The Good Post Gallery

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is an outstanding post:

Oh and let me bold that for effect:

WhyteRain is an idiot.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

dead0man impressed me today

I have no problem with this.  I'm sure they won't be letting this scum out in 21 years.  I'd have no problem with them hanging him from the nearest tree either, but I understand the desire to be more civilized.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

...and Bush is still more responsible for killing him than Barrack Obama.  I guess I'm missing how getting a phone call on a golf course and saying "yea go ahead and kill the #1 sworn enemy of this country" is an "achievement" or deserving of merit, but than I remember that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn't say "yes I authorize" for some incomprehensible reason.  So, BO had the ability to say "yes" when 95% of the country would/could do the same thing.  WOW, does he dress himself too?     

There was only a 45% or so chance he was there. The President had to make a decision regarding whether to send American troops into a sovereign middle eastern state for an enemy we weren't even sure was there. You'd all blame him for him as a failure if Bin Laden hadn't been there, so why not give him credit for making the tough decision that proved correct?

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).  I'm GIVING HIM CREDIT for saying "yes I authorize", which is all he did.  Bush did far more work and Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policies that were critical to making it happen.  I also give Obama credit for violating his stupid campaign promises, but I hold him accountable for lying.  You got about 1 out of 6 right :-)          

President Bush, god bless 'em, said in 2003 that he had no idea where bin laden was and that he didn't worry about him. Bush shut down the CIA team that was working to find him. One of Obama's first commands in office was to get any intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He didn't lie either. In fact, back in 2007 he said that if Bin Laden was hiding in another sovereign state, like Pakistan, he would authorize going in and getting him. And he was relentlessly attacked on it by then Senators Clinton and McCain.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Slimy little scumbag. Wouldn't even piss on him in a fire.

I disagree.

Saxby Chambliss doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as "piss" or "fire".  Calling him a "slimy little scumbag" shows an enormous amount of disrespect to actual scumbags, who worked hard to earn the title "scumbag".  I know some scumbags, good sir, and I am personally insulted that you would dare associate Saxby Chambliss with them.  Scumbags are of an infinitely higher character than Saxby Chambliss.  Saxby Chambliss doesn't belong in the same country as scumbags, hell he doesn't even belong on the same continental landmass as scumbags!

Apologize.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I was with my niece yesterday, and My Little Pony was on, and I really can't see how any adults are watching this. At no point, did this look like it was meant for anyone over the age of 10. No adult humor, no nothing.. it was just creepy

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

lol atlasia

There should be a rule against this stuff here.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Belongs here as well:

Plato would be hated on the election boards, as his longwinded posts, featuring dialogues between semi-fictional characters, would constantly dismiss the importance of electoral politics and try to steer the conversation toward justice.

