The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Vosem]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

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

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well, you would put that turkey in this thread, wouldn't you?

[Vosem]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well, you would put that turkey in this thread, wouldn't you?

I wouldn't actually have noticed the post if not for the discussion about it in this thread's opposite

It seems rather odd to me that "CEOs are smart, powerful people, and you should want them to be your allies" is even a controversial statement; there's no moral judgment of any sort being made and it struck me as simply being a true observation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well, you would put that turkey in this thread, wouldn't you?

I wouldn't actually have noticed the post if not for the discussion about it in this thread's opposite

It seems rather odd to me that "CEOs are smart, powerful people, and you should want them to be your allies" is even a controversial statement; there's no moral judgment of any sort being made and it struck me as simply being a true observation.

The founding principle of left-wing politics, as I understand it, is that powerful people ought to be, if not the enemy (whatever Schmitt said, I don't believe that politics should be about designing enemies), at least the adversary. Powerful people can become allies if and only if they acknowledge the fundamental injustice of their social position (in modern terms, if they "check their privilege") and embrace an agenda aimed at undermining it.

[Badger]

If you're a Fortune 100 CEO, you're a very smart, hard-working, highly successful person. That, of course, doesn't mean that millions of other people aren't also all of those qualities, but if I were running for president, I would want the support of all 100 of them. You (should) always want the smart, successful people on your side.

Well, you would put that turkey in this thread, wouldn't you?

I wouldn't actually have noticed the post if not for the discussion about it in this thread's opposite

It seems rather odd to me that "CEOs are smart, powerful people, and you should want them to be your allies" is even a controversial statement; there's no moral judgment of any sort being made and it struck me as simply being a true observation.

The founding principle of left-wing politics, as I understand it, is that powerful people ought to be, if not the enemy (whatever Schmitt said, I don't believe that politics should be about designing enemies), at least the adversary. Powerful people can become allies if and only if they acknowledge the fundamental injustice of their social position (in modern terms, if they "check their privilege") and embrace an agenda aimed at undermining it.

now THAT belongs in the Good Post Gallery.

[Slow Learner]

Whoever had the best chance of beating Adams, so presumably Hendron.

At the time it was one of those elections where your average voter couldn't really tell who the "best" anti-Sinn Fein candidate was so voting tactically was all but impossible: in the end there were less than 700 votes separating Fitt and Hendron which suggests that there wasn't really a better one to vote for.

What's interesting is that there seems to have been significant anti-Sinn Fein tactical voting in that constituency anyway and it didn't really change much: the combined Unionist vote went down almost 25% from (possibly dodgy, you can never tell) notional 1979 numbers; and in 1987 the UUP (there was a Unionist pact that year so the DUP didn't stand) went up 8% from the combined DUP/UUP vote in 1983 - and that's not including the Alliance vote from 1979, which I assume will have split between the UUP, Hendron and Fitt probably mostly to the latter two.  Its just when you've got two credible non-Sinn Fein candidates who are equally popular the average unionist probably fragmented between the more "moderate" (probably a bad word to use for NI admittedly) party and the person that they knew.  Makes you wonder how much politics would have changed in the province had Fitt not left the SDLP or had they decided not to oppose him in this general election, although probably very little considering that Sinn Fein were abstentionist anyway...

I'd have voted for Fitt; one of the better Northern Irish politicians.  I greatly dislike the fact that he abstained on the Vote of Confidence in 79 but I doubt that much would have changed had he saved the government, I doubt that Labour ever would have won that election, although maybe they might have had Thatcher's majority much smaller to the point where she'd have to have fought with her party to get anything done.  I respect that he moved away from the sectarian politics and just be a Socialist politician, and honestly its a shame that it didn't work...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Most people on this forum can afford to vote how they want; white, male, educated and generally well off voters of course have a choice because you can mitigate against a Trump presidency. You might be lucky enough to live in a Democratic bolthole, protected from all but the deepest reaches of federal government. But others do not. It's a privileged position to have and smacks of 'I'm alright Jack', just a little bit too much.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But it doesn't have the same social cohesion effect, for the simple reason that it can be dropped like a hot potato the second someone gets uncomfortable.

