The Good Post Gallery

[Mechaman]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys.

[Mechaman]

God bless you Tweed.

You are a man after Dave Leip's own heart.

[Mechaman]

Very good point here from Mr. Morden about one of my threads:

Why is this in FC now? It was intended to be in the 2012 board.

Because the 2012 board is intended for discussion of the 2012 election, not rhetorical questions about Atlas itself.

[Mechaman]

I never said Mitt Romney wasn't a phony, but he actually has a shot of winning. He's not blowing his chances out of proportion. I understand the minor parties run candidates for President to get their names out there, but when they actually believe they're going to win? Nuh uh.

The point I was making about Hospers was that he won an electoral vote in '72. Johnson won't win an electoral vote.

If you're going to sell out, be my guest. But don't act indignant and self-righteous just because Johnson wants to boost some (well-needed) morale for the LP.

You really think that Johnson thinks that he'll win?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

Nobody runs a campaign saying they're going to lose (especially not with fleeting bedfellows such as yourself.)

Besides, John Hospers got like, 3000 votes and his one electoral vote was astroturf. If anything, Johnson would actually be in okay shape to get an electoral vote since Paulites are taking over State Conventions (which, in some states, choose electors.)

For the sake of argument, I'll cede that Johnson's candidacy (and support) is predicated on the fact that he can "get votes." Romney's entire existence has been about getting votes, principles and results be damned. What's your beef?

But hey, if you're content to stay on the GOPlantation and vote for nominees that have literally nothing in common with you, then go ahead.

... just to serve in politics.

Well, I must admit that campaigning in a Republican primary on a platform to legalize gay marriage and marijuana is generally the mark of a shrewd politician.

Post of the Year nominee right here.

[Mechaman]

Who needs television or movies when you've got... this? All of the sadistic pleasures of a cockfight or a gangbang in nine neat little pages.

[Mechaman]

Kind of old, but still good:

Good for him!  I hear he also did males, though only in a manly fashion (top).  However, the only aspect of his personal lifestyle that would be repulsive to a reasonable person would be his impoliteness and agressiveness. 

It is time that America face the fact that teenage girls are hot, and it is perfectly normal for men to have sex with them.

That said, it will be nice to see Swartzenaegar go down, for whatever silly reason appeals to the voters.. or maybe even for his right-wing politics.

[Mechaman]

The fact this man, as intellectually dishonest and incompetent as he is, is in the position he is in within the American education system, speaks volumes as to what is going on in the West.  Homosexuality is being pushed by the media, and by the education system, and by the courts, and by many seminaries of many churches.  It doesn’t matter to them if their argument has any merit, or is even honest. They don’t care!  Their consciences have been seared to the point they are themselves deceived by their own deception.[/b]

Well, what do you expect? People interact with homosexuals and don't see all of them as inherently awful human beings and view their sexuality as an unimportant and irrelevant component of their personality. Obviously it's easier to resort to intellectual dishonesty instead of 100% renouncing what they've believed in their entire lives. Instead of jumping through hoops trying to justify homosexuality, they should just call the biblical analysis of homosexuality stupid and leave it at that.   There's really not much more to it, and if God wants to throw all homosexuals into hell for eternity I guess that's His perogative.

[Mechaman]

I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves. But I also believe some people are more susceptible to becoming overweight than others.

It always irritates me when thin people, who've never been overweight in their lives, suggest people who are overweight are irresponsible or disgusting because of what they've done to themselves. It may be their own fault that they're like that, but these thin people have no idea what it's like. They have no idea how challenging it is or what it's like to feel so dejected.

I think one of the things that actually bothers me the most in his world is when "fit people" tell "fat" people to "get themselves in shape" like it's just some switch they can flick on. As if to say "it's easy for me, so it should be easy for you, you gross pig."

[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!"

[Mechaman]

Just why are execrable opinions infractible, outside advocating violence, blatant bigotry, and so forth? There seems to be some movement afoot to start chopping off at least one side of the extended tail of the bell curve. What am I missing here? Is this site just supposed to be for semi reasonable to reasonable people, or harmless people, or people whose eccentricities amuse, rather than annoy? Are we getting a bit too much into the "thought police" mode?  

I say all of this not being a big Naso fan, mostly because he does not engage in debate. He's the star - we're the audience. There is a bit of a narcissistic strain there maybe. But  that is just a matter of style.

Maybe we should worry a bit more about what we contribute around here, and a bit less what others do. And maybe that includes myself. This thread causes me to ponder that a bit.

