The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[RINO Tom]

AL PREDICTED THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, IS HE THE VINCE CABLE OF ATLAS

I believe you mean the Ron Paul of Atlas.

Ah, but you see - Ron Paul also falsely predicted about 50 non-crises. BECAUSE DEBT = BAD, YOUSE GUISE

No, that's ridiculous.  Money grows on trees, and once we run out, we just take more from people who have "enough."  Duh.

Businesses are gonna have a real swell time operating without debt. People are gonna have a real easy time finding a place to live without a mortgage. Towns are going to have a real picnic trying to attract people and bysiness without infrastructure. These are basic capitalist concepts. That statement was actually more right wing than my typical economic statements.

I think it was pretty clear (at least to me) that he wasn't saying all debt was bad but rather mocking your constant ragging on libertarianism by pointing out that their opponents also have fairytale like views on economics.

Judging by interactions with him elsewhere, I don't think so. It's not like I support left wing policies so it's hard to attack me using that line at least. But whatever...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just saw this.  Not sure what "interactions" you're referring to, but I obviously know a healthy dose of debt is important for the business world and society as a whole to function.  It's just it's become a fad on this site to ridicule "lolbertarians" on this site, and you're one of the cool kids if you do, but their equally deranged rivals get to go unscathed because ... well, I'm not sure why.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This Yale thing really is baffling to me, too, but then I have no reference point as I am a nerdy suburban white kid who mostly kept to himself while at UW and was completely inactive in terms of campus politics/activism.

Mizzou one can understand (not that nonsense with borderline attacking that photographer, but the protests in general) especially in comparison to the swift response by Oklahoma officials after the SAE incident there in the spring. Oklahoma, the flagship university in a state with a considerably darker racial history than Missouri (look up the Tulsa Race Riot), moved decisively in a much worse situation to show where the university leadership stood on the issue and that everyone from the President to Coach Bob Stoops was opposed. Wolfe seems like he grossly bungled the response. Like Crumpets said, PR is everything in that kind of job. If you can't manage the fallout effectively, you're not cut out for an image-management position.

I will say, though, that a lot of these campus groups are rolling out demands and politics that are essentially impossible for them or anyone in their purview to address. Demanding people "acknowledge their white male privilege" is petty and does little to actually help disadvantaged minorities other than make them feel superior for five seconds. In a quote from that Atlantic article re: Yale, someone saying, "I don't want a debate, I want to discuss my pain" - what pain? You go to an Ivy League school that's produced at least two Presidents I can think of off the top of my head, as well as the incumbent Secretary of State! You have more advantages than 90% of people from your background!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's my thoughts on the matter: it's about party, not ideology.

My proof? Look at the avatars: we have Republican, Democrat, and Independent, not Conservative, Liberal, and Moderate.

Therefore, if you support the Democrats over the Socialist party, you should technically have a D- avatar, even if you ideologically agree with the Socialists more, and if you support the Republicans over the Libertarian Party, you should technically have a R- avatar, even if you're an ideological libertarian. I'd question why you're supporting lesser-of-the-two-evils candidates anyway, but that's just me.

It's not that big of a deal, really, and I don't really have a lower opinion of someone just because they don't use the avatar I snobbily declare as "correct," but it is a bit odd to see so many users on here claim to represent a party that doesn't even make the top 5 of most popular parties in this nation.

[Sumner 1868]

Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.

[SNJ1985]

Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.

He didn't mention the fact that the French nationals involved in the Paris attacks ultimately had roots in Muslim countries (or, in the case of one of them, partial roots; with his mother being Portuguese), or the fact that one of the attackers who was not a French national entered Europe by posing as a refugee from Syria (plenty of leftists denied that allowing such large numbers of migrants to enter Europe could potentially result in terrorism). The French nationals involved in the attacks might not have been French nationals if France hadn't been so liberal in allowing immigration over the past few decades.

Another problem with his post is the false dichotomy he poses, where Syrian refugees can only either stay in Syria or be taken in by Western countries. There are several safe (and rich) countries in the Middle East that could be taking them in - two of which, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have actually been directly involved in the Syrian Civil War (unlike countries such as Germany, Austria, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Poland, etc.). I will say this, though: If they have to be brought to the West, it makes a lot more sense for them to be brought to the US than Europe.

