The Good Post Gallery

[Goldwater]

I'm not sure if this is really the right place to post this, but it's too awesome and brilliant to go unnoticed.

1940. In a surprise, President Scott at the Democratic National Convention accepts the draft to run for a third term. Meanwhile, the Republicans are experiencing an internal rift. A young, right-wing one-term Washington Governor going by the name of Goldwater is able to capture the heart of the convention, winning the support of folks like Taft and Vandenberg to take the nomination. Despite Goldwater's own concerns about Nazi Germany, the conservatives slap him with an isolationist platform. Meanwhile, the moderate internationalists, concerned by Goldwater's nomination, put up Congressman S.S. Venue of Tennessee as their own independent candidate. Venue is more economically moderate than Goldwater though still to the right of Scott and due to his status as a third generation British American is very supportive of protecting his island from the ravages of Nazi aggression. In later years, a conspiracy would develop that the attempt to nominate Venue was a "British plot". In any case, Venue would try to build an independent coalition that would bring in North-Eastern moderates as well as Southern Republicans who he hoped he could cajole with his moderate economic stances. The most significant result would be a splitting of the Republican vote allowing Scott to win, benefiting from Venue's "foreign policy adventurism" and Goldwater's "dangerous economic policies".

President Scott (D-CT)/Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace (D-IA) 461 electoral votes, 48% of the popular vote
Governor Goldwater (R-WA)/Senator H. Styles Bridges (R-NH) 67 electoral votes, 38% of the popular vote
Congressman S.S. Venue (I-TN)/Mr. Wendell Willkie (I-NY) 3 electoral votes, 12% of the popular vote

Despite the outcome and what it represented, Scott would go on to lead American into WWII and, following Pearl Harbor, former Governor Goldwater would gladly offer support for the war effort and when he entered the Senate would become one of the most prominent Cold War hawks. Venue and his running-mate Willkie would both go on to experience several health concerns related to smoking. This would result in Venue's descendants strongly pushing for anti-tobacco legislation in the 1960's. Despite this, Venue and Goldwater reunited at the 1948 convention to support Thoms Dewey as the GOP's nominee.

[Mechaman]

I'm not sure if this is really the right place to post this, but it's too awesome and brilliant to go unnoticed.

1940. In a surprise, President Scott at the Democratic National Convention accepts the draft to run for a third term. Meanwhile, the Republicans are experiencing an internal rift. A young, right-wing one-term Washington Governor going by the name of Goldwater is able to capture the heart of the convention, winning the support of folks like Taft and Vandenberg to take the nomination. Despite Goldwater's own concerns about Nazi Germany, the conservatives slap him with an isolationist platform. Meanwhile, the moderate internationalists, concerned by Goldwater's nomination, put up Congressman S.S. Venue of Tennessee as their own independent candidate. Venue is more economically moderate than Goldwater though still to the right of Scott and due to his status as a third generation British American is very supportive of protecting his island from the ravages of Nazi aggression. In later years, a conspiracy would develop that the attempt to nominate Venue was a "British plot". In any case, Venue would try to build an independent coalition that would bring in North-Eastern moderates as well as Southern Republicans who he hoped he could cajole with his moderate economic stances. The most significant result would be a splitting of the Republican vote allowing Scott to win, benefiting from Venue's "foreign policy adventurism" and Goldwater's "dangerous economic policies".

President Scott (D-CT)/Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace (D-IA) 461 electoral votes, 48% of the popular vote
Governor Goldwater (R-WA)/Senator H. Styles Bridges (R-NH) 67 electoral votes, 38% of the popular vote
Congressman S.S. Venue (I-TN)/Mr. Wendell Willkie (I-NY) 3 electoral votes, 12% of the popular vote

Despite the outcome and what it represented, Scott would go on to lead American into WWII and, following Pearl Harbor, former Governor Goldwater would gladly offer support for the war effort and when he entered the Senate would become one of the most prominent Cold War hawks. Venue and his running-mate Willkie would both go on to experience several health concerns related to smoking. This would result in Venue's descendants strongly pushing for anti-tobacco legislation in the 1960's. Despite this, Venue and Goldwater reunited at the 1948 convention to support Thoms Dewey as the GOP's nominee.