Now if Naso starts calling liberals around here of the type he disdains, Commies, all bets are off. It's one thing to lazily and ludicrously in self indulgent speculation drop an erroneous/vile label on a vast swath of the anonymous; quite another to do it with someone you know up close and personal who is not a public figure.

Oh the photo. I think it a stretch to suggest he's advocating the murder of liberals. I think he was trying to emphasize his opinion of Commies. And there is nothing about Naso to suggest he favors mass genocide based on political views. It was clumsy, sure, not funny, and while he may celebrate the incident of the photo, beyond the murder itself, it led to great tragedy. So throw ignorance into the mix. That is not infractable either.

Naso, if you read this, think about it. Your hit and run tactics aren't working for you very well, when you want to be edgy. The natives are restless.

[Mechaman]

No, the two big parties are plenty horrible enough now for me not to vote for them, I don't need to go fishing for reasons from 50 (or even 5) years ago.

[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".

[Mechaman]

About damn time somebody brought this up:

Not in the context of his time, at least (which, of course, is really the only way the term "moderate" would theoretically make any sense).

Keep in mind, the entire political "spectrum" was different back then (1960s/early 1970s). Different issues, different people, different historical context. There was a huge organized labor movement/presence in the United States, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam and anti-Cold War movements were big too, as was the New Left. The feminist movement (at least, of the time) was still in its early stages, though, and this was even more the case for the gay rights movement, so issues like abortion and gay marriage weren't really on the majority of American's radar screens.

As for Nixon...while he was a big part of the 50s/60s/70s Republican establishment (obviously), he wasn't known for being a "moderate", and certainly not a "liberal." This is the man, let's be clear, that was often compared by actual liberals and leftists (not the same thing, but that's another discussion...) to Joe McCarthy; who brought down Alger Hiss and smeared the reputation of Helen Douglas with Red (or pink, whichever) accusations; who escalated the war in Vietnam even more than Lyndon Johnson and expanded it to Cambodia; who initiated the draconian "War on Drugs" that continues to this day; and was infamous for his taped White House rants that revealed anti-Semitism, anti-intellectualism, and other forms of bigotry. "Moderate" this man certainly was not.

So in conclusion, please stop calling Nixon a "moderate" or "liberal Republican."

Thanks.

[Mechaman]

I must say, in hindsight, CharimanSanchez owned the Nixon thread.  Though, I do stick by the OP, which pretty much reminded the forum liberals on here about how much of a horrible goddamned human being Richard "Tricky Dick" Babykiller Milhous Nixon really was.

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?
Where do I begin?

*Johnson started the war in Vietnam, and while he was not as bad as Nixon, he still holds much of the blame. Johnson was a leftwing President on the modern scale of looking at things, and was certainly at least center-left at the time. You cannot deny that.

*Nixon started the war on drugs, which has been continued by every one of the post Nixon Presidents, liberal and conservative. To be fair, we never really had a very liberal President since Nixon. Obama at best is center-left.

*The nation was generally more leftwing at the time than people remember. Civil Rights, and Labor, as you mentioned, were huge. So Nixon is, as you stated, much more rightwing than the average Democrat or liberal Republican of the time. Compared to the generally mainstream Goldwater-Reagan wing, and the even more extreme Schmitz-Ashbrook-John Bircher wing, he was very moderate. Only barely to the right of Rockefeller.

*Nixon was Lee Atwater before Lee Atwater. He was brutal. No denying it. But do you seriously not believe Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedy clan, and other prominent opponents are just as guilty. It's politics. Of course he smeared his rivals. Everyone does. How does smearing your rivals in a election make you less of a liberal/moderate Republican.

*Just because Nixon was a very bigoted person (ever hear the tape of him speaking about All in the Family with Haldeman?) does not make him any more rightwing. Ever hear of Jesse Jackson? Or is he conservative too?

Nixon was, at the time, and certainly by modern standards, a moderate Republican who would be considered “center right” using simplistic, President Forever 2008 standards. Being a moderate Republican does not automatically make you a great person, as made obvious by Nixon, and as many believe today.

[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.

[Mechaman]

People who don't think it's all about money are kidding themselves. I suppose a Starbucks barista with a Masters in Early Modern English Literature may like to think of herself as better than a plumber.  Whatever gets you through the night.

[Mechaman]

Sequel time!

Can we just close the thread? Hash said everything that needed to be said.