[Bacon King]

Sorry for responding to something in one of the post galleries/mines but

Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.

He didn't mention the fact that the French nationals involved in the Paris attacks ultimately had roots in Muslim countries (or, in the case of one of them, partial roots; with his mother being Portuguese),

Even if you ignore the fact that it would be ridiculous and racist for our refugee and immigration policies to discriminate against an entire religion of one billion people just because of the actions of a handful of people, it's frankly absurd for you to imply that we should treat our own citizens any differently on account of their religious beliefs. Fortunately, our founding fathers envisioned that there might one day be people as absurdly bigoted as you, so they wrote the First Amendment to prohibit religious discrimination

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Syrian passport was probably fraudulent. The refugee in question went very far out of his way to properly get his passport stamped in two different European countries at a time when the German government announced that the European customs enforcement was so incredibly overloaded that even the few refugees who agreed to be properly registered with them found it nearly impossibly to do so at all. This (probably fake) passport that was registered as a refugee's in both Greece and Serbia (despite the incredibly difficulty it would take to do so in either place, let alone the redundancy of doing it twice) managed to remain completely intact after the person holding it detonated a suicide bomb they were carrying. The only realistic possibility here is that the terrorist got a fake passport, got himself recorded as a Syrian refugee with it, then placed it on his body during his terrorist act in such a way that it would survive to be found once he died. ISIS wants Europe to close its doors to refugees - they hate the idea of Muslims living in Christian lands, and they want these Muslims to hate the West so they can potentially be recruited as footsoldiers and terrorists.

Or, of course, we could assume that the terrorist went through the proper bureaucratic channels when entering Europe just because he was a law abiding citizen, and he kept his passport on him while he was slaughtering innocents because hey maybe he might need to catch an international flight after he's done detonating a suicide bomb in a crowded stadium you never know

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hello yes I am denying your assertion and I see no credible evidence supporting it. As the Paris attacks demonstrate, ISIS has lots of supporters in Europe already and the bigger problem for them is getting those European terrorists to travel to Syria, not the other way around.

Taking like a million refugees hoping to reach a new life in Europe, and leaving them to die in a war zone because of our own intolerance? Yeah I'm sure that won't drive anyone to ideological extremes or compel anyone to take up arms against us nope no way

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeah and if the United States hadn't been so liberal in allowing immigration we wouldn't have had to deal with so many Japanese saboteurs during World War Two

oh wait

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it'd be too smart of an idea to flood hundreds of thousands of disaffected refugees into the homeland of radical Wahhabism that produced Bin Laden most of the 9/11 hijackers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Props to you for this at least

[SNJ1985]

Sorry for responding to something in one of the post galleries/mines but

Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.

He didn't mention the fact that the French nationals involved in the Paris attacks ultimately had roots in Muslim countries (or, in the case of one of them, partial roots; with his mother being Portuguese),

Even if you ignore the fact that it would be ridiculous and racist for our refugee and immigration policies to discriminate against an entire religion of one billion people just because of the actions of a handful of people, it's frankly absurd for you to imply that we should treat our own citizens any differently on account of their religious beliefs. Fortunately, our founding fathers envisioned that there might one day be people as absurdly bigoted as you, so they wrote the First Amendment to prohibit religious discrimination

I wouldn't single Muslims out if I were in charge of a European country. I would want to restrict immigration from everywhere, even other countries in Europe.

Sure, not all Muslims are bad people, and they don't all bear collective responsibility for what a select few of them do. However, countries have the right to decide who can and can't live in them, even based on cultural reasons. The West is historically Christian, and Muslim immigrants' high birth rates in comparison to the low birth rates of Western natives mean that a future Muslim West is a realistic possibility (Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad/etc. is already the most popular baby name in the UK, for example). That wouldn't be the case not just if the West hadn't allowed so much immigration over the past few decades, but also if the left didn't contribute to the lowering of the West's birth rates by pushing secularism (people who are less religious are generally less likely to have children), abortion, and birth control. There are actually things on which I agree more with Muslims than with modern Western society (such as homosexuality and the role of women); but as a Christian, I want the West to go back to being Christian (at this point, most of the West is just nominally Christian) instead of becoming Muslim. I don't think Muslim countries would like it very much if the situation were reversed and they were getting flooded with European immigrants, do you?

