The Good Post Gallery

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

Cory gave a detailed, point-by-point, well-considered response, so in the interests of fairness I'd ask anybody who follows the link to the thread to read that one, too.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Came to post that. Excellent post other than the erroneous gringo spelling of Colombia.

[Leftbehind]

Well he has been a liberal - and that's the problem.

Rest is spot on, mind.

[King]

>Please stop posting like this

[TNF]

Well he has been a liberal - and that's the problem.

Rest is spot on, mind.

You'll forgive me for growing up in the American dichotomous ideological spectrum, it's hard to shake sometimes.

[Oakvale]

>Please stop posting like this

Yes. This not 4chan.

[Lief 🗽]

What's funny is that BRTD actually has more of a life than most of the people here who criticize him. Yeah he obviously posts a lot and has some strange obsessions, but he has a job, friends, and what appears to be a social life. Compare that to other posters, like some that spend an entire week posting creepy GIFs of gymnasts.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The United States has an enormous target on its back, and the Paul family's strategy of appeasing terrorists and pulling out of every place in the world is not going to do anything to help.

Why do the vast majority of terrorists commit the actions they do?

As long as the United States is a superpower, it will be the target of extremism. Is it the end of the world to give the government the resources it needs to protect innocent people? I don't think so. Sure, it makes me uneasy, but I trust that the United States takes seriously its mandate to defend the homeland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The issue is that it's not 'the United States' operating here. It's specific people who are sitting in NSA centers reading through these databases. These people can abuse the system and it is entirely likely that they will. What happens when they do?

The West is waging a War on Terror whether Obama wants to call it that or not. The consequences of pulling out of that war, especially at home, are real and pronounced. I won't take the chance. For that, I could never, ever support someone as dangerous as Rand Paul. Bush made a lot of mistakes, but one thing he did do is strengthen America's defenses. God willing, the United States will not vote to destroy those defenses... or it will be to the country's own detriment. 

What a load of bullsh*t. Bush? Strengthening America's defenses? All he's done is aid terrorism. Terrorism is triggered by military occupations - by increasing military occupations we're increasing terrorism. The War in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism (Nat'l Intelligence Estimate). Every month there's more terrorists trying to kill Americans in Islamic countries - because we're sowing resentments that are the breeding ground for future terrorism. Bush has been a great President, if you measure greatness by al-Qaeda recruitment efforts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Men are not "better at making deals and being slick" and women are not better at "reaching out to people and listening to others." These are social skills that are learned, not an inherent part of a person's DNA. Even more so is the proportion of men and women in powerful positions is a function of how society and culture are organized and not innate biological differences. It's no coincidence that in the 30 years after the feminist movement, the proportion of women in elected bodies in this country jumped from about nil to about 20 percent. Human biology didn't change, the organization of society did.

Men and women are not equal today. Men dominate the most powerful positions in society, earn more almost across the board for their work, and are more likely to be paid for their work, period. You say Congress should be fair to all. I agree. How is a Congress that is 78 percent male when we are only 49 percent of the population fair? Even when we men are well intentioned, even when we identify with women's rights like I do, we're going to miss a sh**tload of insight because we don't live in this world as women. It's a very different life experience.

It's no coincidence that women senators are taking the lead on sexual assault in the military. Or that it took a woman legislator (Wendy Davis) to galvanize the filibuster restricting women's reproductive rights. Or that Hillary Clinton was a women's right activist in the 1990's and still talks about it. All of us naturally see more clearly what touches them. That's why it's necessary (not sufficient, but necessary) to have people who's perspectives represent the issue at hand.

[opebo]

It should be doubled for starters, indexed to increases in worker productivity and inflation, and firing should be made illegal unless you aren't doing your job. Also the work week should be gradually reduced to 32 hours, the closed shop brought back, and scabs banned from being used during a strike.

[opebo]

What is Catchon's idea of freedom? His idea of freedom, you ask? It is, simply, the freedom to sit and shoot the breeze at the lake; to sit in smoky bars watching the nightly news on the monochrome TV; to not have to think (more out of a desire for perceived simplicity than out of malice) about too much to do with race and sex and class; to have a good, probably industrial or managerial job, well-protected in some way or another but probably not through the presence of a strong union; to go to a good, solid, apolitical or vaguely center-right and culturally conservative working-class Catholic parish; to drive powerful cars and drink bitter beer and fire off guns in the woods when he so pleases; to live, in other words, in Michigan as it could be, Michigan as it is perceived to once have been, Michigan as it is dreamed it might be again, the Michigan that has verily opened the door to the new world, withdrawing from the general concourse of humanity's sad history like Hara Setsuko, a Michigan defined by freedom from insecurity and uncertainty and particular types of change, The Michigan That We Dreamed Of.