Ideally both individuals and their social and religious environments should respond receptively and liberally (in the sense of the Aristotelian virtue of liberality) to each other's needs and desires--similar to William James's view that neither Great Man historiography nor historical materialism is correct, because individuals and their environments shape and mold one another in all sorts of complex ways. In contemporary America, neither do.

What problems does this create in the US though? I don't see any.

A great many people are very, very lonely. I've talked to a ton of people my age who pine for the stability and sense of purpose of our grandparents' generation, even though we don't want to repeat it wholesale. The fact that there's any widespread demand for something like hipster Christianity indicates an essential 'flattening' of human personality into a few traits and interests that all exist at essentially the same level of salience, which I think is an unacceptable anthropology. (I'm also thinking of somebody like Joe Republic--who actually makes a much better caricature of Modern Liberal Man than Evelyn Waugh's Lieutenant Hooper, because he manages to be both a smug urban liberal and overtly anti-intellectual at the same time--calling me 'pretentious' because I speak in different registers with different posters, as if any departure from the absolute baseline of my personality must be something I'm putting on for show.) As I said, you appear to be doing well for yourself spiritually speaking; you're probably unusually well-equipped, emotionally, for the current American spiritual and cultural environment. But I know a ton of people for whom the same cannot be said. I am someone for whom the same cannot be said.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I made a similar post in the debate thread, but I guess it is more relevant here.

Trump lost. Here is why:

He committed the following MAJOR no-nos.

1.) He has poor blocking.

2.) He has made false statements multiple times.

3.) He has argued with the moderators.

4.) He has used the Tu Quequo argumentative fallacy.

5.) He has interrupted Clinton far more than she has him (Tim Kaine's biggest downfall)

6.) He admitted to not paying any federal income taxes.

7.) He has said he disagrees with his own running mate.

8.) He brought this into the gutter with the Bill Clinton claims. He was warned not to, but did .

9.) He has brought up LITERAL conspiracy theories.

10.) He called his candidate THE DEVIL. WTF?

11.) He just interrupted the moderators, AGAIN.

12.) He has used several moral equivalence fallacies. They teach you this in competitive debating.

13.) He sighed out loud multiple times.

14.) He used emotive language to deflect questions.

15.) He used the debate error called: Praeteritio

14.) He threatened to JAIL his political opponent.


All of the above are FACTS. How can anyone on here pretend that he is winning the debate?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand why people are saying Merkel, but I disagree. A serial problem with her, from her swift reversal from ultra-rightist economics in her first election to her policies on energy, refugees and the euro; is that all her policies are basically driven by reaction rather than planning. fact the refugee crisis makes it most obvious. She was the primary drag in Renzi's attempts to alleviate the early stages of the crisis through quotas, and allowed it spiral out of control in early 2015; at which point her government shifted gears in a way that was ultimately cruel to the millions of refugees who were given hope of a resettlement that would never come. As the polls soured on migrants and the Right of her party started to bubble up long-standing resentments against her abandonment of rightist values after her 2005 setback; she again became reactive (see: the Turk Erdogan deal, which will probably be repeated across Africa with various despots)

As somebody who supports European integration, she is damaging the integrity of the EU and plays a serious part to blame in the resentments and crack-ups within the bloc. I highly doubt she will be viewed favourably by history.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This has been a peculiar feature of the Atlas forum community that I've noticed since joining. Many, although obviously not all, members seem to have some kind of adoration for  Sec. Clinton, almost to the point of veneration. Don't misunderstand, I'm not a Hillary hater - that should be obvious considering I support her. But I do acknowledge that she's a rather flawed candidate, even if all the right-wing allegations and witch hunts against her are completely insane. The most obvious example was her choice to use a personal email server. No, she didn't commit a crime, nor was it of the level of severity that many Republicans try to make it appear. But it was incredibly bad judgment and yes, she basically lied. She also helped promote the idea that a stupid video caused the attack in Benghazi that killed a US Ambassador, which was outright false. Sec. Clinton even promoted her husband's welfare reform by arguing that those stripped of state benefits were "no longer deadbeats." She has also promoted her husband's crime bill that expanded the death penalty and led to greater African American incarceration.