There's one more thing I'd like to say. If the Paris attacks were committed by self-proclaimed Christians, I have a feeling that you leftists would have no problem with making generalizations about us and collectively blaming us for them. I can also see leftists trying to justify this double standard by claiming that history has only consisted of us oppressing Muslims, and never the other way around (ignoring things like the Barbary slave trade and the multiple invasions of Europe through the centuries by Muslim entities such as the Umayyad Caliphate and Ottoman Empire).

Leftists get enraged when people say things like ''not all men are rapists'', ''not all white people are racists'', etc. Yet, they start using the exact same kind of logic when it comes to Muslims and terrorism. Apparently, you guys don't object to generalizations in and of themselves...you just object to generalizations depending on who the target of them is.

ISIS wants Europe to close its doors to refugees - they hate the idea of Muslims living in Christian lands, and they want these Muslims to hate the West so they can potentially be recruited as footsoldiers and terrorists.

Muslims living in Christian lands aren't too keen on the idea themselves, if their behavior in said lands is any indication. Just look at this, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeah and if the United States hadn't been so liberal in allowing immigration we wouldn't have had to deal with so many Japanese saboteurs during World War Two

oh wait

If you take terrorism out of the equation, mass immigration has still had a negative effect on Europe. Crime rates are much higher as a result of it. Sweden, for example, has seen its rape rate skyrocket in the past few decades. I might be moving the goalposts a bit here, admittedly, but the fact remains that mass immigration isn't as great for Europe as leftists think it is. We often hear that mass immigration to Europe is a good thing because it will help Europe deal with the problems resulting from the aging of its native populations (such as potential labor shortages). This argument is flawed due to the unskilled nature of many (if not most) of the immigrants who come to Europe. In Sweden, for example, a majority of welfare payments go to immigrants. Mass immigration actually makes it harder for countries such as Sweden to maintain their welfare states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it'd be too smart of an idea to flood hundreds of thousands of disaffected refugees into the homeland of radical Wahhabism that produced Bin Laden most of the 9/11 hijackers

The point is that there are plenty of countries outside of Europe that could be taking in migrants (not all of whom are from Syria, by the way - there are plenty of migrants in Europe right now who are actually economic migrants, and not people fleeing war). Europe isn't the only place in the world that they have to go. It also isn't fair for Germany, a country that has had no major involvement in the Syrian Civil War, to have to take in hundreds of thousands of migrants while Saudi Arabia, a country that has had such involvement, doesn't take in any. Sure, Saudi Arabia is the homeland of radical Wahhabism...but, as we've already seen, people can become radicalized regardless of where they live. Living in a Western country has not stopped some Muslims from becoming radicalized. At the end of the day, it makes more sense for them to live in a Muslim country that is similar to their own than a Western country. Saudi Arabia isn't even the only Muslim country that could be taking them in. You also have Qatar (another country with significant involvement in the Syrian Civil War), Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Turkey (which already has taken a lot in), Indonesia, etc. If they absolutely must be brought to the West, though, it would make more sense for them to be brought here than to places like Germany, Austria, and Hungary. The U.S. bears more responsibility for the events of the Syrian Civil War than they do, and it differs from those countries in that it has historically had a lot of immigration from around the world. Those countries are nation states (i.e. they are the homelands of specific ethnic groups). Meanwhile, ''American'' is just a nationality, not an ethnicity.

[/]

My friends. I am in no way unsympathetic to the many Jews escaping Persecution from Mr Hitler. My heart goes out to them. I am not an anti-Semite and not only do I have many Jewish friends, but a Jew goes to my golf club. However, the United States cannot raise its quota for these people. It's just a matter of public safety. After all, many Jews in Germany are disproportionately linked to communist uprisings. Can we be sure that the American nation will be safe from communism? Perhaps refugees will be spies for foreign governments! Perhaps they will take American jobs! Like I said I AM NOT ANTI SEMETIC (and if you call me antisemetic that's as bad as being antisemetic) but many Jews just want to destroy America and all it stands for.