Not really, that was pre-majority. Since he got a majority, it's been even worse. To complete that post I made:

-Turned Parliament into an echo chamber. This is more or less common to all majorities, Tory or not, so I won't be a hack and blame just him for that, but he's taken it to such an extent with the omnibus bills which allows him to pack just about everything he wants into bills and rams them through Parliament, sh**tting all over the opposition. Conservative backbenchers are totally useless stooges who just vote party-line (of course, the excessively strong partisanship is an issue for all parties, but Tory backbenchers are a whole new level imo). I haven't heard from my MP (a Tory backbencher) since the election nearly 2 years ago, except the propaganda pamphlet he sends out every few months to prove he's still alive. Again, I won't be a hack and blame just Steve for this, but he's taken it to a whole new level and it is extremely concerning - even if you're more pro-Harpo than I am - to see how this government has stifled parliamentary democracy, debate and accountability. And nobody cares, for a change.

-Our environmental policy has turned into even more of an embarrassing joke at this point. The Tories no longer even try to pretend to give a sh**t about the environment, they just walk out on the international stage and embarrass us. He pulled us out of Kyoto, sure Kyoto was a joke, but it's the symbolism of the act. It's basically as if Harper's cabinet is nothing more than the board of some oil company and Harper is nothing more than an oil lobbyist. He has totally destroyed environmental assessment for economic development projects, massively defunded Environment Canada and scientific research and silenced opposition to his various pipeline schemes (which, once again, involves shipping our natural resources to Asia or the US instead of feeding Ontario or Quebec...). All this in the name of "economic development" and "job creation", with no respect whatsoever for the environment. Harper is a disaster now, but his policies will be disastrous far after he leaves office.

To top it all of, we have a Natural Resources minister (Joe Oliver or something, a forgettable run-of-the-mill Purgatory retard) who goes out there to say that those who oppose Keystone or Pacific Gateway (two pipeline projects, the latter of which is contested by Aboriginal groups, environmentalists etc) are traitors, anti-Canadians and radicals/socialists funded by 'foreign' radicals and socialists (like George Soros...). No, this isn't a joke. This government, again, has only contempt for those who didn't vote for them. It responds to any kind of criticism or opposition with slander, lies, dishonesty and heavy-handed shut downs. "Government of Canada" my ass, more like "Government of the 40% Who Voted Purgatory"

-A slow and steady destruction of the public sector, all in the name of "fiscal responsibility" (perhaps laudable, but this government doesn't give a sh**t about fiscal responsibility in practice). We're being force fed an austerity agenda on the basis of an ideological "small government" agenda which aims to weaken government - particularly the more inconvenient parts of government, like those pesky scientists and their ideas about how the tar sands aren't the coolest thing ever or those environmental assessment boards or those commissions on human rights or women's rights. How dare they criticize Dear Leader?! Justified by lies of the genre that "Canada could end up like Greece", which is, of course, absurd. It has all created a terribly poisonous atmosphere in the public sector, making it very tough for students to find internships or placements and destroying the morale of many employees. It is backed by the detestable climate of public servant-bashing: lazy, inefficient, wasteful, useless, bloated, fat cats etc. (most of which are lies of course). Why can't we run this government like Wal-Mart or McDonalds, goddamn it!

-I might be a bit less critical of this government's austerity agenda if it gave proof that it was actually committed to "fiscal responsibility". But it isn't. It has paid lip service to the accountability agenda it was originally elected on in 2006. Countless ministers have been caught up in ethics scandal, and Harper stood by their side until their position became untenable. Peter McKay going on fishing trips on DND helicopters and taxpayers' money. Bev Oda (who had already lied to Parliament and illegally altered an official document) wanted to stay at a pricier hotel in London ($665 per night for three nights) and $16 orange juice, originally at the expense of the taxpayer. And now Peter Penashue... and the list goes on.

Or, how about the F-35 scandal, which the government is still committed to despite everybody in the world saying how much of a f-up that whole thing was. And how it seems to be costing more and more every week that goes by.

Or maybe how the government is spending tons of tax money on propaganda that tells us how great they are. Or even on propaganda to rewrite the history of the War of 1812 to promote their agenda of jingoistic Canadian nationalism. Thank god 2012 is over, I would have killed myself with more of those "WE DEFENDED OUR COUNTRY@!!!11 AND CANADA WAS BORN" ads.

