccurate of my three estimates because there's a much bigger month to month variation in births than in deaths or migration).

Quote
2.)   According to the same source, the unadjusted Civilian Labor Force was approximately 153,905,000 I April of 2012, whereas it was approximately 154,316,000 in March, a decrease of approximately 411,000!

First off, given the estimated 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day, around 310k people left the labor force last month via retirements alone. In addition, the BLS's April report shows a participation rate of 72% in the 16-64 group and and 23% for 65+; estimating from the CDC chart linked above that roughly 52k deaths occurred in the 16-64 age group and 146k deaths 65+. This means that about 71k people exited the labor force last month through death (37.5k in the former age group, 33.5k in the latter age group). Therefore, about 381k of the 411k drop can be attributed to deaths and retirements alone.

Furthermore, regarding the gap here with the increase you note in your first point, note that most of the population growth can be attributed to teenagers who turned 16 in last month. Even discounting the fact that teenage participation in the labor force in incredibly low, very few 16 year olds will be looking for a job in April- they'll wait until they're out of school for the summer to start looking for a job and entering the labor force (The BLS notes that this is a very consistent trend among youth). With these newly work-age (and almost entirely non-job seeking) teenagers actually outnumbering the overall work-age population increase by a hundred thousand, and the above explanation for the decline in the total civilian labor force, the disparity you note between your first two points here can't really be construed to mean anything.


Quote
3.)   In April of 2012 per the BLS there were approximately 88,879,000 (unadjusted) persons not in the labor force, and increase of approximately 591,000 from the number in March.

Noting my findings above, the ~310k new retirements and ~280k new 16 year olds who almost universally aren't looking for work pretty much entirely explain this number.



You seem to be suggesting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is somehow cooking the books to show a reduction in unemployment by reclassifying unemployed job-seekers as discouraged and/or marginally attached workers. If this was true, we'd see increases in U-4 and U-5 that mirror decreases in U-3, the official unemployment rate. However, that demonstrably isn't so. According to the seasonally adjusted numbers, last month's 0.1% decline in the unemployment rate was accompanied by a 0.1% decline in U-5 to 9.5%, while U-4 remained steady at 8.7%. Furthermore, the decline in unemployment since December from 8.5% to 8.1% has been accompanied by a reduction in U-4, from 9.1% to 8.7%, as well as U-5, from 10.0% to 9.5% (for the record, U-6, which also includes underemployment, also declined from 15.2% to 14.5% over those four months). Therefore, there is nobody "reducing the alleged labor force"; unemployment numbers are genuinely improving, even among those not counted in the official unemployment rate. Reductions in labor force participation are mostly due to the fact that the baby boomers have started retiring in massive numbers, and because of this you should expect a slow-but-steady decline in participation over the next decade or two, regardless of how the economy is doing.

Also, since you seem to appreciate prefer using the numbers that aren't seasonally adjusted, I think here at the end I should include for you the BLS's unadjusted unemployment rate changes between March and April Smiley

U-3 (Official Unemployment Rate): 8.4% to 7.7%
U-4: 8.9% to 8.3%
U-5: 9.7% to 9.1%
U-6: 14.8% to 14.1%
Logged

Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28737
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2012, 04:06:32 am »
Ignore

We laugh and amuse ourselves at this little "heartland conservative" minstrel show, but it's pretty terrifying that Naso is just one of tens of millions of Americans who, through the education system, the media and cultural institutions, have been systemically brainwashed to think like this.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10224
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2012, 07:42:07 pm »
Ignore

My first impression is to say we should simply ask some conservatives rather than guessing about it ourselves.

In lieu of that, I figure that culturally conservative folk have grown fond of well-established principles, traditions, and institutions in politics and often look for gradual, cautious means of improving upon them without having to embrace entirely new strategies or reject what they consider to be tried-and-true theories. They are not really anti-intellectual so much as highly suspicious of folks who assert society ought to undergo fundamental changes, not entirely opposed to equality so much as aware that human beings are unequal in a number of significant ways by their very nature and that hierarchies encourage productivity and order via a system of incentives; and they are not intolerant zealots so much as they like the social norms of their nation and do not want those norms to rapidly change - either for better or (as a worrisome risk) for the worse. The conservative has a less idealistic impression of "human nature" than do many of their opponents, and is hence okay with deterring or coping with certain social problems (e.g., poverty, crime, recidivism, war, greed, politically incorrect attitudes, etc.) instead of pumping vast quantities of resources into what might very well be futile efforts to wholly do away with them. We ought to be strong, respect our leaders, honor our sacred customs, support our own, and make do with what we have got - not stick our heads up in the clouds like naive dreamers. We've a lot to lose from unneeded gambling.