In addition, I have a suggestion (not based on race k, it's on public safety) about what to do with the Japanese ...

[Badger]

Sorry for responding to something in one of the post galleries/mines but

Over 750,000 refugees have been resettled in the United States in the past 14 years; not one has been charged as a domestic terrorist; the United States has one of the most strict and extensive vetting process in the world for refugees entering the United States. The refugees fleeing Syria are escaping ISIL, and forcing them to stay in Syria only emboldens them. To close our borders to these people because of a terrorist attack committed in France by French nationals is immoral, prejudiced, and wrong.

He didn't mention the fact that the French nationals involved in the Paris attacks ultimately had roots in Muslim countries (or, in the case of one of them, partial roots; with his mother being Portuguese),

Even if you ignore the fact that it would be ridiculous and racist for our refugee and immigration policies to discriminate against an entire religion of one billion people just because of the actions of a handful of people, it's frankly absurd for you to imply that we should treat our own citizens any differently on account of their religious beliefs. Fortunately, our founding fathers envisioned that there might one day be people as absurdly bigoted as you, so they wrote the First Amendment to prohibit religious discrimination

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Syrian passport was probably fraudulent. The refugee in question went very far out of his way to properly get his passport stamped in two different European countries at a time when the German government announced that the European customs enforcement was so incredibly overloaded that even the few refugees who agreed to be properly registered with them found it nearly impossibly to do so at all. This (probably fake) passport that was registered as a refugee's in both Greece and Serbia (despite the incredibly difficulty it would take to do so in either place, let alone the redundancy of doing it twice) managed to remain completely intact after the person holding it detonated a suicide bomb they were carrying. The only realistic possibility here is that the terrorist got a fake passport, got himself recorded as a Syrian refugee with it, then placed it on his body during his terrorist act in such a way that it would survive to be found once he died. ISIS wants Europe to close its doors to refugees - they hate the idea of Muslims living in Christian lands, and they want these Muslims to hate the West so they can potentially be recruited as footsoldiers and terrorists.

Or, of course, we could assume that the terrorist went through the proper bureaucratic channels when entering Europe just because he was a law abiding citizen, and he kept his passport on him while he was slaughtering innocents because hey maybe he might need to catch an international flight after he's done detonating a suicide bomb in a crowded stadium you never know

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hello yes I am denying your assertion and I see no credible evidence supporting it. As the Paris attacks demonstrate, ISIS has lots of supporters in Europe already and the bigger problem for them is getting those European terrorists to travel to Syria, not the other way around.

Taking like a million refugees hoping to reach a new life in Europe, and leaving them to die in a war zone because of our own intolerance? Yeah I'm sure that won't drive anyone to ideological extremes or compel anyone to take up arms against us nope no way

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeah and if the United States hadn't been so liberal in allowing immigration we wouldn't have had to deal with so many Japanese saboteurs during World War Two

oh wait

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it'd be too smart of an idea to flood hundreds of thousands of disaffected refugees into the homeland of radical Wahhabism that produced Bin Laden most of the 9/11 hijackers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Props to you for this at least

thanks for reminding us why this thread is named for you, BK.

[JonathanSwift]

No, and I don't know the reason why Hillary's unpopular there.

She's universally unpopular there to the point that it will likely be her worst state and she has a better chance at winning Utah than she does Colorado. If she's elected president CO will likely secede from the union.

Is there any reason for that?

Shrillary has earned the animosity of Coloradans for her long support for socially repressive and war-mongering policies. Since at least 1996, Colorado has known what the Clintons were about, and they ain't about it. This can be evidenced in then-Senator Barack Obama's landslide win in the CO Caucus in '08. The people of Colorado are a peaceful, tolerant, and liberty-loving folk. None of this describes Hellary.

[Badger]

No, and I don't know the reason why Hillary's unpopular there.

She's universally unpopular there to the point that it will likely be her worst state and she has a better chance at winning Utah than she does Colorado. If she's elected president CO will likely secede from the union.

Is there any reason for that?