[opebo]

Technological advancement is always a good thing as long as we embrace it properly.  In recent decades Americans have got it in their head that the arbitrary 40 hours is the only way to be a full time worker.  That needs to change.  The future of full time work is less hours at higher wages

[opebo]

The people who think the House can't flip have their heads in the sand over demographics changes. An awful lot of elderly Republicans are going to die this decade, and the voters replacing them in the 18-28 age bracket are incredibly liberal -- and far less white.

You simply cannot be as unpopular as the GOP is, for the length of time the GOP has been, without serious and ugly long-term consequences.

[Torie]

The people who think the House can't flip have their heads in the sand over demographics changes. An awful lot of elderly Republicans are going to die this decade, and the voters replacing them in the 18-28 age bracket are incredibly liberal -- and far less white.

You simply cannot be as unpopular as the GOP is, for the length of time the GOP has been, without serious and ugly long-term consequences.

That certainly is the conventional wisdom, but is it accurate?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What is Catchon's idea of freedom? His idea of freedom, you ask? It is, simply, the freedom to sit and shoot the breeze at the lake; to sit in smoky bars watching the nightly news on the monochrome TV; to not have to think (more out of a desire for perceived simplicity than out of malice) about too much to do with race and sex and class; to have a good, probably industrial or managerial job, well-protected in some way or another but probably not through the presence of a strong union; to go to a good, solid, apolitical or vaguely center-right and culturally conservative working-class Catholic parish; to drive powerful cars and drink bitter beer and fire off guns in the woods when he so pleases; to live, in other words, in Michigan as it could be, Michigan as it is perceived to once have been, Michigan as it is dreamed it might be again, the Michigan that has verily opened the door to the new world, withdrawing from the general concourse of humanity's sad history like Hara Setsuko, a Michigan defined by freedom from insecurity and uncertainty and particular types of change, The Michigan That We Dreamed Of.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Who hates Hillary supporters more, Hillary supporters or Hillary opponents? Hillary supporters. Why? 'Cause we hate ourselves too. Everything Hillary opponents hate about Hillary supporters, Hillary supporters REALLY hate about ourselves. Hell, there's a civil war going on in Hillary's camp right now. It's between Hillary's supporters ("those of us who would answer "Hillary Clinton" when polled among the current 2016 choices") and Hillary's Supporters^TM. And the Hillary Supporters^TM have got to go!

I frickin' hate Hillary Supporters^TM. They're Hillary's worst enemy.

Hillary's supporters like Hillary, but we respect her enough to realize she hasn't declared for anything yet. She understandably probably wants some time to rest up and think things over. She's barely said anything on domestic politics in years, and it's possible her views on some things have changed. And the election is three friggin' years away. We eagerly await her next book, but realize that overexposure is not a good thing for her right now.

Hillary Supporters^TM don't seem to realize this. They don't think Hillary can make her own decision and feel that she needs to see that we are all "Ready for Hillary". Some of them are well intention-ed, and may even have worked very closely with the SoS. But they feel the need to start campaigning right away.

Hillary supporters appreciate that Hillary is a hard worker who never takes anything for granted and doesn't feel entitled to anything that she hasn't earned (unlike some). We realize arguments like "she's a Queen", "she deserves it", and "she's a woman" are sh**t argument that actually hurt her, and are very un-Hillary. Hillary Supporters^TM, on the other hand, make exactly those arguments, or promote articles that do, even those written by Republican operatives. A Hillary supporter who is attracted to Hillary precisely because she's the overqualified type hates the Hillary Supporter^TM who thinks the party should anoint her now simply because of who she is.

Hillary supporters think Hillary has a great, smart and sharp mind and are looking forward to hearing her message in a campaign if she runs. Hillary Supporter^TM don't care about what she has to say, they support her just because she's HILLARY. A Hillary Supporter^TM will say something like, "She's going to be the nominee." sh**t, sister, you don't know who's going to be the nominee in three years and neither do I.

So in conclusion, my message to all Hillary Supporters^TM is Shut the F___ Up.
-Hillary supporter

[Joe Republic]

And fracking will continue providing energy independence for America, despite a few people in PA being able to light their water on fire.