The progressive or radical can easily seem elitist, deviant, rude, reckless, malcontent, and detached from reality.
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14719


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2012, 12:25:40 am »
Ignore

I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.
Logged

Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee
Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13387
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2012, 01:20:05 am »
Ignore

I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

Post of the Year nominee right here.
Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2012, 01:36:24 pm »
Ignore

Also, if you were like "yeah!" you are part of the problem with political discourse in this country.
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21656
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2012, 02:18:11 pm »
Ignore

I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

Quote from: reason.com
Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.
citation

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

Post of the Year nominee right here.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28737
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2012, 04:59:05 pm »
Ignore

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, THE FASCIST PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES!:

1. George Washington: Sent a bunch of troops to enforce his will against a bunch of Appalachian Scots-Irish (whatever the hell that term means) farmers who protested the Whiskey Tax=FASCIST!
2. John Adams: Uuuuuummmmmm, Aliens and Sedition Act!  Heeeeeello!  Did you sleep in history class or something?!=FASCIST!
3. Thomas Jefferson: Tripled the size of the United States, had grand designs for "civilizing" the Injuns, and my god the trade embargo yuck!=FASCIST!
4. James Madison: Got the US into an unnecessary war and was crazy enough to have an army with Andrew Jackson and William Harrison in it=FASCIST!
5. James Monroe: Was President during the so-called "Era of Goodfeelings" that was effectively an era of one party rule=FASCIST!!!!!
6. John Quincy Adams: Exists because of John Adams=FASCIST!
7. Andrew Jackson: REALLY loved to kill people=FASCIST!
8. Martin Van Buren: Was short and was balding, obvious signs of a FASICST!
9. William H. Harrison: Forced a bunch of people to unwilling stand out in the rain during a cold March day for three hours just to hear him give an Inaugural Address=FASCIST!
10. John Tyler: Was an asshole who disagreed with everybody=FASCIST!
11. James Polk: Got us in a war to make sure we kept Texas=FASCIST!
12. Zachary Taylor: Declared war on healthy diets=FASCIST!
13. Millard Fillmore: Is easily confused with that f***ing smart ass duck on the Sunday Morning Cartoon strips in the local newspaper, therefore a FASCIST!
14. Franklin Pierce: Tried to get the US into Cuba almost fifty years before McKinley did=FASCIST!
15. James Buchanan: Tried to kill some Morons Mormons to prove to Justin Morrill that he was indeed a real man=FASCIST!
16. Abraham Lincoln: Drafted a bunch of immigrants off the boats to fight in the Civil War so he could drink all of their whiskey=FASCIST!
17. Andrew Johnson: Tried so hard, desperately hard even, to be John Tyler=FASCIST!
18. Ulysses S. Grant: Was alright with Military Reconstruction on some (admittedly very backwards and racist) states.  See also "corruption"=FASCIST!
19. Rutherford B. Hayes: Hated alcohol so much that he forbid it at the White House and his wife openly bragged and held parties devoted to lemonade lovers=FASCIST!
20. James Garfield: Was from Ohio=FACIST!
21. Chester A. Arthur: Was really born in Canada and his father was an Arishman=FACIST!
22. S. Grover Cleveland: Started a love affair with Great Britain=FASCIST!
23. Benjamin Harrison: Brought forth yet another era of dickwaving high tariffs=FASCIST!
24. S. Grover Cleveland: Really liked to shoot Union members on strike=FASCIST!
25. William McKinley: Really liked protective tariffs AND imperialism=FASCIST!
26. Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt: Had a hardon for a huge navy and machoism=FASCIST!
27. William H. Taft: Killed OVER 9000 "Trusts" while President=FASCIST!
28. Woodrow Wilson: Woodrow Wilson=FASCIST!
29. Warren G. Harding: Was so trusting of his friends and never ever being suspicious of corrupt people to the point of either extreme naivete or FASCISM!
30. Calvin Coolidge: Despite being commonly known as the "wet" candidate in 1924, didn't do anything about Prohibition and was actually *shocker* okay with federal government agents poisoning the alcohol used in illegal brewery operations=FASCIST!
31. Herbert Hoover: Was dedicated more to trade warfare than he was fixing the economy and often claimed, with a smugf** look on his face, how proud he was of the low immigration rates into the US while President=FASCIST!
32. Franklin Roosevelt: OMG he BLEW UP THE GOVERNMENT!  Also, Japanese Internment and attempts at court stacking and OVER 9000% INCOME TAXATION ON TEH RICH!!!  OMG SUPER FASCIST!
33. Harry Truman: Took on the name "Hiroshima" Harry with pride after blowing up tons of Japanese peeps after a translation error.  Also, loved the idea of war with Communists=FASCIST!
34. Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower: Was a god-fearing man and expanded upon the now popular idea that the US should bomb everything and everybody to make the world a more US favorable world=FASCIST!
35. John F. Kennedy: Was Ike's Illegitimate Son=FASCIST!
36. Lyndon Johnson: Looked uglier than a bag of dog sh*t, liked to having public pissing contests, oh and HOW MANY BOYS DID HE KILL YESTERDAY!?=FASCIST!
37. Richard M. Nixon: Took LBJ's plan of killing lots of people by using less people and more airplanes with explosive devices in a carpet formation.  Also, had to cheat to beat GEORGE FREAKING MCGOVERN!  MY GOD WHAT A FASCIST!
38. Gerald Ford: Forgave Richard Nixon!  What a wuss!  AND A FASCIST!
39. James "Jimmy Boy" Carter: Was a fan of federal judges who have a hard on for gun control=FASCIST!
40. Ronald W. Reagan: Loved Apartheid South Africa, loved to bomb nations that were pissed off at us for being interventionist dickheads, loved to bailout failing car corporations, endorsed the idea of infinite deficits and limited revenues, believed that the military budget should be massive despite campaigning on "smaller limited government", actually his entire presidency was one huge experiment in hypocrisy=FASCIST!
41. George HW Bush: The Politically Correct Ronald Reagan=POLITICALLY CORRECT FASCIST!
42. William J. "Slick Willie" Clinton: Ronald Reagan's illegitimate transsexual son.  Liked to conduct "explosive polling", whereby whenever he gets into a controversy he just sends in some fighter jets to bomb a randomass Sudanese sugar producing factory to raise his approval ratings.  Also, was such a huge ass moderate hero fascist that he was both in favor of Gun Control and Defending Marriage=FASCIST!
43. George Dumbya Bush: Liked the smell of napalm in the morning and American nationalism and threatening nations with WAR!=FASCIST!
44. Barack H. Obama=the White Bill Clinton=FASCIST!