Shrillary has earned the animosity of Coloradans for her long support for socially repressive and war-mongering policies. Since at least 1996, Colorado has known what the Clintons were about, and they ain't about it. This can be evidenced in then-Senator Barack Obama's landslide win in the CO Caucus in '08. The people of Colorado are a peaceful, tolerant, and liberty-loving folk. None of this describes Hellary.

This is actually a rather hackish posy (especially for. Cathcon) and doesn't belog within these hallowed halls.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well quite. I think the trouble is we miss the forest for the trees. We see these unquestionably weird and foreign practices in the Middle East (which are carried out by most of the major indigenous religious including the old Jewish and Christian communities) and instinctively associate them with the violent jihadis. which is really a bad way of looking at things - not that I'm defending these patriarchal conservative groups, but they typically aren't the source of jihadism. Indeed why would they? Typically they are loyal to their own ancestral form of heterodox tribal Islam, not some speculative 'worldwide caliphate'. Indeed jihadi terrorists seem to come from the same sorts of sources as other non Islamic radicals: rootless, bored young men of varying incomes. They aren't especially devout normally - levels of religious piety seem to have very little correlation with 'going jihadi' or not. That's why I don't think the root cause of terrorism is as much theological as it is psychological. Obviously atm Islam is a greater catalyst to inspire terrorist acts due to a mixture of being well-funded and being a self-perpetuating phenomenon, but there is very little difference in motive between young jihadists and young, say, Shiv Sana members, or young hardcore nationalists or even gang members. People of a certain type gravitate towards ideologies to fulfill deeper longings.

[/]

Hey "moderate" white Christians:  it's your responsibility to collectively denounce these kinds of acts.




We're all waiting. I don't wanna see any videos of people cheering this on or expressing anything that can be constructed as support, either.

Okay. As a white Christian conservative,  he's a lunatic who should rot in the depths of hell. He doesn't represent me, my family, my friends, or my neighbors. Period.

I don't know man. I saw "thousands and thousands" of christians cheering on this attack. After all, I do have the world's best memory. I still think "moderate" christians need to do more to address the problem of radical christianity (and yes, I am going to call it that no matter what the PC police say).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not sure what the "normalization of mental illness" has to do with most of your previous post, Simfan.

The subject that (I think) you're discussing is distinctive to highly literate young people who are (usually) materially secure but lack a stable and well-defined network of social support. There is further social pressure - it's an expectation, really, and campus activists are not the fundamental source of it - that a person should somehow construct his or her own identity.

There are analogues for what you see on campus across most walks of American life. Have you ever received an e-mail from a white collar professional and scratched your head in bewilderment at the alphabet soup of letters listed after his or her name? They're playing a similar game.

[RI]

There's pretty much nothing they can do.  The crushing poverty of African American communities helps make this a solid Democratic voting bloc, but the ties between African Americans and the Democratic Party extend beyond policy or economic indicators.  Conservative African Americans vote for the Democrats.  Hell, even wealthy African Americans consistently vote for the Democrats at extremely high rates.

Ultimately, I think social segregation is what keeps this such a solidly Democratic voting bloc.  People are unlikely to vote for a political party that none of their family, friends, or neighbors vote vote for, even if some or most of their views align with that party.  Most African Americans live in African American neighborhoods and have very few non-African American friends.  They are also the second least likely group to marry outside of their race (after whites).  They have their own culture, their own dialect, their own churches, mosques, and social institutions.  Really, they live a world apart from White America and that's what makes it so difficult for the Republicans to make any inroads whatsoever with this voting bloc.  When you hear Republicans (and many white Democrats, to be fair) talk about African Americans or African American issues, it's obvious to these voters that the politicians have no idea what they're talking about, and why should they?

And I don't think it's plausible for America to end the social segregation of African Americans anytime soon, but that's really an entirely different discussion.

This d32123 guy seems to have politics that are the polar opposite of me, but I'm really liking him as far as new posters go.

He's decent when he's not crying racism or sexism about everything or generally bashing other posters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That's not what he said. He was talking about minorities who get artificially placed into more challenging schools above their skill level due to affirmative action. He's 100% correct and I'm not sure this would be controversial in the slightest if you replaced "blacks" with people in general: people do best in a school that matches or just slightly exceeds their skill level (properly measured, that is). Someone who should by skill be attending a state school would wash out in no time at MIT. It's just that blacks are the ones being artificially propped up in this case.

