The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I prefer British spellings—The Queen's English is best English.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I believe in Christ and that he is the way the truth and the life. Through Him I am set free and am able to achieve eternal life. Christianity is fulfilling and loving. It is beautiful.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm just curious: why on earth are you getting so invested about creating flame wars, using every opportunity to take a dump on the candidate you don't support and getting orgasmic of the candidate you support, on some obscure political forum?

It's not like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz would notice or give a flying f**k about your efforts.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Politicians and other government officials may lie. Forensic science doesn't. This was Oswald and Oswald alone.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm surprised and disappointed that so many of you wish to tarnish the presidential election process by tying it to a badly flawed process. Using Congressional districts that are badly rigged all across the country is a terrible idea.

I don't get the desire for this even when you take out gerrymandering - A president should be selected based on majority support, and CD EV allocation compounds the EC issue even more. It doesn't necessarily have to be a popular vote, but CD allocated EVs is a garbage idea.

[Joe Republic]

Surely you can't be that stupid, so I have to conclude that you're being ridiculously disingenuous.

It seems to me that you're the disingenuous one. You believe obviously that in those kind of meetings Clinton conspires with the wealthy donors present to dupe the people into voting her and then enforce policies that reward the latter. And you're just frustrated because there isn't a way for that incriminating stuff to come out and help your candidate.
Alas, the truth is much more mundane. I suggest you read Game Change. It contains an interesting anecdote about a 2008 fundraiser with Bill Clinton at the aftermath of Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.

You started this discussion by citing two recent Presidential candidates who got rightfully blasted for making deeply offensive remarks at their fundraisers. Neither you nor I know if Hillary is saying stuff like that too, but you certainly can't exclude the possibility.

So you are curious to know if Hillary called Appalachian whites "rednecks" or if she called Ted Cruz an "asshole".
Me, I have more serious thing to agonize over.

It's pretty important to know what a presidential candidate truly thinks of the people she's running to represent.

One of the saddest and most disturbing things about the Sanders campaign and their supporters is the way they start from a place of utter distrust and assume the worst intentions in everyone, and then demand that their opponent be held to absurdly high standards in order to prove a negative, to prove that the Sanders campaign's dastardly insinuations are not justified.  So most people are ok assuming that Clinton is having normal strategy conversations with her donors at these meetings, just like every presidential candidate ever.  The Sanders people start from the assumption that she's selling out the American people or revealing "what she really thinks", which would obviously be something horrible and campaign-ending, and then now it seems like y'all not only want to demand that she allow them to be recorded, but are saying that it's the patriotic duty of every American to do so and that's how the political process should work.

And the most irritating part is that you only do it on issues where the divide works against Clinton, like here where Sanders doesn't have meetings because he doesn't have friends doesn't have any big donors.  We could just as easily make these disingenuous assumptions about Sanders' behavior and force him to do something degrading or prostate himself to prove that he's not actually a nefarious evildoer, but we don't.

[Higgs]

Is it a single word? I've always spelt it with a hyphen. Also, I don't think you can define terms like that.

On most issues I would be defined as "pro-choice," I suppose, but on abortion I'm not. For the same reason I'm not "pro-choice" on other things that take rights (e.g. the right to life) from people without their consent. Unlike many "pro-life" people, I am also opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and needless (i.e. most) wars, and thus I'm not being hypocritical by using that term.

The question comes down to when life begins, and thus, whether it's a question of the life of the unborn child, or the liberty of the mother. From what I can tell, if it's a life, it should obviously not be legal, but if it's not a life, it shouldn't be any more illegal than getting a haircut.

The fact is that babies have been born about halfway through typical gestation (21 weeks, 5 days is the record) and survived. It's obvious, therefore, that abortion after that date should be illegal, correct? Could you really make a case against that? (And no, I would not call it "murder." Maybe manslaughter, but punishment isn't the point, the point is saving lives. And I oppose any form of punishment for the women having the abortion, since apparently that's a thing.)

Before that point it's hard to say. The heartbeat starts at about 6 weeks, so I'd err towards that the fetus is a life from 6-21, as well. I suppose it's hard to really tell what "life" is, and starts a more philosophically-oriented debate, but isn't it simple logic to presume, if something may or may not be a life, to, uh, not kill it? Again, could anyone really make a case against that?