Unfortunately, the Clintons' have performed a long dance courting the line between ethically questionable and legally criminal. This, when combined with a right-wing hard-on to see them imprisoned and defamed,  their decades in the public spotlight, and mastery of politics, have led to Hillary being increasingly secretive, defensive, and perceived as untrustworthy, whether it's for her handling of her email server or position changes on issues like TPP. These can generally be accepted as facts about Sec. Clinton.

All of that leads me to the point of this thread, which is to ask why Atlas has such reverence for her. In comparison to Trump, yes, she is an infinitely better choice. Compared to Sanders, yes, she has a considerably better chance of passing legislation through a Congress she knows perfectly well how to navigate - for better or worse. She has a resume that few could match. There's absolutely no denying that she's exceptionally qualified for the Presidency, although there are legitimate concerns one could raise about her judgment and policy positions. With all of that said, the question remains why Atlas adores her so much. Why is that the case? Why do so many seem to glorify a woman who, while a good choice for the Presidency, is quite flawed and comes with lots of baggage? There's a difference between supporting a candidate and revering/adoring that candidate, so why choose the latter?

I guess this turned into a rant more than anything else, so thank you for reading it until the end. /end rant

[Antonio the Sixth]

The two have rather diverged quite significantly. The KRG is a clientlistic machine, increasingly dominated by the conservative (not Islamist, mind) KDP and the Bearzani family. (at present the left is divided between the old social democratic identified PUK and the anticorruption-leftist-allegedly-Iranian-aligned Gorran). KDP (and PUK tbf) have created the sort of set-up familiar to many resource-flush developing countries - corruption just about everywhere, nonsense public sector jobs for cronies etc. They have worked out they can achieve their aims a lot better without the dead weight that comes with lugging the rest of Iraq around, but to do that they need support from the international community. And it is very hard to win support from the international community (let alone the neighbours) if you start entertaining irredentist ideas about Greater Kurdistan or whatever. Barzani for example, has palled up with Erdogan; and the Irbil government is considered an ally to Ankarra's aims.

The Rojova government has very little interest in that. They are Leftist descendents of the PKK (their political organisations are often considered a front group for them especially by Turkey). They follow the latter day beliefs of Ocalan, who no longer believes in separatism and instead supports a sort of region wide federalisation across the Middle East. In fact, they have sort of transcended Kurdish nationalism and now claim to be fighting for the rights of minorities region-wide (the Turkish party HDP operates under the same claim) They also think (fairly enough) that KRG are selling them out to Erdogan for a selfish goal of independence, which nowadays they are openly hostile to.

So yeah, it's not wanted by Erbil, it's not wanted in Rojova and it is unlikely to be endorsed by any of the main factions. PUK are broadly sympathetic to PKK, but god knows how powerful they are any more.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A local strongman promoted way above his ability. It's like if Sheriff Arpaio had left-wing allies and randomly got elected president.

Essentially he lacks the intellectual capacity to act with nuance, so all his machinations are ridiculously overtelegraphed. Also his pigheaded machismo attitude is beyond caricature - like Trump he mistakes horniness for respect for women (in his speech ostensibly praising VP Roberto, he stated that she could never be president because she is beautiful, and people would just stare at her and not take her seriously; and then he said he often stared at her in cabinet meetings).

That said I view him more of a symptom of the Liberal Party's failure to address the crippling dysfunctions in Filipino society - kind of the equivalent of Thaskin or even Andrew Jackson vs his enemies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the ongoing find-and-replace of 'sexism' with 'misogyny' is actually really counterproductive, because in creating the sense that all bias against women is hatred, it also implies that the only way one can be biased against women is by hating them. Thus the paternalism and patronizing attitudes that one finds in many men who genuinely don't hate women or wish them ill--what used to be called 'benevolent sexism', although benevolent is probably too kind a word--become much harder to articulate as a problem. Think the archetypal fifties boss, who goes condescendingly easy on his secretary because he thinks challenging her would mean treating her like a man and thus somehow be insulting, as contrasted with the other archetypal fifties boss, who rapes his secretary and tells her she deserves it for saying something flirtatious to him once. Assuming it's not the same guy (unfortunately not always a safe assumption), we should at least have the option of not using the same word to describe both of these men's attitudes towards women. And one of our multiple words should be able to communicate that the first boss's attitudes aren't okay either, even if they're not the same degree of not okay as the second boss's.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sorry, TJ, but