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, THE FORTY FOUR FASCIST PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9054
United States


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2012, 11:45:23 pm »
Ignore

[context]

Of course.  Everybody does it.  Sometimes it's on purpose, mostly it's not.  Sometimes it's obvious, mostly it's not.  For some people it's every post.  Hell, for some people, it's their entire character.  Others do it rarely.  But we all do it.
Logged

Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14719


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2012, 10:31:04 am »
Ignore

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?
Logged

Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee
Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13387
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2012, 02:05:46 am »
Ignore

Who needs television or movies when you've got... this? All of the sadistic pleasures of a cockfight or a gangbang in nine neat little pages.
Logged

opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2012, 12:13:29 am »
Ignore

As well there should be.  Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

That's ridiculous, Mikado.  You equate sexual relations to killing?  And surely you realize that homosexuality as acceptable used to be 'not a legitimate position to take' - or for that matter interracial marriage.

In any case, if you don't like the killing, why do you accept the genocidal political point of view of the pro-capitalist posters without a second thought?  The point is that you are imposing a very narrow and strict view of what is appropriate thought, which essentially disallows any questioning or critiquing of the status-quo (liberal/capitalist/christian).
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Emperor Scott
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17189
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2012, 11:41:11 am »
Ignore

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people.  If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba.  Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste.  I'm sure you'll love it.  They have nice weather and excellent cigars!

Edit:  Addendum:  Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys.  Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise.  Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.