I'll also nitpick on the idea of "a woman being forced to raise a child she isn't ready to," because, well, adoption exists. Of course, 9 months of pregnancy is also inconvenient, but not as much as 18 years, and not as much, I would argue, of ending the life of your child (again, it all comes down to when you consider life to begin).

And as others have pointed out, the rhetoric surrounding this issue is horrid. From the "pro-choice" crowd, alleging that supporting the right to life of the unborn is, of all things, sexist, but also from the "pro-life" crowd. If you claim to be "pro-life" but oppose sex-ed and birth control, do you really want abortions to decrease, or do you just want to impose legalistic morality on people? Also, I'd wager that grouping it in with opposing marriage equality as "moral issues" or "religious issues" has scared off many people from supporting this cause, and is probably, in a sense, why it's still as legal as it is.

On a legislative front, I'm consistent with my libertarian views: simply making it illegal doesn't solve the problem, although there should be more restrictive laws (banning it nationwide from 20 weeks onward with exceptions, either nationwide or overturning Roe v. Wade so it can be done at the state level). Educate people that it's a life--in other words, win the philosophical battle. With that, and national sex-education, plus a culture of adoption and helping pregnant women and (should they choose to raise the child) mothers, there would be no need for abortion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The core philosophy economically of the GOP, has been what its allied business interests want. When that was protectionism and infrastructure, it wasn't hard to find socialists to take along for the ride on such a nationalist program. Keep in mind the politics of Germany following its unification as well and remember that the GOP had significant intellectual influence from German economists. Conservative elements allying with Socialism or at least coopting it to keep radicals from tearing the old systems and aristocrats limb from limb, was present in many places.

[Lief 🗽]

So in summary:

Bernie finds out there's a conference happening in the Vatican to discuss one of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals.  Because the encyclical is about economic justice, Bernie mistakenly thinks he has something to contribute so he badgers the people running the conference, "showing great disrespect" according to them, until they agree to shorten a coffee break to give him time for a ten minute speech.  He rudely skips most of the conference but shows up just in time for his speech, refuses to shake the organizer's hand, and reads off a set of prepared remarks that are basically just his stump speech (he only really talks about the American economy) with a couple references to "the moral economy" and a couple quotes from the encyclical dropped in obviously after the fact.  At 4 AM that night, as Pope Francis is leaving for his red-eye flight to Greece, Bernie runs up to him in the middle of an open foyer and gets his little handshake.  Bernie's people go out in the media and say he had a private five minute meeting with the pope where they discussed very important things.  As usual, Bernie lets other people lie for him but eggs them on by saying he "met with the pope" which is technically true.  The pope, clearly irritated that Bernie used him as a political prop, accuses Bernie of basically stalking him in the foyer and says his supporters need to get their heads checked.

Just another day in this ludicrous zombie campaign.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

...

...

Jesus.

Hey neckbeards! Listen to me because I am always right: remarks like this are not O.K. If you think they are O.K. then you, my good sir, are a sexist pig. You may in fact even be indirectly part of the problem. It is absolutely not acceptable to blame rape victims for being rape victims. Your attitudes are sh!tty and you need to be told so in order to become better people.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

...

...

Jesus.

Hey neckbeards! Listen to me because I am always right: remarks like this are not O.K. If you think they are O.K. then you, my good sir, are a sexist pig. You may in fact even be indirectly part of the problem. It is absolutely not acceptable to blame rape victims for being rape victims. Your attitudes are sh!tty and you need to be told so in order to become better people.

glad you agree. now could you stop supporting a rapist for president?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

...

...

Jesus.

Hey neckbeards! Listen to me because I am always right: remarks like this are not O.K. If you think they are O.K. then you, my good sir, are a sexist pig. You may in fact even be indirectly part of the problem. It is absolutely not acceptable to blame rape victims for being rape victims. Your attitudes are sh!tty and you need to be told so in order to become better people.

glad you agree. now could you stop supporting a rapist for president?

Secretary Clinton hasn't raped anybody.

[BundouYMB]

Yes (not a hack)

First of all, Obama himself even admitted the media was in the tank against her in 08, and that his campaign used it to his advantage. Of course, everyone who wasn't delusional already knew it, but it was nice to close the case on that matter for good.

Secondly, remember "dead broke"? Yes, it was a dumb gaffe, but the media was literally talking about it for like a year as if it was some epic event. It would've been a week long story at most for any other politician.