I think he's generally a very nice person, but I have a very hard time dealing with his staunch anti-gay stance. I can live with pro-lifers, those that support the death penalty, and many other socially conservative stances. My mom is pro-death penalty, my grandpa is pro-life in opposition to my grandma's staunchly pro-choice position, and so on. I can accept difference of opinion to an extent. I cannot accept someone that is willing to accept discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity.

It'd be like living next door to someone that was similar to Ned Flanders. Yes, he's very nice and would be a good neighbour, but there are some things I could never get past. I voted HP, with a fair amount of remorse. As a Catholic, I would strongly urge him to take heart of the words of the Holy Father himself. I'm not a practicing Catholic myself, but I do believe His Holiness Pope Francis is a truly great man and an absolute inspiration for all.

[DC Al Fine]

Sorry, TJ, but

I think he's generally a very nice person, but I have a very hard time dealing with his staunch anti-gay stance. I can live with pro-lifers, those that support the death penalty, and many other socially conservative stances. My mom is pro-death penalty, my grandpa is pro-life in opposition to my grandma's staunchly pro-choice position, and so on. I can accept difference of opinion to an extent. I cannot accept someone that is willing to accept discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity.

It'd be like living next door to someone that was similar to Ned Flanders. Yes, he's very nice and would be a good neighbour, but there are some things I could never get past. I voted HP, with a fair amount of remorse. As a Catholic, I would strongly urge him to take heart of the words of the Holy Father himself. I'm not a practicing Catholic myself, but I do believe His Holiness Pope Francis is a truly great man and an absolute inspiration for all.

I need to dig out that article of Pope Francis quotes that are actually Pope Benedict XVI quotes.

[Hifly]

Context: response to the proposal of unlimited immigration.

No (D), this is a horrific idea, that would hurt workers the most, and dis-advantaged urban areas. We can see this happening in the UK and other countries. A nation with multicultural, and multi-ethnic vibrancy can only work in the confines of controlled immigration, immigration to deal with the country's needs, and immigrants that contribute to society

A nation-state is an important aspect, but I wouldn't expect white Europeans, who ruined that idea through imperialism and colonialism to understand.

I don't know why this is morally questionable.

[Figueira]

I posted this in the funny post thread as well, but I think it's so great that it belongs here too.

in summary

Alabama: Basically all of Alabama's are boring, should pass easily. Most of Alabama's historic amendments are along the lines of "tell Random County (Pop : 12) they must rename the position of "Chief Dogcatcher" to "Dogcatcher-in-chief" or "remove Oxford comma in article 7, paragraph 4", so its no wonder the legislature has decided to clamp down on the previous requirement to hold statewide votes on random county issues with Amendment 3. RIP to that bloat. Oh yeah, and a vote on right to work (the state already has it, but eh, why not add it to the constitution?).

Alaska: automatic voter registration when Alaskans sign up for their oil money cheque. This makes sense in a state like Alaska, and is endorsed by Murkowski, Sullivan etc.

Arizona: Min wage + Marijuana

Arkansas: prevents the Lt Gov declaring a coup when Gov ambles across the state border, and also (for some reason) two medical marijuana bills, which by their powers combined ... are both failing badly. Sad!

California: Loads, pretty much all moronic, only placed on the ballot for political machinations or the work of crazy rich people and deep lobbies (who knew Big Plastic Bag was so devious?)

Colorado: although single-payer is predictably failing (COLORADONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUMP INTO THE MYSTERY VOID! YOU WILL END UP AS SWEDEN!), there is some interesting stuff. Like banning slavery (!) and legalising youth in asia. Also min wage, tobacco tax and open primaries.