Also, let's not forget the robocalls scandal. The Tories used robocalls to suppress voting in close ridings in the 2011 election. This is a serious case, but the government never gave a sh**t and killed the original outrage quickly.

However, it's all fine and dandy to extend corporate tax cuts to big businesses like those in the oil sand! We keep subsidizing the fantastic tar sands which are destroying the environment and sure as hell are rich enough to go without federal subsidies, or spending tons on propaganda and jails and fighter jets and guns. But the public servants are all lazy fat cats, and there's no money for the arts, sciences, research, culture, child care, healthcare, human rights, women rights or education. Nope. Who needs that kind of lousy socialist sh**t anyways? Let's run this country like a Wal-Mart.

-A repressive crime policy, rammed through in an omnibus bill, which builds more unneeded super-jails and even stiffer sentences. Abolished the gun registry, sure it was a sh**tfest and wasted money, but it also destroyed the records and registers which were very useful for law enforcement. We almost got a massive internet surveillance bill which would have allowed authorities to monitor the internet, thankfully it was abandoned when everybody realized how stupid it was and how Vic Toews was a massive douchebag. Still, we had more of the same ol' charming rhetoric, those who didn't support internet surveillance were branded by Toews as endorsing child predators. This from the government which said it abolished the long form census because it invaded our privacy and civil liberties. Really?

-A new immigration policy which allows the minister to arbitrarily designated "safe countries" and deny rejected refugee claimants the possibility to appeal. And the wonderfully named "Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act" goes too far, allowing the government to deport longtime non-citizens who committed only minor offenses (see editorial here)

-Allowed his backbenchers to re-open the abortion debate, although to his credit he himself has managed to steer clear from social conservative bullsh**t although he condones it (to be fair, he doesn't have much of a choice given how big the socon caucus is and how they might get pissed at him).

Probably forgot a few things, given how massively and catastrophically horrible these past 2 years have been for this country.

In conclusion, Stephen Harper is the worst PM in this country's history and a massive, horrible reactionary scumbag and pile of sh**t. I hope he dies in a fire. I'm kind of ashamed that he's "my" Prime Minister, but I have never felt that he is "my" Prime Minister given how he hates people like me and has nothing but contempt for us. God he sucks balls.
HP

After reading the first one two years ago and now this one I've come to the conclusion that one has to be a pretty freaking hack to think Harper is anything other than an auto-HP.

[Mechaman]

These are some very interesting posts, and really what I had hoped this thread would turn into, instead of "how to get a girlfriend" or yet another Atlas Forum treasure trove of bad dating advice and misogyny. Thank you for sharing realisticidealist (and Torie).

I've always felt somewhat differently about the "nobody would choose to be gay" argument than most people, given that I feel like I did have a lot of choice w/r/t my sexual orientation and gender identity (a little bit more about the former than the latter, but still with both). I'm not saying it was completely a choice, but I do feel that without some conscious choice on my part I would have been a cisgender male and relatively happy about it (I mean, I'm pretty depressed overall right now, but that specifically wouldn't have been causing much discomfort). I also am not saying it is this way for everyone; I'm definitely a tiny minority here. I'm not entirely sure why I chose instead to be a pansexual transgender woman. Some of it is that I am pretty "feminine" in personality, but not in the sense that living as a feminine man would have been impossible or difficult. Tbqh, part of it was that being yet another cis-het man is sort of...boring (that sounds extremely pretentious and self-absorbed, I know). I'm sure a lot of it does have to do with growing up in the 21st century with liberal parents in a relatively tolerant area. Not that my family or everyone has been entirely accepting, but I'm sure if I was born at the time Torie was I it wouldn't have been a choice I would have ever made. Truth be told, when I read this:

I honestly don't care for men generally, by which I mean both that the masculine archetype disturbs and perplexes me and that I don't really have friends of my own gender...I just like women more in almost every way. I wonder sometimes if I "should" be one, but this thought is so apart from reality that I don't bother with it more than fleetingly.

...it made me wonder how similar I would be to RI if I had come from a similar background, because that really resonated with me and fits myself as well, though to a greater degree than RI was describing. Idk, I'm not 100% sure about what my own gender/sexuality actually is or how much of it was innate or chosen, but I've come to the conclusion that this is the kind of thing that isn't really rational, and "this feels right" is all the justification I or anyone needs. 

