Best and worst recent post by previous poster

[bagelman]

idea is you post the best recent post and the worst recent post by the previous poster and then someone does the same to you.

"recent" is subjective, it's simply the assumption that you're not going to dig through long post histories of someone you barely know.

[OSR stands with Israel]

will just do first 3 pages:

Best:

I have an opinion about this but I'm not a member of the Green party, so I won't say anything. Also you didn't include five separate categories of those who sympathize with the Greens but aren't a party member themselves.

This is amazing as he called out that poster weird poll questions

Worst:

the ADL are political hacks. They are not worried about the Jewish people of this country, they're worried about the interests of a secular foreign government.

[Devout Centrist]

Worst by far:

Lol Kasich would have won by 12 points and an electoral college landslide

Best:

My Opponent openly calls himself an extremist, remember the last time a GOP nominee called him self an extremist, well that resulted in LBJ and the dems winning in one of the largest landslides ever. Then the dems used that mandate to basically grow the size of the government by a massive amount and had a strategy for a war which resulted in 60,000 Americans dying. A vote for my opponent in the primaries is a vote for the Dems winning in a landslide which means they could massively grow government again  and send us to war for political gains.

If you want the Democrats to lose vote for "Old school Republican"

[RFayette]

Best:

Stop. Please.

(Great in context, and good advice for all contentious exchanges of this sort, for all parties involved)

Worst:

Jesus doesn't save. In 9 out of 10 clinical trials, Jesus failed to save the patient from their disease.

(Sorry, not funny at all IMO)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

From page one:

Best (a good explanation of real changing in views):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Worst:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honorable Mention Best (on BRTD's thread about the hipster Christian play):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[LLR]

Worst (but there's competition)

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

Costello is probably one of the twenty-five most moderate Republicans in the House, whereas Dent is probably in the top three(along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen and Richard Hanna).

Dold has to be more liberal than IRL, as does Freilinghuysen.  I know Dold is retiring.  In my opinion, if one is not pro-life, they are not a Republican or a conservative.

Best

I might be breaking with some conservatives here, but he isn't an anti-semite.  People are way too quick to accuse people of being some sort of -ist, -phobe, or anti-, when there are very, very, very few of those sorts of people left alive in this country (and certainly none in elected office at any level).

(sorry for reversing order :/)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Best:

Yes, but only after half the forum is banned for "Hot or Not: Tomi_Lahren" threads and dirty PMs.

Implying that under 50% of Atlas is gay

Worst:

And she wouldn't deserve the presidency in that situation.

You post a lot.

[LLR]

You post a lot.

I have a problem

SKIP

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Best.

I think the sassy chip in the Jerrybot is malfunctioning. Better call Apple.

Or it's finals week and I really don't have time for racists like you or douchbags like Cathcon.

Why not spend your free time somewhere other then Atlas? The world won't end if you leave for a week.

Worst:

Pelosi. She is good at working in the house, and "old = replace" is stupid. A "fresh face" is not a good reason to replace a highly skilled leader.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Going based on the first page

Best:

I think the real "war on legal marijuana" is likely to take the form of a future that is so terrifying, so insecure, and so full of anxiety that no one can enjoy a smoke even if it's legal to have one. Best to stick with alcohol, opioids, and tranqs over the next few years, I think.

Opioids should be avoided like the plague.

Worst:

Can we forcibly draft all the Branch Trumpidians when a war breaks out?

I bet if I dab you with a cotton swab I can taste the salt in your tears.

Would be best if not for the use of a word I really don't like:

I used to hate school projects like this, where some overzealous teacher would make us write a letter to some author. I got in trouble for that type of stuff in the third grade because I read this book about some kid who got caught in the woods after a plane crash and survived on canned spam and berries for like a month. I thought the book was detailed and praised it for that, but I otherwise did what I told and said what I thought: I thought it was boring. So I write out the letter, I handed it into the teacher, and the freaking bitch yelled at me!

