The Good Post Gallery

[Badger]

Bravo BRTD! The last two lines especially.

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests and simply bloated and benefited the military-industrial complex, was imprisoned by an enemy of that regime for several years, and then used a political career rife with corruption to benefit individuals like Charles Keating, attention whored the hell out of his limelight for a couple years just because he managed to lose to an even worse human being in the GOP primary, in his own campaign picked someone as his running mate that basically forever destroys his credibility on stating if someone is qualified for ANYTHING, lost, and then pandered to the far right to survive a primary challenge only to end up a standard backbencher tool of the GOP leadership. He is nothing more than a bitter washed up old man. Obama appointing Rice and getting her through would be another fantastic showing of his superiority over McCain and how McCain can't ever beat him. Obama beat him in 2008 and should use every opportunity to beat him as much as possible from here on.

There's little to nothing good about this post, particularly regarding McCain's military service. The deep faults of US Vietnam policy can't and shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of any serviceman, including McCain.

If liberals are going to truly ascribe to 'Supporting our troops' while opposing the wars they fight, then that has to apply as equally to the John McCain's and Josh Mandels as to the Max Clellands and Patrick Murpheys.

[Franzl]

Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't normally respond to Krazen's baiting, but I actually do find this to be a very interesting and important topic. And it reminds me how much the "copyright rule" we have on this forum can be twisted and used as a convenient excuse to only post portions of an article you like, and ignore those that do not fit into your narrative.

Here are some more quotes from the article that Krazen found it convenient to omit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unions aren't mentioned in the article. Not even once. However, there are multiple references to private companies and contractors and their rampant corruption. And really, I'm not naive to believe unions don't play a role in this. They likely do. But if so they would be one of many factors. And isn't it interesting that the very article Krazen decides to use as evidence doesn't even mention them? Perhaps he's just hoping most won't actually read the article --- which I suppose is likely... Also funny that a lot of these countries doing it better than us are run by Socialist and Communist governments. What kind of message is Krazen trying to send?

But as someone who would like our country to invest in better mass transit, I did read the article, and it certainly doesn't lead one to the same conclusions as Krazen. In fact, what I see is the opposite. I see more and more private sector influence in government. Whoever donates the most money to political campaigns and lobbying gets their way. Yet Republicans seem to think Citizens United was a good ruling. I suspect it will just lead to more and more of this.

There are very specific problems we run into with infrastructure projects, many of which are mentioned in the article. These are problems that can and should be fixed. Quitting and letting our infrastructure crumble as some Republicans would prefer is just lazy and dishonest.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.

This. Would you hold any higher respect for someone for being a veteran of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan? How about a veteran of the Serb or Croat armies in the early 90s?

It's not surprising someone living in Germany thinks this way, I've noticed that Germans far more than most nationalities tend to lack holding someone in higher regard because of military service. There's a reason for that...

[Mechaman]

Badger, I don't personally think joining the military and fighting is, in itself, something that should be commended. Particularly in times of general peace. A different argument can be made for strong, morally indisputable missions like defeating fascism  in WW2.

But otherwise , I view veterans no differently than any other fellow citizens and human beings.

This. Would you hold any higher respect for someone for being a veteran of the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan? How about a veteran of the Serb or Croat armies in the early 90s?

It's not surprising someone living in Germany thinks this way, I've noticed that Germans far more than most nationalities tend to lack holding someone in higher regard because of military service. There's a reason for that...

It's quite fitting that you two have made these observations in "The Good Post Gallery".

[Zanas]

In many ways the Social Democratic model is up against the wall. You cant keep up high taxes combined with capitalist ownership because capital just moves away. So either you turn left and introduce some kind of economic democracy, where workers/cooperatives/unions etc. control production or go right and become softcore liberals. Since the 70s/early 80s no-one has no-one has dared turning left and therefore SocDems are in a perpetual defensive position.
Social democracy in the old sense with big welfare states financed by milking the capitalist economy will never really return as a viable option. But the movement keeps pretending that it can and keeps moving to the right ceding more and more territory to the neo-liberals. So basically they have to either accept the fact that they are social liberals or come up with an idea on how to make a market based socialism work in the real world and on a national/continental level and no-one has really been able to do that. So yeah, I don't see them pulling trough. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Republican Party in its current form should really be a far-right fringe party that gets single digit percentages.

[opebo]

Seatown is great:

"Humiliation of the working class hits a new level" - should be the title.

The sore loser is the guy who got the tattoo on his face.

I believe Romney is the sore loser, this guy is just a loser.

[opebo]

Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...

[memphis]

Inks, I know you have good intentions here, but if you really want a Republican Party you can be proud of, you need to stop defending them for awhile.  There was a time when calling either party reprehensible was pure hackery, but that time is not now.  The Democratic Party, whether you agree in it's ideological conclusions or not, is morally superior to the Republican Party in 2012.  You of all people should know, your state GOP nominated Pete Hoekstra.

Over the past ten years, groups like Club for Growth have made sure any noble man better not seek election under the R brand.  Only those interested in making $$$ need apply, even if you're uneducated and have no idea how to run a national government.  That's not a hack opinion.  That's a description of most of the candidates we've seen run as Republicans in the past four years.

Yes, the Republican leadership is obstructionist and the Republican caucus is mostly full of know-nothings.  We don't have the Watergate tapes to prove it, but it's pretty obvious. 

