The Good Post Gallery

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Mr.X says what we're all thinking:

any jew who votes for this party is like a jew who votes fro the Nazi party.

This thread is so bad it should have stayed at the 2012 Election section.

Krazey and NYJew have really sunk in new lows. Too bad that Stark isn't around anymore. It would've been fun seeing the pigs duking it out in the mud.

majority of your partys delegates in the room just admitted to either being atheists or anti Semites.  50 years ago the almost every single elected democrat would have condemned every single person who vote this way.
the modern day democratic party explains how a evil nut job like Hitler came to power through mostly through democratic means.

though maybe I should drop the Nazi rhetoric would you prefer Soviet rhetoric.

NY Jew, this has been a long-time problem with your posts, this isn't the first or even the fourth or fifth time you've done something like this and it needs to stop.  The way that you often casually compare anyone you disagree with on any issue even remotely connected to Judaism and/or Israel to "Jews who vote for Nazis", "anti-semites," etc is a disgrace.  It is bad enough when gentiles compare political opponents to the Nazis, but when Jews such as yourself do it, its one of the worst possible insults to the victims of the Holocaust and the many other atrocities that have been committed against the Jewish people throughout our history.  Someone as concerned about the welfare and dignity of the Jewish people as you claim to be would never trivialize the Holocaust and desecrate the memory of its victims the way that you did.  And no, "Soviet rhetoric" is not any better.  The fact that in your mind people who disagree with you on the inclusion of a plank in a party platform are equivalent to a government whose first leader alone killed over 20 million people means that there is something seriously wrong with you.  How about you stop comparing stop comparing people who disagree with you minor and inconsequential political issues to mass murderers.  And if that's too much to manage than just help yourself to a nice glass of shut the **** up!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

about time someone called him out on it.

Yeah, I tip my hat to Brittain33 for that post.

Yes, excellent post if you ignore some of the glaring factual inaccuracies! When pointed out to him, he didn't bother to respond. Instead, he just posted a link to anothe article that bashed Santorum. Looks like someone knows they were wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

I'm also not totally convinced that brittain and memphis aren't the same person.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Welcome to Atlas Forum, Simfan.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

If you knew anything about Oldiesfreak, Mr Lief, you would know that that is entirely plausible.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Oh, how I long for the day when one of my posts will make it into the Good Post Gallery.

'k then.
[context]

My guess is that I'm in the latter category.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I was going to say "words fail me" but now I've found my voice:

This is just plain silly.

Calling the mass murder of millions by the Nazis "senseless" is clearly meant in context of "tragic", "horrible", and "a really, really really bad thing". To expand that molehill into several pages of pontificating argument that this proves liberals like Obama don't understand that there are organized dangerous forces for evil in the world today is beyond absurd. That's like trying to assess the merits of administration agriculture policy based on what type of vegatables he likes in his salad. Does anyone really believe Obama or other liberals don't understand that Nazism was a highly organized totalitarian cultural and military machine of genocide in furtherance of its ideology?

The article's point was as profound as a sophmore's letter to the college paper.

Everybody is a rational actor who does the good thing as their perceive it to be, even racists and Nazis.

That's what the National Review, I guess, is trying to say.  The only problem is that they don't extend this kind of understanding to everyone.  For example, I'm sure many National Review readers believe Palestinians fight the Israelis out of inherit evil and hatred, and not because they feel oppressed by a foreign government stealing their land.  Or that gays are interested in pursuing destruction of other families, as opposed to pursuing families of their own.

Rational actors is a truth that politicos only believe when it's convenient for them.

The millions of Germans who went along with Hitler's agenda without complaint weren't rational actors. Being rational requires some sort of critical thought process and those people did not use one. They did what they were told, they got a kind of high from being part of all the rallies and the banners and the pageantry of the Nazi state. It made them feel special and made them feel like their country was powerful and important after several years in which it had lost both of those things. If you asked an average Johann on the street to explain Nazi racial theory or the tenets of national socialism to you, he wouldn't be able to. It's not unlike the way most Tea Partiers have probably never read Ayn Rand or any of the Austrian economists; they just tell you they stand for "faith, family and freedom" or some combination. If you had asked an Obama delegate at the DNC last year to explain why they support him, they would have just given you some filler about how he's an "inspirational figure" who is "transforming America." Maybe the nifty logo got them on board.

[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.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The SPLC has labeled legitimate groups, like the Family Research Council, as hate groups.

Well, the FRC has said that gays are pedophiles who want to abolish age of consent laws... If you're saying that 'gay behavior' should be a criminal offense because gays pose a danger to children, an idea that completely goes against basically all research on the issue - what descriptor besides hate group would be appropriate here?

They pretend to “fight hate” but almost exclusively follow right wing groups, and are involved heavily with “rightwingwatch.com.”

Well yes. That speaks more to an ugly association between the American Right and anti-gay, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and occasionally white nationalist (neo-confederate, racist, etc) groups than anything on the SPLC's part. They do follow people like black separatists as well.

They continued to put groups like this in the same category as the KKK, the WBC, and the American Freedom Party. They have viciously attacked groups including the Tea Party movement for not agreeing with them, in the same style that they criticize the Tea Party for inciting violence.

Of those, only the WBC is included in the 'anti-gay' category - and it makes sense. Both oppose what they call the 'homosexual agenda' and view it as destructive of American society. That's what they've defined anti-gay group as meaning, and both fit into the category.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly care for the Family Research Council or its goals. But all religious opposition to gay marriage should be respected, in the same manner that the SPLC demands that all other religions be respected.

The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord was acting on their religious beliefs. Should that be respected? Should the WBC's beliefs be respected? The Army of God acts on their religious beliefs too, as do the Hutaree. Why should it be acceptable to use religion as a shield for bigotry?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

If Cory's goals were simply to eradicated genetically linked maladies and diseases, I could sympathise with him somewhat.

What he fails to grasp is that genetically altering people would create its own set of problems with which he has no tools to combat.

Perfection in this physical sense is mostly relative and holes form as soon as you start to unify and eradicate anything. It also assumes that psychological and physical development is completely independent from nurture and experience. The way someone acts and is is far more important than what they look like.

It is also an innate aspect of humanity to seek partners genetically different from ourselves because the result of mating (a more diverse set of genes) increases the likelihood of survival. If broad shoulders were eradicated, broad shoulders may become attractive. The goalposts would continue to move forever further away from whatever we decided they ought to be right now.

But let's give in and say you've created the perfect human prototype to which all humans are manufactured (ugh). Have you then really reached a goal? Well, no, because even the perfect human sample is only perfect in regards to the present. A more perfect human would be capable of flight. An even "more" perfect being would be able to replicate itself without the same physical limitations as a human. Or perhaps a perfect human would feel no need to replicate as its time could be better spent further improving society or itself in whatever way. Suddenly what you've created has ceased to be human at all, and then you yourself are outdated.

It's rubbish is what it is. It's a dream that ruins itself when it seems about to come true. If I could make all food taste like chocolate, chocolate would become loathsome and would start to taste less sweet.

^^^ Tik really is one of the best.