Oh emailgate...literally nobody cared about this until she ran for president. Thousands of people in the government, including many of the now "indignant" Republicans, knew she was using a private email and nobody cared. But the NYT needed a new faux scandal for their precious horse race, precious right wing clicks, that sweet ad revenue, and to fulfill their vendetta. Thus, emailgate was born. And that's not even the end of it. Even if you assume emailgate is a legitimate issue, it would've been a month long issue at most for any other politician. Not only have they been spamming it for over a year, they've already tried her in the court of public opinion as a corrupt guilty criminal bitch who will soon be indicted, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Contrast it with Rick Perry literally being indicted, when the media and all the "liberal pundits" leapt to his defense and talked about how mean the prosecution was being to poor innocent Rick Perry.

I disagree with you on Sanders though. The press doesn't care for him personally, they only "like" him as a vehicle with which they can damage their nemesis. They'd turn on him in an instant and savagely rip him to shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas if he actually won the nomination. Compare it to 08. Back then they LOVED Obama AND hated Hillary, so it was double trouble for her. Now it's basically just hating Hillary, and Bernie is their only option to hurt her. Remember when they acted like O'Malley and Chafee would hurt Hillary? Remember them pleading on their hands and knees for Joe Biden to enter? And even outright lying about the fact that he was definitely running based on his son's death just to try to force him in the race? That was sickening. There's clearly no lengths the media will not go to to try to destroy Hillary Clinton.

Partly it's because some people always at least have their partisan media outlets to defend them. While the right wing media is obviously going to attack Hillary, the "non partisan" functions as their subsidiary while the left wing media is too busy trying to tear her down as a far right corporate shill to prop up their preferred candidate at the time, leaving her with no natural defenders.

In addition to Lyndon's chart, here's some more evidence:

Pundit: "Yes, the media is sexist, but deal with it"
Joe Scarborough: MSNBC was biased against Hillary in 08
Gallup poll: Hillary by far treated the most unfairly in 08, according to voters
FiveThirtyEight: Hillary's nearly endless streak of negative media coverage
Sexist comments by male pundits in 08 highlights

Of course, even if every TV anchor and columnist publicly stated that Hillary Clinton is a c*nt on live TV, many of the hacks here would still live in their own fantasy world.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

...

...

Jesus.

Hey neckbeards! Listen to me because I am always right: remarks like this are not O.K. If you think they are O.K. then you, my good sir, are a sexist pig. You may in fact even be indirectly part of the problem. It is absolutely not acceptable to blame rape victims for being rape victims. Your attitudes are sh!tty and you need to be told so in order to become better people.

glad you agree. now could you stop supporting a rapist for president?

Secretary Clinton hasn't raped anybody.

donald drumpf has.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Echoing the above and adding that liberal assimilation is destroying the everything and at its core is the greatest evil in existence. Literally very close to Nazi Germany on my list. America needs more immigration and less assimilation if we truly want to Make America Great Again

Just another reason why white people are the worst

The bolded is one of the unfortunate casualties from this year's Republican Primary: the idea that anything short of rounding up every illegal alien and deporting them immediately makes you a pawn for either the Democrats or "The Establishment" has taken root. There used to be a place within the GOP, probably a majority opinion even, that some form of amnesty is a necessity and that immigration is, in general, a good thing. Now the vast primordial roar of the Trump campaign has made it appear as though there is no longer a place for such views on humanity.

[beaver2.0]

The Federalists believed that the first priority of the national government should be to protect the interests of businesses and merchants: they therefore supported a strong central government that could guarantee credit and establish a stable national currency. They also feared the excesses of the French Revolution and therefore generally opposed efforts to increase popular participation in politics, believing that the uneducated "common man" was too easily swayed by demagoguery. Often accused of "monarchism," they believed that the best way to prevent an American Reign of Terror was to limit the extent to which voters could reshape the government in a single election and infamously supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which outlawed criticism of the president.