Florida: Amendment to get medical weed (opposed by ever lovable plutocrat Sheldon Adelson) and a "pro-solar" amendment designed to strangle non-utility-owned solar power (like, literally a utility executive was leaked doing the whole "mwahaha I am fooling these fools" speech).

Georgia: nothing very interesting. An attempt to save failing schools, presumably by setting up a board of paid consultants to shake their heads and say "ah this is bad", some stuff about helping sexually abused children (presumably an attempt to estimate how many Georgians are irredeemable monsters who would vote NO, I guess) and taxing fireworks.

Hawaii: Two amendments. Both are very important issues that reflect the changing focus of the finances and ... zzzzzzzzzz

Idaho: giving the legislative branch more power over bureaucratic rules, backed by Otter, opposed by AG.

Illinois: blacks transport funds from being used for anything else. I always find these bills pretty dumb especially for a state in a budget crisis, but eh. I'm not a member of the Illliois State Legislature who has to deal with half the budget being locked up prematurely! I'd feel real bad for anybody who had to deal with that irl!

Indiana and Kansas: both states want to make it a protected right to f-ck animals. Oh wait, f-ck with animals, sorry. They want to Hunting and Fishing to the constitution as a protected right.

Louisiana: bunch of amendments, none very interesting. setting a corporate flat tax? k.

Maine: fun wedge issues, like min wage, weed, IRV, universal background checks and income tax rise on all the rich people who decide to  live in Maine (Stephen King, err, ...)

Maryland - vacancy filling stuff. not interesting.

Massachusetts: Some sexy topics here guys! Weed! Anti-Factory Farming! Casinos! more charter schools!

Minnesota - sets up one of those tedious legislative pay boards to rubber-stamp $500,000 salaries.

Montana: victim's rights bill, a ban on snares (the animal trap, not the drums; although I wouldn't be opposed to the latter), more medical memes

Nebraska: voters will probably block the legislature's repeal of the death penalty, something I knew even before I just looked up a poll.

Nevada: m a r i j u a n a, universal background checks, repeal of tax on medical equipment and a ban on energy monopolies.

New Jersey: more casinos (casinos? In New Jersey? What a novel idea!) but away from Atlantic City. Weirdly the added revenue would then be diverted back to Atlantic City.

New Mexico: All bonds, aside from an amendment on bail reform that was neutered midway through by the industry.

North Dakota: medical marijuana, raise the tobacco tax (how many states are basically financially dependent on chain-smokers now, anyway?), one of those silly laws that require state legislatures to live in their districts and not Norway or something etc.

Oklahoma: some classic stuff for the Oklahoma bashers of Atlas. A measure to enshrine the death penalty in the constitution ("Welcome to Oklahoma: We Will Kill You")? A "right to farm", whatever that means? Finally allowing full-strength beer in the state? And best of all, Question 790, which will "Repeal prohibition on public money being spent for religious purposes".

Oregon: 6 bills, nothing interesting aside from Measure 97, a huge rise on tax on big companies, which Governor Brown really wants passed. Oh yeah, and banning the trade of the products of 12 endangered species: rhino, cheetah, tiger, sea turtle, lion, elephant, whale, shark, pangolin, jaguar, ray, and leopard.

This is a pangolin btw:



what a cutie. if you vote against this after seeing him, you have no soul, soz.

Pennsylvania: judicial retirement age, lame.

Rhode Islands: bonds, casinos, and setting up an anti-corruption agency that will investigate legislators.

South Dakota: some interesting ones like a redistricting commission, introduction of non-partisan elections (which is opposed by the GOP, although state Dems have stayed silent), public financing of election, repealing right-to-work on the sly and regulation of payday loans.

Utah: This is a big one, folks. Amendment One will change the official Oath Of Office to mention the word "Utah" as opposed to "this state". You know, so elected officials don't accidentally think they've been elected in Ohio by mistake. They just want clarity!

Virginia: will push through right-to-work. Whether the state's new Democratic wave will bring about some new love for unions is anyone's guess. (I doubt it)

Washington: some new gun control, a carbon tax that has been abandoned by almost every state environmental group because they have "a better one" for the 2018 ballot, but has shuffled into the ballot via inertia anyway, "democracy vouchers" (basically public financing of campaigns), one of those quixotic attempts to change the federal constitution via state ballot (irt Citizen's United) and a minimum wage increase. There is also the latest chess move in a weird battle between libertarian think tank Freedom foundation and the trade union SEIU, about whether SEIU can keep their member list under wraps or something.