It was certainly obvious with Romney long before "47%" and "gifts."  Yet Republicans spent a whole year trying to tell me what was obvious with my own eyes and ears wasn't true.  That Romney was some sort of noble person and it was the liberal media or hackery warping my perception.  No dice.  I would like to hold an objective position that Romney and Obama, or current Republicans and Democrats,  are the same in how much they care about people, how personally greedy they are, how much they listen to their big donors over the common folk, etc., etc. but that wouldn't be an objective position.  Barack Obama is a much better person than Mitt Romney is.   The Democratic Party of 2012 is much a better party than the Republican Party of 2012 is.  1990 GOP vs. 1990 Democrats? Probably equal.  The Bushes and Clintons? Probably equal.  Republicans today? No way.

Defending the GOP right now is the equivalent of going to a dinner party, being served a platter of feces, and eating it because the host has served real meals to you in the past.  We need to accept that the Republican Party has being sh**tting on plates for the past few years and demand better food.

[Simfan34]

Instead of one minute silence, we should all Take Five.

Link mine.

[bgwah]

Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...

Please don't ever put a Fezzy post in here again. Thanks.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course. America is a very simple beast that will readily and enthusiastically allow its handlers to return to the same poisonous trough time and again. Our collective economic thinking has been so restricted to think that what happens in our economy is natural and capitalism at its best. Booms and busts are created and we keep feeding into them without questioning them. And as long as people are led to believe that they are also benefiting and that the boom will never end, they'll keep jumping for joy every time they make a little imaginary money. Meanwhile the people fueling this make billions and continue to hoard it while demonizing those who want a healthy economy as anti-job commies. But we never learn...

Please don't ever put a Fezzy post in here again. Thanks.

Why? This post by Fezzy was pretty excellent.

[Smid]

Instead of one minute silence, we should all Take Five.

Link mine.

Thanks mate! I think this is my inaugural nomination in this thread!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?

[Donerail]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?

People often post absurd, ignorant, and otherwise bad posts straight into the Deluge, but it's rare for people to post good posts straight into the Gallery. Bravo.

[Lief 🗽]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

Believing that vaccines cause autism is neither rational nor logical.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

He's on the board of PETA, he supports racial profiling at airports, he supports social security privatization, he supported SOPA, if he could he would be the Jerry Falwell of atheism, he has an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance, he's like a left-leaning Sean Hannity (except he's funny instead of angry), and he's an all around rotten guy.  How's that?

PETA - merely irritating.  Yea we get annoyed when they whine about a cockroach getting killed in a movie, but aren't they just stupid stoners when it comes down to it?

Racial profiling at airports - we should scrutinize EVERYBODY at the airport, but a vast majority of people who pose a threat are Middle Eastern, this is undeniable.  Sad truth, yes, but I think when it comes to airport security you have to take any measures necessary (the frisking and groping is not so let's not get into that)

SS privatization - since when?  I never heard him say this.  

SOPA - I'll give you this one

Jerry Falwell of atheism - he's absolutely right on every count about religion, but he IS an a-hole about it... I frankly don't care

left leaning Hannity and rotten guy - I would put these into category of "he's an a-hole"

I can certainly understand why people dislike him, but to me he's just incredibly funny and his politics are awesome.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Maher seems to like him, so he can't be that bad.

Bill Maher liking somebody is a liability, not an asset.

If someone can provide me with a reason not to like Bill Maher other than "he's an a-hole", I'd love to here it.  He's insanely rational and logical and tends to come out on the right side of every issue. 

Believing that vaccines cause autism is neither rational nor logical.

Vaccines have been shown to cause health problems in small percentages of the population.  Small, yes, but it happens.  Autism?  I would need to look into that more. 

Jesus christ, should have said nearly every issue... relentless you people are.

[Lief 🗽]

I never really got how people elevate "constitutional" to the level of a moral imperative.  In what system of ethics does a very murky question of law affect whether or not something was right or wrong?  I get so weary of seeing people flog the Constitution in political debates as some kind of moral stance, when they're using it to conceal their support for truly vile institutions like segregation.

Alternately, "Stop quoting laws to us, we carry swords."  -Pompey the Great

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

HockeyDude, the support for racial profiling alone (which, along with a degree of military-worship despite his putative left-libertarianism, he shares with compatriot bro-atheists like the odious Sam Harris) is enough to make Bill Maher somewhat questionable as a political tastemaker, to say nothing of his absolutely horrible--beyond just the level of 'asshole', really--personality, the rest of the somewhat questionable positions and beliefs that others have cited, and that weird incident where he scaremongered about the name 'Mohammed' becoming popular in the United Kingdom and other incidents of such kind. He's not 'absolutely right on every count about religion' if for no other reason because he doesn't care about treating religious people's actual ways of life with any compassion even of the unwanted and paternalistic variety, just with a kind of mockery that is often part, as with so much of the above, of a general complex of racist and, especially, classist subtext endemic to much of the bro-atheist movement.

[they don't love you like i love you]

HockeyDude, the support for racial profiling alone (which, along with a degree of military-worship despite his putative left-libertarianism, he shares with compatriot bro-atheists like the odious Sam Harris) is enough to make Bill Maher somewhat questionable as a political tastemaker, to say nothing of his absolutely horrible--beyond just the level of 'asshole', really--personality, the rest of the somewhat questionable positions and beliefs that others have cited, and that weird incident where he scaremongered about the name 'Mohammed' becoming popular in the United Kingdom and other incidents of such kind. He's not 'absolutely right on every count about religion' if for no other reason because he doesn't care about what treating religious people's actually ways of life with any compassion even of the unwanted and paternalistic variety, just with a kind of mockery that is often part, as with so much of the above, of a general complex of racist and, especially, classist subtext endemic to much of the bro-atheist movement.

[memphis]

In short, he doesn't give religion a get out of scrunity free pass? Absolutely scandelous!