Ladies and Gentlemen, one of our best timeline writers.  EVER.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Sure. Haven't you seen the attack ads utilizing old Atlas posts?

[memphis]

Beet is a girl?

Card carrying member of the prude brood. As close to female as Atlas posters get.

[Beet]

Beet is a girl?

Card carrying member of the prude brood. As close to female as Atlas posters get.

Lol. Equation of female = prude sillyness aside, I'm not that prudish, really. I favor the legalization of prostitution, which I'm pretty sure puts me on the anti prude side of San Francisco, the most liberal city in the country. As well as giving me a position that's a lot more popular with men than women. Sure, I look like one compared to opebo, but I don't think that's saying too much.

[Zanas]

No, the anarchist communes in Catalunya during the SCW were some of the best things in European/world history; and the CNT-FAI was pretty clearly one of the best actors on the Republican side.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Oh great, the voter fraud arguments.


You are more likely to be struck by lightening than find one chance instance of voter fraud. And voting multiple times? LOL. Barfbag you really are a partisan hack! Voter fraud carries a penalty of $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail, for what? One vote.


Most voter fraud comes at registration, not the ballot box. Voter suppression, caging, falsely adding to felon lists, lying about one's residential status, etc.

US elections are actually very honest, despite the few isolated cases of voter fraud. The only election where reputable claims of voter fraud were made was in 2000, but literally anything could be blamed when it was decided by 537 votes.

Most accusations of voter fraud are based on isolated discrepancies that are blown completely out of proportion by partisan hacks like the 2 above. Voters make mistakes. Election workers make mistakes. Voting in the wrong precinct, overvoting, undervoting, confusion about eligibility, etc. I was a poll watcher for the Munster Republican Party and we were constantly calling election officials about whether we could issue an absentee ballot that would later be scrutinized in election courts. And Munster is a mostly-White, affluent community where there would be no need to commit fraud in an already-Republican state.

Out of the 600 million votes cast since 2000, only 633 were proven cases of voter fraud, 10 of which were in-person. 1 in 60 million is virtually non-existant. (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud)

Allegations of voter fraud are just a way for politicians to go their bases and say, "Look! We're protecting you from those evil election-stealing illegals and dead people!".

I am far more concerned about wrongly denying eligible people THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE more than a few isolated and random cases of voter fraud.

[Beet]

I am not sure the 1957-58 recession was really global. In coincided with the German "coal crisis", which, however, was very specific and short-lasting. Essentially, the German government had abolished import duties on oil, which resulted in the closure of several coal mines. German unemployment went up briefly, but quickly continued to decline to 1.3 % in 1960.

For the US, the economic crisis seems to have been triggered by the Suez Canal crisis, which sent up oil prices quite strongly - much more than in Europe, which made the anti-monopoly commission investigating into price manipulation by major oil companies. Most likely, this was followed by the usual mechanics (inflation goes up, real consumer spending declines, money supply is tightened, etc.)

Looking at the fundamentals, the US markets for durable goods had reached more or less saturation (nearly 100% of households owning refrigerators, 90% owning TVs, 77% cars). At the same time, production equipment, most of which had been installed in the late 1930s / early 1940s, i.e. after the Great Depression and prior to the US' entry in WW II, was more and more becoming outdated, especially in comparison to Europe, which had seen massive investment during post WW II reconstruction. Europe still had substantial unsatisfied demand for durables, most likely also  lower labour costs than the USA, making it an attractive investment location.  1957 was the first year since WW II in which the US became a net capital exporter.

In such a situation, recovery takes some time. However, replacement demand for durables would gradually set in, coupled with demand for new products (e.g. colour TVs) and services (e.g. air travel), and stimulate overdue modernisation investment.