Aside from a few submissions to magazines that rejected my crappy poetry I was writing in 2013-2014 out of boredom and the Rubio inquest I made during Angel-gate, I don't think I've mailed a non-bill related letter since.

I'd imagine most of these letters are coming from students who are unfortunate enough to have some stark raving mad, passionate Clinton-cultist as their teacher. You know, the overbearing helicopter parent type who is in her early 50s and thinks she's the second coming of Mother Theresa because she works for the public school system and has custody of her 17 year old kid who sniffs paint all day? We all had this archetype in the classroom at some point or another.

Paintsniffers, like methheads, are a mostly GOP demographic.

I don't know, most of these kind of teachers usually put so much pressure on the kid that he or she basically ends up short circuiting midway through highschool. They could be respectable drug users who smoke a bit of marijuana and drops some acid or eats some shrooms, but they usually end up being the more grungy types so paint and meth it is.

The kid in this hypothetical example probably backed Trump to piss Momma off.

[RFayette]

Best:

They have become more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.  I used to be more for a populist message on the economy... lift everyone up type of thing.  Now as a natural reaction to the ilk that Trump has brought out I have a much more hard line stance on fiscal issues.  Cut taxes, cut social programs, support as much free trade as possible, stop sending money directly from the two coasts to support social programs in the Midwest and South (we pay way more in taxes than we get back). Basically, I want a sink or swim economy.  But I want it to be "fair" on social policies, which means there shouldn't be racial discrimination, gays should have equal treatment, and we shouldn't waste a ton of money on dumb wars.  So on balance, I still support democrats.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

Worst:

I actually openly admit to thinking the role of the nuclear family in society should be weakened, but it should be weakened in favor of extended support networks of collateral relations, not in favor of 'individual negative rights TO THE EXTREME!!!' atomization.

Nothing terrible, but I just strongly disagree with the initial premise.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Best:

No, because I strongly suspect he isn't a real person

Worst(talking about pat mccrory):

FF

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Best (a logical position for a Democrat):

We should let California secede.

How about we don't give up the only state that makes the democrats competitive.

Worst (talking about Pat McCrory):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Best: I guess this

I think this is really just more of a question of how silly polls can be years before the election.  There were multiple national polls showing Hillary ahead of all Republicans by 20+ points.

Worst: quite a bit to choose from, but I guess this one fits

Do whatever you want for single-user bathrooms (just call it unisex, not anything that implies more than 2 genders, though).  Multi-user bathrooms should be determined by gender at birth.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The worst is easy:

Or you could, you know, turn off signatures.

Or, put me on ignore. 

always a good option

Good enough to do.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Best:

Maybe he told Joe Manchin to have his daughter start reducing prices on epi-pens and other Mylan medicines. 

Worst:

Praise be to glorious God Emperor TRUMP

I'm already sick of winning!

I'm not, but man, 4 consecutive years of winning is going to be a major emotional drain, that's for sure!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Worst (I love almost all of Nathan's posts, so this is based on the implication that such is a "bad" thing):

California's next Governor:

Jesus Christ he looks like Patrick Bateman.

Best (usually synonymous with "most recent"):

Also, I'd like to note that any answer to "greatest city in the world" other than New York City is the wrong answer. (And the only other answer that is defensible is London). Paris is just a dirtier, older, French-speaking version of NYC, and while Jerusalem is very cool from a touristy/archaeological/religious perspective, it's nowhere near large/diverse/relevant to the modern economy enough to even count as a serious answer.

The idea that being 'relevant to the modern economy' is ipso facto (or even mutatis mutandis) 'greater' than not being is certainly a compelling one, but it strikes me as liable to great a pretty big 'great'/'good' distinction.

I voted for Russia on literary grounds, conceding that in most other ways it's a pretty awful country.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Best:

I'm a spiritual person, but it disgusts me how religion tries to influence government policy in a regressive way.

Yeah... If only the Church checked with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before it put anything out in an election year. Get real. And "spiritual" as a word means nothing.

