The Good Post Gallery

[memphis]

It does us no favors to pretend that hard-line conservatives aren't often racist.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He was a goddamn Nazi, I don't care if he invented the goddamn assembly line.

[Kitteh]

Very true.

To those who think he was a freedom fighter, I'd like genuinely like to hear your reasoning.  Even if he was a successful business leader, do you at least acknowledge his extreme anti-semitism and Nazi sympathies?  And if so, what is your rationale for ignoring those?  Just curious.

The same reason we all ignore negative qualities in people we like: we feel like it, and life is a lot easier that way.

[Mechaman]

The Wehrmod gets put down

Phil seems to have a serious inferiority complex.

Uh, dude, Inks is the one who repeatedly calls people out and then locks threads so they can't even respond. I'd say someone who can't ever let someone else get the last word is the one with the inferiority complex. He does it to Phil, he did it to Jmfcst, I mean he just recently did it to Simfan. I've pointed this out to him before, it seems like he couldn't care less.

I don't remember doing that to jmfcst, but I know I haven't done it to Simfan... so I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

You did it many times to Jmfcst, and I know you know, because we PMed back and forth about it. I also know you did it to Simfan, because you locked the thread while I was posting in it, unlocked and posted exactly what I was going to post (even in question form!), and then locked it again so he couldn't get a chance to respond. Even though there was no reason to lock it.

Hey bud, ever think that maybe when the majority of the forum has a problem with your moderation, that it's you and not the posters that are causing the trouble? None of this drama surrounds Torie, or Mr. Moderate, or Joe Republic, or Gustaf. So what's the deal?

And no. The fuehrer's response which amounted to no more than "no I daint!" hardly qualifies as a remotely good comeback.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd like to see Inks give a serious response to this one.

Why is it that when Alcon was the sole moderator of FC and OT, these scuffles rarely, if ever, happened?

The forum has not gotten worse.  In fact, things that used to slip by regularly are all locked up tight before anyone can blink now.

Inks, this moderation business is ruining your reputation here.  And that's sad, because we've lost any semblance of you as a poster and now see you only as a full time moderator.

Someone, I'm guessing you, deleted one of my posts recently as well with no mention of it to me.  The post simply disappeared.  Sure, it was a very fat woman sitting on a bench with her gunt hanging out and wasn't necessarily on topic... but I'm pretty sure it was in the OT board, where fat woman with exposed gunts are wont to be.

In all seriousness, Phil and the others have a point.  You take your post way too seriously as moderator and it's actively taking away from the forum.  I'd simply ask you to resign as moderator.. but I think you can be part of the solution.

And if you can't, then maybe you should resign and let this fall in someone else's lap.  There's no shame in that.

I think what most people want is a return to the days where Alcon only moderated the most blatant trolls or insults.  Trashing your moderating style is not grounds for infraction.  Joking around where both parties are totally aware it is a joke... is not grounds for infraction.. etc etc

The job requires some intuition.  You can't just go by the book.

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

The Democratic Party was found in the 1820's, decades before the Jim Crow laws in the South.  The Democratic Party was founded as a result of a split in the Democratic-Republican party with one faction, the Democrats taking a populist route.  While it is true many Democrats from the end of Reconstruction to about the mid-20th century were supports of segregation and played on racial tension, it is not true that Jim Crow shaped the very foundation and philosophy of the party, as you claim.  Rather, it was a horrible and repugnant decision taken by the party in the aftermath of the Civil War, but it was not part in the party’s foundation. 

No one is disagreeing with you that Democrats were segregationists in the past, but the idea that this unfortunate past is somehow irrevocably tied to everything the Party still does is plain wrong.  It would be the equivalent of me saying the Republican Party is intrinsically tied to homophobia forever, because of the actions of some Republican politicians today and in recent history, pushing for gay marriage bans.  I strongly disagree with the Republicans on this issue.  That being said, for me to say that everything the Republicans do from now to the end of time is somehow influenced by this horrible position is wrong and I would never make that claim. 

You see, here is the thing.  The beliefs and ideologies of people, groups, and even entire organizations can change over time.  Should we hold all Germans born today as responsible for the actions their country took in WWII?  Should we hold all Americans responsible for the actions our ancestors took against Native Americans, actions politicians of BOTH parties supported?  I hope you can see why I think that it is ridiculous to say that everything we do is somehow a reflection of the past, especially if we’ve changed. 