Wyoming: a bill to allow more state funds on the stock market. Thanks for the climactic finish Wyoming. Why did you get to be last in the alphabet anyway?

[JerryArkansas]

Oh for f**k's sake people. I knew that post wasn't going to go over well, but this is f**king ridiculous. The fact that so many people feel the need to go to such lengths after many other posters have already gone to great lengths is quite indicative in itself.

Amid these walls of text there are a few good points that I'd like to acknowledge and a few problematic ones I'd like to push back on, but I have neither time nor will to do so. Maybe another time.

Let me just say, Scott, talking about my "contempt towards the issue of SSM in general" is just plain wrong. Nothing in my posts indicates contempt, please reread them and don't just assume this kind of things. I am a staunch supporter of SSM and have always have argued for it fervently in several instances. It might not come out here that often, because there's absolutely no point in discussing it when 99.9% of the forum supports it and the remaining 0.1% is keeping fairly quiet, but it's come out in real life a few times.

Well, I tried.  And you responded by reaffirming precisely the shortcomings those "walls of text" accused you of having.  You still think this is all about same sex marriage and nothing more..so it all went right over your head.

Whatever. 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Context: response to the proposal of unlimited immigration.

No (D), this is a horrific idea, that would hurt workers the most, and dis-advantaged urban areas. We can see this happening in the UK and other countries. A nation with multicultural, and multi-ethnic vibrancy can only work in the confines of controlled immigration, immigration to deal with the country's needs, and immigrants that contribute to society

A nation-state is an important aspect, but I wouldn't expect white Europeans, who ruined that idea through imperialism and colonialism to understand.

I don't know why this is morally questionable.

i thought this was the deluge for a moment and was like, "oh cool, hifly's grown a soul while i was gone", but apparently not. disappointing as always.

[Figueira]

Context: response to the proposal of unlimited immigration.

No (D), this is a horrific idea, that would hurt workers the most, and dis-advantaged urban areas. We can see this happening in the UK and other countries. A nation with multicultural, and multi-ethnic vibrancy can only work in the confines of controlled immigration, immigration to deal with the country's needs, and immigrants that contribute to society

A nation-state is an important aspect, but I wouldn't expect white Europeans, who ruined that idea through imperialism and colonialism to understand.

I don't know why this is morally questionable.

i thought this was the deluge for a moment and was like, "oh cool, hifly's grown a soul while i was gone", but apparently not. disappointing as always.

Haha, they think that Europeans destroyed the nation state?

[White Trash]

Massive FF.

You are someone I would  consider one of the most impressive defenders of *conservatism* intellectually, so I would just LOVE to hear why you are a fan of this racist, imperialist, power hungry monster who masked all of that by presenting himself as the father of the progressive fight for the common man.

Well, personally, I just like the guy - I mean, he raised himself up from essentially nothing to become the President of the United States, along the way becoming a bit of a jack of all trades (I mean, he more than dabbled in the practice of law, planting, soldiering and politics), fighting for his country and not putting on a load of airs and graces like John Quincy Adams (such behaviour might have been alright in a European country, but certainly not in the 'land of the free'). As for the charges you laid against him, well, I don't consider the racism to be a particularly solid criticism of him, given that the vast majority of early 19th century Americans held racist views in one form or another. He certainly wasn't egregiously racist by the standards of the time. I don't consider the imperialism to be a blot on his record at all - he helped to expand the United States and open up more of its interior for settlement and development, which I consider to be a very good thing. A belief in 'manifest destiny' was hardly untypical for the time, indeed I believe John Quincy Adams himself defended Jackson's actions in Florida, whilst Jackson's other great rival Henry Clay started off his career as a 'war hawk' favouring the rather more difficult route of expansion into Canada.