This only demonstrates your utterly ignorance about Latin-American politics. And that you're nothing but an imbecile. Who else was a commie, Goulart? Well, If those 'commies' had won, there would be the rising of a rural middle-class, which would avoid heavy rural flight at the 70's (probably the most important influence on southern-american underdevelopment on the following decades) and foment national industry, making an inner force for autonomous development. That was the whole matter. There, here or in Argentina, the Andes, anywhere in the region. Lula's success is only and entirely based on a new version of this reading. We would all have achieved 4 decades earlier what Brazil is achieving now, alone.
Let me tell you something, that being an imbecile you surely have no clue. These countries were not a Caribbean island run by US controlled mobsters. Even if TEH KOMMIUNIEESTZ had reached power and installed a soviet regime (something that only someone completely ignorant about what was the Latin-american 60's and 70's left or even the hardcore left would imagine. And don't come with Cuba, Castro wasn't even a commie before the USA positioned itself against him neither Cuba was a mess before the eastern block debacle - It was actually the Latin-american country with the best achievements, around that time) China would be the comparison. The soviets were less interested in such a development than the USA.

The struggle wasn't between 'commies' and 'non-commies'. It was between autonomists who assumed this position based on emancipation leanings (the main 'commie' speech was that we were never really independent / free) and an ancient elite whose power was based on being the foremen of great powers interests. It wasn't about central planning. It was about anti-imperialism.
We're talking here about people whose economical interest (poor people interested physicians, inner market oriented farmers, urban middle class professionals) was the existence of autochtonous populations with consumer's power. There are few things more imbecilic than the double-standard a-historical a-geographical bullsh**t you'd written.
Sure, if you believe that the sake of international capital based economy (which is conceptually linked to imperialist control, always - and I don't really care about what you think about the term 'imperialism', It is a historically based and valid geopolitical concept) is above anything else, than I must agree that a good guys/bad guys debate is pointless here. But to anyone who believes on humanism, people's empowerment and emancipation, democratic control of your own future and other political concepts which are important to non-imbecils, than, pal, It was a good guys / bad guys opposition. And those 'commies' were the good guys. They were the ones making the defence of freedom around.

The most amusing thing here is the undying tentative of putting the blame on those who were taken from democratically chosen positions. Even after debate over debate (on academical conditions, surely - I really don't care about what hacks have to say) demonstrates It's pure feces. This only sickens me. "Allende would make a self-coup! Goulart would make a self-coup!". F**k!!! How people are imbeciloid enough to not laugh on this!
What if Allende nationalized the whole freaking economy?? He was elected to do It, imbecile. Presidentialism is not parliamentarism. Any impeachment based on opposition to these policies are just grotesquely antidemocratic. Once democratic institutions are preserved and people can overturn what was done (which is something, alas, that our neoliberal fake-democracies are unable to provide, vide Greece), I'm sorry to inform, this is democracy. The rule from the people, by the people and to the people.

The second most amusing thing (and It always tells a lot to me) is that every time I read/listen to this specific bullsh**t - Chilean 73's coup - the round's coup defender is always a self proclaimed 'libertarian'. This only demonstrates how fake are the great share of these 'freedomers'. It's clearly not about freedom, It's about economics. That same brand of imbeciles defends another islander dictatorship as the quintessential model for society's organization.

Anyway, don't bother answering this. Any imbecile defender of Pinochet's coup is automatically on my ignore list. And, to the other guys, sorry about the rant. I just cannot stay calm on the whole matter of the XXth century's second half Latin-american dictatorship cycle. Personal matter.
Logged



I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70956
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 13, 2012, 12:40:02 pm »
Ignore

I was just about to post that Scott. Ironic that came out of the Deluge.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16632
United States


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2012, 03:44:15 pm »
Ignore

The tangent Vosem is taking this thread on is the perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now. 

I have no problem with people taking conservative stances on issues, but recently it appears conservatism is supposed to be some sort of lifestyle where you take conservative stances on everything.  They invent a "conservative side" to every fact whose author might have voted Democrat at one point in his life.

There is no reason to debate Vosem on the "issue" of the morality of caps on campaign fundraising because it is not an issue.  There is no right or wrong side.  There is the fact that the campaign fundraising system is broken due to corporate spending and SuperPAC influence.  There is no opposite side. 

On campaign financing, like on all the subjects, the Republican vs. Democratic debate should be on how best to fix these loopholes. 

But there are no "hows" to compare.  The problem with the Republican Party is that they've turned politics into a series of Yes or No questions.  There's no option A or option B.   That's where things went south for me in my ability to support the party.   

On Obamacare, the debate was never "which plan is best suited to give our populous universal health care coverage?"  The debate was "do you believe the populous has a right to universal health care coverage?" That's a ridiculous question; a question where I'm forced to say yes because no is such a stupid response and therefore support the Democrats not because I believe in their plan but because it's the only plan.