The stakes are a lot sharper than just "a few people in PA being able to light their water on fire", even if one were to accept the premise that their inability to carry out normal life going forward is No Big Deal, as you so blithely seem to do.  The stakes are more like millions of people don't have drinking water anymore, and local governments are bankrupted- you are aware of where NYC's water comes from, and how by spending millions to preserve land around their reservoirs, they have saved $billions in construction and running of treatment plants in addition to all the other wildlife/air quality/recreational/etc. benefits of open space, and how they basically have some of the best water in the country because of it, and how it could all come crashing down if we blindly charge ahead with "drill baby drill", and cause economic devastation greater than the value of the gas?  (Sorry for the run-on sentence there.)

And keep in mind that those poor folks in PA are not getting compensated for damages at all, because the state government is rather deliberately looking the other way and refusing to do due diligence to see whether water supplies can be held harmless in the face of fracking- both from overuse (since fracking uses a lot of water), and also from the more well-publicized contamination issues.  Now look, I'm very much a pragmatist here- if they can find a way to do it that's guaranteed to not f**k up these people's lives, and actually be serious about paying damages when they mess up, I'd be willing to accept some drilling.  It is way better than coal, that I recognize. But we all know what those "if"s add up to.  First and foremost, the government needs to do get its head out of regulatory capture, do its job and regulate- and if that means a moratorium, if that means some marginal plays are just going to have to wait, if that means we don't drill anywhere near important reservoirs, then fine.  Take the time to get things right first, take all the externalities into account.

[Sopranos Republican]

The folks that the "pro-life movement" attracts are pretty effective at pushing me away from a message I would otherwise be receptive to. What do morning-after pills and freely available contraceptives have to do with wanting to protect babies? Why do so many people who call themselves "pro-life" make utterly misogynistic and generally offensive comments about how a woman's body works, and obsess over abstinence programs being forced on schools? Why do these same people generally come from a side of the American political spectrum wherein there is widespread opposition to expanding healthcare and social services for young families and babies?

This is why I just generally can't take that entire movement seriously, and it actively pisses me off because this is yet another example of the American right-wing just being stupid and pissing away a chance to have a decent point of opposition. I genuinely don't get why so many people who call themselves pro-life take such bizarre and puritanical positions that only half-way have anything to do with abortion.

If the pro-life movement simply maintained their broad opposition to most abortions but was actually in favor of contraceptive use, didn't act like they were generally ickified by sex, and supported creating and expanding greater programs for family planning, adoption agencies, food and healthcare programs for infant care, and really made themselves all about "protecting vulnerable life" it would be incredibly hard to argue with from the perspective of other politicians. Support for pro-life individuals and causes would shoot up dramatically. I'd be tempted to count myself among them.

But I guess to the right-wing, such things really don't matter, do they? If you're getting the votes, that's all you need.

Right. On. Bro.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Keynesianism / Chicago School start from the equilibrium approach. Markets tend to balance demand and supply. That balance may be distorted on the short-to-medium term by several kinds of shocks, but, if the shock is diagnosed and treated correctly, the markets will balance themselves again. They differ in their analysis of shocks and the treatment to be applied. Keynesianism is focusing more on demand-side shocks (under-consumption), while the Chicago school is primarily concerned with monetary imbalances, (removing) regulative barriers to competition, and distortions due to government interventionism.
 
In contrast, the Austrian school understands markets as inherently imperfect due to incomplete information, incalculable risks, and individually differing preferences and utility functions. Entrepreneurs profit from these imperfections, but may also take wrong decisions and ultimately fail. As there is no equilibrium, it is also not possible to mathematically model economic systems via equilibrium equations.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Austrian approach, and even more for its extension by equally Austrian (though not part of the classical Austrian school) Joseph Schumpeter, with his focus on entrepreneurship and innovation. To me, monetary imbalances and under-consumption are not the root causes of economic crisis, but symptoms of an underlying problem, namely lack of innovation. In other words: People consume less, and enterprises face decreasing return on investment, because markets for existing products are saturated, and there are not enough entrepreneurs with new ideas and products that address latent but not yet apparent demand.

I have nevertheless voted for the Chicago School, as it has developed important concepts such as institutional economics and the idea of "human capital", which tie into innovation economics. Chicago school monetary theory, and Keynesian consumption theory are useful for designing supportive policies, i.e., both approaches don't create the innovation push required to get out of an economic crisis, but help such a push to become effective. Marxist analysis of rent-seeking behaviour has carved out the antagonism between capitalists and entrepreneurs.

[RogueBeaver]

The point is not that the other side is any less socially conservative tough. They are the Tea Partier/Club for Growthers after all and Haley is one of them to a large extent. It is just that the other side love their pork and use the social issues as cover. Think Nathan Deal versus Karen Handel in Georgia in the 2010 GOP runoff. Deal is a far right socially, former Democrat Porker, whereas Handel (though suspect on social issues is hardly a moderate by any means) was a fiscal conservative supported by Sarah Palin, just like Haley. Therefore I don't see Scott or DeMint challenging her.