This is obviously what the primary intent was. Thanks for stating that so eloquently. I would also add that there are plenty who likely may be smart enough to handle these schools based on SAT or whatever other factor determines their learning ability, but certain urban public schools have not adequately prepared them on the other side of matters. Unpreparedness to use those skills is a problem in itself that can lead to early transfer/dropout. The problem is not "lack of diversity" when it's mostly reflective of the demographics, but the lack of helping new students through that first year who haven't been adequately prepared, and the problem is pronounced at state schools. I would use Mizzou as one of those examples as their dropout rates have huge differences by race as student leaders pointed out, but there are other underlying factors there not worth getting into. However, I do know a company I interviewed with has a program specifically to help students from failing high schools with the college process including standardized exam prep. One of the problems with their pilot program was the students got to college and immediately fell behind (which led to expansion of that program to continue with them through a few semesters so they could properly adjust). I digress a bit, but that's a relevant consideration for minorities who score in say the 25th to 50th percentile range. Of course it shouldn't stop, but schools need to be far more hands on if they are going to accept them.

I have yet to meet a single conservative who can accurately describe what affirmative-action is besides "Black people get into college over white people".

Please say what it is then rather than acting smug liberal because I can assure you its not very popukar. Do you mean they fail to acknowledge the benefits of a diverse student body and giving disadvantaged people a level playing field because they have had fewer opportunities? That's fine, but realize there are plenty of arguments against those and your simplification of the popular argument doesn't make it less valid. And white people aren't really harmed all too much like Asian-Americans.

Most who get in to the elite programs are extremely qualified regardless though. Most will come from some sort of privelige there. Certain races may face more competition amongst themselves, but that doesn't make the others unqualified there. Even UMICH and Austin are unlikely to have many unqualified in-staters.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Selzer's anti-Rand agenda is disgusting.

[Joe Republic]

Posting your own lame single sentence post into the GPG, which is reserved for posting other people's well-crafted, thoughtful effortposts?  Wulfric is angling for worst poster on Atlas, it seems.

[Simfan34]

Oh, what a bunch of BS.

Face it: these guys have always went along with whatever idea coming out of conservative America that is conveyed in the strongest and loudest terms possible. They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters. When Reagan was the strong man, they went along with him. When Buchanan was, they went along with him. When Bush II was, they went along with him. Now, they're going along with Trump. Perot was never a strong man - he merely had the support of know-nothings and disengaged, low-information voters because neither candidate was appealing to their cretinous tendencies in the general election (however, for that reason, it is a very apt comparison). It has nothing to do with the ideas so much as it has to do with blind partisan hatred and whoever can present the most concentrated form of messaging that taps into their raw emotions.

Trump is the best at doing such in a very long time (maybe ever), whereas low-energy losers like Buchanan never got anywhere in the end. Buchanan never had a near-majority of GOP voters in his corner.

There is arguably nobody who better embodies the vulture-capitalist, government bribing, outsource-loving elements of the Republican Party in the race today than Trump, based on who he actually is and what he has actually done - not what his chose du jour happens to be in terms of talk. Hell, he may be the best embodiment of that ever; even Romney didn't make billions off of moving capital to and fro around the world and artificially generating value in arbitrary ways back home, conflating it with wealth...only to lose it all and make billions right back again because the people to whom he owed money didn't want their own fortunes to be harmed by his utter failures spilling over into even more into their own finances (and into the collective psyche of the public, further showing the people that they're all nothing more than vultures).

Donald Trump was the original bailout.

[publicunofficial]

Selzer's anti-Rand agenda is disgusting.

You're such a f**k.

[Badger]

Posting your own lame single sentence post into the GPG, which is reserved for posting other people's well-crafted, thoughtful effortposts?  Wulfric is angling for worst poster on Atlas, it seems.

For shame, Wulfric.

[Mr. Smith]

Overall FF. I could do without the economic nationalism, the opposition to the TPP on jingoistic/conservative grounds, the fellation of Denmark and i kind of wish he put more effort into an interesting/radical/remotely cohesive campaign focused around the failures of America's foreign policy rather than a collection of random progressive pipe dreams that will never pass congress. Still would vote for him, because the idea of an old NY Jewish guy who complains about stuff becoming president is comedy gold.