On a political level, I don't really like the "born this way" argument that so many pro-LGBT groups use, even if it is true for the vast majority of people. I'd much rather rally behind the banner of "acceptance and equal rights for all, regardless of gender or sexuality and whether or not it was a choice" than "this is just the way we are, there's no changing it, so get used to it". I see the utility of the latter for convincing people, but I feel uncomfortable when some LGBT people and allies insist that that's the way it is for everyone, period.

This whole thing sounded more composed in my head, but it came out sort of rambling. Sorry. I guess that's what the confession thread is for, right?

[Mechaman]

These are some very interesting posts, and really what I had hoped this thread would turn into, instead of "how to get a girlfriend" or yet another Atlas Forum treasure trove of bad dating advice and misogyny. Thank you for sharing realisticidealist (and Torie).

I've always felt somewhat differently about the "nobody would choose to be gay" argument than most people, given that I feel like I did have a lot of choice w/r/t my sexual orientation and gender identity (a little bit more about the former than the latter, but still with both). I'm not saying it was completely a choice, but I do feel that without some conscious choice on my part I would have been a cisgender male and relatively happy about it (I mean, I'm pretty depressed overall right now, but that specifically wouldn't have been causing much discomfort). I also am not saying it is this way for everyone; I'm definitely a tiny minority here. I'm not entirely sure why I chose instead to be a pansexual transgender woman. Some of it is that I am pretty "feminine" in personality, but not in the sense that living as a feminine man would have been impossible or difficult. Tbqh, part of it was that being yet another cis-het man is sort of...boring (that sounds extremely pretentious and self-absorbed, I know). I'm sure a lot of it does have to do with growing up in the 21st century with liberal parents in a relatively tolerant area. Not that my family or everyone has been entirely accepting, but I'm sure if I was born at the time Torie was I it wouldn't have been a choice I would have ever made. Truth be told, when I read this:

I honestly don't care for men generally, by which I mean both that the masculine archetype disturbs and perplexes me and that I don't really have friends of my own gender...I just like women more in almost every way. I wonder sometimes if I "should" be one, but this thought is so apart from reality that I don't bother with it more than fleetingly.

...it made me wonder how similar I would be to RI if I had come from a similar background, because that really resonated with me and fits myself as well, though to a greater degree than RI was describing. Idk, I'm not 100% sure about what my own gender/sexuality actually is or how much of it was innate or chosen, but I've come to the conclusion that this is the kind of thing that isn't really rational, and "this feels right" is all the justification I or anyone needs. 

On a political level, I don't really like the "born this way" argument that so many pro-LGBT groups use, even if it is true for the vast majority of people. I'd much rather rally behind the banner of "acceptance and equal rights for all, regardless of gender or sexuality and whether or not it was a choice" than "this is just the way we are, there's no changing it, so get used to it". I see the utility of the latter for convincing people, but I feel uncomfortable when some LGBT people and allies insist that that's the way it is for everyone, period.

This whole thing sounded more composed in my head, but it came out sort of rambling. Sorry. I guess that's what the confession thread is for, right?

That was a good post? lol...I certainly didn't think so.

Well, it wasn't exceptionally grammatical and had some random personal monologues of self doubt in it.  However, I agree with the overall point made.  Which seems to be how things are done in this thread.

[Mechaman]

Don't really want to drag this conversation longer, but Gustaf makes a really good point that needs to be stressed:

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

2. Memphis has previously claimed that social norms and expectations wouldn't affect any normal person and that the claim that women might be held back by such things is the same as calling women weak and fragile. The same apparently goes for the idea that women shouldn't be subjected to constant sexual advances.

This is, basically, wrong. It shows a very shallow understanding of human society and psychology. People are very much affected by how society expects them to act and such things constitute major obstacles to people. People report posts on this forum because they're offended. People kill themselves over bullying. Examples abound of this sort of thing.

What makes this particularly offensive, at least to me, is the sheer nerve to say this from a privileged position. Most of us here are men. White men, at that. And in spite of the jokes I think the majority is also straight.

As such we don't have to live with this kind of stuff. Of course, you can have plenty of other problems, be it poverty or depression or whatnot. But the current topic, this thing, you don't have to live with. The condescension of informing others that they shouldn't whine about a problem you will never have to face yourself is deeply offensive. I'm all for arguing against victimization, but you need to be sensitive about it if you don't want to come off as a bigoted asshole.

3. This leads nicely into the last line of rebuttal, which goes something like "those who disagree that women can be sexually harassed and aren't fit for work are probably total pussies who like to dress in mens' clothing and will never get laid"

(ok, that was nasty hyperbole, but you know what I mean)

First of all, this is not true. At all. Me and most of my good friends get laid plenty and would never peddle this type of misogynist BS.