Yeah, that's my moderate rant.
Logged

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11250


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 16, 2012, 11:40:21 pm »
Ignore

I live just south of the Md/VA border. Md. has better roads, better police, better schools. The schools part is probably the largest benefit, people in Va. complain about how terrible the schools are.

You get what you pay for which is why in my county in Va. there are only two deputies on duty on weekends to patrol the whole county.

But on the plus side we have lower taxes. And cheaper cigarettes.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10224
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2012, 12:20:09 am »
Ignore

It's not so much that this is sane, it's that the idea that there's any analogous basis for constructing a view of the world that is sane is immensely problematic, unless you're selectively defining sanity to mean agreement with your own position, or using it as a shorthand for the most common types of mental processes in a population.

Ah yes, very good point. The problem is that I fully embrace the insanity in my trying to understand things I don't or can't. The point of religion is that it provides people with infinite understanding if they can communicate with a being that created and fully understands all. It puts people in a mentally destructive state of believing in their own belief. I have complete doubt in my reality, but religion depends on the absence of doubt.

It purports to, but there are ways of doing religiosity that can leave room for doubt or even introduce more doubt. Interacting with God (through prayer and mystical experiences) doesn't render me positive of God so much as it does less positive of the rest of my interactions. I do believe in my own belief, but that's because there isn't much else to stand on, and I recognize that that's the reason.

Of course, if the question were 'Is belief in God as most commonly processed in the minds of less-than-mystically-inclined believers harmful to society?', I'd have a different answer. It's just that I don't agree that secularization ameliorates the part of this that's the biggest problem.
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2012, 03:51:17 pm »
Ignore

Except the currency hasn't splintered. It's still salvageable. 70% of Greeks want to remain on the Euro. The Chancellor of Germany wants the Greeks to remain on the Euro. The head of the ECB wants Greece to remain on the Euro. The heads of ND, Syriza, PASOK, and DIMAR want Greece to remain on the Euro. All the significant parties all agree. The only one dreaming is you. The real dream? The real dream is the notion that high inflation is somehow a threat in this situation. High inflation is not, and never will be a problem so long as the Euro holds together. I am willing to bet anything on that.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13387
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2012, 01:20:35 pm »
Ignore

Kind of old, but still good:

Good for him!  I hear he also did males, though only in a manly fashion (top).  However, the only aspect of his personal lifestyle that would be repulsive to a reasonable person would be his impoliteness and agressiveness. 

It is time that America face the fact that teenage girls are hot, and it is perfectly normal for men to have sex with them.

That said, it will be nice to see Swartzenaegar go down, for whatever silly reason appeals to the voters.. or maybe even for his right-wing politics.
Logged

opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2012, 01:33:25 pm »
Ignore

Kind of old, but still good:

Good for him!  I hear he also did males, though only in a manly fashion (top).  However, the only aspect of his personal lifestyle that would be repulsive to a reasonable person would be his impoliteness and agressiveness. 

It is time that America face the fact that teenage girls are hot, and it is perfectly normal for men to have sex with them.

That said, it will be nice to see Swartzenaegar go down, for whatever silly reason appeals to the voters.. or maybe even for his right-wing politics.

Jeez man, what are you trying to do to me?  Enjoy it privately, don't expose it again.  Its like the well-thumbed Playboy hidden in the mattress in your cell - they know it is there, but if you leave it out all the time, they're going to take it away.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13387
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2012, 08:51:03 am »
Ignore

The fact this man, as intellectually dishonest and incompetent as he is, is in the position he is in within the American education system, speaks volumes as to what is going on in the West.  Homosexuality is being pushed by the media, and by the education system, and by the courts, and by many seminaries of many churches.  It doesnít matter to them if their argument has any merit, or is even honest. They donít care!  Their consciences have been seared to the point they are themselves deceived by their own deception.[/b]

Well, what do you expect? People interact with homosexuals and don't see all of them as inherently awful human beings and view their sexuality as an unimportant and irrelevant component of their personality. Obviously it's easier to resort to intellectual dishonesty instead of 100% renouncing what they've believed in their entire lives. Instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify homosexuality, they should just call the biblical analysis of homosexuality stupid and leave it at that.   There's really not much more to it, and if God wants to throw all homosexuals into hell for eternity I guess that's His perogative.
Logged

fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8301
United States


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2012, 02:48:30 am »
Ignore

that's what she said
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28737
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2012, 07:13:37 am »
Ignore


This belongs in the oh snap mine.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines