The Good Post Gallery

[Lief 🗽]

Sometimes it's fun to play video games on the easiest setting.

[dead0man]

Sometimes it's fun to play video games on the easiest setting.

Uggg, I hate that.  I know people do it (my wife and kids do it sometimes and it bothers me), but I don't understand why.  Perhaps to explore a level (or whatever) for reconisence on a bit you're having a hard time with, but I don't understand the point of playing a game if you're not trying to get the McGuffin.  Maybe I'm weird.

[Brittain33]

Beet's posts in this thread are f'ing fantastic: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156803.msg3373766#new

Beet is really shining strong in that thread. Of course, it goes right over Politico's head.

and it begs the question, why does Beet feel the necessity to jostle with an obviously inferior interlocutor. 

Because if there is no response to people like krazen, Politico and Winfield, even if people know they're wrong, they end up dominating the group and driving out the constructive and well-informed discussion like bad money driving out good.

[Mechaman]

In the Comedy thread, but I believe this is a more appropriate place:

My current running theory is that Obama and Romney are actually the same person.  That one person is the same trickster god Joseph Campbell used to tell stories about.  The god wore a hat that was colored differently on different sides, and walked back and forth through the village and had everybody confused about who he was, and when the villagers came to blows over his real identity and were brought before the judge, the trickster god showed up, laughed at everyone, and confessed, saying: "spreading strife is my greatest joy."  So, I'm hoping for a razor-thin election night, lasting until the wee hours of the morning, leaving everybody mad and exhausted and accusing one another of high treason, and when a winner is finally declared, the concession speech and acceptance speech will actually be the same one event, and the one guy who has played the part of both Romney and Obama, wearing a hat with a corporate logo on one side and a community organizer logo on the other, will saunter up to the podium, point at the audience smartly, and say: "made ya look!"

[anvi]

Wow, I made it here! 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Wow, I made it here! 

Stop it......much of your posting history can be placed here

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I have to say that the way both sides present the debate on Climate Change seems to be quite fallacious.  I mean, from my view there are two sides here that engage in a level of naivete that is reserved for people who think Professional Wrestling is real:

Side One: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE!  AND IT IS DEFINITELY NOT MAN MADE! (foams at mouth)
Variation: Yes there is Climate Change, but it is definitely not at all manmade.  It's soooo natural man!

And then there is the other side of the debate, mostly agreed on by "feelgooders" and socially conscious PC liberals:

Side 2: Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, BUT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM GOING ANY FURTHER!

(facepalm)

I mean really, no wonder why a bunch of people find this debate to be so mindblowingly stupid.  What did people think happened to industrial gasses?  That said gasses were converted into Angel Farts?  Seriously!?  Industrialized areas are known to have higher rates of cancer and lung problems....yet people are shocked that industrialization could possibly lead to Climate Change?  The Earth is changing, yes it's our fault, AND NOW WE ARE NOW HOISTED BY OUR OWN PETARD!  THE PETARD OF INDUSTRIALIZATION!

So yes, the alarmists are indeed right.. . .  . .until they have the audacity, the nerve to say that we can be saved.  That we can actually stop this process.

We are beyond salvation right now.  We would need f***ing Star Trek technology to reverse the trend.  Sure, you could argue BUT BUT GREEN ENERGY!  BUHBUHBUT GREEN TAXES!  Yes, and wearing a WIN button will stop runaway inflation.  Such policies are at best "feel good" and don't do what needs to be done: reversal.  We don't need to stop the trend, WE NEED TO F***ING REVERSE IT.  And with the level of tech we are at I would love somebody to enlighten me as to HOW with technology where it's at how we ever hope to stop the Climate Change process.

If there is ever a case to be made for Futility, this is it.

But you know, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is some data I'm overlooking that suggests that climate scales and graphs are wrong and that there was significantly more climate instability in 980 AD than now.  Or maybe there is some tech out there that, if given the funding, would somehow reverse the current trends and there will be a snowy winter in 2032 IF WE ACT NOW.
If so, then please, enlighten me.  Because so far I don't know why people waste the same amount of time on this issue as they would on more meaningful issues, like the amount of latent homosexuality in Top Gun.

I see the Evolutionary psychology is strong in this thread. This is inevitable for this board, at least so it seems (in "sex threads" anyway).

As for me, I'm in no position to be picky, so I'm like whatever....

Surely everyone subscribes to at least a few aspects of evolutionary psychology, no?

As I am a person (AFAIK) and thus included in the description of "everyone", the answer would have to be 'no'.

You honestly don't agree with any aspect of it? Why? I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

Well on the issue of sexual attractiveness it is worth noting how little in human history and life sex has had conciously to do with reproduction. We are mammals and like mammals we have social sex - the notion of a 'mate' may have little to do with anything.

Furthermore, differences of what defines attractive have changed so much throughout human history and still vary across the world that create rules on this issue seems absurd. (And of course throughout human history whether you were attracted to him/her or not did not matter one fig when it came to your eventual mate(s). There are still large parts of the world that are like this). However, the idea of sexual attractiveness AFAIK seems to be pretty universal - I could give a cod evolutionary explanashun about this. But I could do the same if the opposite happened to be the case. After all, if our 'role' in our lives is solely to reproduce (this idea, though considered Darwinian in some circles, isn't at all really. Creatures don't have purposes) why have this strange pickiness about it?

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

Sorry, realisticidealist, you know I love you, but this is a very good post and I agree with it in full:

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

I just don't understand what is really mutually exclusive about thinking marriage is a decayed institution while also supporting legalizing gay marriage. Of course, I don't personally think marriage is an archaic institution that should be tossed away and listening to that argument gets me all testy, but you can absolutely think it's a decaying institution while also thinking there's no reason not to legalize gay marriage.

I'm just not sure where this hostility you have for this issue comes from. You act like you support it, but you hate that you have absolutely no choice but to support it; like you're angry that other people force you to admit you're wrong about something. It's weird from someone usually so reasonable and wonky about everything.

[RI]

Sorry, realisticidealist, you know I love you, but this is a very good post and I agree with it in full:

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

I just don't understand what is really mutually exclusive about thinking marriage is a decayed institution while also supporting legalizing gay marriage. Of course, I don't personally think marriage is an archaic institution that should be tossed away and listening to that argument gets me all testy, but you can absolutely think it's a decaying institution while also thinking there's no reason not to legalize gay marriage.

I'm just not sure where this hostility you have for this issue comes from. You act like you support it, but you hate that you have absolutely no choice but to support it; like you're angry that other people force you to admit you're wrong about something. It's weird from someone usually so reasonable and wonky about everything.

I at least tried to answer it as honestly as possible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

realistic's response after that was good as well.

[J-Mann]

An old post from a poster who has moved on to bigger and better things in life

is this known, or just a kind cliche?

Well clearly Colin Wixted has found better things to do with his life than post on this forum.  

which assumes anyone who leaves voluntarily does so because they are doing better things; which begs the question, what is the fundamental defect of those who continue to post?

In point of fact continued posting is a good sign - of reasonable prosperity (internet access, a computer, enough food and drink to be cognizant) and health (the poster has not died or become to ill to post).  Nowadays most people who cease posting can be assumed to have fallen into poverty, living under a bridge, or to have died due to aneurism or other troubles.

Opebo, I miss you! However, some of us truly move on to bigger and better things (though I like to drop in from time to time).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As a response to jmfcst this is quite dated now, but I just found it and I think it was passed up the first time it was posted, and it's too good to exclude from here:

jmfcst, people "hate" (I use the term "hate" because it's being used referring to sports and not a meaningful context) because he's a mediocre NFL quarterback who has managed to orchestrate a series of flukey last second drives. Not because he's a virgin or Christian or whatever. People (like myself) may mock the act of Tebowing, but that's more a component of his personality rather than a specific attack on his faith. Philip Rivers and Peyton Manning and Josh Hamilton and Jeremy Lin are all outspoken Christians, yet nobody hates them because they're actually good at what they do.

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

realistic's response after that was good as well.

Yes, it was.

[opebo]

Opebo, I miss you! However, some of us truly move on to bigger and better things (though I like to drop in from time to time).

I miss you too, dear Horatio, and am glad to hear of your 'success'.  I alas continue in statis = a man in a sinecure is in paradise but for one thing: he knows it cannot last forever.

And my 'good post' is:

Colorado is the next Oregon.

And I think Ohio is the next Michigan.

[memphis]

Patrick and Torie,

I know I've invited this attention, but I just don't want another update thread to spring up in place of the one that is locked.  Lord knows the moderators had enough trouble keeping the first one contained, let alone having two or possibly three.

Nope - you told me you could handle it.  From now on, you do your own containing.  I advised you to keep it locked months ago, and you opened Pandora's box... whatever happens now is yours to deal with.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

To be honest, I think the Republican Party is doomed if it doesn't start nominating candidates like Huntsman, I mean for god sakes, he opposes same-sex marriage, cut taxes whilst he was Governor, supports tougher immigration laws and restricted access to abortions. I mean, if he's not conservative, then quite frankly who is. The Republican Party is being destroyed by the irrational cancer that comprises the Bachmann/West/Perry/Norquist wing, who insist that every candidate must conform to what they see as conservative on every issue, 100% of the time. I mean I doubt even Ronald Reagan could have won a GOP nomination now, as they would have seen him as too willing to compromise. The stage the party has reached of the religious right and Tea Party having a virtual veto power over the choice of candidate is really bad for the Republican Party. The Party won't ever win back the Presidency in any meaningful way unless this situation changes.

Rant over

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, very pleasant surprise coming from Rhodie.

[Lief 🗽]

Hopefully he'll embrace his Jewish heritage. Also 'economic populism' sucks.

I love this post because it perfectly encapsulates your posting. The latter inflammatory sentence has basically nothing directly to do with anything the topic set out to discuss, but you feel the need to post it, because you super duper want people to notice you're a neoliberal, a term virtually nobody proudly labels themselves with, because it's used almost entirely in the pejorative sense, unless they're trolling or completely oblivious. You are trying way, way too hard.

[opebo]

American Racist... I'd include most of you guys (White American Atlas Posters) under the heading.