But more importantly there is so much wrong with this imagery. Invoking the concept of the 'real man' as an ideal to follow is highly oppressive, denying people the right to form their own identities. It promotes the idea that I have to act a certain way due to my gender. It is at the end of the day highly moralizing. It also indicates bigotry towards people who don't conform to stereotypes. Gay men is an obvious example of this but it really is about anyone.

Beyond that it is disturbing because it indicates that I could only care about women if I'm basically a woman myself. This goes against empathy and universalist values.

Finally, and this really needs to be stressed for people to get this context. This kind of stuff drives people to suicide. Which is why it isn't just a bit of a joke or something we should shrug off because you agree with Memphis on Obamacare or something. I'm not affected by it. I'm a white, rich, straight man. But as much of an asshole as I am I do have some empathy. And I know plenty of people have a damn hard time. And I'm willing to let them decide what makes their life a bit easier and not tell them they're men in women's clothing or chicks with dicks just because it's the kind of thing other straight men may laugh at in the pub.

[Mechaman]

But aren't you nice to bad people in real life on a daily basis?

Yes, but I'm not convinced that is a virtue.

I think Gus and I would get along better if he would stop referring to those with whom he has differences as "bad people." It's easy to get emotional about politics, but nobody on here is a "bad person." I find that sort of comment to a demonstration of something very important about character and judgment.

I will admit it does seem to be a bit of a problem.

And if what you said in the bolded is true, I've clearly misjudged your character.  And for that I apologize.

[Mechaman]

As someone noted earlier these aren't entirely rare.  In fact, if you look at the Congressional Representation or the List of Governors for some states, it almost seems to be an established tradition.  Outside of presidential families, there are those families in various states that become state fixtures.  I'm thinking of families like the Frelinghuysens of New Jersey, the Bayards of Delaware, the Cabots and Lodges of Massachusetts, the Stevensons of Illinois, etc etc etc.  Fact is, a lot of politicians come from generations thereof, mostly raised from birth to take their (usually) father's shoes.

Americans in general are attracted to this sort of dichotomy, because they are dumb, stupid, and lazy.  Not because they hate freedom (though, a very good argument could be made for that).  In politics it's all about name recognition and appeal.  It's what I would consider to be the "I knew your father" effect, which is what it says on the tin can.

However, at the same time, being a part of a political dynasty doesn't guarantee success.  The Adams family stopped sending men to the White House in 1829, with Charles Francis Adams Sr. and Charles Francis Adams Jr. both achieving fame as third party VPs (Sr. was VP on the Free Soil ticket, Jr. in 1848 was VP on the "True Democrat" ticket in 1872) being the last evidence of their political prestige.  The Harrison family was surprisingly good at elections, electing Ol' Willy before waiting forty plus years to elect his grandson Benjamin.  They haven't been heard from since.  Which brings me to the Roosevelts. . . . lolboy.
You would think that the most popular name brand dynasty would've had much success after TR and FDR.  However, the continuation of the line has proven that if anything, politics is not a genetic gift.  Several of TR's sons, god bless them, took up the very deadly occupation of being in war.  I think several of them died, though one of them, Teddy Jr, did try to run for office.  However, he took a pretty high level step in running for Governor against Alfred E. Smith, who was considered to be a pretty danggum good Governor and had the "street touch" to connect with urban voters and even Republicans to win office repeatedly during the Republican 1920's.  The fact that Smith took Bryan establishment favorite William McAdoo to 100 plus ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention speaks is evident of how successful and popular he was perceived, despite being a papist alcoholic (imagine if Jesse Jackson became Governor of Illinois in 1978 and tied Mondale in the 1984 Democratic Primaries and the Convention turned into 1968.  Yeah, that was Smith in 1924).  But damn, enough about Smith, this is about political dynasties.
Anyway, back to the Roosevelt kids.  Oh wait. . . . . what did Teddy do?  All I heard about was how great Al Smith was from Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt.  Wait. . . . what?
So in a freak circumstance of history, FDR succeeds Smith and goes onto become one of the most successful presidents in history.  A former petty Assistant Secretary of the Navy, disgraced by scandal and by a paralytic illness, manages to turn it around in the span of a decade and get to the office of President in a landslide victory over the sexy boy Herbert Hoover though to be fair by 1932 Hoover was far from sexy.  You would think with such an acclimated career that the Roosevelts would've been able to have a strong family dynasty lasting well to the present day.
You'd be wrong.
First there was the old boy James Roosevelt.  A former army general who had enough gravitas in 1948 to be considered a replacement for Harry Truman, Roosevelt ran for the US Congress in California.  He held office for a decade in a "safe" urban Democratic seat in California.  He was kept there pretty much as a reminder of the good ole days as well as his multitude of extramarital scandals that he publicly admitted time and again.  You see, unlike FDR, James wasn't a cool enough motha to brush off sex scandals and thus was relegated to being a Congressman and then a useless cabinet officer for the rest of his life.  Okay, not the rest of his life, he did retire and make a book or two and got married several hundred times.  But still, he was a man who fell woefully short of the expectations for him despite being set up for success by pretty much every higher up in the party to follow in Daddy's footsteps.
Younger brother FDR Jr. was pretty much the same story, minus the military career.  His later run as the Liberal candidate for New York City Governor in 1966, which siphoned off liberal Democratic votes from Frank O'Connor and led to four more years of Rockefeller, probably left a bad taste in the NY Democratic Party's mouth.  As well, he ratted out his own brother Elliott as some communist sympathizer.  A pretty dick move if you ask me.
FDR was truly one of a kind out of his family.  So was Teddy Roosevelt, if you believe the 1994 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election.
I'll let CNN News tell you about the Kennedys the next time one of them drops dead or is elected.
As for the Bush and Clinton families, who knows?  Maybe they will end up being long lasting dynasties with competent politicians like the Adams family was.  Maybe the Clinton family, with Bill already elected, will wait fifty years before electing another one like the Harrison family was.  Really, I don't know.  But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, considering history.