Very good as far as economics posts go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Apologies in advance if I should be hijacking this thread. Abortion is indeed one of the most fascinating and complex human issues. Since it is not being discussed anymore in Germany since the 1980s, I use this opportunity to present my general perspective:

1.) Unplanned pregnancy is fundamentally affecting a woman's plans for life, and she must be given adequate opportunity to consider all available options and their consequences. These options include abortion (legal or not, it has always been and will most likely be in future an available option). Ideally, her family and her partner will assist her in decision making. In reality, however, the family may revert to moralistic attitudes, while the partner refuses to assume responsibility. Hence, society and politics need to provide opportunities for adequate counselling. Criminalisation does not help in this respect.

2.) I myself have in three cases (including my sister) been asked for advice, and I am convinced that no woman is taking an abortion decision lightly. To the opposite, they are probably more torn inside by that decision than most men can imagine [One of the three women asking me for advice committed suicide on the day of the planned abortion, after not showing up in the abortion clinic]. As such, life experience has convinced me that the decision for or against abortion is best placed with the prospective mother, and not with government.

3.) An abortion means substantial psychological and physiological stress. Returning again to personal experience, the two other women that asked me for advice each carried out abortion once, but ruled it out as an option afterwards. They are both proud parents of now already grown-up children, and will probably transmit their experience (in the case of my sister, a doctor herself, I am especially sure). Instead of discussing legal issues, people from both sides of the aisle would IMO be better advised to recognise and communicate the fact that abortion is not the convenient solution it appears to be.

4.)  Ultimately, we are talking about the moral conflict between an unborn's right to life, and  the mother's right to determine her own future. A difficult decision, which, as I said above, I see best placed with the mother. That decision has to be taken sooner or later. In the interest of the mother (and father), and of the unborn, I want to see it being taken as soon as possible. It may take a while to recognise the pregnancy, maybe more than eight weeks (two cycles). Discussion and decision-taking also need some time. but four to six weeks should be sufficient. As such, a time frame anywhere between nine and fifteen weeks from inception seems both necessary and adequate to me. Anything beyond that, however, would only extend the mother's moral conflict, and/or expose her to additional family or partner pressure. Does not help the mother, does not help the child (that is linked hormone-wise to the mother)!  

5.)  I am probably getting moralist here, but I believe that once you have decided to reproduce, you should embrace your child unconditionally. We did not even want to know the sex of our children. even though it could easily be determined during ultrasonic diagnostics (why take away some of the surprise?). If there are risks of deformation, consider them before you mate, or during the first months of pregnancy, but don't get into genetical engineering. The mother's future may be a legitimate reason for abortion, the child's properties are definitely not!

6.) On a side note: If this hasn't become obvious already - I believe every abortion is one too many. I just don't think government / the judiciary is the right instance to deal with the many questions involved. However, I also oppose any action that provides positive incentives for abortion, e.g. embryonic stem cell research, which creates a market for (and a revenue on) aborted foetuses.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Translation:

At a gathering of music enthusiasts and performers, I happened upon a lovely couple from Winnipeg who informed me that it is, in fact, a particularly dangerous city. Indeed, my friends, they insisted that it was the most dangerous out of all the cities in our northerly neighbor, citing homicide statistics. Needless to say I was overcome with shock and nearly had a dreadful spell. Now I humbly seek confirmation or refutation. What say you?

[Keystone Phil]

According to whom?  You and your big book of superior morals?

Cops and soldiers kill people all the time with no repercussions. 

But then, George Zimmerman is nothing but a scapegoat that we can dump our own racism and angst onto.. as if he'll carry our own sins as well.

My guess is that Zimmerman regrets what he did, is remorseful for what he did, and struggles with the fact that he ended a kid's life.  He doesn't need hypocrites with selective morality but no other connection to the case doling out witty holier-than-thou one-liners on an internet forum.

kthxbai

[Mechaman]

The problem Naso is that you're identifying a problem that has a cause itself... and you suggest a fix to the problem without looking at the cause.

What tears apart black families?  Poverty and lack of educational and financial betterment opportunities.

And what do torn apart families beget?  Even more poverty.