Maybe not to you crazy Catholics.

Anyway, the answer is obviously never.

Obviously, I meant in the context of that God-awful sentence. What, possibly, could "spiritual, but not religious," mean outside of some half-baked cop out for the extremely shallow? I suppose my routine skipping of mass doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just makes me "spiritual".

Cathcon, you're part of a vanishing breed; Catholics who know they are bad Catholics rather than insisting they are good Catholics or abandoning the faith altogether.

I'm intensely self-critical and, simultaneously, for personal reasons would likely never entirely disavow the Church, thus my current status.

Worst (as in DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP #HELLSEMESTER2K16 HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AS IT IS):

I figured why not? How y'all doing? What'cha got coming up?

I've got a presentation I've done most of the work on (and seen no contribution at all from group member three) on Friday. After that, it's Criminology and Intro to Russian I on Tuesday, Intro to Corrections on Wednesday, and an online exam for Intro to Digital Forensics that closes next Friday night.  Outside of the Hell that will be Tuesday, it's a relatively light load since five of my seventeen credits are outside the classroom/directed study (with a total of nearly eighty submitted pages written--after double spacing).

Also, this is my eighteen thousandth post!

[DC Al Fine]

Far and way best. I love anything that attacks the wicked eugenics movement.

Natural selection is eugenics. We just need to stop leftist attempts to redefine strong as weak and beautiful as ugly.

Quite ironic given the implicit leftist endorsement of positive eugenics (at least for such valued traits as promiscuity and indolence)

Not leaving people to starve in the streets for being worthless lazy sluts or the children thereof='positive eugenics,' apparently. Slink off back to /pol/ where you belong, fash.

I would think that taxing those that are better able to plan for the future to fund those that cannot (and providing more money for each additional kid) is the very essence of "encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits"

The purpose of these policies, you vile piece of sh**t, is to ameliorate the situation caused by the fact that these people are already having these children. Sure, you can argue that the effect of the policies is to tacitly encourage poor women to have 'too many' children--if you assume that the working poor of this country are Hugolian mauvais pauvre who value children and their lives based on how much sweet sweet welfare moolah they're 'good for'. However, arguing that says far more about you than it does about them, and the proposed 'solutions' that eventuate from this type of thinking obscure the real issues at play and also lead to endemic pediatric malnutrition in what is otherwise a first-world country.

One of the biggest actual reasons why poor women have 'too many' children too young and by too many men (no scare quotes around too in these cases because these are actual objective problems; I, the Catholic convert, am certainly not going to argue that teen pregnancy and promiscuity are somehow adiaphora) is that they simply see no reason not too, because unlike their f**ked-up neurotic 'betters' most of them still see children as a blessing and as a light to lives that don't really have much else going for them. Why not have a child at sixteen, if your chance of going to college is equally nonexistent whether you do or not? Why not shack up with another man after a while, if the father of your first child won't and can't marry you because he's in prison for a bullsh**t drug offense? Your proposed answer--'because if you do we will let you and your children die in a heap, you abhorrent slut'--certainly is an answer, but so are 'because you have legitimate hopes and dreams' and 'because public universities are actually affordable these days' and 'because you actually have attainable models of stable married love and family in your community who aren't senescent grandparents who got married back in the old days when the working class was still intact'.

I've been compared to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the past, and I took that as a compliment because while Moynihan may have had some racist presuppositions and was certainly more of an advocate of 'tough love' in welfare policy than I think is appropriate he also did actually have a vision of an America in which working families of all races could form and stay together and live free from want. He identified the problem as that too many children were being raised without fathers—a debatable diagnosis, and obviously one that’s ~problematic~ by a lot of people’s lights, but one that’s a far cry from saying that it somehow constitutes ‘eugenics’ to not let ‘the wrong kind’ of children (or children born to ‘the wrong kind’ of mothers—WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WH, amirite?) have intolerably horrible lives and die miserable screaming deaths.