The Republicans were a coalition of Southern planters and small farmers and tradesmen in the Mid Atlantic initially organized to oppose Federalist policies. They claimed to represent the interests of the "common man," which meant that they opposed efforts to centralize power in the hands of the elites. They disliked banks and manufacturing for a number of reasons: commercial ventures, they argued, were a threat to democracy because they elevated the love of money over the love of country, established a quasi-artistocracy with merchants and bankers at the top, and robbed citizens of their independence by making them dependent on markets for everyday goods (it didn't help that many small farmers were in debt to these firms, and therefore resentful of their influence). As such, they were suspicious of the federal government, whose policies in the last decade of the 18th Century served to elevate these "monied interests." They supported increased popular participation in politics and favored Jefferson's vision of an agrarian republic populated by independent yeoman farmers who would be free of the corrupting influence of money. Following the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Republicans enjoyed an explosion of popularity that would allow them to dominate the national government until the close of the 1st Party System. Some, like their founder Jefferson, were slaveholders, but others were life-long abolitionists (and it's worth noting that Federalist darling Charles C. Pinckney supported restoring the slave trade after it was outlawed in 1808).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

...

...

Jesus.

Hey neckbeards! Listen to me because I am always right: remarks like this are not O.K. If you think they are O.K. then you, my good sir, are a sexist pig. You may in fact even be indirectly part of the problem. It is absolutely not acceptable to blame rape victims for being rape victims. Your attitudes are sh!tty and you need to be told so in order to become better people.

glad you agree. now could you stop supporting a rapist for president?

Secretary Clinton hasn't raped anybody.

Well she just remained married to one. That makes her a white moderate right?

[Kingpoleon]

But strangely enough, I read all of Torie's posts in John Kasich's voice.

[Landslide Lyndon]

*sigh* I miss the days of the faux Benghazi scandal outrage by the right and far-left Hillary hatin' kooks.

Those faux top secret special access program emails on her personal email server?

Yes, those too.

Do you all on the far left of the spectrum not realize that you're rewarding Republicans every time you mimic these faux scandal talking points? You may think you're helping Bernie, but all you're doing is helping Trump.

Now, enlighten me again about how you all are the "true" progressives and how us "Hillary hacks" need to be schooled. 

Trump is terrible too, but that's no reason to help Hillary.

Yes, the thought of building a wall and banning Muslims and punishing women who have abortions are such negligible concerns to the progressive cause, right? We gotta break up the big banks (but don't ask us how!) and hold Wall Street accountable and get corporate money out of politics, those are more important than addressing the asinine proposals by the Republican front-runner.

..and that proves to me that you really aren't a progressive and just another sorry, sad Hillary hater. But then again, I'm not surprised seeing as how your candidate is all about himself and his "revolution" or "movement," whatever you want to call it. His true colors have been showing lately with his character attacks against her, which he originally said he wouldn't do. Hillary has raised tons of money for Democratic candidates all across the nation because she understands that a President cannot do everything along: (s)he needs Democratic majorities in Congress before any progressive policies can be proposed and implemented. Bernie either doesn't understand that or doesn't care, since he has done zero to none in helping get Democrats/liberals/progressives elected throughout the country. I don't see how he expects to deliver on all these promises as President with a Republican-controlled Congress.

(Sad part is that she actually raised money for him when he was running for Senate! Why would he let her do that if she's such a terrible, evil, corrupt person?

If your sole purpose is to stop Hillary from winning, maybe you should go join the Republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Please don't take your stupid 2016 board feuds here. thx

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Moderate but staunch Republican.

Wow, that's actually a great way to put it!  I disagree with a lot of "conservatives" on a LOT of stuff, and people often ask (in real life) why I'm even a Republican, but to a sucker like me the ancestral stuff carries weight.  Plus I still see it as the only realistic vehicle for policy I'd support.

I feel like this describes my views well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Moderate but staunch Republican.

Wow, that's actually a great way to put it!  I disagree with a lot of "conservatives" on a LOT of stuff, and people often ask (in real life) why I'm even a Republican, but to a sucker like me the ancestral stuff carries weight.  Plus I still see it as the only realistic vehicle for policy I'd support.

I feel like this describes my views well.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT A GOOD POST

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Some people really need to be banned from posting in this thread.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As a moderator, I'm torn between non-interference in what are, formally, non-administrative matters, and the desire to maintain proper forum culture and etiquette (such as deleting ineligible posts from the GPG, for example).

[Derpist]

As a moderator, I'm torn between non-interference in what are, formally, non-administrative matters, and the desire to maintain proper forum culture and etiquette (such as deleting ineligible posts from the GPG, for example).

Realistically, none of these post galleries should exist because they will just descend into either petty trench war or petty circle-jerk.