Damn it!  Did I really write "New York City Governor"?  I could shoot myself!

[Mechaman]

I'd argue that living in a country with armed guards everywhere is inimical to freedom. It's a militarization of what was once a public space. The trend of equating public life with the security state / authoritarian life, is deeply disturbing. And the mentality of treating your neighbors as people whom you need to carry a gun because you might one day have to kill them, even in self-defense, I would argue is inimical to the idea of a secure society, as well.

The problem is that when you have an armed guard, the first person a mass shooter is going to off is the armed guard. That MIT policeman was armed, and it didn't make him a hero, it only made him a target. The deeper problem is that guns are fundamentally offensive weapons. That means that the person who wants to hurt someone else first will always have an advantage. You can carry as many guns as you want for self-defense, but the person who wants to kill you with a gun will have the advantage.

That's why freedom can't be enforced at the barrel of a gun. A gun is a tool of death, fear, and coercion, and as such it's fundamentally, I would argue, inimical to freedom, as well as to all other humanistic values. Only the cultivation of people through cultural norms to be good, moral, and to abhor coercion will be able to protect freedom in the end. In such a society guns would not be necessary. Although we are far from that ideal today, we know from the model of other countries like the U.K. that it is possible, that it is life-saving, and we should begin to move in that direction.

Not sure I agree with the last sentence, but about 95% of the rest of it I was like "damn straight".  So here ya go.

[Mechaman]

Let's the record shows how tricky this is:


1896: William McKinley

Next: NYC Police Commissioner. Too young, too abrasive.

Next-to-next: A federal judge with no political temperament whatsoever.

Next-to-next-to-next: Some stiff egghead. Lulz.

1901: Theodore Roosevelt

Next: A nice lawyer freshly appointed as Governor-General of the Philippines. Sure he's from an important political family, but certainly not an electoral type.

Next-to-next: A political science Professor at Princeton who doesn't even hold an office.

Next-to-next-to-next: Some random Ohio state Senator.

1909: William Howard Taft

Next: Princeton University President, known in the political circles but would need some public office first.

Next-to-next: Former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio. Meh.

Next-to-next-to-next: A small town mayor from rural Massachusetts.

1912: Woodrow Wilson

Next: Former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio who just score a big publicity by delivering the keynote speech at the RNC. Still, needs higher office.

Next-to-next: Some state Senator from Massachusetts.

Next-to-next-to-next: A wealthy Quaker mining engineer with no interest in politics.

1920: Warren G. Harding

Next: His Veep, an obscure dude who, unlike good ole Warren drop dead (and who'd even think that), will be another forget Vice President.

Next-to-next: A famous humanitarian already considered a potential presidential candidate for both parties in 1920 and was just appointed Commerce Secretary. Why not?