The answer isn't simply public services announcements about not getting pregnant or 'dealing with it' and forcing families back together.

The answer is to support both intact families AND torn apart families so that all have the opportunity to get out of the poverty trap.

One potential solution is by making some very tough decisions on reform in inner city or rural black belt schools (and this reform does not include gutting teachers' salaries, busting unions, or taking away drinking fountains)... this includes spending large amounts of money to hire people to keep kids occupied until such a time in the evening they can return home to a house with a parent in it.

What do poor black kids with single parents need?  STRUCTURE.  A loving, nuclear family isn't an option for most of these kids anymore.  So we have to help provide structure in a different way.  School is a great way to do this.  Longer school days, longer school years.. before and after school programs that are well funded and staffed by well trained people.

We also need to allow single parents to provide for their families and still afford them time to be at home WITH their children.  This is going to take welfare.  Oh, I know.. evil evil welfare... but if you set up the system right, you can make it effective without pulling people into the dependency trap.  For example, you could tie the welfare payments to the number of hours worked at any job up to, say, 30 hours a week.  Most single parents can work 30 hours a week and still have plenty of time at home with the kids.

So if a single black mother gets a job at McDonalds... making $8.50/hour.. but the government says "here.. we'll give you another $6/hour for each hour you work up to 30 hours/week"... then that becomes more livable while encouraging people to have stable employment.

For the unemployed, benefits should wind down slowly over time to provide incentive to get work... with a loophole for emergencies and times of national economic duress that results in jobs being very hard to find.

The other angle is that we need to reform our prison system.  Get the non-violent offenders out.  Set up programs for ex-prisoners to find work and enact legislation like "ban the box" so felons can have a chance at a face to face interview before you turn them down for being a felon.

This isn't going to be anything other than extremely messy, expensive, and difficult to do.  But it won't be much more expensive than housing, feeding, and locking up a massive population of people who shouldn't be locked up.

It will take a generation to see really great results from this kind of reform.. but you would begin to see positive results immediately.

And yes, public service announcements informing young women about the drawbacks of young pregnancies and having children at a young age SHOULD be a part of this solution.

Black men murdering others at such a high rate is not a root cause.. it is a symptom of the poverty trap with many layers of complex missteps behind it.  We've tried the tough love, lock 'em up approach.  It failed spectacularly.

It's time to throw money and resources and our hearts and goodwill at the issue.  And it's time for all Americans to say to the African American community "we're here to support you.  It's time you guys were invited to the party."

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The problem Naso is that you're identifying a problem that has a cause itself... and you suggest a fix to the problem without looking at the cause.

What tears apart black families?  Poverty and lack of educational and financial betterment opportunities.

And what do torn apart families beget?  Even more poverty.

The answer isn't simply public services announcements about not getting pregnant or 'dealing with it' and forcing families back together.

The answer is to support both intact families AND torn apart families so that all have the opportunity to get out of the poverty trap.

One potential solution is by making some very tough decisions on reform in inner city or rural black belt schools (and this reform does not include gutting teachers' salaries, busting unions, or taking away drinking fountains)... this includes spending large amounts of money to hire people to keep kids occupied until such a time in the evening they can return home to a house with a parent in it.

What do poor black kids with single parents need?  STRUCTURE.  A loving, nuclear family isn't an option for most of these kids anymore.  So we have to help provide structure in a different way.  School is a great way to do this.  Longer school days, longer school years.. before and after school programs that are well funded and staffed by well trained people.

We also need to allow single parents to provide for their families and still afford them time to be at home WITH their children.  This is going to take welfare.  Oh, I know.. evil evil welfare... but if you set up the system right, you can make it effective without pulling people into the dependency trap.  For example, you could tie the welfare payments to the number of hours worked at any job up to, say, 30 hours a week.  Most single parents can work 30 hours a week and still have plenty of time at home with the kids.

So if a single black mother gets a job at McDonalds... making $8.50/hour.. but the government says "here.. we'll give you another $6/hour for each hour you work up to 30 hours/week"... then that becomes more livable while encouraging people to have stable employment.