As for power-hungry, well, yes, that's probably a correct interpretation of the man, but then he was hardly alone in that regard (his aforementioned great rivals Adams and Clay were hardly unambitious men). More to the point, it seems to have been a power hungriness born out of the fact he'd had to raise himself up by his bootstraps throughout his life, often in the face of undeserved (for Jackson was neither stupid nor incompetent) scorn from political opponents. His desire to direct national policy himself didn't always work (refusing to recharter the Second Bank of the United States was his biggest blunder in my opinion) of course, but on the other hand he presided over some notable successes, including the ratification of numerous foreign treaties, the quashing the nullifiers in South Carolina and the Indian Removal. The latter is, of course, a particularly murky issue; however, at least Jackson found a solution to the problem, as opposed to fudging the issue as previous Presidents had done and allowing for tensions to continue to escalate between the settlers and the Indian Tribes. I have no doubt, personally, that the Indians would have been removed at some point; indeed, it's quite possible that there would have been an actual genocide carried out by the settlers had not the Indian population been removed to the then safety of the west.

As for calling him a monster, well, I don't believe there are any monsters in history, or in our society today (with the exception of those so mentally imbalanced that all they can think about is short term mindless violence). Jackson had a lot of very admirable traits; he was a good leader, he was brave and very capable as a lawyer, soldier and politician. He also had some more negative traits, like his stubbornness and proneness to anger, which at times clouded his judgement. He also wasn't particularly knowledgeable about high finance (but then what do you expect from a frontier planter). Nonetheless I don't think this mix of traits adds up to anything like his being a monster. Moreover I don't think he did present himself as fighting for some 'progressive' cause - that kind of rhetorical framing didn't exist in his time period, but I do think, to some extent, he did fight for the common man, at least, the common man of the American west and south where he was particularly popular. He certainly seems to have reflected their opinions and aspirations better than Henry Clay did, let alone John Quincy Adams.

To sum up, I kind of like the cut of his jib, and think that he did a lot of good for the United States (which doesn't wash out his major blunder regarding the Second Bank of the United States), which should be applauded from a conservative, nationalistic perspective. Also, I'm touched that you have such a high opinion of my ability to defend conservatism as an ideology, but I'm more a pragmatic conservative of the 'gut', so to speak, and there are posters far better able to defend it as an ideological position than my good self.

It is quite understandable and rational to dislike Andrew Jackson based on both his policy and personality, but I think Cassius does an excellent job of defending him and highlighting some of his positive attributes.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"Anti-PC?" Don't you idiots realize that what you call "political correctness" is what actual decent people call "being considerate?" You're going to go shout "Merry Christmas" in the faces of a bunch of Sikhs just to be sh-t-stains? That's "standing up for your rights?"

I can only imagine how insecure you must be if you actually find "political correctness" threatening. My goodness.

[White Trash]

"Anti-PC?" Don't you idiots realize that what you call "political correctness" is what actual decent people call "being considerate?" You're going to go shout "Merry Christmas" in the faces of a bunch of Sikhs just to be sh-t-stains? That's "standing up for your rights?"

I can only imagine how insecure you must be if you actually find "political correctness" threatening. My goodness.

I usually don't agree with Hagrid on much, but I think he makes a good point with this. Political correctness is just common decency.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The problem with Bayh is illustrative of the fact that being moderate doesn't always imply he is being moderate for you the voter as opposed to him and his brand instead.

For instance, as Bill Maher pointed out. He held up Obamacare for a while not because of any number of concerns with plan, or desire for something better, but because he objected to a tax that impacted the top 1/10ths of 1%. It makes for great narrative making, "I got a tax hike removed from Obamacare", but it doesn't lend itself well to endearing oneself to anyone be it Democrats who have fought for decades for healthcare and couldn't care less about the rich having pay more to fund it or Conservatives who oppose the mandate and so forth. Also it doesn't appeal to the number of working and middle class moderates be they Republican or Democrat, who even as Republicans answer polls saying they want higher taxes on the rich.

This is the type of 1990's style thinking by Democrats, that just doesn't play well with anyone anymore and the great lesson here is as I said months ago. Bayh has not won election since 2004, times have changed and Bayh is out of step with the new reality.