This harkens back to an old divide that use to occur in Democratic primaries in the South when you had bourbon business and middle class types and Progressive/Populist types and though both were racist, they would often use segregationism as a way to get a leg up on each other even though there real divide was on economic issues. The former were the first to move away from segregationist politics (though definately against busing) and the first to join the Republicans, at a time when their numbers were exploding thanks to suburbanization and the growth of the metros from northern transplants. The latter group, largely in rural areas shifted two or three decades later and largely on the issues of god, guns and gays of the 80's, 90's and 2000's. Nathan Deal switched in 1995. Rodney Alexander in Louisiana switched in 2004 largely to keep the pork flowing in. Therefore you have a war so to speak between the limited gov't types of like the Gingrich/Sanford variety against these former Democrats who began to rise to power in the Bush/Delay era.

A new dynamic has come into play dividing the business types between those who want the Gov't, corporate welfare, infrastructure, pork and a steady supply of illegal and legal cheap labor largely represented by the Chamber of Commerce up against the Club For Growth/Tea Party types who don't want the goverment interferring. What you are seeing is that the former is coming to ally with the more populist types and porkers and you see that occuring to some extent with Graham save for some McCainist tendencies on the pork and in Georgia with Kingston save maybe for the immigration issue.

[H. Ross Peron]

It's easy for upper middle class white liberals to criticize some of these policing strategies, because they never had to live in the South Bronx or East Flatbush.  They would be fine going back to the days when the NYPD didn't event try to police large parts of NYC.  But, believe me, it's certainly better to have overzealous cops than gangs killing kids left and right.

While I would have liked more community policing and a less stop-and-frisk tactics and slavish devotion to crime states, he's done a good job overall.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'll shop anywhere except Walmart, really.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This has been The Wikipedia Chronicles, with your host, Professor of Race Relations Snow "Poll tests have merit" Stalker.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This has been The Wikipedia Chronicles, with your host, Professor of Race Relations Snow "Poll tests have merit" Stalker.

Even Oakvale's posts looks depressing when quoted by Oldies

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

happened upon this in search:

This discussion is illuminating because it showcases a certain neurose I've noticed among partisan hacks (Mr. Moderate is probably not the best example, but it works for now).

The Reagan mythology is that he was some sort of great conservative pioneer who defeated the forces of liberalism, thereby bringing material prosperity and foreign policy success.  "Conservatives" adore the man because he represents the "proof" that their ideology is correct.  He therefore attains a quasi-religious status among Republicans (hence why every third word on the WSJ editorial page or in a GOP debate is "Reagan," and why they try to rename porta-potties after him).  For every hero, there is a demon that must be vanquished, and who better than that little flimsy flake known as Jimmy Carter?  For someone who views the world in such black-and-white terms that they actually think Reagan's election was some sort of major sea change in politics, it's easy to think that Carter, being the vanquished demon, must have had the exact opposite position of Reagan on every single issue.  Therefore, it can simply be declared, without the slightest bit of independent thought or research, that Jimmy Carter must have been an "insane liberal."

The exact same thing is true of "liberal"/"progressives."  Their worldview includes their own object of veneration:  Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Roosevelt represents their own "proof" that their own ideology is correct, and so he has attained the same quasi-religious hero status among them that Reagan carries among "conservatives."  For this reason too, the vanquished demon becomes Herbert Hoover, the root of all evil.  Hoover must have been some sort of dogmatic laissez-faire ultraconservative, whose devious machinations were ended by the virtuous Roosevelt.  It can therefore be declared, without the slightest bit of independent thought or research, that Herbert Hoover must have been an "insane conservative."

Of course, in reality Hoover was probably the most leftist president of the United States up to that point, and was to the left of Roosevelt on several issues, including several that "liberal"/"progressives" pretend(ed) to care deeply about (minority rights, foreign policy).  Carter was the most conservative president the US had since Coolidge (Ike and Ford might have been more ideologically conservative, but not in terms of the policy they implemented or tried to implement), and was to the right of Reagan on several issues that "conservatives" pretend to care about (spending, regulation, free trade).

An addendum:  Part of the mythology is fueled by the fact that in their post-presidencies, Hoover and Carter, hurt and confused that the groups they had always considered themselves a part of now considered them abominamenti, actually became the caricatures that were painted of them, figuring that they might as well at least enjoy the continued approval of the few who still approved of them.