Judging by your posting history, I somehow feel posting this is a pointless exercise on my part.  I know people with deeply-held beliefs are very unlikely to change them based on a post from some stranger on a discussion forum, and your beliefs seem deeply-held.  Still, I hope what I said at least provides something for you to reflect on. 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The favorite of the forum Democrats (and real Democrats to an even greater extent) in 2016 seems to be former First Lady/CarpetbaggerSenator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Given her name recognition and the fact that she's admittedly done a good enough job as SoS, this current frontrunner status is natural. A lot could change over four years, but it seems likely that she will be in the public eye of speculation for at least the next two years (if she chooses not to run).

I've made it apparent before, but I do not support Hillary Clinton. Though Obama was at least perceived as a progressive and may yet move a little left in his second term, Clinton seems to be fairly "moderate" on domestic policy. If her husband is any indication (plus, you know, the 2008 campaign), she's at best a centrist and at worst a mainstream European conservative. In an effort to counter the crypto-fascist trend of the Republican Party since Reagan, Democratic politicians including Gary Hart and the Clintons have advocated retaining (or doubling down on) cultural liberalism while moving towards a neoliberal economic position.

Though big money has done a good job hiding it, the new attitude of unrestricted free trade, austerity, deregulation, and privatization has fundamentally failed, yet the Democratic Party has failed to move towards sensible leftism on anything besides same-sex marriage and possibly immigration. Obama is being tarnished as a "socialist" at the bare minimum for being marginally to the left of Bill and Hillary.

I will concede that Hillary Clinton would not really be different from Obama in terms of her policy as hypothetical president. If she's the nominee, I'd probably vote for her, and she'd probably be at least an okay president. So what really got me mad? Her supporters. In the forum, in the media (I could make a second rant about how all the liberal talking heads, even the so-called "progressives", are shilling her as much as possible and failing to talk to any Democrat who isn't also on board), and with most of the Democrats I meet. Every other new topic in the 2016 boards is about her.

When anyone, Democratic, Republican, or Independent, says anything remotely negative, they're faced with a swarm of mindless drones, many of whom probably viscerally opposed Hillary's 2008 run (for good reason). The enthusiasm of their support when Obama's second term has just started really reminds me of the hordes of Ron Paul supporters we thankfully won't have to deal with again.

My advice to the Clintards? Before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon that the voice on the TV is telling you to jump on, take a good look at Hillary's record in the Senate, her statements during the 2008 campaign (also remember that her campaign was the first to dig up the birther crap). If you're still a Hillary supporter, then at least you have something to back it up with.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'd like to see Inks give a serious response to this one.

Why is it that when Alcon was the sole moderator of FC and OT, these scuffles rarely, if ever, happened?

The forum has not gotten worse.  In fact, things that used to slip by regularly are all locked up tight before anyone can blink now.

Inks, this moderation business is ruining your reputation here.  And that's sad, because we've lost any semblance of you as a poster and now see you only as a full time moderator.

Someone, I'm guessing you, deleted one of my posts recently as well with no mention of it to me.  The post simply disappeared.  Sure, it was a very fat woman sitting on a bench with her gunt hanging out and wasn't necessarily on topic... but I'm pretty sure it was in the OT board, where fat woman with exposed gunts are wont to be.

In all seriousness, Phil and the others have a point.  You take your post way too seriously as moderator and it's actively taking away from the forum.  I'd simply ask you to resign as moderator.. but I think you can be part of the solution.

And if you can't, then maybe you should resign and let this fall in someone else's lap.  There's no shame in that.

I think what most people want is a return to the days where Alcon only moderated the most blatant trolls or insults.  Trashing your moderating style is not grounds for infraction.  Joking around where both parties are totally aware it is a joke... is not grounds for infraction.. etc etc

The job requires some intuition.  You can't just go by the book.

He's smart not to, believe me.

[Paul Kemp]

So my moderate Democrat step uncle (who was apolitical) isn’t dead? So he doesn’t have the problem of being…well, dead? Where did he go Link? Is he on vacation? Is he in New Orleans for the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras? Visiting Central Park in New York? Perhaps at a bluegrass festival in Live Oak? Please enlighten me on why average people are never murdered, because that’s basically what you just said.