You cannot kill the poor mothers of America or their children. You can starve them and let them die of preventable diseases and kick them out onto the mean streets to your heart’s content, but there will always be more of them as long as people live free from outright murder, relatively free from forced sterilization, and spiritually free from the cancerous idea that children are at worst crushing burdens and at best optional accessories to be looked into (and if necessary made to order, possibly even using one of these disgusting tarts as a surrogate—it’s not like she’s using her womb for anything that would reasonably be more important to her than the precious Chester Peyton Fairweather IV you selected from his dozens of siblings) once you’re sick of your Bichon Frise. You can bitch and moan about having to support these undeserving ‘takers’ or ‘forty-seven-per-centers’ all the livelong day, but it’s useful to reflect, especially this time of year, that the primal image of the mother and child will still be here when all the best-laid plans of the upper and upper-middle classes are one with Nineveh and Tyre. We should by now have all learned the bitter lesson, that none of us in the end are ‘makers’.

P.S. It’s impossible to know the ultimate destiny of all but a select few people, and I’m certainly not one to despair of the mercy of God on even the most inveterate sinner, but it’s a distinct possibility that your namesake is currently burning in hell for his sins against the American reading public. I hope he is not. But if he is, there would be worse places to put him than the second ditch of the Malebolge, reserved for flatterers. Henry Louis Mencken spent his life flattering and fawning and toadying to a pseudo-intellectual pukwudgie aristocracy half of his own invention, insinuating his readers into his little cabal where they could titter about how superior they were to the ‘boobs’ and anybody so uppity as to try to better herself through something like the Chautauqua Movement. To snowclone a devastating but somewhat unfair observation that Christopher Hitchens, the farce to Mencken’s tragedy, made about Mother Teresa, not only did Mencken think it was beneath him to comfort the afflicted, he didn’t even bother to afflict the comfortable. For your sake, I hope you mend your ways and do not follow after him.

Worst

When Trump appoints fast food executives to the Cabinet, he's not appointing their best. He's not appointing Don Thompson. He's not appointing J. Clifford Hudson. He's appointing people that run lots of sh**tholes, and they're bringing those sh**tholes with them. They run Carl's Jr. They run Hardee's. They run Green Burrito. And some, I assume, are good people.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Best:

Cathcon, you're part of a vanishing breed; Catholics who know they are bad Catholics rather than insisting they are good Catholics or abandoning the faith altogether.

Worst:

I'm pretty libertarian on some issues for a reactionary statist

(contradicting yourself)

[LLR]

Best:

In related news, I would like to announce my new membership in the pro-civil rights wing of the KKK.

Worst:

Honestly can't find one so

Michigan

[Enduro]

Best:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know if this is the worst or best, I'll just leave it here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You want a worst post?! You can't handle a worst post!

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

best:

Context: word association game

shotgun

Which is associated with:

Fun

Have you fired a shotgun before? I have, it's fun.

Associating a gun with the word fun is mildly dangerous at best.

But... It is.

Worst:

Assuming she even wants to run, the Democratic Party won't choose her unless she triples the amount of cheating done against Bernie.

[SATW]

Best for making me laugh way harder then I should have Lmao:

O mighty Lord Satan,
God of this world,
God of my flesh,
God of my mind,
God of my innermost Will!

Every part of this world is within Your power.
You are within every part of this world.
Every part of me is within Your power.
You are within every part of me.

I am Yours, whether I serve You willingly or not,
for I am myself, whether I am true to myself or not.

Of my own free will, I now acknowledge Your power.
Of my own free will, I now present myself to You.



Hail Satan!!!



Pictured: Satan

Worst:

Pretty sure one's a sock.

x Alice Scarlet

(Honestly, all of her posts in that thread are bad imo)

[Mr. Smith]

This one made me laugh.

waffles and pancakes are the only true keys to world peace.

As for the worst, he said "FF" on that Opinion of Santander thing. Not something I can agree with, even if he is "in character" as suggested. Didn't see the point of searching for something that says "FF"