For the unemployed, benefits should wind down slowly over time to provide incentive to get work... with a loophole for emergencies and times of national economic duress that results in jobs being very hard to find.

The other angle is that we need to reform our prison system.  Get the non-violent offenders out.  Set up programs for ex-prisoners to find work and enact legislation like "ban the box" so felons can have a chance at a face to face interview before you turn them down for being a felon.

This isn't going to be anything other than extremely messy, expensive, and difficult to do.  But it won't be much more expensive than housing, feeding, and locking up a massive population of people who shouldn't be locked up.

It will take a generation to see really great results from this kind of reform.. but you would begin to see positive results immediately.

And yes, public service announcements informing young women about the drawbacks of young pregnancies and having children at a young age SHOULD be a part of this solution.

Black men murdering others at such a high rate is not a root cause.. it is a symptom of the poverty trap with many layers of complex missteps behind it.  We've tried the tough love, lock 'em up approach.  It failed spectacularly.

It's time to throw money and resources and our hearts and goodwill at the issue.  And it's time for all Americans to say to the African American community "we're here to support you.  It's time you guys were invited to the party."

Just came here to post this.  Brilliant stuff from Snowy. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any post that is in response to Naso cannot be a good post, because Naso is not worth discussing with.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the biggest problems with BRTD's argument is that the only way to get rid of ethno-religious identity itself would be to have a global uniculture, and the global uniculture would have to be enforced to prevent the development of ethno religious identities. If you tried to do such a thing it would quickly become clear that you could only do so by massive repression. (In fact I can't think of much that would be more oppressive)

So you have to accept the existence of ethno religious identities. Once you do, you have to accept that once established, there are costs for switching. It's not the same thing to ask 16-year old Sally Smith to be a member of the Smith family, and to ask 16-year old Lucy Jones to be a member of the Smith family. Sally Smith is already a member of the Smiths. Lucy has grown up with the Joneses for 16 years. Even if the Smiths are a better family by "objective" measurements (like income, marital stability, moral values) Lucy would have very good reasons to stay a Jones.

[TNF]

Snowguy confirmed for best poster.

[Sol]

Snowguy shows why we love him even though he denies climate change.

[Leftbehind]

A truly vile piece of work with laughable, delusional views, whose "ideas" are deservedly not taken seriously by anyone who is not on the payroll of a number of self-reinforcing, existing-in-a-parallel-universe  "think tanks", or who is not a rich suburban white male serial Internet poster, or who is not a member of a Survivalist cult/"militia" that is oddly obsessed with the phrase, "A Republic, not a Democracy!"


In other words, the perfect spokesman for the Libertarian Movement.

[Napoleon]

Snowguy confirmed for best poster.

He already was, when we did the survivor. 

[Lief 🗽]

Summary of Arguments:
"LOCKING UP A MILLION BLACK MEN FOR DRUG CRIMES IS A GOOD THING"
"LOL WHERE ARE YOUR FATHERS BLACK AMERICA?"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it could be interesting to have a foreign opinion about my country!

You should make this a poll. 

It is the only country in that region with which we have never had a war, and the only one with which we always have been on the same side during wars we always fought.  Our country owes its freedom to France, and vice-versa.  We are exactly the same kind of nation:  arrogant, we think ourselves God's gift to the world, just like the French do.  We think our culture should be adopted and think that anyone who doesn't adopt our culture simply doesn't understand it, just like the French do.  This, of course, puts us at odds.  For example, we cheer May 5, 1862 when North America rid itself of the French at the Battle of Pueblo.  Ask any Gringo about Cinco de Mayo.  It's one of the few foreign milestones that we celebrate here, and yet we fell in right behind the erstwhile French Empire after they were defeated by a bunch of hillbillies at Dien Bien Phu with our own costly Indochine involvement.  And we were defeated by those same hillbillies in much the same way. 

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.  Sounds nice.  Much like the things we say we believe, but like the French, we have never achieved any of those things.