No one is glad your step uncle died, and no one thinks his death is any less meaningful because of his political leanings (or lack thereof). That said, there's no guarantee that he'd have lived had be been armed. Just as there's no guarantee that the monsters who shot and killed him would have had the means had they not lived in America, a country that allows even the most hardened lawbreaker the opportunity to gain access to military-grade weaponry so long as he's willing to travel to the right state and dealer.

His point is that average people are almost never murdered, which is, to be fair, absolutely true. In 2009, the murder rate dropped to 5 per 100,000, the lowest it's ever been. (That murder rate includes "non-negligent manslaughter.")

Still pretty high? Arguably. But if your uncle is white, then his likelihood to have been murdered drops even more. In New York City, for example, 96% of shooting victims are either black or latino. African Americans make up about 12% of the population, but account for over 50% of the shooting victims nationally. And since your uncle was in his home, it's also relevant to mention that if you're going to be shot and killed by a stranger, it's unlikely to happen in your own home -- only 4.8% of murders are committed there.

No one is glad your uncle died -- he got dealt a really ugly hand in the sh**ttiest lottery known to man. Sorry. But those of us who think there needs to be more regulations on gun ownership are motivated in taking guns out of the hands of the bad guys -- something the NRA is literally on the record of being against everywhere but in press releases.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Forgive Snowstalker; he's been on a bit of a trolling spree lately.

Trolling spree? It's not trolling to say what he's saying. I'm done playing nice about this; Napoleon getting any endorsements, especially from actually good and serious people like yourself, is an outright joke. Only in Atlasia would someone who is still currently President, who has an abominable reputation with obscene approval numbers in a second term that has ranged from "ugh" bad to "let's-just-pretend-he-isn't-President-anymore" bad, who has spent more time trolling the Senate than doing anything else (and is not above even trolling his own party's convention) would then announce with a month left in his term that he is running for Senate, and then out of nowhere get raucous endorsements.

There are moments when people need some time on the sidelines to reform and get back in the swing of things from the ground up after spending far too much time in the business, as it were. This is undeniably one of those times. Napoleon doesn't deserve this, and that people are endorsing him at all is perhaps more a testament to the presently decaying state of the Liberal Party and your lack of ability to find better candidates and the counter-productive attitude of certain posters who value bizarre personal loyalty above doing even a remotely good job.

Are we in an alternate universe or something? A couple months ago, people were despairing at the horrible, awful, terrible, no good, very bad job Napoleon was doing as President and how eager they were to move on. Are you people into self-harm, or something? This is Exhibit A of why we never solve any of Atlasia's problems.

[Хahar 🤔]

lol atlasia

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

lol atlasia

There should be a rule against this stuff here.

[Donerail]

It's rather ridiculous that we have to rehash these arguments again, Mr. SoEA who posted nothing for over a month and Mr. PPT who disappeared completely and couldn't finish out his term. We all make mistakes- big deal. While I wouldn't find it a particularly good use of my time, I could point out everything each of you has done wrong at some point or another. Why? How would doing that make the game more fun, the experience better? For most of us, this game isn't life or death serious.

Napoleon getting any endorsements, especially from actually good and serious people like yourself, is an outright joke.

I'm serious, and I'm a good person. Why wouldn't other good and serious people support me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

38% isn't "obscene". It's disappointing, yes. It's not the high point of my time here. Oh f**king well. I see nothing wrong with moving on and making sure it doesn't happen again. By the way, you don't have to pretend I'm not President, you can vote me into the Senate and have a new one. Genius!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't trolled the Senate. I've had disagreements, but I've also been more than willing to explain the reasoning behind it. I also didn't troll my own convention, you creep. I've put quite an effort into sustaining that party and if I don't have the time to rewrite an entire set of bylaws in a few hours, then I don't have the damn time. Sorry I don't postpone my entire life to rewrite bylaws for a fictional political party. I guess that makes me a troll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this, so it's apparently not as undeniable as you may suggest. And I'd like to think the endorsements I have received (which I'm very grateful for) can back me up on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right, I don't. Fezzy, Griffin, and Goldwater don't either. It's a game we play for fun. No one deserves anything, no one is entitled to anything, and if you actually think otherwise there is something way wrong with you and I'm not qualified to diagnose it. The only person who will deserve the seat is the person voted into it by the people who play this game. You don't deserve the presidency. Why shouldn't we just cancel the election and give it to Winfield? He deserves it.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The overwhelming majority of my endorsements aren't even from Liberals. Can you, for once, present your argument, as terrible as it may be, in an intellectually honest fashion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it's called Atlasia. We have regions instead of states, there's only three Justices on the Supreme Court, and our elections last seventy-two hours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And a couple months before that, I had extremely high approvals and got reelected with over 60% of the vote. Things change and fluctuate. Barnes had a 72% approval rating when he resigned. For no reason at all other than the fact that he was personable and non-controversial.