GLAUCON: Isn't it good luck that we've run into you, Socrates, on our way to the Agora. We're in the middle of a seeming intractable dispute that you can help us with.
SOCRATES: What is your dispute about?
GLAUCON: It's about who will carry North Carolina in the 2012 American presidential election.
TENDERBRANSON: I say Barack Obama will probably win. The newest poll has him leading by 3 points.
UMENGUS: Everyone knows that's just junk. That poll has a sample 7 points more Democratic than the electorate of North Carolina in 2010.
TORIES: I wouldn't put it so strongly as Umengus, but another poll from Rasmussen does have Mitt Romney leading by 2 points. We just can't be sure at this point.
SOCRATES: So one poll says that Obama is leading, and another says that Romney is leading?
GLAUCON: That's right.
SOCRATES: Now, can it be that in the real election, both candidates are the winner?
GLAUCON: No, that couldn't be.
SOCRATES: So it must be that the polls do not capture the form of the election in its true nature, but only a changeable appearance of it?
GLAUCON: That must be right.
TENDERBRANSON: Your logic is clear, Socrates.
TORIES: That's how it is.
SOCRATES: So perhaps another approach would be better. Now, would we not say that if a man is to be a lover of wisdom and have harmony in his soul, the rational and philosophical part of his soul should be in command?
GLAUCON: Clearly.
SOCRATES: So should we not look to North Carolina's most rational and philosophical citizens?
TORIES: Well, North Carolina has a lot of high-income seculars, working as computer programmers in Raleigh or bankers in Charlotte, and these I think will trend hard to Romney. This is why I think Romney will carry North Carolina.
SOCRATES: Who are these "high-income seculars" of which you speak, Tories?
TORIES: They are people like me, who've made lots of money filing suit in the court of Argon and trading with the Persians, and who don't believe that there are any gods.
GLAUCON: Wait, what? Surely we all believe in the gods atop Mount Olympus.
TORIES: No, not me.
JMFCSTES: There is only one God. Currently He is only worshiped by the Jews, but four hundred years from now he will send his only son to redeem us all. For it will be written, in a few centuries: "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
BRTDES: No way I'd believe that. Maybe after a couple of thousand years their services will get more interesting, but for the first nineteen centuries or so it will be just a bunch of old men talking. Why would I go for that when I could go see the hot new Oracle of Delphi predict the future while waving her hands in the air?
NATHANES: I too believe that there is just one God, but the truly sophisticated position is to realize that the importance about religion lies not in the so-called objective truth-value of whatever metaphysical theses about the external world it might be interpreted as making, but rather in its providing structure and guidance to a personal spirituality that I recognize also is present with many adherents of Olympian polytheism.
GLAUCON: Now I'm totally lost.
SOCRATES: As am I. But luckily we don't need to settle these issues about Gods, as I see another problem with these "high-income seculars". Did you not say, Tories, that they were merchants, who had obtained a lot of money?
TORIES: I did.
SOCRATES: Now, would we say of a man who was ruled by the love of money that he was wise, or that he did not recognize what was truly valuable in life?
TORIES: The latter.
SOCRATES: So we should look instead to the philosophers. How do the philosophers of North Carolina vote?
TENDERBRANSON: I'm not really sure, but I think they live in a town called Chapel Hill, where they support Obama.
MEMPHES: Wait, what? In America philosophers live outside the big city? Crazy! They must be a lot smarter than our philosophers. All our philosophers want to live right in central Athens, even though a stone hut will cost you ten drachmas a month, just because they think it's the "cradle of Western civilization" or some crap like that.
SOCRATES: So the philosophers support one candidate, and the merchants another?
TENDERBRANSON: Yes.
SOCRATES: And didn't North Carolina vote for one party the previous time in 2008 but the other party in 2004?
TENDERBRANSON: Yes.
SOCRATES: Truly a state with a disordered soul. And is not Mitt Romney likewise the candidate with the most disordered soul, given that he claims to oppose all the more liberal things he said he supported as governor of Massachusetts.
TENDERBRANSON: Yes indeed, Socrates.
SOCRATES: And does it not follow that a state with a disordered soul will vote for a candidate with a disordered soul, so Mitt Romney will carry North Carolina?
GLAUCON: Your logic is clear, Socrates. Thank you so much for settling our dispute.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

what meaningless

It was not your post, Tweed.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm glad I bug you enough for you to trail me around here and make one-offs.

Sorry, you're not that significant

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm glad to see Morsi out, but now we wait and see. We know how politicians are with promises.

That doesn't belong here. At all. It's not a good post. In any sense.

How is it not?  Would you rather Egypt become like Iran?

Only an ignorant can compare Egypt 2013 to Iran 1979.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This has been The Wikipedia Chronicles, with your host, Professor of Race Relations Snow "Poll tests have merit" Stalker.

Even Oakvale's posts looks depressing when quoted by Oldies

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This idea of trying to engage with fascists as if they might have a point about a few things has been tried in Europe before. Didn't end very well. Makes many people less than convinced about the merits of doing so again.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

PNAC needs a 3rd Pearl Harbor.

This also doesn't make sense as it borders on 9/11 "truth"erism, and refers to an essentially defunct organization (PNAC) and there's no neoconservative influence on the current administration*. It's not 2003 anymore.

*Being hawkish and being a neoconservative are not the same thing, McCain and Lindsey Graham for example are not neoconservatives by any meaningful definition of the word even if their foreign policy views are horrible and default to warmongering. "Neoconservative" is actually a very narrow term in who it refers to, the co-opting of it by some liberals to mean "Anyone more hawkish than me" or by paleoconservatives and libertarians to essentially mean "anyone I disagree with" is a grammatical atrocity. There isn't even really anyone in elected office who could accurately be called a neoconservative, the closest person to one was Joe Lieberman, but he's no longer in elected office either.

Ben, since you're commencing a chickenhawkish dick waving every time words "military" and "intervention" are spelled, perhaps you're not the right person to touch the subject.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Imagine if in the 21st century, a bearded, bespectacled intellectual were to claim that children are innately obsessed with sex, particularly with their own parents.  He'd probably be lynched, figuratively speaking.