Next-to-next-to-next: Failed Vice Presidential nominee on a ticket that just lost by the greatest landslide ever. There are some scandals too.

1923: Calvin Coolidge

Next: His Commerce Secretary and one of the most beloved men in America. Likely.

Next-to-next: Most recent failed Vice Presidential nominee struggling with polio. We don't talk about scandals anymore, but he's certainly not in condition to resume his career.

Next-to-next-to-next: An obscure failed haberdasher-turned-Missouri County Judge. Really?

1928: Herbert Hoover

Next: Freshman Governor of the largest state in the Union. Obvious candidate.

Next-to-next: The same obscure County Judge on a political machine payroll. Haha.

Next-to-next-to-next: A random Army Major.

1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Next: Former Missouri County Judge as the next President? Hahahaha.

Next-to-next: Some Army Major.

Next-to-next-to-next: A rich kid from Massachusetts.

1945: Harry S. Truman:

Next: A celebrated Army General who led the allies to victory in Europe. If he wants the job it's his.

Next-to-next: A rich kid from Massachusetts-turned-war hero.

Next-to-next-to-next: A young but already quite powerful Representative from Texas.

1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower

Next: Freshman Senator from Massachusetts. Charismatic and photogenic, but way too young and inexperienced. Plus, he's a Papist!

Next-to-next: Freshman Senate Minority Leader. What a rapid rise! Certainly a dude to watch.

Next-to-next-to-next: His Vice President. Didn't expect to see him on the last place?

1960: John F. Kennedy

Next: His Vice President. Sure, Jack won't drop dead (he's too damn young and healthy), but LBJ is a powerful politician on his own and set his eyes on the White House.

Next-to-next: Outgoing Vice President who just lost the closest election in history. Will be back.

Next-to-next-to-next: An universally liked Michigan Representative. He's cool, but come on...

1963: Lyndon B. Johnson

Next: Former Vice President who just lost gubernatorial election in landslide. He's done.

Next-to-next: Michigan Representative. He doesn't even want a damn job.

Next-to-next: An obscure peanut farmer-turned-state Senator from Backwater, Georgia. Just STFU.

1968: Richard M. Nixon

Next: House Minority Leader. Great fellow but not a presidential material.

Next-to-next: Former Georgia state Senator who lost a gubernatorial bid two years ago. Not serious.

Next-to-next-to-next: Governor of California and leader of the New Right. Likely candidate in future.

1974: Gerald Ford

Next: Lame duck Governor of freaking Georgia nobody heard about. Lol.

Next-to-next: Outgoing two-term Governor of California. Very likely candidate.

Next-to-next-to-next: RNC Chairman. Well-positioned within the establishment, yet kind of sucks in getting elected for anything higher than Congressman. Maybe.

1976: Jimmy Carter

Next: Former Governor of California who just almost unseated incumbent President in primaries. You bet he'll run.

Next-to-next: Outgoing CIA Director. Mr. Establishment, but still sucking at electing himself.

Next-to-next-to-next: The new Attorney General of Arkansas. Rising star, but there are many rising stars.

1980: Ronald Reagan:

Next: His Vice President. Everybody and their grandma knows he'll run.

Next-to-next: The youngest former Governor in America, defeated after just two years in office. Come on.

Next-to-next-to-next: The Veep's oldest, drunk son. Lol.

1988: George H. W. Bush[/b]

Next: Young yet experienced Governor of Arkansas. Almost ran this year.

Next-to-next: The President's son. He needs to do something with his life first, but if there's any young Bush with political future, it's that brilliant Jebby.

Next-to-next: Some Black Chicago community organizer with a funny name. You've got to be kidding.

1992: Bill Clinton

Next: His predecessor's son. Just shut up.

Next-to-next: Black Harvard law lecturer. Seriously?

2000: George W. Bush:

Next: A state Senator that just lost a congressional primary in landslide? He's Black? What's his name again? B-Rock? Borat? Baruq? YOU ARE INSANE!

[Mechaman]

One aspect missing from this debate is that drone technology is fairly simple. Pretty soon a large number of states will be able to use them. What happens if 15-20 nations (think fx Turkey, Egypt, Israel, India, Iran, China and Russia) start using drones against people they perceive as terrorists?

Once you give up the idea that you have to declare war before you kill someone in a sovereign foreign country things become pretty complicated. So the Obama administration is setting a very dangerous example with their drone policy.