Two peas in a pod, our two nations.  Arrogant, stubborn, and God's gift to the civilized world.  It's no wonder that we make fun of each other so much.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Desmond Tutu has always been an role model of mine in my spiritual (and someday to be ministerial) life.  I share his sentiments entirely, as I abandoned the whole "God hates gays/gay behaviors/people who aren't like me" stuff many years ago.  I am just not capable of having a personal relationship with a God who condemns homosexuals, and if the God I've come to know all these years turns out to be the wrong one, well, then damn me to hell.

Tutu's position is problematic; not his view on homosexuality, so much as his notion of not wanting to worship _____ God. As Cathcon said, there is no moral judgement above God (in the Christian view). As fallible, fallen humans it is unsurprising that our moral views sometimes come into conflict with God's.

By rejecting "homophobic God", Tutu is echoing Satan in Paradise Lost "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n."; rejecting God in favour of rebellion. This is very different that arguing that God is ok with homosexuality, it is much deeper and much more dangerous than that.

Well, if believing in equality is rebelling against God, then I guess the Reverend and I are destined for a not-so-nice place when we die.

(I should note that I'm saying this as someone who doesn't believe in a Hell or "other place" for people whose morals differ from God's.  I can only speak for myself on that, of course.)

This isn't about homosexuality or who's going to heaven/hell. The question is whether God is the ultimate arbiter of morality.

If you told me "God forbids alcohol", I could answer with "no he doesn't" or "God is wrong, f[inks] what he thinks". The second answer is a much more serious error than the first one. I don't really care what Tutu's thought's on homosexuality are, but by rejecting this hypothetical "God's view" he is effectively saying he has higher moral authority than God, and that is what I am alarmed at.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No (American)

This. The system of oppression the British Empire has been operating under for hundreds of years has gone on long past fashionability. Hopefully one day, loyal patriots in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales can shed the burden of tyranny like we in American did so long ago and join in a union of liberty.

Yes this, the fascist monarchists with their tea time, and vast riches will soon be deposed by the great people of the Isles, and when it happens, the freedom fighters of today and of days past like: Washington, Lincoln, TR, Ron Paul and Jesus will be there smiling, clothed in white robes, basking in the glorious sunlight of victory, for they will know that justice has been served. And the riches will be distributed among the poor, and a drunken feast will last for 1,000 years, and we will all scream the battle hymn of the Republic, and ride off into the eternal sunset.

[JerryArkansas]

After going on a soul-searching hunt for his real father at age 18, Jerry Arkansas at last receives the bloodwork back and it is confirmed, he is the son of Bill Clinton. Embarking on a globe-spanning journey to track down the elusive "Bubba", Jerry at last meets him and they have an hours-long talk in which they discuss Jerry's mother, politics, and Bill's legacy. Bill at last decides to show Jerry to Hillary, who embraces the young Republican as if he were her own. Jerry, now content having met his real father, sets off on life with a bold new direction. Emulating his father's path, he visits all the "sacred places" as a Christian would when visiting Jerusalem--the place of Bill's birth, the school where he questioned the teachers, Arkansas Boys State, and State House, and so on. Finally, at age 25, having walked the path of Bill and having replenished himself, Jerry is elected to the House of Representatives in the district his father once ran in. As of now, Jerry is a womanizing one-term moderate Republican Rep from Arkansas, known for his appeal to conservative Democrats moreso than his own Republican base as well as his strange resemblance to a man who walked these halls not so long ago...

[Sopranos Republican]

Matt, after spending some time in his own state of Vermont, has moved to New York City--escaping the Communist purges under Chairman Sanders--to live a life of tolerance and capitalism. Once in there, he falls in with the wrong crowds. Given his Italian and Irish heritage, he gets involved with white ethnics and subsequently the mob. Converting to Roman Catholicism presided over by Bishop Timothy Dolan, Matt Scarlini--his new name in order to fit in--takes on a life of crime, operating a small but burgeoning Republican-Italian machine in the city. Soon, he wil use this clout to elect him mayor, and an age of Republican Tammany will commence.