[patrick1]

That argument was comprehensively debunked, destroyed and generally reduced to the status of a stock joke almost as soon as Barnett published his book. The only people who take it seriously are people who are not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, and to just go over a couple of points that are obvious rather than insightful, Britain's status as a 'superpower' (to use a ridiculous and ahistorical term in this context) was effectively ended by the First World War, even if the Foreign Office continued to believe otherwise. The repeated economic fiascoes and diplomatic humiliations of the 1920s and 1930s are testament enough. That the Empire itself was doomed was obvious to all observers by the 1930s, which is why debates on the issue tended to verge on the hysterical. The stresses and strains of the Second World War merely completed matters. Even if this were not true, of course, talk of 'decline' misses the point and shows what might be thought of as an imperialist mindset; the Post War period was one of unprecedented (and almost unbelievable for many at the time) prosperity for ordinary people in Britain. When Macmillan said that people had 'never had it so good' he was being a paternalistic dick, but he was also quite correct.

Anyway, and if we're talking about Britain in the twentieth century, It really comes down to whether you'd rather live in a slum, work in a job that may well end up killing you, be bow-legged from rickets and shorter than you'd rightfully be because of malnutrition, have no financial security whatsoever and access to only limited medical services but live in a country with vast Imperial possessions overseas, or whether you'd rather have the opposite.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That argument was comprehensively debunked, destroyed and generally reduced to the status of a stock joke almost as soon as Barnett published his book. The only people who take it seriously are people who are not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, and to just go over a couple of points that are obvious rather than insightful, Britain's status as a 'superpower' (to use a ridiculous and ahistorical term in this context) was effectively ended by the First World War, even if the Foreign Office continued to believe otherwise. The repeated economic fiascoes and diplomatic humiliations of the 1920s and 1930s are testament enough. That the Empire itself was doomed was obvious to all observers by the 1930s, which is why debates on the issue tended to verge on the hysterical. The stresses and strains of the Second World War merely completed matters. Even if this were not true, of course, talk of 'decline' misses the point and shows what might be thought of as an imperialist mindset; the Post War period was one of unprecedented (and almost unbelievable for many at the time) prosperity for ordinary people in Britain. When Macmillan said that people had 'never had it so good' he was being a paternalistic dick, but he was also quite correct.

Anyway, and if we're talking about Britain in the twentieth century, It really comes down to whether you'd rather live in a slum, work in a job that may well end up killing you, be bow-legged from rickets and shorter than you'd rightfully be because of malnutrition, have no financial security whatsoever and access to only limited medical services but live in a country with vast Imperial possessions overseas, or whether you'd rather have the opposite.

I was just about to post that...

[Lief 🗽]

So the logic here is that because Ryan's mom is on Medicare, he would never consider cutting it? Let's forget entirely about the fact that these people don't need Medicare, and jump to the track record that refutes this:

• Paul Ryan's family built their contracting business in large part through government contracts to build roads and bridges, yet opposes any plan to rebuild these sorts of infrastructure today in our country using government assistance
• Paul Ryan received Social Security as-is and unlike most beneficiaries, hadn't even paid into the program, yet has supported eliminating its effectiveness and reducing benefits as opposed to raising FICA revenues to make the program solvent
• Paul Ryan attended public school - something his wealthy family chose - yet support massive NDD spending cuts that will eviscerate the Department of Education
• Paul Ryan attended a public college subsidized by state and federal governments via taxpayers, yet support eliminating $170 billion in financial assistance for college students
• Paul Ryan has been in Congress and earning paychecks for the past 14 years - with an expansive health care plan to boot, yet supports revoking access to health care on multiple fronts to tens of millions of Americans

Face it: this guy's been on the government tit since he was born, and is nothing more than the byproduct of redistribution from others. I think at his core, Paul Ryan hates himself for being such a hypocritical welfare queen, just like his idol.

[opebo]

You really are a bunch of disgusting people.

EternalCynic, what makes a sex crime a so-called crime in your book? Please elaborate.

The first Swedish prosecutor who considered the charge withdrew it, claiming it had no chance of success.

Only after the US cables started emerging did a previously dismissed accusation magically reappear. The most recent documents do indicate that the US is trying to get Assange to face trial over something that he, as a non-US citizen, can't be tried for. The fact that Sweden is zealously pursuing Assange when a Serb accused of murder in Sweden isn't being pursued as zealously (you know, since murder is more important than consensual sex without a condom) makes any notion that there's a black hand behind this, credible. Assange has repeatedly stated he's happy to go to Sweden if Sweden can guarantee he won't be extradited to any third country.

And besides, suave authoritarian regimes don't accuse their dissidents of treason or subverting the state. They accuse them of tax evasion, rape, bylaw infringement, and so on. The real disgusting people are those who try to manipulate the public's concern for women in order to attain a sinister goal, not those who call their BS.

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

Niall Ferguson wrote an article that graces the cover of Newsweek this week.

Niall Ferguson wrote an article

Niall Ferguson

Niall Ferguson

That man.  That name.  It haunts me.  Will Niall Ferguson ever leave me alone?  Why must that name chase me?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Really, any post by Nathan belongs in here.