I think you mean on populist, demonizing-business grounds.  The obvious backbone of conservatism...

I'm not going to lie, you've intrigued me about how politics are in the UK, but you'll find very few Americans who associate being a protectionist in 2015 with being "conservative" on the issue.

protectionism is, and always will be, a right-wing policy. Demonising the foreign and undercutting average Joe's pocket books for the benefit of a handful of domestic cartels make it the definition of conservatism (I reject clearly unhelpful and farcical definitions of conservatism created via adverting like "small government"). Sure, some left-wingers co-opt the arguments of the right (it's an ancient politicla tactic), but that doesn't mean it magically becomes left-wing to base your entire economic philosophy around jingoistic "RAH RAH MUH NATION FIRST" grounds.

People who oppose free trade do not think they're undercutting the average Joe's pocket book and in fact think they're doing just the opposite.  Conversely, the business powers that be strongly support free trade, as do the politicians (mainly Republicans) who claim to be pro-business.  I'd argue pro-business policies have as much of a place in the heart of traditional American conservatism as does nationalism.  Liberal protectionists are NOT basing their entire economic ideology on your so-labeled "nation first jingoism," they base it on what policies they think will help the poor, even if it's at the expense of American business (another backbone of historical American liberalism).  Even looking at it from a perspective that conservatism is more or less synonymous with nationalism, isn't the whole premise of nationalism looking out for your nation's and its citizens first and foremost (i.e., pursuing policies that mainly or even only help YOUR nation)?  The RNC has made it very clear that it believes free trade helps American business and that what helps American business helps America.  In the 1800s, sure, some protectionism helped our businesses thrive at home, but given our standing in the 21st Century global economy, that's just not the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

[Goldwater]

RFayette, you're honestly scaring me. A lot of these are sounding like the same justifications Bushie used for years to not get his life back together. I'm probably not be the best person to try to get into this argument due to both my declining faith/low Church attendance/Catholicism as well as my lack of scientific credentials, but this is absurd! I mean, I know I've been in at least one situation where someone probably more versed in biology than myself tried to give me some scientific reason to be pro-choice and I ignored them, but this is honestly a terrifying way of responding here. As well, I myself have a hard time imagining all of the logical extensions of evolution. Nevertheless, if you're going to examine the dominant scientific framework of life's development on earth in a critical manner, the Bible deserves the same scrutiny. The Good Book is still a historical document--both as a record of events of the past as well as a product of those and other events.

I'm looking at the list of most recent posts that's below the "type a response window" right now. You refer to your pastor as a great man of God. Who is he? What are his academic and professional credentials? It seems you're also utilizing circular logic here: I can't trust bedstuy's beliefs on the Bible (though, really, whose beliefs can you trust on anything!?) because he is a non-believer, and the Bible says that non-believers can't be trusted.

Also, please never cite a chick tract. I don't care if you were looking at one out of curiosity or amusement or whatever, but the very fact that such a link would be available is concerning.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

But which parts ought we take at face value? Are we to assume, for instance (to give a really crazy example), that the master of the vinyard in Mark 12 was a real person? How about the sower? What about Christ's words in John 6 when he declares "Amen, Amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you"?

In the New Testament, apart from Revelation, it is usually fairly straightforward what is written to be taken literally and what isn't. But what about the Old Testament? What about the Book of Job? Did God and the devil really have that conversation? How about Esther? Most scholars seem to think that one is allegorical (and the Protestant version of it doesn't even mention God). Why should we assume all of Genesis ought to be taken literally?

St. Augustine wrote 1600 years ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

It's going to help Republicans win down-ballot elections for offices that nobody cares about. Many people would just check the straight-ticket box and be done with it, where if they remove straight-ticket, those straight-ticket Democratic voters more than likely won't take the time to vote down-ballot, and we all know who wins elections that nobody turns out for.

Election laws should not be written around the particular GOTV struggles of one party. That the Democrats can't convince their supporters to fill out an entire ballot says nothing about the about the alleged merits of straight ticket voting.

This post so many times over.