Yeah, the start of my second term got sidetracked. Hurricane Sandy struck. There was an election. The forum got shut down for days. The Senate stopped operating on a normal schedule. I had things come up in my personal life. Senators and Cabinet officials kept resigning or disappearing. Could I have handled some of it better? Certainly. Have I learned from my mistakes? I believe so. Should the voters trust me? That's up to them, but I've said what I hope to do in office, why I'm running, and what I have to offer.

For fairness. Now cancel the Atlasia campaigning stuff here. There's a whole damn board for that.

[patrick1]

Only in America would people watch a sporting event...and not just accept that there are commercials in between...but even make a point of watching them.

Of the 174 total minutes in the game, 60 of them are dedicated to commercials.  Only 11 minutes, out of 174 total, were actual gameplay.

So, over a third of a football game is spent watching commercials.  Only 6% of a football game is spent watching football.

Which is a lot like life, I suppose.  You waste about a third of it sleeping, and about 6% really doing anything that makes the whole damn thing worthwhile.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Doctors do f[inks]uck up more than is polite to remember, of course. Human error is what it is, and there are some people in all fields who are frankly no good at their job.

But much of the problematic aspect to all of this isn't doctors so much as relatives. Which is an even less polite thought, I think.

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

A great retort to a deluge entry:

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

Haha, well discouraging the behavior of being a lawyer will certainly be a positive side-effect!

However, don't feel too bad, krazen - all those 'freeloaders' will also be working 80 hours per week, cleaning up the garbage or frying chicken or something like that.  So, your 'everybody is miserable' goal will be more than fulfilled.

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

Inks actually gets a good one:

Phil, nothing of what I said was incorrect.  I have some serious problems with Catholic doctrine.  The opposition to birth control other than family planning is very legalistic, and that's not the point of Christianity.  Christianity is not a hard set list of dos and don'ts.  Yes, there are the 10 Commandments, but there are sins other than those, and the Catholic Church, like the Jewish leaders in Jesus's time have become too focused on strictly applying rules.

Some of the doctrines of the Church smack straight up of heresy, such as Papal infallibility.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

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

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

Actually that's a good point, it's perhaps the first ever likely simultaneous entry in both the Good Post Gallery and the Irony Ore Mine.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

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

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

But you have called for strict enforcement of laws that you have said you also think are wrong as well.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

Except you didn't say that; you said they're too focused on strictly applying rules.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

But you have called for strict enforcement of laws that you have said you also think are wrong as well.

No - I have never said I think we should enforce laws that are wrong.  I may think laws that should be changed should be enforced, but not a "wrong" law.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, a good (laugh) post indeed! Love Inks whining about institutions that are too worried about strictly applying rules. Can't make this stuff up.

I'm not whining about them strictly applying rules... It's not the strictness I mind; it's the fact that I think the rules themselves are wrong.

Except you didn't say that; you said they're too focused on strictly applying rules.

Well then I'm clarifying what I meant by that.  My whole point earlier was that they're legalistic - enforcing rules that they themselves made up rather than principles of the Bible.  I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that Christianity isn't about a list of Dos and Don'ts.

[Simfan34]

I know I've said that I believe posts in the Gallery should be longer and well-thought, but I think this is a legitimate exception because of its sharp truth:

Since shale gas is largely replacing coal in electricity generation, it has been the cause of a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I have little patience with idiotic pseudo-environmentalists who think we can all get to the Rock Candy Mountain of no fossil fuels just by wishing it were so.